Tech-Ed Funding to be Tied to Copyright-Ed?

feminazi writes "Ars Technica is reporting that California Assemblyman Ed Chavez has proposed legislation that would require recipients of an educational technology grant program to educate their students in copyright law as well. There are three areas of education that would be required: 'ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology,' 'the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright,' and 'the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing.'"

Comments

Devil's Advocate

[XorNand]

First off, let me say that I'm a strong supporter of the EFF, Creative Commons, and hold many libertarian (lower-case "l") beliefs. The thought of the government mandating the instruction of agenda-based ethics makes my skin crawl. However, in the interest of balance, here's a different viewpoint:

Like it or not, copyright violation is against the law. When you're learning about how to handle firearms, drive a car, invest in stocks, skydive--pratically anything that involves risk, the you're *always* taught how do those activities safely and in accordance with the law. Many people hate mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. However, does anyone really beleive that riders shouldn't be educated on this law and the reasons for having it? People who misuse technology are doing risky things: opening themselves (or their parents) upto identity theft by getting a trojan from a P2P app, allowing their PC to be turned into a DDoS zombie, sexual predators, and criminal and civil liablity incurred by swapping pirated music and software. Many of these risks are blown out of proportion by the press, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. Computer users need all the education they can get. Too much technical training is focused on the nuts-and-bolts on how to do something with a PC. As pervasive as the Internet has become in our lives, perhaps we should begin to explore the larger social issues in intro-level instruction as well?

Re:Devil's Advocate

[CyricZ]

Keep in mind that laws have to have widespread public support in order to be truly effective and beneficial. Such legislation must deal with a problem that society in general finds to be in need of remedy. When you consider how many people actively engage in filesharing, it becomes quite clear that the vast segment of the populace does not consider such activities to be morally or ethically wrong, regardless of what the law might be.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Just Some Guy]

Like it or not, copyright violation is against the law.

So is drinking milk on a sidewalk every third Saturday in some place or another, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Actually, I'm not against these courses either, as long as they're taught correctly:

ethical behavior in regards to the use of information technology

"Thou shalt not kill." OK, got it.

the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright

It was designed to encourage the creation of a large public domain with which to advance society. Check.

the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing.

It implies that the {MP,RI}AA memberships better get their collective butts in gear if they want to become relevant again. Chasing societal norms requires a little bit of work sometimes. Alright, done.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Golias]

Actually, the common term for motorcyclists who don't wear helmets is "organ donors."

Re:Devil's Advocate

[the phantom]

I agree. I teach computers to elementary school children. When they use the internet for research, I tend to go over some basic points:

1) Not everything on the internet is true.
2) You cannot simply copy another person's work, and claim it as your own -- you need to rewrite things in your own words, and give credit to the original author (generally, that means you need an author and url in a bibliography, if nothing else).

We might spend 45 minutes discussing why these things are important (the difference between plagarism and research, for instance). It is important that children, who are using the internet for research, understand what research entails, and, hopefully, can apply those ethics to other domains. P2P is irrelevant, and off-topic. It needn't be mentioned in class, unless the lecture for the day is "Using P2P."

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Stripe7]

Copyright law also includes fair use. So if they should also be told what can be copyrighted and copied and what cannot. DRM removes our fair use rights and the students should be educated about that too.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[CyricZ]

Why stick to just focusing on the Internet, though? What makes what they are told by the mass media TV news broadcasts any more "truer" than what they might find on the Internet? Very little, if anything.

Instead of teaching them to "not trust" all the content they find on the Internet, perhaps you should teach them how they can differentiate poor quality information from high quality information. Teach them how to do basic fact checking between multiple sources, for instance. Teach them how to see where the interests lie; as in who is funding studies, who donates to politicians, and which corporations are owned by which other corporations.

If the emphasis were placed on teaching students how to effectively investigate and comprehend the world around them, then they wouldn't need to have to take "copyright courses". They'd be able to consider the reasons behind copyright legislation, how it has been affected by corporations over the years, and how it affects them today. At that point they'd be able to come up with their own ideas regarding it, and wouldn't have to resort to learning about the subject via such courses.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[uncoveror]

While students should learn about copyright law, they don't need to be fed Hollywood and the recording industry's propaganda. Any course in copyright law should start with the US Constitution, Section VIII.

Congress shall have the power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

That is the constitutional basis of copyright law, and patent as well. The term "intellectual property" is a recenty invented bit of lawyerspeak, and a misnomer. Copyright is a loan from the public domain created by Congress, not property. A Supreme Court ruling to that effect was issued in the 1834 Wharton V Peters case. The court said that copyright is not a birth right, but a "wholely statutory" grant. The Copyright grant exists by the grace of the public as a public investment for the public benefit, much like a loan. "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors".

Until lobbyists recently bought draconian legislation from Congress, copyright infringement was a civil offense, not a criminal offense such as stealing something that physically exists like a TV, or a CD in a store. The entertainment industry with their lawyers and lobbyists have made so-called intellectual propery even more valuable than things you can hold in your hand. This is patently absurd. Teaching students this absurdity in a classroom is as out of place as intelligent design.

Re:Devil's Advocate

[Rufus88]

DRM removes our fair use rights

No, DRM removes your fair-use abilities. The removal of fair-use rights was accomplished by the DMCA.

The Law of Inintended Consequences

[jabber]

Sure, at face value this is about getting kids under control for the benefit of the Copyright holders. But, so long as the education is accurate, can you think of a better thing than a population who understands copyright law, what a mess has been made of it, and how crippling the status quo is? Anything that serves to inform is good.

Regardless of what people's personal opinions are on p2p file sharing, the fact is that it is against copyright law. Should it be? Well, only people who understand the issue can intelligently consider that. So bring on the truth.

Re:The Law of Inintended Consequences

[Znork]

"But, so long as the education is accurate, can you think of a better thing than a population who understands copyright law"

I suspect that they're not planning on teaching the subject from an economics, information sciences, social sciences or other scientific point of view.

Think "The Gospel according to our beloved prophets of Monopoly, the RIAA and MPAA".

Gimme a break!!

[gasmonso]

"Many students, teachers, and parents do not realize that downloading a copyrighted song or film over the Internet is illegal and no different than stealing a CD or DVD from a retail store."

Maybe that because it is different. Depriving a retailer of a physical product is not the same as downloading a digital copy from someone! If I download a movie off the net which I would never purchase anyways is far different than stuffing one down my shorts at Walmart. Walmart paid for that DVD and by stealing it, I have stolen money from them. If I download a movie I haven't taken something away from anyone. I'm not saying its legal or moral, but it isn't stealing!

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Implications?

[jwiegley]

Do they mean implications such as "everybody enjoys a greater amount of entertainment at a cheaper cost and publishers, made useless by modern advances in technology, no longer become billionaires on the backs of artists?"

Or did they just want the standard "corporate big-wigs getting rich should have their methods and profits guaranteed?"

Just want to know which I should be teaching...

Allow me to be the first

[TubeSteak]

To tell them to go to hell.

I was nodding along, thinking "sure, why not" right up until I read the part about "the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing."

Schools are not there for those kind of shenanigans.

I find this incredibly offensive, if PSAs and advertising doesn't cut it, then that is their problem.

The curriculum should not be set by interest groups.

What about fair use?

[nonsense28sal]

I could maybe get behind this idea if one of the areas covered included fair use. Why am I not surprised this area is left out, especially in California. Remember, according to Jack Valenti "fair use is not in the law".

Opposite Effect of Intention

[kwalker]

I can easily see this having the opposite effect of its intention, namely programmers understanding the limitations and loopholes of copyright better than they do now. I mean how many projects have been shutdown by C&D letters sent under the DMCA? How many of those were bogus if you actually knew the law? If they're really going to teach copyright (Including the extensions and expansions), then maybe some programmers would better understand fair use and the "protections" provided by the DMCA.

Or maybe that's just my wishful thinking.

It's slogan-ready and everything!

[santiago]

They can call it C.A.R.E.--Copyright Abuse Resistance Education. Maybe even have cops come in and show off a simulated pirated download, so the kids can identify them when they encounter them. Teach the students to avoid peer-to-peer pressure...

RIAA/MPAA's worst nightmare

[plopez]

If the students are *really* taught what copyrights are, how they were originally intended to work in the Constitution and the concepts of fair use, then the students will know when and how full of crap any 'anti-piracy' group might be. An educated group of consumers.

This may end up as a blow *against* the industry lobbyists, as it could create an educated group of consumers. Any EFF volunteers want to teach a class or two?

Better for the MPAA/RIAA to leave them ignorant and terrified so they fold when the letter arrives in the mail. :)

Careful there!

[mopslik]

Regardless of what people's personal opinions are on p2p file sharing, the fact is that it is against copyright law.

P2P file-sharing isn't against copyright law. Sharing copyrighted files, via a P2P file-sharing program, without the copyright owner's permission is against copyright law.