Slashdot Mirror
Captain Copyright Targets Kids
frank249 writes "The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency has set up a copyright education website called Captain Copyright. There is a section for kids with comic books and a section for teachers for grades 1-3, 3-6 and 6-8. An example of a grade 1 class activity: 'Present the following situation to students: Your friend is downloading a song off the Internet. In comes Captain Copyright. Ask: What do you think Captain Copyright will say?
Encourage students to brainstorm. Then hand out (or read) Line Master: Some Copyright Laws.' In Canadian law it is incorrect to download a song unless you pay for it. They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads."
We have a daughter due in July (really! I'm reproducing now...) In a few years I imagine she'll ask "Daddy... who's Captain Copyright?" and I'll say "Sweetie, he's like God." She'll reply "What do you mean, Daddy, all knowing, all powerful and something to be in awe of?" "No dear," I'll reply, "a make-believe thing people in power use against the masses to keep them scared."
Trolling is a art,
I can see that copyright law is clearly a priority for early education. Not grammar, or mathematics, but intellectual property and coporate interests. I guess all the top execs of the tobacco companies jumped ship to the recording industry so they can keep practicing their "hook 'em while they're young" campaigns.
Must. Restrain. Laughter. I think even small children are smart enough to realize that "Captain Copyright" is an idiotic idea. Kids don't respect educational cartoon role models in general; I see no reason why "Captain Copyright" will be any different. A generic super-hero with boring powers whose opponents are ordinary people instead of super-villains ... no one is going to find that interesting.
Philosophy.
...but this comic is lame. Look at this page and the previous one. Somebody gets an A just because they didn't use a bootleg version of the textbook? Give me a break.
There is also another page in the copyright comic that seems to confuse one issue (collaborate research and somebody trying to take all of the credit) with copyright law. The comic ended in a cliffhanger after a few pages, but I don't think this comic book is effective at all (not to mention lame), and the comic confuses issues, too.
Boing Boing helpfully points out (SFW) the similarity between the Captain Copyright logo and Slashdot regular goatse.cx (which I will not link).
Over on Boing Boing, they've noticed that the Captain Copyright web page has stolen a couple of sections from Wikipedia without including the required attributions. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/02/captain_copyr ight_wi.html
But never mind the hypocracy - what kind of teacher uses materials in class that did not come from an independant source? Don't they have pride in their profession? Ahem - won't somebody think of the children?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
On their website, under "kids" I looked up the meanings of some words and phrases related to copyright. Guess what's missing from the list. I'll give you a hint, it starts with "Fair" and ends with "use"
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
As pointed out on Boing Boing, Captain Copyright is apparently blessed with the power of copyright immunity. Text on his website appears to be directly lifted from Wikipedia, and of course much of the iconography has been around since before the Captain himself. Maybe the Captain's alter ego is a pirate? Arrrrrr...
--
Think! It ain't illegal yet!
George Clinton
Think! It ain't illegal yet!
George Clinton
Captain Copyright has heroically announced he's suing /. for copyright violation, after the vicious plagiarizers failed to read his site's asinine legal disclaimer and reproduced his valuable intellectual property. Additionally, poster jgaynor will also be sued for talking shit about captain copyright AND linking to his site in the same paragraph. Think that last sentance was hyperbole? Think again:
"permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright."
Holy Nutsack Cap'n Copyright!
More making fun of this ridiculous attempt at a valid legal statement here (disclaimer: not affiliated).
When he failed to defend his trademark and it became generic. "Escalator", "Yo-yo", "Shredded Wheat", and now "Hitler" are prime examples of trademarks which have fallen into the public domain through abandonment or poor defense.
Where Hitler went wrong was not through lack of defense (you should have seen his army of lawyers), but through misuse of the Hitler trademark. Where Third Reich productions threw around the name Hitler as though it were a noun they should have used it as an adjective from the start and emphasized it to set it apart from the surrounding text. Using phrases like "Hitler conquered half of Europe" is just asking for trouble. "Hitler® brand World Domination conquered half of Europe" makes it clear what the brand name is and that it is a registered trademark.
Copyright jackasses are marketting their kindergarten-level understanding of intellectual property to actual kindergarteners.
Fuck you. My pony is better than your stupid pony.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Yes, the performances of the songs may be copyrighted, but even that isn't a certainty. There is a Public Domain into which the performing artist may release their performance.
If the tune, lyrics, and performance aren't protected intellectual property then the first grader should call the police and have Captain Copyright arrested for child molestation. Okay, there wasn't any sexual molestation involved, but a man in a skin tight costume who constantly barges in on first graders in their homes will have a very difficult time convincing a jury of that fact.
Don't Copy That Floppy :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I am in awe that they have a 1 page PDF that takes up 5 megs, and despite it's title that would lead you to believe it contains Canadian Copyright laws, it actually doesn't reference any laws at all! If everyone downloads the PDF even once, we can Slashdot 'em pretty quickly! http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Teachers/Docs/LMCop yrightLaws.pdf
Don't be ridiculous.
In 2005, the movie industry's total domestic revenue was a bit shy of $9 billion.
Intel Corporation's revenue in the same period was almost $39 billion.
So that's one company in one sector of the economy (albeit a big one) makes, all by itself, over four times what the entire movie industry makes.
While we're here, let's toss off some other revenue figures: IBM earned over $91 billion, Microsoft nearly $40 billion, General Motors almost two hundred billion dollars. GM lost more money last year than the movie industry earned in total (not counting expenses), and barely noticed.
The Copyright Cartel has done an excellent job as portraying itself as a critical industry, but don't be fooled. They are, at best, a miniscule piece of the American economy.
Software is somewhat of a different story, but they have their own ridiculousness (BSA), and you'll notice that of the companies cited, only one of them makes most of their money because of software copyrights.
The best part is it's based on a fallacy to begin with. In the comic, the school bully comes, steals his artwork, and begins selling copies for a quarter in front of the teacher's lounge. In the case of file sharing, no money changes hands! What a bunch of horse crap.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
I was never told not to do something simply because it was against god's will. During my confirmation, I asked my preacher why the church had a problem with pornography (in context with the lesson) and he gave me a very logical answer. He didn't punish me for questioning the beliefs of the church, and he didn't answer with "Because god says so." He was trying to help me understand with hopes that I might be a more considerate, caring person when I entered adulthood.
And what hipocrasy do you speak of? I really didn't see much at my church. People interpreted what the bible said into logical advice. It gives perspective to issues people might otherwise struggle with.
I'm not sure what you're next point is supposed to mean.
Yes, their are leaders who use religion to brainwash their followers. There are also leaders who wrap themselves in the American flag and call anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic. This doesn't mean anyone who considers themself to be patriotic agrees with those leaders. Just because some leaders abuse religion does not mean religion exists solely to control people.
The church I grew up in asks only for enough to keep the church going. The minister leads a very modest lifestyle, and while I saw political discussion at my church, I never saw anyone be told who to vote for.
And my church is not alone. I've known Christians, Jews and Muslims who take advice from their religion, and I mean logical advice, not manipulative propaganda. This can help lead to enlightment, and it's certainly not just saying "it's god's will."
The blatant stereotypes you're spreading are propogated because of what I believe is a loud minority. People like Fred Phelps lead others to believe that all Christians hate homosexuals and non-christians, but this is simply not the case. People like Osama Bin Laden make muslims appear to be bloodthirsty and anti-american. Again, this is generally not the case.
I think religion has a lot to offer the world, and I think it's a pity that it gets abused as often as it does. Personally, I don't go to church because I find it boring. I don't necessarily believe one faith is any more "correct" than another, but I do think religion can be a valuable asset to a person as they mature and grow, and as a result, it can help make the world a better place.
And to think, I read into the comments on this article because I was intrigued by the fact Canadians pay a tax on blank media to help compensate artists.