Slashdot Mirror
Intellectual Property Discussion in the Classroom?
Nick M asks: "I'm a TA for a Computer Ethics course at Lehigh University. My professor is currently in China, and I'm charged with the task of teaching the chapter on Intellectual Property. I have read the book (Cyberethics, Spinello, 3rd Ed.), and can see that this could be the most boring 75 minutes of their lives. What topics, examples and questions do you think would stimulate a heated discussion on intellectual property rights which would display the complexities of both sides of the issue?"
This could be a good starting point (an article listing some pioneers in inventions, and some of their fates).
Also, this article is a synopsis of Robert Kearns' battle with Ford over his IP/patent rights for the invention of the intermittent windshield wiper.
Make sure none of the students is able to carry out any of the classroom handouts unless each page is clearly marked with a copyright warning on both sides.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Sorry, I don't have any great ideas on what to put in an intellectual property lecture.
But would you be able to ask your professor to bring back bootleg copies of X-Men 3 and Microsoft Office for me? Thanks!
Just role play a common shareware marketing mistake.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Students love music, and it's a hotbed of IP issues, with sampling (play excerpts of a few rap tracks and the songs they sample from at the start of the lecture for dramatic effect), the split between copyright of the song and the recording of the song, moral objections to the RIAA's music copyright cartel, atrists rights, copyright extension, airplay fees vs payola, rights to make cover versions and parodies, the right not to have derogatory cover versions, the 'happy birthday' copyright fiasco, the way Tony Blair just accepted a free holiday on Cliff Richard's private tropical Island just before the music business is going to push for a Disney-style copyright extension over here to keep Cliff's early work in copyright... I could go on... for at least 75 minutes!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Allowing one to profit from his effort is certainly a method of promoting progress. But absurdly long copyright or patent terms promote coasting, not progress - a fact that our legislators seem to have ignored.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Item 1: Fair Use - When is it OK to hack a DVD?
-------------------
If I wanted to do a report on the cultural influence of Star Wars, would it be OK to download from the Internet a screen capture of the Death Star to compare to the AT&T logo, also downloaded?
Would it be OK to break the encryption on a DVD to get a picture of the Death Star to compare to the AT&T logo?
What about the sounds that Jar Jar Binks makes versus an historical African American portrayal such as Gone with the Wind? Can I get those?
What about a video of his walk when compared to the same figures walking or dancing? Can I get those?
Does the law allow this? (DMCA - probably not)
Item 2: What about copyright terms in different countries?
--------------------
IIRC Australia has a 50 year limit on copyright. Is it OK for an Australian to post for free scans of 51 year old books on the Internet?
What about 51 year old movies? 51 year old songs?
Is it OK to listen to those songs in the USA or Canada?
Should the ISP block that access?
Who gets to decide what's on that block list?
Item 3: Sharing - Where do we draw the line?
---------------------
Is it OK to make a mix CD or mix tape for a friend?
Is it OK to rip a CD to make MP3s on my computer?
How many copies of those MP3s can I make for personal use?
Is it OK to keep the MP3s if my original CDs are destroyed in a fire?
Is it OK to make a mix CD with some of my friend's MP3 songs and some of mine?
Is it OK for both of us to back up that CD as MP3s?
Is it OK to mix my entire MP3 collection with my friend's entire MP3 collection?
Is it OK to do that with everyone I meet on the Internet?
Is it OK to do each of these things with movies?
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
And maybe also debunking some of the copyright myths :)
;) W.A.Mozart's widow Konstanze later one was well off because of the money coming in from her late husbands work, also without current copyrights.
- For instance: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart indeed was dying poor, but not because of missing protection of his works: He just spent too much money. Michael Jackson is also broke, and he has the full protection of copyrights
- Copyright in the U.S. at first protected only works of U.S. origin. British works like the novels from Charles Dickens were printed in the U.S. without permission from Charles Dickens or his editor, and only when the first U.S. writers like Mark Twain became famous all over the world (not that he was the first U.S. writer. Just one of the first becoming famous outside of the U.S.), and British printers started to print their works, the U.S. agreed to expand copyright protection also to non U.S. citizens.
- Most developing nations with a strong economic growth have to deal with accusations of mistreating intellectual property. It was so with the U.S. in the mid-19th century, with Japan after WWII, later with Taiwan and now China. The time when protections like patents, copyrights and trademarks get fully developed is often correlated with a new period of a more "normal" economic growth. But at that point the developing nations often have accumulated enough own IP they consider worth protecting. Knowledge that has not a single entity to be attributed to, like old folk myths, songs, traditions, medical treatments, never gets protected, and is considered free for plundering by everyone.
Because you are apparently incapable of seeing the dots that were connected to arrive at those conclusions? Those are the arguments.
I'll break it down for you in baby bites.
If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
Now there are obvious counter-arguments that governments and philanthropists could fund the drug research. The counter-counter argument is that's unlikely to happen with the same magnitude of university-corporate research.
The counter-argument to the software is using open-source. Except again, production is unlikely to match the output of businesses when profit is the motive instead of altruism.
For the movies, sure there is funding for the arts and filmmaking, but I don't see any government ever paying for the production of Terminator 4.
hmmm, i didnt think it was neccesaru to spell out the obvious but apparently it is.
drugs companies will not invest ten million dollars in a new drug if that drug is trivially copied the next day by a rival who spends zero on development. To do so, would be to effectivly just cripple you own competitiveness, and drive yourself out of business by increased relative costs. This is not rocket science.
the concept of IP is absolutely necesary because it is the ONLY viable way of ensuring that research and development costs of a product can be recouped by those who front up the cash.
99% of people with even a basic grasp of economics understand this. I look forward to you explaining to me how drugs companies will invest money in a product in a situation where IP rights did not exist. I won't hold my breath though, seeing as though it appears that all the major drugs companies investing money in research are firm defenders of their IP. SOme might suggest that the need for IP is flipping obvious, others could point to the fact that those doing the investment defend their IP (and conclude quite logically that they would not invest without a gurantee that their ip is defended).
I'm sure you find this post 'worthless' and 'flamebait' because it doesnt justify you illegally copying music. I guess it doesnt matter if we dont get new pharmaceutical research, as long as your ipod hard disk is full huh?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Drug companies have no incentive to create cures. Plain and simple. If they were to create drugs that eliminated disease, then they would be putting themselves out of business.
Yes, I do consider it flaimbait; and I am taking it, hook, line and sinker. IP only encourages pharmaceutical research to create long term revenue streams... no cure for AIDS (or any other terminal disease) The only thing created is a pill that the victim of disease must continue to take for the rest of their life... hence... long term revenue stream. This is not humane, it is inhumane.
Does it go on forever?
Just keep this sort of stuff in mind, and be realistic... and don't go off about the eeeeevil drug companies trying to enslave us to their treatments.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Because you are apparently incapable of seeing the dots that were connected to arrive at those conclusions?
No, because those conclusions have been stated *without any supporting evidence*. Hence, they are an example of "Proof by assertion".
Some examples of things that might be considered "evidence":
* An examination of major medical discoveries pertaining to cures and treatments of disabling sicknesses and injuries over the last ~200 years or so, showing that for-profit private industry has been the only significant contributor.
* Proof that culturally significant contributions in art, music and literature have only commenced since the invention of copyright.
* Data demonstrating people who do not purchase their first copy of a particular instance music subseuqently never purchase a copy.
* Data demonstrating people who download movies subsequently never see those movies in the cinema or purchase them on DVDs, or other personal media.
Independent, scientific, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating these sorts of things would go a long way towards supporting the argument that "Intellectual Property" - both as a concept and *especially* as practiced today - is "essential" to the existence of modern society.
If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
These are the assertions that are lacking evidence. Waving your hand and saying "because they will", is not evidence.