Slashdot Log In
Tech-Ed Funding to be Tied to Copyright-Ed?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Feb 15, 2006 04:02 PM
from the i-wonder-who-is-backing-this-bill dept.
from the i-wonder-who-is-backing-this-bill dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Funny)
the difference between plagarism and research
Appropriately, I have this sign hanging in my office:
"To copy from one work is plagiarism. To copy from many is research."Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Once we have this broad concept established, we start figuring out ways to verify truth. You find a tidbit of information -- is that tidbit restricted to one book or website, or are there many websites that say the same thing? Who is the author, and does that author have any reason to lie or strech the truth (an example of this might be a candy company -- let's say you go to the Hershey's website; let's say that, on that website, Hershey's claims that their milk chocolate bar is part of a healthy breakfast; should we believe this? or should we investigate it?)?
I agree that it is far more important to teach children to think than it is to tell them the rules. On the other hand, you have to realize these kids are 12 and under. They do not have fully developed brains, or thinking processes. The lessons that you speak of in your second paragraph are really more appropriate to older children -- for the kids I work with, I feel I have succeded if I can show them that not everything they see is true, but that things are more likely to be true if they come from multiple sources.
As to sticking with just the internet, that is my job. They are learning to research in their classrooms, using whatever other sources their teachers want them to use. When they come into my classroom, they are working with the computers. Much of my speil is redundant, and basically comes down to "Everything that your classroom teacher has taught you about plagarism is true, even when you are using a computer. Everything that your classroom teacher has told you about verifying facts is true, even when you are using a computer."
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
"Thou shalt not kill." OK, got it.
It was designed to encourage the creation of a large public domain with which to advance society. Check.
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.
Parent
The benefits of education (Score:4, Interesting)
The important question is, will this education be a vehicle for {RI,MP}AA propaganda, or will it actually be informative?
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
No, DRM removes your fair-use abilities. The removal of fair-use rights was accomplished by the DMCA.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
I teach an ed tech class for pre-service teachers, and we base our curriculum on ISTE's NETS-T ( http://cnets.iste.org/Teachers/t_stands.html [iste.org] ), which are now part of NCATE. Standard VI, indicator A states that teachers should "model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use." I separate the "legal" and "ethical" in my lessons.
I teach them the fair use guidelines, some of the case history, and give them sample situations and have them decide which are fair use, and which are not.
Then, I present Lawrence Lessig's part of it. I talk about "common sense revolts", Dmitry Sklyarov, Dr. Ed Felton, DMCA, etc. I show them the evidence and let them decide whether copyright "law" is "ethical" or not.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you teach kids about respecting copyrights, I think you should also educate kids about governments respecting first amendment rights. I have no problem with that.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine once argued everything he did was perfectly positively ethical, if you ignore society's definition of ethics and used his.
The Law of Inintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Parent
Re:The Law of Inintended Consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Careful there! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Won't someone please think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA has (rather unsuccessfully) held classes in high schools across the US (such as one they had about a year or two ago in Urbana, Illinois) ostensibly aimed at tea
They already know better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They already know better. (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine it will work about as well as the DARE anti-drug program does in schools. That is, not at all.
Re:They already know better. (Score:2)
Works for drugs. Doesn't it?
Fuck you Ed. (Score:4, Insightful)
~S
Re:Fuck you Ed. (Score:2)
Re:Fuck you Ed. (Score:2)
Oh! You mean nap time.
It was very thoughtful of them to include that as part of the mandatory distribution courses. Though, I don't know why they put nap time at 8:00 AM
Gimme a break!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [religiousfreaks.com]Broken (Score:3, Insightful)
to me, it seems that the gist of your argument is that since you haven't gotten your hands on a physical thing, you haven't stolen anything. you aren't depriving a retailer of a product or the money they could have gotten in exchange for it.
i submit that a physical object is not necessarily required for theft. if you're a gamer, does it incur your ire when someone steals from you in game? if you developed a neat idea and had it on your hard drive, would it bothe
Wrong Direction To Approach CR Classes (Score:2)
Unbiased Education (Score:3, Insightful)
Implications? (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like Eastern Europe. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this could be a great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Opposite Effect of Intention (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe that's just my wishful thinking.
It's slogan-ready and everything! (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright Information (Score:2, Interesting)
RIAA/MPAA's worst nightmare (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Peer to peer? (Score:2)
We should support this bill. No, really. (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be the part where they teach kids that using technology to build a copyright mechanism that takes over your customer's computer, and creates security holes, such as the recent Sony-BMG scandal, is unethical. Or perhaps this would be teaching kids about the ethics of setting up a cartel wherein labels make a lot of money off record sales, and artists don't.
'the concept, purpose, and significance of a copyright,'
From this page [udel.edu]:
"By granting the copyright holder exclusive rights over a work for a limited period of time, the system fosters the long-term dissemination of new intellectual works for society as a whole." (emphasis added). This would encourage children to discuss why the current copyright system in the United States, where the period of copyrighted works is continually extended, is fundamentally broken.
'the implications of illegal peer-to-peer network file sharing.'
And finally, children would learn that the big record labels took about 5 years too long to get into the online music distribution buisness, so that by the time they did, there were illegal free alternatives which produce superior (read: not DRMed, and therefore superior from the consumer viewpoint) products. We could teach kids that file sharing networks allow people to hear artists they wouldn't otherwise hear on pop-dominated radio stations and TV, and promote more diverse and creative music. And, we could teach them that illegal file sharing doesn't seem to have an impact [unc.edu] on record sales.
Somehow I don't think this is what Chavez had in mind.
blowback (Score:3, Insightful)
clearly what hollywood wants is a class that will teach junior and senior high school students to be good little consumers who will buy movies and music from regular retailers without question. they want these kids to each buy their own deeveedees and ceedees and encourage their friends to buy the same and not share.
however, a good civics curricula on copyright will include an historical discussion of copyright - why it was created by the english parliament in the 15th and 16th centuries, what the constitution says about copyright and the legislation congress has passed over the past 200+ years. also, a list of important court cases about copyright ought to be discussed. a discussion of what is legal and what is not should be an essential discussion of copyright.
i think a class on the subject would be a good thing, especially considering how importat content and information have become in modern society.
of course, when the media industries figure out that having a public that is fully conversant with copyright law, its purposes and limitations, then the legislation in question will probably die a quick death. the media industry's arguments about copyright being a 'property right' are based on a misinterpretation of copyright law and many of the media industry's positions on copyright are built on the public not knowing what copyright is about or what it's really for.
much of what the media industry wants in copyright legislation is dependent on the public being confused about about copyright. anything that clarifies copyright for the public will work against the media industries goals.
What about illegal copyright extensions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh - that work is encrypted - you cannot decrypt it without authorization, meaning you can NEVER *legally* view / reproduce it without the encryption.
Encryption technologies for copyrighted works should have embedded date calculations that disable the encryption once the copyright period has expired, otherwise, the product illegaly extends copyright.
Just took an IT ethics class (Score:3, Informative)
The text books for this class were
Case Studies in Information Technology Ethics (second edition) by Richard A Spinello, published by Prentice Hall.
Ethics in Information Technology by George Reynolds published by Thompson.
This class was anything but a "anti download" brainwashing session.
Most of it focussed on the kinds of issues we developers and engineers have to contend with in terms of protecting the privacy of customer data, product liability, international/cross-cultural issues, and things like that.
The course started with an overview of how to do an Ethical Analysis of a situation, then we discussed case studies for the rest of the term, and wrote opinions, etc. I think it was a very valuable experience, and I think that all IT professionals should, indeed, take this class.
Yes, we did talk about software piracy, and other forms of copyright/patent violation. By and large, the mood of the class in analyzing these issues was that yes, illegal copying is wrong, but not as wrong relative to say, stealing a car or killing someone. Mainly, I think we learned that making unauthorized copies of software in a professional capacity is especially bad (even if it's for charity) mainly because you're exposing a broader group of stakeholders (ie. your employers, their stockholders, etc) to the liability. It was really an interesting and enlightening class, and it make me think about some things I never thought about before.
Remember 'don't copy that floppy'? (Score:3, Insightful)
These advertisements were openly mocked when I was in school, and I can just imagine how badly they'll be laughed at. I find it interesting that they focus on peer-to-peer networks though. What about the evils of sharing music with your friends?
How about some history, or will that be re-written? Many developing countries didn't always hold foreign patent protection in the highest regard.
I actually don't have a problem with this in schools, so long as it's facts and not biased, legally processed corporate driven being presented.
Re:Frankly, I'm look forward to it... (Score:4, Interesting)
The ultimate in subversion... after all, why should the public schools pay for books when they're willing to provide it for free!!
Parent
Re:Victims of socialised education (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree in theory, but then what happens to schools that can't be profitable and have to close down? What if you can't afford to send your kids to school? What if the only school you can afford offers a poorer education than the current public schools now do? Personally I think it's important for everyone to have some level of education. Unfortunately there are many people in o