RIAA, MPAA-backed group targets school kids with copyright cirriculum

Quote:

---

"It's important to prepare children to succeed and thrive and learn how to share and create and move files in a way that's ethical and responsible,"

---

Translation:

Quote:

---

"It's important to brainwash children to submit and acquiesce and learn how to pay for locked down files in a way that's lucrative and profitable [to us],"

---

It's so telling, that the many applications where Fair Use allows the use of copyrighted material are NEVER discussed.

The MAFIAA can kiss my tukhus. Even when they're right (yes, arttists do deserve compensation for their works), they find a way to be utterly wrong.

Originally posted by nonoitall:

---

Quote:

---

"It's important to prepare children to succeed and thrive and learn how to share and create and move files in a way that's ethical and responsible,"

---

Translation:

Quote:

---

"It's important to brainwash children to submit and acquiesce and learn how to pay for locked down files in a way that's lucrative and profitable [to us],"

---

---

Couldn't agree more. It's getting pretty sick the way corporate and political agendas are re-writing history and indoctrinating our youth. They are not even teaching today's kids the basics or even how to write(in cursive)the English language, but they have time to teach this crap.

Coming to a school near you, to be taught along side "Creationism" as a science! And we wonder why we far so poorly when compared to other nations children.

Only in America:
Where Capitalism is the new brainwash Patriotism !

I guess; MPAA & RIAA wish that the rest of the world just follow their religion like a blinded sheep's.

While I don't agree with some of the stupidity they have performed, I think that this is a step in the right direction. Instead of being heavy handed in going after people that pirate music and movies, teaching them that this is a form of theft could have much more of an impact on their industry. But they need to include all aspects of digital media use, including Fair Use. While I am not a great fan of the MPAA/RIAA, I *do* respect them for some of their earlier work, such as phonograph equalization curves (for those of us that remember playing records). But at the same time, it's hypocritical of them to receive a cut from every piece of blank media that is sold, whether it is used for music or data.

The main problem with your premise, phobet, is that these classes DO NOT teach the law or morality, but rather only the RIAA/MPAA's take on the matter. There's zero mention of legal, Fair Use exceptions to the law in these programs. In fact, quite often, Fair Use is directly lied about.

Furthermore, It's NOT a form of theft, which is a crime. It's infringement of a copyright, a civil issue. This is an important distinction that you fail to make, yourself, and it is ALWAYS ignored by the RIAA/MPAA.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

The main problem with your premise, phobet, is that these classes DO NOT teach the law or morality, but rather only the RIAA/MPAA's take on the matter. There's zero mention of legal, Fair Use exceptions to the law in these programs. In fact, quite often, Fair Use is directly lied about.

Furthermore, It's NOT a form of theft, which is a crime. It's infringement of a copyright, a civil issue. This is an important distinction that you fail to make, yourself, and it is ALWAYS ignored by the RIAA/MPAA.

---

Well, I did mention that they should teach about Fair Use. And if something is for sale, and you use it without paying for it, your either stealing it, or stealing the services it provides. You can surround it with any semantics you want, theft is theft, and stealing is stealing.

Originally posted by phobet:

---

Well, I did mention that they should teach about Fair Use. And if something is for sale, and you use it without paying for it, your either stealing it, or stealing the services it provides. You can surround it with any semantics you want, theft is theft, and stealing is stealing.

---

It's not semantics, it's the law. Copyright infringement is a civil tort matter, NOT a crime, and no insistence otherwise will change that fact.

Simple example: If I steal your car, I deprive you of a car. If I duplicate your car and drive off, I have violated several trademarks and copyrights, but you still have the original car. The two acts are not the same thing and are also seen as different by the law.

As soon as you sell that copy of the car, however, you are committing fraud; while still not theft, it IS then a criminal act. At that point, your argument is partially valid (although the crime is different), but not before.

There's many good reasons we separate criminal and tort law in this (and almost every) country.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

Originally posted by phobet:

---

Well, I did mention that they should teach about Fair Use. And if something is for sale, and you use it without paying for it, your either stealing it, or stealing the services it provides. You can surround it with any semantics you want, theft is theft, and stealing is stealing.

---

It's not semantics, it's the law. Copyright infringement is a civil tort matter, NOT a crime, and no insistence otherwise will change that fact.

Simple example: If I steal your car, I deprive you of a car. If I duplicate your car and drive off, I have violated several trademarks and copyrights, but you still have the original car. The two acts are not the same thing and are also seen as different by the law.

As soon as you sell that copy of the car, however, you are committing fraud; while still not theft, it IS then a criminal act. At that point, your argument is partially valid (although the crime is different), but not before.

There's many good reasons we separate criminal and tort law in this (and almost every) country.

---

I don't disagree that it is the letter of the law. The law states that there has been a copyright infringement. That is how the law is written, and how the law views it, and how the law defines it. But, if you use something that is normally for sale, whether it is software, music, movies, etc, you are stealing the value it provides if you haven't paid for it. That value may be entertainment, computing your taxes, or fixing your computer. It doesn't matter. If you are using it without paying for it, you're stealing it.

I can show you the flaw in that statement right away. What if I stand in a book store, and read a book or magazine, without buying it?

Well?

I'm using it without paying for it, aren't I? Yet, it's quite legal, and many (of course, not all) book stores actively encourage this behavior in their patrons. After all, it can be considered to be a form of advertising, so to speak. It also is not specifically mentioned in the Fair Use portions of copyright law. This handily illustrates a basic flaw in your reasoning.

Mind you, I am not arguing that copying protected works is moral or a good thing, necessarily. What I'm arguing is that copyright infringement is not theft. And it's not. We use different words for the two things - and the consequences are quite different - because they are not the same, it's really that simple. "The letter of the law" IS the law, for good or ill.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

I can show you the flaw in that statement right away. What if I stand in a book store, and read a book or magazine, without buying it?

Well?

I'm using it without paying for it, aren't I? Yet, it's quite legal, and many (of course, not all) book stores actively encourage this behavior in their patrons. After all, it can be considered to be a form of advertising, so to speak. It also is not specifically mentioned in the Fair Use portions of copyright law. This handily illustrates a basic flaw in your reasoning.

Mind you, I am not arguing that copying protected works is moral or a good thing, necessarily. What I'm arguing is that copyright infringement is not theft. And it's not. We use different words for the two things - and the consequences are quite different - because they are not the same, it's really that simple. "The letter of the law" IS the law, for good or ill.

---

For book sellers, allowing you to read what they are selling is part of their business model. The only way to make an informed decision on a book purchase is to either read book reviews, or read some of the book itself. But if you showed up very day, and read the same book without paying for it, someone would notice and say something to you. They don't make money if you don't buy.

When you use it as a comparison, you're comparing apples to oranges. One involves the temporary use to determine if it is something you are interested in purchasing. It's akin to taking a car out for a drive in your determination if it is the right purchase for you. The other involves the permanent use of something, leveraging whatever value it brings into your life (entertainment, computing taxes, transportation, etc) and not paying for it.

The letter of the law is the law, period. But using something without paying for it is stealing the value it provides. The person/company/entity that created that value is not getting fair compensation for it.

A copyright group teaching about copyright is like a priest teaching religion you know its gonna be biased.

I agree with bozobub on this one.
The book argument can also be argued as a lot of people hear a couple of songs by an artist and buy the album.

Hmmm gets get in the law arguing,some countries don't actually have or enforce copyright laws,marijuana and drinking before your 18 is legal in holland ,beating or kill your wife and daughter is legal in Afghanistan and Pakistan,also can be executed for sacriledge in Pakistan and Afghanistan but the law is the law no one can argue with it.

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:

---

A copyright group teaching about copyright is like a priest teaching religion you know its gonna be biased.

I agree with bozobub on this one.
The book argument can also be argued as a lot of people hear a couple of songs by an artist and buy the album.

Hmmm gets get in the law arguing,some countries don't actually have or enforce copyright laws,marijuana and drinking before your 18 is legal in holland ,beating or kill your wife and daughter is legal in Afghanistan and Pakistan,also can be executed for sacriledge in Pakistan and Afghanistan but the law is the law no one can argue with it.

---

I never said that I disagreed with Bozobub. I agree that the law is the law. I am merely making the contention that piracy is theft.

And no, I do not support the MPAA/RIAA. I think they have been foolish the past few years in the way they have dealt with their loss of revenue. Almost like the kid who doesn't get their way, so they lash out at everyone, in the hope of hurting someone more than they themselves are hurting at the time of their lashing out. The MPAA/RIAA used to stand for something, such as the improvement of the presentation of content. But lately, it would seem that lawyer types have gained control of these organizations. If you have a hammer, then every problem is treated like a nail. If you're a lawyer, then you use the law to solve your problem. If these organizations were lead by technical visionaries, then the leadership would recognize the problem for what it is, and create incentives for their technical geniuses to invent technologies to solve these problems, making both sides happy in the outcome.

I agree with you on the copyright group teaching about copyright. This can be used to forward their agenda. It's akin to watching the same news story on different channels/networks. Each one will have an agenda they are pushing, and will present the same news story in a different light, in support of that agenda. The take away here is to always have more then one source of news, even from news outlets you don't favor.

Personally i think a lot of laws are actually useless and are more about power than actually helping people.(as was the point by quoting stupid laws i was trying to make in my last post).As for breaking the law if you get caught its up to or your legal representation to make the court room see the stupidity in the law you broke.
As for piracy you havn't actually stolen anything you have cloned it,imo i think the penalty for downloading or owning a pirated disc the penalty should be retail cost of the disc.
a bad album can make $250000 per lawsuit for illegal copies,retail copies are selling at $30 per disc so for the disc to cost $250000 you would have to distribute 8333.333333 copies of the disc to make up that amount.

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:

---

Personally i think a lot of laws are actually useless and are more about power than actually helping people.(as was the point by quoting stupid laws i was trying to make in my last post).As for breaking the law if you get caught its up to or your legal representation to make the court room see the stupidity in the law you broke.
As for piracy you havn't actually stolen anything you have cloned it,imo i think the penalty for downloading or owning a pirated disc the penalty should be retail cost of the disc.
a bad album can make $250000 per lawsuit for illegal copies,retail copies are selling at $30 per disc so for the disc to cost $250000 you would have to distribute 8333.333333 copies of the disc to make up that amount.

---

Most laws are useless, but can be traced back to special interest. These "interests" can afford to pay for lobbyists to schmooze and manipulate law makers into enacting laws in their favor. Citizen Joe does not stand a chance. Marijuana laws were enacted at the behest of emerging industry at the time, Du Pont being at the head of the spear. Hemp has been grown and used for thousands of years, and not just for its effect when smoked. The plant has many uses, which at the time it was outlawed, competed with industries of the day. Du Pont had just discovered Nylon, which competed directly with hemp rope. The diesel engine was invented, which could use hemp oil as a fuel, providing a renewable resource, with no foreign dependence. The oil industry was just starting out, and did not want any competition.

You are absolutely right, when you say that you haven't stolen anything when you make a copy of digital media. The original thing is still available to the owner. I don't disagree with you on that. But when you do that, you are stealing the value that the thing provides. The value could be the ability of listening to a song by your favorite artist. Or it could be the ability of watching a great movie on your computer or TV. Or it could be having the ability to compute your taxes on your computer. You haven't stolen it from the person that you copied it from. After all, they still have their original thing (DVD/CD/eBook, etc). You have stolen it from the person/company/entity that provides that value (song performance, Movie, ebook, etc).

It's like the guy that invented interval wipers. He presented it to Ford, who promptly stole his idea, and implemented it on all their cars. He had to go to court to secure payment, and now every car sold today has these as a standard feature. The value here is that you didn't need to have the wipers running constantly when it is only a drizzle out. It was the value that was stolen from him.

Originally posted by phobet:

---

For book sellers, allowing you to read what they are selling is part of their business model. The only way to make an informed decision on a book purchase is to either read book reviews, or read some of the book itself. But if you showed up very day, and read the same book without paying for it, someone would notice and say something to you. They don't make money if you don't buy.

When you use it as a comparison, you're comparing apples to oranges. One involves the temporary use to determine if it is something you are interested in purchasing. It's akin to taking a car out for a drive in your determination if it is the right purchase for you. The other involves the permanent use of something, leveraging whatever value it brings into your life (entertainment, computing taxes, transportation, etc) and not paying for it.

The letter of the law is the law, period. But using something without paying for it is stealing the value it provides. The person/company/entity that created that value is not getting fair compensation for it.

---

Your argument has been used for justifying forcing the payment of "performance" fees for playing a boombox outside, in the UK. It's bull.

Furthermore, I'm also not going to buy the "poor artist" crap. For example, the entire recording industry was successfully sued for price-fixing CDs and DVDs (by Tower Records, actually). Furthermore, out of that artificially-inflated price, what, $$.75 to $1 goes to the artist? Funny, how it costs maybe 4 cents to press a $15-60 disk in large volumes. Who's robbing the artist..?

Contrast that to the fact that independently/self-distributed artists are quite successful, at the moment. Combined with how it's been proven several times that media pirates are also the largest purchasers of content, and my sympathy for your position dwindles rapidly.

AGAIN, I'm not arguing that unauthorized copying and/or distribution of content is right, but it IS NOT theft, period. You can argue 'til you are blue in the face, but you still are not going to change that fact. Calling it "stealing" is disingenuous, and does not help your argument one iota. Mr.-interval-wipers was the victim of a patent violation (assuming he was smart enough to patent it) and fraud, NOT theft. Deal with it or don't but the facts (and laws) remain.

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

Originally posted by phobet:

---

For book sellers, allowing you to read what they are selling is part of their business model. The only way to make an informed decision on a book purchase is to either read book reviews, or read some of the book itself. But if you showed up very day, and read the same book without paying for it, someone would notice and say something to you. They don't make money if you don't buy.

When you use it as a comparison, you're comparing apples to oranges. One involves the temporary use to determine if it is something you are interested in purchasing. It's akin to taking a car out for a drive in your determination if it is the right purchase for you. The other involves the permanent use of something, leveraging whatever value it brings into your life (entertainment, computing taxes, transportation, etc) and not paying for it.

The letter of the law is the law, period. But using something without paying for it is stealing the value it provides. The person/company/entity that created that value is not getting fair compensation for it.

---

Your argument has been used for justifying forcing the payment of "performance" fees for playing a boombox outside, in the UK. It's bull.

Furthermore, I'm also not going to buy the "poor artist" crap. For example, the entire recording industry was successfully sued for price-fixing CDs and DVDs (by Tower Records, actually). Furthermore, out of that artificially-inflated price, what, $$.75 to $1 goes to the artist? Funny, how it costs maybe 4 cents to press a $15-60 disk in large volumes. Who's robbing the artist..?

Contrast that to the fact that independently/self-distributed artists are quite successful, at the moment. Combined with how it's been proven several times that media pirates are also the largest purchasers of content, and my sympathy for your position dwindles rapidly.

AGAIN, I'm not arguing that unauthorized copying and/or distribution of content is right, but it IS NOT theft, period. You can argue 'til you are blue in the face, but you still are not going to change that fact. Calling it "stealing" is disingenuous, and does not help your argument one iota. Mr.-interval-wipers was the victim of a patent violation (assuming he was smart enough to patent it) and fraud, NOT theft. Deal with it or don't but the facts (and laws) remain.

---

While my argument may have been used in a way you don't believe in, your disagreement with the way it is used does not invalidate it.

Furthermore, my argument is not about getting the "poor artist" paid. Nor is it about the business practice of the recording industry. And it's definitely not made in support of the MPAA/RIAA. I merely state that if you use content and not pay for it, you have stolen it or the value it brings into your life. The law defines it as copyright infringement, but it is still theft. You can't infringe on a copyright unless you steal something covered by the copyright.

Robert Kearns, the man who invented interval wipers, was also a victim of copyright infringement. And how did they infringe on his copyright? They stole his idea, used it in their products, and didn't compensate him for it.

Calling it theft is not being disingenuous. It's calling it what it is. Theft. Calling it anything else so we can feel good about "getting one over" on the MPAA/RIAA is being disingenuous.

No, it is NOT theft, by the very definition of the word, both in the dictionary and by law. It has absolutely zilch to do with how I - or you - feel.

Trying to make it something it's not is part of the reason the RIAA/MPAA is constantly fighting a losing battle, in society and the courts. They've spent far more money in "prevention" than they've ever seen back in results. If they would actually go after people in the proper manner, they'd win court cases AND the battle for public opinion more often. But they don't.

Furthermore, they specifically go after the people that are proven to be their best customers. You speak of "better business practices"..?

I also do not accept brainwashing by the RIAA/MPAA, which intentionally ignores all Fair Use, as a legitimate response to the problem.

We obviously agree on many points, but I simply will never agree "infringement" is "theft". So far, the law agrees with me, and for what I feel are very good reasons.

you guys are beautiful. I hope some children read this online discussion and are sparked to reason before they are indoctrinated by the Industry Curriculum Agents.

(i'm just kidding)

I really hope this nonsensical rabble will be a distant memory for our children's children and diminish to nothing further down the line.


...

I think it's worth noting that if one steals or infringes upon the copyright of another, then the value that one obtains may not necessarily be positive. The value (or consequence) of such is surely inscrutable, in general.

Also, I think it's worth realizing that (to my knowledge, at least--which is limited) one cannot clone another's vehicle.

However, if one could do so, that would surely be an innovation to be shared rather than sold.


I'm gonna watch some more anime, now. :)

Originally posted by Bozobub:

---

No, it is NOT theft, by the very definition of the word, both in the dictionary and by law. It has absolutely zilch to do with how I - or you - feel.

Trying to make it something it's not is part of the reason the RIAA/MPAA is constantly fighting a losing battle, in society and the courts. They've spent far more money in "prevention" than they've ever seen back in results. If they would actually go after people in the proper manner, they'd win court cases AND the battle for public opinion more often. But they don't.

Furthermore, they specifically go after the people that are proven to be their best customers. You speak of "better business practices"..?

I also do not accept brainwashing by the RIAA/MPAA, which intentionally ignores all Fair Use, as a legitimate response to the problem.

We obviously agree on many points, but I simply will never agree "infringement" is "theft". So far, the law agrees with me, and for what I feel are very good reasons.

---

The MPAA/RIAA blew a chance for positive public engagement. I think their hubris, acquired over the years of being able to dictate terms and receive a cut (extort?) from the sales of all blank CD/DVD sales, as well as from the sales of AM/FM receivers (and those are only the things we know about), gave them the belief that they could continue "business as usual". They consciously and purposely ignored the changing media industry, even though it was happening in the open, right in front of their eyes. They believed that people would act like companies. To a company, the "bottom line" is always a concern. If it is cheaper to pay the fees (extortion) to the RIAA/MPAA, then they will do so, and move on to making a profit. But people don't think and behave that way, as evidenced by your own prior arguments. The only thing the RIAA/MPAA has accomplished, as far as people are concerned, is create a feeling of "wrongness", that they were being taken advantage of. They have given the people a villain to hate, and a reason to pirate content. They have awoken a spirit that all people have, to rise up against their oppressors. It is the same spirit that gave a young man in Tiananmen Square the courage to face down a tank. This is not to trivialize what that brave young man did. What he did was incredibly dangerous and courageous, and yet remains even today as a symbol of hope to those who are being oppressed. This is a PR nightmare of their own creation, that the RIAA/MPAA still has yet to awaken from.

It's amazing to see that we are more alike than we are different. While your viewpoint is one of copy infringement and my viewpoint is one of theft, there are a great many commonalities that the RIAA/MPAA would do well to take note of. I believe that they are taking a step in the right direction. But their campaign will only be successful if they are truthful and forthcoming in their education curriculum. They will need to explain what the RIAA/MPAA is, what they have accomplished, and what they plan to accomplish in the future. And their plans must be for the betterment of content creation and distribution. They will need to justify their actions. They will need to appear before the court of public opinion, and be judged. Their interests must align with the interests of their future content consumers. Otherwise, they will fan the flames of discontent, and create a new generation of opposition. This is a tall order for the RIAA/MPAA, and will require a major "rethink" of how they do business. They must evolve like music/movie/book distribution has evolved. Otherwise, they may see themselves as the toppled despot, forced out of power by the very people they try to govern.