Copyright And Education In Conflict?

from the questions-to-ponder dept

Dark Helmet writes in to alert us to an article discussing a recent Larry Lessig speech concerning conflicts between copyright and education, leading DH to write:

"What do we, as a society, value more: business rights or education rights?

Because we're more and more often hearing stories about IP law effecting things like text book answers, lesson agendas, syllabi, etc. It seems that we are so wrapped up in the idea of personal rights and personal walls around the content that we create or organize that we're losing sight of some truly important values, none more so than the ability to educate our emerging leaders to their fullest. After all, what could do more to promote the progress of our society and way of life as a whole than to educate our masses to the fullest? What standing could one possibly have to impede another's education to eke out further profit?"

Indeed. For quite some time it's appeared that there's a bit of a conflict in the basics of copyright and the concept of education -- which is all about sharing information and spreading that information. It's one of those things that copyright maximalists (especially the ones who are professors) usually don't like to talk about.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'

from the people-don't-believe-things-that-are-obviously-untrue dept

The entertainment industry continues to insist that its antipiracy campaign is largely an "educational" campaign to get people to realize that file sharing is evil and "theft" from content creators. Of course, pretty much anyone who thinks about it in any amount of detail recognizes the difference between "theft" (something is taken and the original owner no longer has it) and "copying" (you made a copy, but the original owner still has his or her original). Apparently a new study in Sweden suggests that the entertainment industry is badly losing its battle to convince people that file sharing is "theft." The study shows that a rapidly decreasing number of Swedes thinks of file sharing as theft, down to only 30% from 38% just a year ago. Time to rethink that education campaign. Perhaps, next time, don't start with the assumption that most people are too clueless to recognize the obvious differences between theft and copying.

70 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Kindle Flunking Out Of Princeton?

from the bad-grades dept

theodp writes "At Jeff Bezos' alma mater, The Daily Princetonian reports that less than two weeks after 50 students received free Kindle DX's as part of the University's e-reader pilot program, many of them said they were dissatisfied and uncomfortable with the devices. 'I hate to sound like a Luddite, but this technology is a poor excuse of an academic tool,' said Aaron Horvath '10, a student in Civil Society and Public Policy. 'It's clunky, slow and a real pain to operate.' How about a second opinion? The device is 'hard to use,' added Horvath's professor, Stan Katz."

I have to admit that I don't quite understand the value of the Kindle DX as a reading device for schools or... anything, really. In the meantime, why are schools using closed off DRM-encrusted devices for training students anyway?

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wait, Was That An RIAA Education Campaign... Or Is It About Turning Schoolkids Into Unpaid Shills?

from the why-is-this-in-our-schools? dept

We recently took a look at the many problems with the RIAA's "educational materials" that it's pushing on schools. The EFF (who has its own -- much more accurate -- curriculum for schools) has noticed one other significant problem with the RIAA's propaganda material. They include an exercise that involves having schoolkids pitch local newspapers and TV stations to present propaganda:

Imagine that you are in the music industry... With your team of fellow music industry employees, plan an information campaign that lets others know why it's important to get their music the right way... You'll want to convince your classmates that your teams' plan is the one that will become the class project!

Challenge: Take your campaign a step further by contacting the editor of your community newspaper or the director of your community cable television station to see if you can submit an article or video about your campaign.

Of course, since we were suggesting more reasonable responses to the RIAA's proposals, why not have those same kids do a class project where they talk about artists who have embraced what their fans want, and have showed that it's possible to do quite well with models that don't involve going to war with your best fans. In the meantime, we're still wondering why any school would use obviously biased materials from an industry association, rather than impartial materials that are actually accurate? Does anyone know of any schools that use the RIAA's materials? We'd love to speak to some teachers who do...

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Look At The RIAA's Copyright Propaganda For Schools

from the why-does-anyone-use-this-stuff? dept

It's back to school time, and our friends over at the RIAA have a blog post up excitedly talking up its special "curriculum" for teachers. But, of course, that "curriculum" is laughably biased and at times outright wrong. And it makes me wonder: why would any educational institution accept a one-sided curriculum written by the industry that's clearly designed to promote that industry's own business? Do schools use science curricula provided by Exxon or Monsanto? As for the actual content included in the curriculum (which, by the way, the RIAA links to incorrectly twice), it's almost a joke. Check out the RIAA propaganda. Fair use doesn't exist -- at all. Reading through the main document, I find not a single mention of it. But what does exist is all sorts of bogeymen about how evil file sharing is, how it exposes your hard drive to viruses and reveals your tax return info.

Oh, but the best part, is that the RIAA is pushing for a new totally made up term called "songlifting" which is the central theme of every single lesson. Sounds like "shoplifting," right? That's the idea -- though the RIAA cleverly tries to pretend that it didn't make up the word. In fact, it presents it as if it's a common term. Of course, the curriculum doesn't happen to mention the Supreme Court's Dowling decision, where the court specifically talked about how very different infringement is from "stealing." Of course, the RIAA also mentions the Grokster ruling -- but is misleading there as well, claiming that the law is clear that parents could be found liable for their kids sharing unauthorized files.

The actual exercises are ridiculous propaganda. The first one is supposed to be about "math" skills for the lower grades and "spreadsheet" skills for higher level students. Guess what the "math" is?

This part of the activity should help students recognize how songlifting, though it might seem harmless at first, can quickly become a largescale problem. Have students complete the calculations on the worksheet using spreadsheet software or a calculator. If time permits, repeat the first calculation by having students choose a realistic number of songs they would take if they could get them all for free. Adding desire to the equation in this way can further dramatize why songlifting can have an enormous economic impact.

Answers
Total number of songs lifted = 7,800,000;
Total cost of songs lifted = $7,722,000.
$926,640,000 (i.e., nearly a billion dollars).

Hmm. If we're simply making stuff up for propaganda purposes, how about "total number of new listeners a musician gets thanks to such sharing?" And then "total amount those musicians make when those new fans go to concerts or purchase merchandise thanks to hearing the songs for free." Might change the math a bit, but what do I know? I'm not an industry lobbyist, so my "industry" math isn't up to par.

Then there's propaganda about job losses:

Ask students to name some people who might work in this part of the music business (e.g., machine operator, printer, packager, truck driver, store manager, cashier, online order handler, etc.). Talk about how these people might be affected by songlifting, then have students work individually or in small groups to list other music makers unnamed in the story.

Ok. Why don't we talk about the jobs on the other side of the equation? How about all of the people employed by technology companies that the RIAA has helped put out of business through lawsuits? Or students that the RIAA has bankrupted via lawsuits? Have students put together a list of just how many lives and jobs the RIAA has destroyed. Point them to the story of MP3.com. And Napster. And Launchcast. And Grokster. Tell them how the RIAA tried to have the iPod (or, more accurately, its predecessor) banned, and have them think about how different life would be without it. Tell them how the RIAA is fighting hard to tax radio stations, putting so many radio people out of business. Tell them the story of the MIT student who the RIAA suggested drop out of school to pay a fine. Talk about how all of these people might be affected by the RIAA's overreaction to innovation and new technologies, and its own inability to embrace new business models. Then have students work individually or in small groups to list other tech companies making lives better that the RIAA has threatened, sued or put out of business.

Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the music industry by having students research one behind-the-scenes music maker and write a brief description of that job.

Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the tech industry thanks to new innovations that the RIAA has tried to kill. Then highlight the career opportunities in the music industry itself that have finally opened up now that the major labels are scrambling to learn technology.

Next, draw the copyright symbol (©) on the chalkboard. Ask if students know what this symbol means and where they might have seen it (books, posters, CDs, etc.). Explain that the copyright symbol is used to identify the owner of a piece of intellectual property and serves as a reminder that it is illegal for anyone to copy or distribute that property without the owner's permission.

Next, explain fair use, and how the above statement claiming that it's illegal for anyone to copy or distribute without the owner's permission is not necessarily true at all. Oh wait... that sentence isn't in there.

You might also inform them that our nation's Founders included copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), believing that it would encourage creativity by giving the creators of intellectual property an exclusive right to profit from their artistic talents.

You might also inform them that those Founders were highly cautious about this issue, and had stated their worries that these monopolies would do more harm than good, and that they should be greatly limited and monitored to avoid such harm. You might also want to point out that the RIAA seems to have forgotten the "limited time" part of this, but I guess you can be forgiven, since they (and their friends in the movie industry) have pretty much convinced Congress to ignore that part.

Then there's this fun list of "brainstorming ideas" with some responses/corrections/clarifications after each one:

• Songlifters take millions of dollars of music each year.
  
  Actually, file sharers don't "take" any money. This is a flat out lie.
  
  
• Songlifters hurt all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
  
  Those who have embraced file sharing in combination with smart business models have found it works for all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
  
  
• Songlifters keep new artists from getting their chance at stardom.
  
  Many up-and-coming artists are finding that giving away their music is a large part of how they build their fanbase and become stars.
  
  
• Songlifters are breaking the law.
  
  In many cases, those who share unauthorized files may have violated copyright law, though it's a civil issue, not a criminal one.
  
  
• Songlifters can get other people in trouble by sharing illegal music.
  
  Because the RIAA isn't very good with data, it's been known to sue the wrong people
  
  
• Songlifters can get computer viruses when they illegally download online.
  
  Doing things online when not careful can result in getting viruses. That has nothing to do with file sharing. Careful users can avoid viruses.
  
  
• Songlifters don't respect other people's intellectual property.
  
  The RIAA doesn't respect fair use rights, the need for a lively and dynamic public domain or the right of technology companies to innovate.

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous frankly. It doesn't even make a half-hearted attempt at talking about the rights of everyone else or the actual purpose of copyright law. The whole thing is basically about brainwashing kids into accepting that the record labels' old business model must stay in place forever. Luckily, most kids are smarter than that and can see through such propaganda pretty quickly. However, if schools really are interested in educating kids about copyright, why not use a non-industry curriculum, like the one put together by the EFF, called Teaching Copyright.

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can You Teach Entrepreneurship?

from the maybe...-but-not-always dept

Paul Kedrosky has a thought-provoking post, discussing how various entrepreneurship programs don't seem to be producing more entrepreneurs. He's finding that when he talks to people in those programs, they're often more interested in participating in the ecosystem around entrepreneurship (such as by becoming a venture capitalist) rather than being entrepreneurs themselves. To be honest, I don't find this all that surprising. Most entrepreneurs I know are pretty driven to start a company now and not wait around for however long it takes to go through a schooling program. If I didn't have the opportunity to tack on business school right after undergrad (unlike most b-schoolers), I doubt I would have gone back (and I spent way too much time in business school talking to others trying to convince them to start businesses). I don't think entrepreneurship programs are a bad thing, per se, but I'd imagine the real help is in assisting those already in the process of building a business, rather than studying to be entrepreneurs. Also, while Paul talks about the importance of "creating more entrepreneurs," I'm not sure that makes sense. I think the people who are meant to be entrepreneurs become entrepreneurs.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point

from the that-seems-problematic dept

Over at Against Monopoly, Alistair Kelman, points out yet another quirky problem with copyright law. He's discussing a book by Ron Rosen, who was the attorney for famed composer John Williams in fighting a copyright infringement claim saying that Williams copied a phrase in the score for the movie E.T.. The book is called Music and Copyright, and (according to Kelman) is quite a worthwhile read in thinking about some of the modern legal issues that will be faced thanks to mashups and other musical compositions that run up against copyright questions.

Kelman's one issue with the book, is that it would really be aided quite a bit by being able to hear the actual music in question, rather than just seeing the musical notation. So, the suggestion was, why did Rosen put up an online video lecture, playing the music samples so that people could better understand the issues at play. The answer, it turns out, is copyright law. Rosen wrote Kelman, noting:

"...about the need for aural examples, that is something we wanted to do for this edition, but as a new publication, the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so."

So even though this is a somewhat scholarly effort to look at these issues, apparently Rosen can't even demonstrate his points with music, because copyright forbids it, and requires hefty licensing fees. If ever there were a case where "fair use" should apply, this would seem to be it -- but I'm sure some would argue against that point since this book is a "for-profit" endeavor. Of course, whether something is commercial or not is only one of the four fair use factors, and it seems that if it's just a snippet of the music, a strong fair use case could be made (especially since it's hard to see how this could possibly harm the market for the music itself). However, as copyright system defenders love to point out on a regular basis, they see fair use as a "defense, rather than a right" and thus, the only way to prove that this is fair use would be to go to court -- something that is expensive and time consuming. What an unfortunate state of affairs.

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Entertainment Industry Propaganda Moves Into Schools In Australia As Well

from the why-do-schools-allow-this? dept

We've seen all sorts of attempts by the entertainment industry to push their highly biased interpretation of copyright law (which sometimes strays into outright falsehoods) into schools as "educational" programs. The RIAA and the MPAA have each run campaigns in schools. And recently the Copyright Alliance (another industry propaganda group) released a questionable educational offering. It appears this effort is global. Phill alerts us that an Australian anti-piracy group is now pushing an educational campaign for schools. The group admits that the purpose isn't to learn about copyright from an impartial perspective, but teach "the importance of copyright" and to create " a change in attitudes and behaviour." In other words, it's not an "education" campaign as it's literally trying to change behavior for corporate interests. This should raise tremendous questions about why any school would allow this content to be shared with students, since it's specifically designed to promote the interests of certain corporations.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF Launches Copyright Curriculum To Counter RIAA Propaganda Being Handed Out To Schools

from the good-news dept

It's been quite troubling that for years various schools have simply accepted propaganda and totally inaccurate "teaching materials" about copyright and used them to teach students. These programs have been created by both the RIAA and the MPAA, at times. More recently, a lobbying organization backed by both of those organizations, the Copyright Alliance (which has a long history of making up the most fantastic myths about copyright) has been pushing a copyright curriculum on schools. Tragically, unsuspecting schools have been using the pure propaganda put out by the Copyright Alliance as if it were some sort of impartial and accurate educational material on copyright. It's not. Not even close. Last year, one of the world's foremost experts in copyright, William Patry, took the Copyright Alliance's founder to task for having "chutzpah in abundance" in basically making up what copyright and fair use is about, and presenting himself as some sort of expert on the subject.

Unfortunately, schools that are using these materials often don't realize that they're simply accepting corporate propaganda, assuming that a front group like The Copyright Alliance is some sort of impartial player in the space, even though its curriculum is laughably bad, positioning any kind of copying as a high risk activity that should be avoided. Luckily, the EFF has finally launched a much more accurate and reasonable curriculum that was actually created by those who know the subject matter, rather than corporate execs and lobbyists. The EFF's curriculum is available at Teaching Copyright and is under a Creative Commons license. Unlike many of the propaganda copyright curricula, Teaching Copyright focuses on the broader picture, recognizing the fact that copyright is not for protecting creators, but is a deal between creators and the public to encourage creation within certain important limitations. It covers important concepts such as the public domain and fair use that are either ignored or downplayed in most of the curricula put out by the industry. This is a welcome addition to materials for schools to use to educate students on copyright.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Conversation Is What Matters, From Learning To Journalism And Beyond

from the don't-forget-it dept

A few months back, I wrote about how important the conversation here on Techdirt is for the overall site. The blog posts here (and the discussion starters in the Insight Community) are conversation starters. They're to get a topic and a point of view out there, and kick off a further discussion that we can all learn from. This still upsets plenty of people who want to pigeonhole us into being "journalists" who need to act in a certain way, and it's interesting to note that the pigeonholing seems to go the other direction as well: many old school journalists hate the idea of being a part of the conversation. They see things like "comments" as something to avoid or to wade into only at your own risk. Many refuse to read or respond to comments.

But that's a huge problem, considering the business those news organizations are actually in: bringing together a community whose attention they can then sell in some manner. If the folks who bring the community in then neglect that community, that community is going to go elsewhere. The disdain many journalists seem to have towards their community shows through.

However, I've had trouble getting across to some just how much value conversation really adds. Yet, Fred Wilson just pointed me to a fascinating post about an experimental schooling method, whereby students who were doing well in certain classes no longer needed to attend the class. This may sound counterintuitive, but what happened was that a group of students simply taught each other the curriculum, and then spent more time learning other subjects as well. And, in teaching each other, they discovered that they learned much more themselves:

Now our independent study group was a remarkable group of non-conformists, whose marks -- on tests we didn't attend classes for or study for -- were so high that some wondered aloud if we were somehow cheating. My grades had climbed into the low 90% range, and this included English where such marks were rare -- especially for someone whose grades had soared almost 30 points in a few months of 'independent' study. The fact is that my peers had done what no English teacher had been able to do -- inspire me to read and write voraciously, and show me how my writing could be improved. My writing, at best marginal six months earlier, was being published in the school literary journal. On one occasion, a poem of mine I read aloud in class (one of the few occasions I actually attended a class that year) produced a spontaneous ovation from my classmates.

The Grade 12 final examinations in those days were set and marked by a province-wide board, so universities could judge who the best students were without having to consider differences between schools. Our independent study group, a handful of students from just one high school, won most of the province-wide scholarships that year. I received the award for the highest combined score in English and Mathematics in the province -- an almost unheard-of 94%.

While I didn't go through a program like that, some of my own experiences have been similar. In college, I was four semesters deep in statistics class before I took a job tutoring stats, and then eventually teaching an intro college class in statistics, and it wasn't until I tutored others and (finally) taught that class that I really understood many of the concepts that I'd supposedly "learned" in class. In class, I did quite well, but it was because I'd learned how to get by and solve problems. In actually teaching others, I was forced to really understand the subject so that I could actually answer the questions that came up.

The same is true of posts here. I had learned a lot about the economics of information and innovation in college, and then again working in Silicon Valley. However, the more I wrote about these subjects on Techdirt, the more people challenged different ideas, and got me thinking more deeply about them and how to not just defend my positions (or to change them, if I was convinced otherwise), but to really understand the subjects much more deeply. I've purchased more textbooks (and read them cover to cover) running this blog than I ever did in college or grad school -- and (this is the amazing part) even started recognizing where some of them have made mistakes.

These discussions are like another graduate degree for me, because I constantly have to think, rethink, defend and truly understand the arguments I'm making. It's hard to overstate how incredibly valuable that's been. The fact that many journalists refuse to engage in that sort of conversation actually shows through in their work: they don't want to bother. They like to position themselves as experts, but many don't really understand what they're talking about. Engaging in the conversation may be a lot of work -- and, at times, it can be frustrating or seemingly pointless. But, the massive amount of value I've received from those discussions -- just like the student in the story above -- is almost impossible to quantify. People talk about the importance of ongoing education. That's exactly what these conversations are for me.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Just As We Need More Economics Education, Why Is California Looking To Limit It?

from the bad-news dept

At a time when our economy has gone through one of the biggest upheavals most of us have lived through, you would think that people would be realizing that perhaps it would be helpful to have more people have at least a basic economics education. Not in California, apparently. Economist Greg Mankiw notes that the state of California is considering half of the current economics class requirement to cover personal finance issues, rather than actual economics. Personal finance -- while related to economics -- is not economics. Already, the economics requirement is a single semester, rather than two semesters like many other required classes. As Mankiw notes:

The legislation is akin to requiring high school biology teachers to spend half their class time on issues of personal health and nutrition. Personal finance is a useful life skill, but students need a more thorough grounding in other basic economic principles than what can be learned in the other half of a single semester course. They need a framework to think about such as topics as market outcomes, price controls, taxes, international trade, environmental regulation, monetary and fiscal policy, and so on. The goal of high school economics should be to produce not just smarter decision makers at a personal level but better informed voters on election day.

Many of the bad decisions we talk about on a regular basis would be a lot less serious if people had a grounding in basic economics -- so it's quite sad to see educational goals heading the wrong way.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

After Being Educated About Negative Effects, Students Stop Using Laptops In Class

from the education-works?-imagine-that! dept

A while back, we noted that some professors at my school, Georgetown, were joining the trend of banning laptops in classrooms, pointing out that it was probably a futile attempt to force students to pay attention -- distracted, disinterested students have been and always will be a fact of life. However, one professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder has decided to actually educate her students about why using laptops in classes is a bad choice. Diane Sieber noted which students used laptops the most and, after their test, informed them that they had done 11 percent worse than analog-only students. The number of laptop users dropped and their scores went up. While Professor Sieber could have just as easily banned laptops, by treating her students like capable adults, she has produced a win-win.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Innovations Show How Mobile Devices Can Be Helpful To Learning... Just Not In Pennsylvania

from the no-progress-in-the-keystone-state dept

While some politicians in Pennsylvania are trying to push a law that would put an outright ban on most portable devices, such as mobile phones, in schools, not too far away, in Washington, DC, this week, there was an entire conference on how such mobile devices were increasingly useful in the classroom to help in the education process. Apparently, some politicians in Pennsylvania would rather block out that opportunity, just because the devices might also be occasionally misused.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can A Professor Force Students To Destroy All Their Notes?

from the education-vs.-intellectual-property dept

One of the more interesting questions I've come across in the past is how does intellectual property function in an educational institution. We already know that thanks to the disastrous Bayh-Dole Act, universities have become a lot more interested in enforcing intellectual property rights for profit, rather than focusing on their charters of sharing information and educating. In many ways, the concepts of intellectual property and education come into significant conflict with each other. And that brings us to a story submitted by Joe Reda, concerning a nameless economics professor at an unknown university supposedly forcing students to destroy all their notes at the end of the semester, officially to avoid having such notes fall into the hands of future students.

To be honest, I find the story so incredible that it's difficult to believe it actually happened. If there's anyone out there who can confirm that it actually happened, and provide details on the university and professor, that would be helpful (assuming there are multiple students in the class, and the professor has done this more than once, there should be at least someone else who can corroborate the story). However, if it actually did happen, there are numerous problems with it. First, and most importantly, it's unlikely the strategy would actually work. What about students who took notes in an electronic form (increasingly common these days) and had backup copies elsewhere? There's simply no way the professor could actually destroy all the notes. Second, it's difficult to see how the professor has any claim, whatsoever, to the notes unless she was discussing specific handouts over which she owned the copyright or, perhaps, verbatim copying -- but even then, you'd have to think that such notes wouldn't be under the complete control of the professor such that she could demand their destruction. Honestly, if the story is true, you'd simply have to question the quality of such a professor who seems to have confused the main purpose of her job: educating students vs. preventing cheating. It's almost like the entertainment industry so focused on preventing piracy that they forgot about creating good content and entertaining people.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pilot Program To Educate Judges On Patent Issues Really Depends On Who's Doing The Educating...

from the pros-and-cons dept

It looks like attempts at patent reform this year may come in small pieces, rather than a big comprehensive plan. For example, Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Darrell Issa have reintroduced some new legislation that would create a pilot program to enroll certain judges in a program to educate them on patent issues. On the face of it, this sounds good. After all, more education on issues related to patents seems like it should help avoid some of the more ridiculous outcomes we've seen in patent courts in the past. So, it's no surprise that some are excited about this proposed program.

However, just as when similar legislation was introduced in the past, I'm worried about unintended consequences. Specifically, there's a big question in terms of who is going to be doing this "educating" and what the "curriculum" will entail. After all, when a specialized patent court, the CAFC, was first created, even though not all judges involved were patent lawyers, those who had less experience simply deferred on many issues to those who came from that world -- and, as we've seen too often, patent attorneys view the world differently than many technologists -- and seem to think that patents are the answer to many questions. So, if the "education" program simply comes from patent attorneys, then the end result could be much, much worse, because judges will have been taught only one side of the issue. That would be very troubling.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Parents Are Never Going To Be Able To Monitor All Kids Online Activities

from the but-think-of-the-children! dept

Over the past few years, the "but think of the children!" crowd constantly talks up the importance of having parents monitor their kids' online activities, and often puts out studies like the following one, bemoaning the fact that not enough parents are monitoring their kids enough. Of course, the simple fact is that parents are never going to be able to fully monitor what their kids do online (at least without seriously pissing off their kids). If kids want to chat online, they're going to find a way to be able to do so. Perhaps rather than focusing so much on spying on everything that kids do, the focus should be more on educating them to the dangers that are out there, the laws that they should be aware of and the risks of not obeying them. We have this tendency in our society to overprotect kids, which often has the opposite effect: not preparing them properly to face the real world. Kids who understand the risks tend to make better choices online. As for those who are constantly spied on and overly protective? We'll again quote Richard Posner in one of his legal rulings:

"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."

Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing online by talking to them about it, and helping to educate their kids on the risks they face, but that doesn't mean spying on their every move. That will only backfire.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

College Classes On Malware Writing Still Piss Off Anti-Virus Firms

from the security-through-obscurity dept

Over five years ago, we wrote about a college that was starting to offer a new computer science class in writing computer viruses. And, of course, various anti-virus companies went ballistic, claiming how dangerous it was. Yet, as we pointed out at the time, anti-virus companies don't have the greatest track record in actually stopping viruses -- so it seemed only reasonable to teach people to better "think like the enemy." Anyway, it appears not much has changed. Theodp writes in to let us know about an article in Newsweek about a very similar course being taught at Sonoma State University by George Ledin, where students are tasked with creating their own malware.

Once again, various security companies are condemning the technique, even sinking so low as to compare Ledin to A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to North Korea. They even insist they won't hire his students -- which seems particularly short-sighted. As Ledin points out, it appears that this is really more about the security companies wanting to keep the world more scared than they need to be of malware, so as to pretend that they're the only ones who can solve the "problem" -- when the truth is they're not very effective at it. He complains that anti-virus firms keep their code secret (thank you, DMCA). He points out that if they were willing to open it up, and let lots of folks work on improving it, it would get much, much better. All he's trying to do is help more people understand the enemy without first having to work at one of those companies that's been so ineffective in stopping malware -- in the hopes that maybe some of his students can actually come up with a better soltuion.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are College Lectures Covered By Copyright?

from the careful-when-you-take-notes dept

For a while now, I've been meaning to do a post on how the very idea of our education system seems to go against what copyright maximalists believe concerning the ownership of ideas. After all, so much of what any of us knows we learned from someone else in schools -- yet, we don't feel the need to credit our second grade teacher every time we do basic arithmetic. Unfortunately, it looks like the maximalist view is moving more into some college campuses. Against Monopoly points us to a story of a textbook publisher who is suing a company called Einstein's Notes that takes notes in classes and sells them to students. Most colleges have services like this, but the publisher, Faulkner Press, is claiming that Einstein's Notes is violating its own copyright and the professor's copyright on the lectures.

Of course, we thought that the purpose of a textbook was to educate people so that they would naturally take that information and do more with it. Some may claim that Faulkner's claim makes sense since Einstein's Notes are selling the note taking service, meaning that it's "making money" on the lectures. However, that's pretty weak when you think about it. After all, if that were true, wouldn't professors (and textbook publishers) then have a claim to anyone's earnings that were based on what they learned from the lecture and the text? I still have a bunch of textbooks from college that I consult at times. If I use something that I learned from an economics professor or textbook to help build my business, have I violated a copyright? Where do you draw the line?

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Microsoft Takes Another Shot At Brainwashing Kids On Copyright Laws

from the educate-who? dept

One of the popular myths coming from the industries who rely on the copyright crutch is that unauthorized content sharing is really an "education" issue. For years, they've insisted that if kids just understood copyright laws, they wouldn't engage in file sharing. To that end, the RIAA likes to claim that its questionable legal campaign is really just an educational effort and has nothing to do with squeezing money out of people with threatening letters on weak evidence. The various lobbying groups have all set up "education" programs that generally appear to be more like brainwashing programs. They tend to be excessively one-sided and students see through the programs pretty quickly.

Microsoft itself got into the IP propaganda game a few years ago with a contest asking kids to create a video about how important intellectual property rights were. As if to drive home the point, any video you submitted to Microsoft became its exclusive property. Apparently, that little education campaign wasn't enough, as Microsoft is now announcing a brand new propaganda education campaign targeted at teens, kicked off with a bogus study claiming that teens would stop unauthorized sharing if they only knew about copyright laws.

Now it's no surprise that many people don't understand what the real purpose of copyright is -- but companies like Microsoft are just as bad in not understanding the real purpose of copyright as the teens they accuse of not understanding it. Given all the previous attempts at "educating" children, this new effort won't get very far, but perhaps we can get together and craft an "education" campaign targeted at the various industries who insist we need to be educated on copyright. Anyone want to help? We can kick it off with an explanation of fair use. Then follow it up with an economics lesson about how artificial scarcity limits markets. Perhaps we can even dig into the ways that companies like Microsoft admit they benefit from unauthorized use, while holding a special lesson on how unauthorized use and innovation often work hand in hand. To kick it all off, we can put out a study showing how poorly execs in struggling industries understand copyright. I'm sure that would go over well.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It Better To Study Economics Or Computer Science?

from the how-about-both? dept

Economist Arnold Kling is pointing out that while fewer college students are enrolling in computer science majors, the number focusing on economics is exploding. It's probably a rather cyclical trend -- but Kling suggests this isn't necessarily a bad thing. His point appears to be that you can pick up enough computer science on the side, but that learning economics could come in a lot more handy -- even in the technology industry. Of course, he leaves out the fact that you can also pick up an awful lot of economics on the side. I'd argue that both skills are important, and it's difficult to see one being much more important than the other. If you have a proclivity towards one, then pursue that -- but if you're really skilled, why not learn both?

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..