Online Technology Entrepreneurship Class At Stanford Postponed... Because Of Copyright
from the first-lesson:-fix-copyright dept
The Constitutional clause often referred to as the Copyright Clause involves granting the power to Congress: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.Many people get confused and don't realize that the "Science" part was really about copyright (not the "useful arts.") And, by "science" they really meant "learning." In fact, the very first US Copyright law, in 1790, was entitled:
An ACT for the Encouragement of LearningSo you would think that the use of copyright law to block the encouragement of learning would be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Jon sent over the news that the online Technology Entrepreneurship class he'd been looking forward to taking from Stanford University has apparently been postponed due to copyright issues. According to the classes' professor, Chuck Eesley:
Unfortunately, the launch of my Technology Entrepreneurship online course has been placed on hold, due to delays surrounding copyright and intellectual property clearance issues. We are working on this and I anticipate providing you with an update within the next few months.In an age where there's lots of support and interest in online education, to find out that copyright law, of all things, is being used to block education seems like a complete travesty.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, culture, education, entrepreneurship, learning, stanford university
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Once again, this site takes the side of the billionaire and the 1%ers, creating astroturfing to encourage the 99% to give up their rights. If you don't let the 1% plunder your hard work, you're not "sharing". Such clever tripe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
and i won't forget the men who died, who took this right from me
and i'd proudly stand up next to them to defend my s-afe-ty
cause there aint no doubt i love this land
god bless the *aa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
The problem here is that people expect to get a pass on almost every use of copyright material, without consideration at all.
I love that there is absolutely no indication of the material this guy was trying to use. Was he trying to use Hollywood movies to spice up his presentation?
Come on Mike, how about actually asking a question rather than rushing off to damn copyright holders. Maybe this guy's presentations aren't exactly straight forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
I'd suggest reserving judgement until more information emerges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
"Mike quoted a possible, but unconfirmed 1 percenter about a topic unrelated to income disparity! He must be a 1% apologist! It's blatantly obvious!"
Tell me, are your corporate overlords not also 1 percenters? Why do they get a free pass from your ire if you're such an occupy protester? Keep mowing that astroturf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Oh come on, be nice. He is at the very minimum occupying his mother's basement while he waits for the billions the Big Content organizations he thinks will pay him to show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Well no longer! It's high time we step up and put a stop to this shamefulness. Who's with me in starting an Occupy Richard O'Dwyer's House?! That despicable rich man, just stomping on the rights of impoverished broadcasters. I will not take it any more. Please bob, lead us on in this glorious revolution against the evil 1%er pirates flouting the rights of the poor 99%er movie and music studios. Lead us on oh glorious leader, bob!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly, no. It's part of a Fair Use defense - but not an automatic exemption. And the copyright cartels have been pushing universities for years, indoctrinating them and their students to the idea that every single use of anything has to be paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not paid for, you git - just authorized. There is no requirement for payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They may also not want to get used as part of the presentation - using a company's copyrighted material in a way to negatively portrays that company to students would likely not get authorized.
Thinking that it is only about payment is a real failing to understand reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and trying to downplay the fact that it is mostly about payment is a transparent attempt to distort the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As always I could say the sky is blue, and you would contradict me just to make a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As always I could say the sky is blue, and you would contradict me just to make a point.
Seeing as how I made my point first, and you showed up to contradict me, that's a really weird accusation. Anyway, do you actually have anything to say other than what you believe to be "likely"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, new game: Fun meanings for G.I.T. (since you know he loves you really)
Great Intellectual Titan?
Gloriously Interring Trolls?
Gadfly-Imperator Tranquillus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think education is not a big business, you are sorely mistaken. Between university employment and administration, tuition rates, financial aid, sports programs, textbook publishers, facilities construction, etc, it's a very big business.
And it's irrelevant if it's an educational institution where this is happening because the companies that want to get paid are what is causing the issue, not the educational institution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One should not need to obtain half a dozen (usually very expensive) licenses to use a part of human culture. They should just be able to use it. And digital technology makes it possible to do so. It is only those still clinging to the old system and who fear change who still wish to place tollbooths on as many pieces of culture (and multiple tollbooths per piece, whenever possible) as they can. There is a word for such behavior, and it is called greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nevertheless, what they are usually asking for is payment deals where the students or schools or both pay levees for the use of copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/12/31/daily10.html
It's a bit out of date, but it seems Standford is making some money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, yes, in your world where the sole purpose of copyright is to ensure that content creators are constantly collecting money for everything, that would be silly. But that's not the sole, or even primary, purpose of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's for a good cause, after all.
Say, are you volunteering for a life of writing textbooks? There is no pay, but you get a nice warm feeling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: $
Hell, I don't even breathe in the morning until somebody hands me a dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: $
i don't even THINK wtihout being handed a dollar
all these letters i'm typing, i was being paid 1 penny a letter to write them
gotta get paid for my efforts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You'd be better off developing a can't lose real estate method and selling it via infomercials and seminars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, since they aren't *always*, there are "chilling effects" -- basically, the professors get threatened with long expensive lawsuits, so even if it is fair use, the professors are afraid to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CA is Socialist
Previously on “Unions Suck”: Teachers Union Thinks It Blocked Online Classes...But It Didn't
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03461116360/cal-teachers-union-thinks-they-blocked -online-classesbut-they-didnt.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you imagine? Having to pay a license fee in order to take Algebra or Molecular Chemistry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll tell you though, the really horrifying moment will be when universities start charging their alumni license fees for every time they use the knowledge they learned in classes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The constitution specifically states these rights are being secured for authors and inventors. Thus, once the author or inventor is dead, to continue copyright on their works is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, US law begs to differ, through the Sonny-Bono Extension Act and DMCA, as well as TRiPS and ACTA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked that the copyright industry and their lobbyists haven't been charged with Fraud and Racketeering because this sounds like a violation of the RICO statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The AC Troll Theme Song
Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
Greed is good, greed is great!
We just love to voice the hate!
We can't stand what we can't slam!
We just shill 'cause it pays the bill!
Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
Twisting words is such a feat,
We just can't help but shoot our feet!
We won't see the good of free!
We just go blame instead of change!
Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
Building strawmen is so fun!
We just love to cut and run!
We can't fool, we're just a tool!
We just hate to be proved a fake!
Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So this one time...at band camp...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Moreover, the very way the 1790 Act sought to "encourage learning" was by granting copyright to works. The way Mike tries to spin that to mean that copyright is antithetical to encouraging learning is hilarious.
You're not even gonna try and explain that one, are you Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Well, this story is a good example of how maybe it does. That's all anyone is saying. We know you assume that copyright is peachy and benefits everyone but, in case you haven't noticed, most of us disagree - largely because there are so many stories like this one.
The fact that they thought copyright was the best way to encourage learning should tell you that they aren't framing things in the same silly way as you guys are.
No, it tells you that once-upon-a-time copyright was about achieving positive societal goals. Now it is about collecting monopoly rents based on a misguided notion of content ownership. We're not the ones framing it in a silly way - the government is, having bastardized the law over the years and divorced it almost entirely from its orginal purposes.
Copyright doesn't encourage learning by making all materials available for learning free of copyright.
Duh. But copyright is supposed to encourage learning. So if it doesn't work, maybe it's time to make all learning materials free of copyright. I'm sure that won't suit your disturbing system of values, but a lot of people support the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
LMAO! What story? Mike doesn't know what works were intended to be used, or how they were going to be used, but that didn't stop him from jumping in and shitting on copyright law. Fair use is a fact-intensive analysis. Without knowing ANY of the facts here, we can't really say anything intelligent about this situation.
Not knowing the facts never stops Mike from crying and whining about IP, though. You guys don't know shit about exactly what is happening here, yet you're all too ready to burn copyright at the stake.
Techdirt just looks silly for stuff like this. Sorry, Mike, but that's how I see it. It's too bad you don't actually try and dig up some facts and report an actual story--you know, actual journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
There is only one fact we know for certain about this situation: a free course from a top school that a bunch of students were really excited about taking has been delayed due to copyright issues. That's it.
And that fact, on its surface, says this is a situation where copyright is not achieving its purpose.
Maybe there are good reasons for that; maybe this is part of some amount of "acceptable" fallout from copyright - to determine that, we'll need to know more. For now, all we know is that copyright is somehow getting in the way of actual productivity - yet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
What an insanely over-simplistic view you and Mike have: If a class was unable to proceed because of some copyright issue, then that's unconstitutional and copyright is not serving its constitutional purpose.
That's just idiotic, and completely unsupportable in the actual law. Mike claims I'm a revisionist. At least I don't make up completely laughable arguments like this one. Sheesh, Mike. Really?!?!?!? No wonder why you won't even debate me on this one. And frankly, Mike's views are so far gone and so silly at time, that it's clear he's not even worth debating. Sorry, Mike, but that's the way I see it. You just aren't grounded in reality at times. It's sad, really.
You both seem to be completely missing the way that copyright promotes the progress. Here's a hint: It's not by constitutionally mandating that all copyrighted works are available for free and without any restrictions at some online technology class.
Go ahead and get the last word, Marcus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
I guess that's why SOPA/PIPA/ACTA died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Using phrases like "shitting on copyright law" and "over-simplistic", just help the rest of us understand that copyright law is too complicated, outdated, and no longer progresses learning and art.
Argue all you want, but the writings already on the wall. You are obsolete, the internet will route around your pea-brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
So why don't you say something a little more direct, like "Mike, how come you are running a story seriously lacking in information and detail, yet you still are slamming copyright with it"?
This is a perfect example of a rush to attack mentality that makes Techdirt harder to take as seriously as Mike wishes we all would. It shows how He is way too much in a hurry to point out that blocking education with copyright is a "travesty" without knowing what is blocked, or more importantly, WHY it is blocked.
Based on his usual logic, let me put it this way: if he is in a rush to draw a conclusion here, where else is he doing the same thing? He has done it before, and will do it again. How many times has it happened, but nobody really noticed, because they were all busy slapping each other on the back for the latest zing against copyright or patents or Chris Dodd?
It makes you wonder - and if I was Mike, I could draw a conclusion here about his reliablity. But I won't do that, I will leave it open to discussion instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
But asking that Masnick actually try to dig up FACTS, and use actual journalism !!!!!..
Dont hold your breath.. that would require masnick to actually DO WORK, and be honest !!!! and possibly even have some talent.. these are not masnicks 'strong points'.
Usually, as you probably know, people progress their skills and career's over time, they get better over time, of course at some point you are the best you can be, after that peak your progress slows, and you are at a certain level.
I guess this is Masnick's "life" peak, it's the best he can do, we know it, he knows it... if the best you can expect from life is to spend your days running "Techdirt", you can understand why he is the way he is.
Were reading Masnick at the peak of his career/life, dont expect much more... or any more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Where can I apply?
Do you put "Stupid ass paid bitch shill" on your resume when you're out pounding bricks for the next job? That's what I would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
How do you copyright mathematics? A collection of mathematics is a work, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Let me get this straight: you prefer to listen to the letter of the law even if it violates the spirit and purpose of the law?
That, my friends, is someone with a troubled soul. Look deep.
I prefer to look at the purpose and intent of the law under the constitution, and recognize if that's not working there's a problem. So, yes, I stand by what I said (and, for what it's worth, many lawyers who actually have graduated law school and are some of the most respected copyright experts in their fields seem to agree with me -- so mocking me over this only makes you look more foolish and out of touch, but we know that's your "style.")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
LOL! Huh? The purpose of the Copyright Act was to grant copyright to works because this incentivized their creation and thus promoted the progress. The purpose was not, as you seem to think without any basis whatsoever, to provide any and every work ever created to learning institutions for free and without any restrictions.
I prefer to look at the purpose and intent of the law under the constitution, and recognize if that's not working there's a problem. So, yes, I stand by what I said (and, for what it's worth, many lawyers who actually have graduated law school and are some of the most respected copyright experts in their fields seem to agree with me -- so mocking me over this only makes you look more foolish and out of touch, but we know that's your "style.")
LMAO! All you can do is obsess about what grade I'm in and what school I go to. Of course, you can't actually just debate me on the merits. It's silly and sad. Unfortunately, it's all you seem to know.
You have, of course, completely not addressed my point: The Act of 1790 that you pointed to set out to promote learning by granting copyright, not by making everything free and without restriction for any sort of classroom use. How in the world do you get from that the idea that unless everything is free and without restriction, then the spirit or letter of the Constitution has been violated? You realize that you're saying the Act of 1790 itself was unconstitutional, right?
What you're arguing has no basis in the Constitution, spirit, letter, or otherwise. You have this ridiculous, biased, and baseless notion that if anything can be said to hinder any educational opportunity, then the Constitution has been violated. This is just your make-believe notion of what copyright is and should be about. You absolutely cannot back that up with any sort of authority whatsoever. Not the Constitution, not the case law, not treatises, nothing. You made it up in your own fantasy version of what copyright is about.
Notice how the Act of 1790 didn't have any exceptions for classroom use. Why is that, Mike? Obviously the Founders don't share your made up point of view. You need to be looking at the bigger picture. You can't just point to one slice and say that the progress is not being promoted. Anyone can play that trick by framing things in such a narrow way. Obviously, promoting the progress is about the bigger picture. The Constitution doesn't require the progress to be promoted when things are looked at on the subatomic level.
So point me to these "many lawyers who actually have graduated law school and are some of the most respected copyright experts in their fields seem to agree with me." What are there names? Where are these writings? WTF are you talking about? I guarantee that upon review, none of them will be making the, frankly, idiotic argument that you are making here. None of them.
Put up or shut up, Mike. It's so typical, and sad, that you pretend all these geniuses back you up, but you, of course, can't point out who they are or exactly what they said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
The fact that the 1790 Act doesn't make exceptions for classroom use is meaningless. Yes, at the time they chose not to do that in how they enacted the law, but that doesn't change the INTENTION of the law which was to encourage learning. My point here was that IF it's NOT encouraging learning (which clearly it is not) then it's a problem.
It amazes me that you can't understand such simple concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
What is really sad, is you believe your "purpose and spirit" is the same as everyone elses idea of what that means.
It is your interpretation of the law, whereas the LETTER OF THE LAW, is JUST THAT.. it requires no interpretation.
It's also not a law, it is your constitution, from which your laws are (sometimes) derived from.
It says DISCOVERIES, NOT (NOT) learning..
Are you under the belief that all knowledge allready exists, you just have to find the right text book to learn it ??
Are you insane ?????????
Do you think einstein came up with E=MC2 because he found that right text book with that equationin it ?
The intension and spirit of a law is the LETTER of that law, not in the way you or me or anyone else wants to interpret that law.
BTW: copyright does encourage learning, it encourages people who allready have that knowledge to write text books with the understanding that their work is protected by laws.
In area's of knowledge and human progress that are not protected by copyright or by patents (such as military, and commercial) do not have that freedom to publish their knowledge, because they know they do not have that level of protection.
So it's either patented, copyrighted, or SECRET !!!..
Thats just how it is, if you cannot work that out, you are talking out of your ass... !!!!! are you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
But I understand you completely. You are a lawyer pleb doing your masters bidding. When you grow up someday (and I hope you do), I hope you realize that truth and freedom are far more important than your opinions right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
The fact that the 1790 Act doesn't make exceptions for classroom use is meaningless. Yes, at the time they chose not to do that in how they enacted the law, but that doesn't change the INTENTION of the law which was to encourage learning. My point here was that IF it's NOT encouraging learning (which clearly it is not) then it's a problem.
It amazes me that you can't understand such simple concepts.
[Sorry, I forgot about this thread. And it is me, just with a different IP address...]
Sigh. Of course I understand simple concepts, Mike. Give me a fucking break. The problem with debating you is that you're all over the place. All you do is move the goalposts, make ridiculous claims that you won't back up, and keep weaseling in general. It sucks.
At first you were saying that copyright law, as applied to this class at Stanford, was unconstitutional. This is hilarious because you don't even have the facts here. Is it the Stanford's own policies, or the actual law, that is the problem here? You don't know because you, as usual, didn't do any actual journalism.
Now you're saying that copyright law in general is unconstitutional because it doesn't encourage learning, or at least, that's what I think you're arguing. This is a pretty silly argument, and one that I doubt you could really flesh out or defend. I will tell you this: You need to look at the federal copyright scheme as a whole, not at some small slice of it.
To be constitutional, copyright as a whole must promote the progress. Sure, you might be able to look at one, small slice and say, "See, copyright is not promoting the progress as well as it could be." But so what? That's not constitutionally relevant. Even if some small slice in some regard retards the progress, that doesn't mean that on the whole--in the net--that progress isn't promoted.
See what I mean? It's like if we have a business contract where you promise to make me a profit every year. I can't point to one electric bill and say, "See, you lost money there. Contract breached." That would obviously be absurd because maybe you made a million dollars profit when the whole picture is taken into consideration.
That's what you're doing. You're looking at one small thing, framing it very narrowly, and declaring that copyright isn't promoting the progress. It just doesn't work like that. And if you actually were to cite these mystical geniuses that purportedly back you up, I bet I could find where they indicate a similar idea.
But, of course, you didn't actually produce any of these mystical geniuses. You never do, Mike. Sad that you keep claiming they exist when you never produce them when called out. But I digress...
The fact that the 1790 Act thought that the progress and education were promoted via copyright is very much relevant, since that is the very way that progress and education is promoted today. You seemed to miss the point entirely that today, as it was then, progress is promoted via copyrighting works, not by giving works no copyright protection if they are to be used for education and learning.
You, of course, cannot explain how it is that progress was promoted by copyrighting works under the 1790 Act, but it isn't promoted under the 1976 Act. You, of course, and as always, are just pulling nonsense out of your ass.
As to your claim that copyright "clearly" does not encourage learning, I can only answer with a, "Huh?" I don't even begin to know what you mean. Copyright promotes the progress and education and learning and does all sorts of great and wonderful things. It's all around you. I think it's really weird that you don't see it. You truly are incredibly blinded by your own biases. It's why I will never be able to take you seriously. It's why no one should ever take you seriously.
One last thing, if you're going to write an article about how dumb copyright is and how it's being abused and learning is being ruined, etc., i.e., your typical Techdirt parade of horribles, then why not do even the most basic of journalism and actually find out what's going on at Stanford? Seriously, Mike, how can anyone take you seriously when you don't even put forth the minimum amount of effort to get some basic facts about the stories you write.
You really just come across as an uninformed lunatic. Sorry, dude, but that's all I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
At the time they were the equivalent. I was just pointing that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
And you make no sense whatsoever. Congress thought that learning could be encouraged by granting copyright to works that would be used for teaching. There was no exception for teaching materials, which is not the case today (Section 107).
If it was not unconstitutional for teaching materials to be copyrighted then, why would it be unconstitutional today, especially when you consider the explicit fair use exception for teaching materials?
You haven't explained this, nor do I think you can. I bet you can pretend like people way smarter than me agree with you though, right?
All you're doing in this article is what you appear to always do: You hate copyright so very much that if there's anyway you can spin some story to say something bad about copyright, you'll take it. It matters not that you have no facts about what's actually going on here other than that some class was delayed for some copyright reason.
Good God, Mike. Send some emails, make some calls. Find out what's actually happening before you jump to conclusions. Is that all you're good for, jumping to conclusions? Seems like it. I'm sorry that I sound rude, but for fuck's sake put some effort in. You seem to be about one thing only: Bashing IP, no matter how mindlessly or reaching it may be.
It's a real shame, 'cause you're a smart and cool dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
for fuck's sake put some effort in"
fify
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
In 1790 you could legally make as many copies of a book as you needed for your class. ANY BOOK, copyrighted or not. It was only publishing mass-produced copies which was restricted. Copyright has been expanded absurdly since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
if so, how ?
oh, yea,, it's 2012 now !!!! get with the times !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
"To promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts, *by* securing (etc)..."
This means that any copyright restriction which does not promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts is beyond the Constitutional power of Congress.
Unfortunately the Courts have simply ignored this clause, just like they usually ignore the Ninth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would it not be prudent to simply call the professor for clarification before writing yet another ideology-based article? Ideology is fine, but facts are a bit more persuasive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
Ahhh, Masnick now the Constitutional Law expert.
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.
PROMOTE THE PROGRESS... it's PROGRESS not learning that they are seeking to promote.
Masnick, do you understand that progress and learning are not the same things ?
Lets take technology for example, you can learn what is allready known, but progress is the gaining of knowledge of the UNKNOWN.
I know it is a subtle difference, and you clearly cannot differentiate between the two terms.
If you read a science book, that contains information that is the result of progress you are learning from that progress, but you are NOT contributing to that progress by learning about it.
It is true that if you learn about it, you may be able to 'progress' that science by your own creativity or invention.
Progress in science is working out, discovering, inventing.. that certain chemicals arrainged in a certain way form a Transistor, learning is being provided that information or acquiring that information.
Because you have just read (LEARNED) that silicon can be used in a transistor, does not advance the progress of the arts or technology.
I know it confusing, especially when the basic meaning of basic words need to be redefined to support a weak argument..
I dont expect any logical or reasoned response or for many of you to even understand such a simple concept, but I DO expect the usual trolls, who will try to make some stupid personal attack, but as usual not address the actual points raised... so go for it.. show your ignorance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
You need to read one word further buddy. It's "promote the progress OF..." - as in, the stuff that follows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progress of Science
so it is about the progres of SCIENCE, not 'students', it does this by protecting those discoveries for a period of time, to allow the person who did progress the science to be rewarded for that progress.
No prize for second, .. chew on that Marcus !! feel free to redefine the meaning of any words you choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progress of Science
A new shill!
Where can I apply for your job? I could be so much better than you at it.
I have more punctuation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????$$$$#$%$%%^^&$##@
I have better insults. "Mike and Marcus eat cheese out of dead Olympians shorts because they think it will make them Jedi."
And, the topper, I will do ANYTHING, that's right ANYTHING for money.
I just need your recruiter's phone number. Then PROFIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Progress of Science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progress of Science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Progress of Science
Actually, I only hate being wrong when I am. So far, I've never hated being wrong when I'm not - that would be quite the philosophical pickle. Luckily in this case, I'm not wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Progress of Science
I don't think any redefinitions are required, but adding the note "See: darryl" under a few strong words that I won't mention might not be a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]