Why Do Copyright Maximalists Think That Lame 'Education' Campaigns Will Brainwash Children?
from the doesn't-make-any-sense dept
It happens at least once a year: some major copyright maximalist organization comes out with some sort of "copyright education campaign" targeted at children. These programs are always high on propaganda and short on facts. They rarely include full or clear explanations of things like fair use, or the true intention of copyright (benefiting the public). The latest such attempt is happening in France, where three-strikes agency Hadopi is proposing a propaganda campaign at a big kids' event called "Kidexpo." Numerama, who got its hands on some details of the plan, explained that the goal is to "raise awareness" of issues related to copyright and creativity.But, here's the thing: all of these programs seem to assume, falsely, that kids are complete idiots who can have basic common sense brainwashed out of them. That's not the case. As we've seen for the better part of a decade, kids who attend these "sessions" know a lot better than the people teaching them just how ridiculous they come off, and don't take them very seriously. No matter how many times this strategy fails, however, some clueless adult decides that kids can be brainwashed if they just try again. It's even better when they include silly mascots.
While it's amusing sometimes to watch the maximalists flail around like this, you have to wonder if they'll ever recognize that kids aren't stupid, and pushing obvious propaganda to them doesn't make them unable to understand how technology works.
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: awareness, children, copyright maximalists, education, propaganda
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.theawl.com/2012/06/david-lowery-chat
How does that make you feel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bright side
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damned little goblins, they may seem like insignificant little troublemakers, but get them in a group and they're goddamn terrifying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Huh - you can't even get your latin based animal adjectives right!
Says it all really...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"But the best was "David Lowery Wants a Pony" by Mike Masnick of Techdirt. The bovine willingness with which Mr. Masnick and so many, many others simply lie down in front of the corporate bulldozer is truly flabbergasting, just perversely magnificent. "[M]y focus is on what's working in today's market, not pining for the way things used to be," he wrote.
Okay! And in the other corner, ladies and gentlemen, the outrageous idea that musicians be compensated fairly—just fairly, not in Midas amounts, the way the megacorps are compensated. "
Hate to tell ya, bovine is a cow or ox, not a pig. And nowhere does he use anything close to the term, "corporate shill."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In their eyes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
and exactly what proportion of the population can you actually afford to do this to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To encourage polarization.
The real reason they do it is for the 10% of kids who will actually buy into it, even if only partly. Creating a little social dissonance against the dominant paradigm is worth it to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I want everyone to be able to do for a living what they just love to do but artificially imposing that isn't the answer. If you aren't making enough money at what you do, do something else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/20ssxa9.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kids are going to figure out pretty quickly that they want a lot more music than the album or two which their allowance covers, and they are going to figure out pretty quickly that they own a digital copying machine which, like a Star Trek replicator, churns out copies of digital files for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
Now, on the face of it, paying off the law school dreamers looks much classier than creating lame video ads to run on DVDs, but that's only the eyes of fellow copyright deniers. In reality, when the astroturfers end up in court, they often end up losing badly. Charlie Nesson is just but one example. It's one thing to laugh at a lame DVD intro and it's another to be laughed out of court.
So, while I will admit that creating a DVD ad that asks people to pay their fair share is about as impossible a project as creating an ad that tells kids that doing their homework is cool, I think the astroturfing by the copyright deniers is even more of a waste of time.
Copyright is a pretty bright line. It's been around for hundreds of years. There's a well-developed collection of case law. While there will always be interesting hypothetical questions like whether a cache infringes, the structure is pretty obvious. If you're going to be benefiting from the material, you should be paying your fair share.
But no one here wants to hear that. Everyone here wants to hear that beautifully written books, lifechanging movies and wonderful songs will just appear out of thin air and be given free to the world because someone magical tenured law school professor tells them that it happens to him or her every pay day. Just because the law school astroturfers get free money from the sky for doing little work doesn't mean that the rest of the world can enjoy such a great deal with society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Damn near zero percent of the population. If they try pushing for $150,000 USD per song/movie it will not be long before there is a huge public outcry. Scare tactics and treats do not work, we know this from the death penalty in the French clothing pattern days. Education campaigns do not work, we know this from illegal and prescription drug abuse statistics. Providing poor service does not work, we know this from all the failed businesses of the past. Forcing people to settle under threat does not work, we know this from several RIAA cases that will continue for years to come.
In every case RIAA and the MPAA are trying force people to bend to their will, as opposed to doing what a smart business type would do, bend to the customers will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
Pros: Well spoken, almost believable, very subtle fallacies. Lacking the troll hallmarks (name-calling, etc).
Cons: Bit long, lacks factual backing. Conveys more certainty than experience can account for--obviously a piece done by one with belief, but without knowledge or experience.
All in all, quite good. Keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
For millions of years before there was no copyright and we still had the bronze age, the iron age, the library at Alexandria, etc. Copyright is a made up concept that came into existence to control the output of a new invention, the printing press. It was corrupted by middlemen over the centuries to the system we have now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
Hundreds of years of copyright versus the ~30,000 years or so of art created by humans without copyright.
Guess stuff can happen without copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let me try
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let me try
Only if Big Search directed me to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They also assume, falsely, that piracy is harming the industry when the numbers show otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
I always thought that most of the law school astroturfers were on the other side of the fence. Maybe we're both suffering from a confirmation bias.
Personally, I think of this site as interactive news and comedy. It's almost like a Colbert Report or Daily Show, but you get to join in the mocking/stupidity. It's too bad we cannot really know who really is here for news/comedy and who is being paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
"Copyright is a pretty bright line... If you're going to be benefitting from the material, you should be paying your fair share." Yes, that's why there were those enormous racks of blank cassette tape at Tower Records and other fine stores, because everyone believed in respecting copyright.
I benefitted from a pile of DVDs this week, and I didn't pay a penny for them.
Thank you, library!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D.A.R.E. totally worked
This 'education' against piracy will work out just as well as DARE did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Those are the questions that pseudo-artists don't like to answer ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In my world, fueling the anger of the public and creating an image of oppression is the easiest way to encourage public outcry against something.
Copyright infringement was not infringement 10 years ago, it is now because the law was changed. Copycrap keeps expanding and now it has met the limit of the public tolerance for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
The original form of copyright died recently though, it was not illegal to share anything, it was not illegal to copy anything, it was not illegal to reuse and modify something, those are recent changes they didn't happen a hundred years ago because people understood what a fraking monopoly is and it is bad that is why it was very limited, now that it is out of control and people are saying no you get all worked up about it?
Though for you mate.
I'm not paying a dime for anything more than once, I am not paying royalties to a group of social parasites that call themselves "artists" that believe they would not be able to produce art if they didn't have the right monetary incentives those are not real artists, real artists would do it even no matter what and those people in favor of monopolies should be subject to what they want to inflict upon others that means having to pay for everything they own and use every time they use it with ridiculous rules telling them what the uses authorized are and are not, they should have to pay eternaly for the producers of their food and clothes, instruments, tools, even their hairdressers if a photo was taken and he gets some money from it he should have to pay the person who did his hair, his nails, clothes, jewelry and anything that was used to compose that image right there, is that what you morons keeps asking people to do?
To pay the fair share for every use of some BS imaginary property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: To encourage polarization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's one more indoctrination campaign?
Why is it irrational to expect them to fall for this one too?
xoxo, Anonymous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There seems to be a bit of paranoia associated with the article leading off this thread.
Law is part of national culture, so it does appear to be a bit off the mark to castigate those who want to share some of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
Losing more arguments I see.
That's what? 900+ failed arguments?
For shame, bob... For shame...
"Everyone here wants to hear that beautifully written books, lifechanging movies and wonderful songs will just appear out of thin air and be given free to the world"
Read any fanfiction or see any fanart lately, bob?
That's given out for free, after all.
Rule of thumb, bob...
Once something is on the internet, just assume everyone's seen it already and stop freaking out about potential copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let me try
It was tried once.
The names Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton and Norquest popped up as a result of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Teach every child you meet the importance of forgiveness. It's our only hope of surviving their wrath once they realize just how badly we've screwed things up for them."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Considering he failed to refute Mike's arguments? Pretty good, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You're delusional if you actually think it will work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: For the same reason that Copyright Deniers continue to astroturf
Face it. You're full of shit, as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I guess that says i tall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Honestly, I really don't understand why the US Government should be involved at all. They don't come to my rescue if I get ripped off..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]