Talk:Intellectual property education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(Talk:Intellectual property education/Archive 1)

Changes on 28 Oct: I removed the because part for copying CDs because the objections aren't only loss of revenue. They also relate to control of their (the creator/license holder)'s property (the work) and assertions that ONLY the creator has the authority to do such things and the only way to get copies is to buy another one. That's not what copyright law says, of course. However, this is too much for a one sentence introduction in the contrary section of the article. A short sentence does the job and the pro- side of the article can give more complete details. Removed being indoctrinated with as POV. JamesDay 09:48, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Really the best discusion of this issue of the core of the matter can be found in the comments to proposed changes in 117 and 109 caused by the DMCA

The Digital Media Associations are of paticular intrest

Where as Brain Taylor's provides an excelent overview of the case law

The libraries comments support both of these

As these comments only cover sections 117 and 109 none of them bring up section 1008 ammended by the American Home Recording Act

"§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

The page glazes this topic not sure if it is covered else were in the WIKI.

The problem is that IP education that copyright holders propose is highly polarized and is rejected consitantly by the libaries, reserachers,The Free Software Foundation, The Open Source Movement at large, Most Digital Consumer Rights Groups, and truth be told if the general populice was informed on the history and effects of recent changes to IP law they would be against it also.

The fact that laws are being proposed to present a one sided argument to children who no doubt, havn't clue about the law or the history of this matter is just not right.

If someone wants to add in more of the media companies points that digital media needs to be exempted from sections 107-122 of the copyright act and further expansions of section 109 should be held off until the market has matured and media companies have set the precdent of software like EULAs for all copyrighted content and under their propasal consumers loose all thier rights under 107-122 and 1008- go for it.

The Audio Home Recording Act is covered by the piece about licensed copying of music CDs, though I didn't insert a link directly to the law when I wrote the draft of that point. There are a few people here, me included, who are trying to provide good coverage of copyright law but that's a portion which hasn't yet been written. Jamesday 18:39, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks that this article is moving in entirely the wrong direction? It's supposed to be about the use of education/propaganda as a means of making the copyright system more "workable". Expansive discussions of the details of the law of copyright, while they elegantly serve to support the point that copyright is incomprehensible to just about everybody, are misplaced here. -- Pde 04:09, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

   The propaganda that they choose to spread is based on the assumption that copyrighted material must be licensed for use.   Only patented items are covered for use and it is the fact that Software, prior to being covered under copyright was licesened for use that allowed this... 

1. Set the case law precedent that both copyright and patent are rights derived from statute. 2. That restrictions on "Use" is a major identifier between copyright and patent. Copyright holders have no right to restrict the use of copyrighted materials where as patent holders do. Copyright holders do have the right to restrict copies made. 3. That a license may not be used to extend the rights legislated by congress of either copyright holders or patent holders.

Point 2 is the sticking point in IP Education and one of the more legitimate counter points. The BSA, RIAA, MPAA, ECT wish to have digital content and software licesned for use. However copyright does not allow for this where as patent does. Patent has a much shorter period of protection than copyright. Not only do they wish to force everyone to license the use but they wish to extend their rights beyond the statute using these licenses. In both cases this is found to be unconstutional by the US Supreme Court.

The problem isn't that they wish to educate consumers on copyright infringement- The problem is that they want to raise a generation who believe that copyrighted materials MUST be licesned for use and that they have no Rights except those spelled out in the licesene and granted to them by the copyright holder.

Hi! Just wondering if I can persuade our anonymous legal contributor from St. Louis to make themselves an account and log in while editing? That way, it's relatively easy for other wikipedians to send you messages, help you master the various features (and conventions) of the wikipedia software/space, and get to know you and your work, if only pseudonymously. -- Pde

This article seems to me to be biased against intellectually property education, and against strong copyrights in general. I made a few changes but I think they are only a start towards a neutral article. The worst part is probably the misconceptions section (which I have not yet tried to change) since it seems like a pure partisan attack on IP advocates. Of course some of it would have a place in a neutral article, but I think it would only be fair to show the IP advocates' best arguments as well, instead of just setting up the weakest ones to be knocked down.

I changed "required to listen to" -> "taught" (anything taught in public schools is usually something students are required to listen to, so it just seems to set a negative tone). I also removed "and copyright infringement is a victimless crime" as that seems a quite partisan view indeed; those on the other side (like the major record labels which hold copyrights on lots of music) would clearly see a victim: themselves, since they believe copyright infringement costs them (potential) revenue! --Patrickdavidson 09:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the first version [1], which was a candidate for deletion intiially because it was the propaganda that IP education (at least as advocated by some publishers) is. Rather than deleting it, the commmunity reworked it. Unfortunately, it seems that the reworking retained the sections covering the history and rights to use works but largely eliminated the section describing the views and advocacy of those espousing the concept. Perhaps you'd like to try to cover those views and what they advocate? Personally, I'm very keen on intellectual property education - but as the law actually is, rather than the "You can't copy CDs" version some record companies are promoting. Jamesday 22:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)