Reaction to my last rant on copyright
Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 06:03AM The introduction my friend and colleage Gail Dickinson once gave me remains the one of which I am most proud:
Doug not only pokes holes in sacred cows but drags them into public places and commits indecent
acts with them.
Uh, the library media specialist's role in copyright teaching and enforcements seems to be one of those cows, as the reaction to last Tuesday's little rant shows. A couple very well written and thoughtful e-mails:
Hi Doug
I think that much of what you have said and posted makes sense from a teaching perspective, particularly when it applies to videos made by amateurs and posted to the World Wide Web for all to see for free anyway.
But if we are to teach the teachers and students about the ethical use of other's stuff, regardless of its format, are we in a position to pick and choose when we will be ethical or not? Is that not a little like saying stealing from a large chain store is okay because they have heaps of $$$ and the price of theft is built into the price of the goods, but don't do it from your local corner store? Is it okay to show a movie because Warner Bros or Fox are multi-billion companies but don't photocopy a book I've written because I am such small fry?
Even if we are not the copyright police, do we not have a responsibility to be a role model? Under copyright law in Australia, if I direct or knowingly allow another person (student or teacher) to breach copyright I can be prosecuted as well as that person. If a supervisor directs me to breach copyright then I need to keep a written diary to show that I was directed to do so. (Whether any prosecutions have taken place is another issue, but certainly we are told that the buck stops with the individual not our education authority if we are taken to court.)
Don't know where Jamie would stand if he knowingly directed people to breach copyright - how rigorously do copyright owners pursue breaches in the US? I know some of the multi-nationals are really on to it because there are often cases on the news here where they have tried to close down small businesses because they have used "copyrighted" names. Two cases - the first were two ladies actually called Thelma and Louise who tried to open a coffee shop called "Thelma and Louise", and another company who thought they owned the rights to the name ugg boots but found out that that is a
generic name that has been used throughout Australian and New Zealand for ever for a style of footwear. It costs 000s to fight these companies in court but the multi-nationals take it to the end. Even if they lose, they've put the little ones out of business because of the legal fees.
I don't know what the US arrangements are, but here our education authorities (in most cases state education departments) pay a per student copyright fee that allows Australian teachers quite a lot of freedom in what we can use and how, and we are expected to work within these boundaries.
So, even if the rules/laws don't make sense, or we don't agree with them, does that mean we still have the right to break them when it suits us? Are we sending the right message to the kids?
Love a good debate ...
Barbara Braxton
Teacher Librarian
COOMA NSW 2630
AUSTRALIA
and Steve Dembo left this comment:
I speed at times, I've downloaded songs (and other things), and I've downloaded YouTube videos. While I do agree with you for the most part, the trouble is that when we're in front of students, we're not just average people, we're role models.
Typically, role models are held to higher standards than the average person. And when a role model 'bends the law', those that look up to them aren't going to know where to draw the line.
What do you do when a student is caught downloading "Horton Hears a Who" from Bit Torrent? And what do you do when that same student says, "But Mr. Johnson said it was ok to download videos. He did it on YouTube."
It's a pretty fine line. What we do in a personal life is one thing, but as educators I think we need to be pretty careful of which side we walk on.
and a stern emoticon from Barbara Coomes, professor in Perth, Australia...
Not good role modelling, Doug! Copyright is a major responsibility of the TL. :|
Strangely enough, "attaboys" from Tom Hoffman and Stephen Downes probably gave me more concern than any vocalized disagreement.
While rants tend to be more emotive and less rational than are indicative of good thinking, most do contain an element of truth. I do firmly believe it is healthy to take a hard look at one's sacred cows now and again. Doing so either reinforces their goodness or changes them so they make sense again - either way a healthy proposition.
I'm still thinking on this one...
Thanks to ALL who responded.
Image source: www.homeeconomiser.com
Reader Comments (15)
Thanks for putting it out there and allowing conversations, rants, exhortations, condemnations and perhaps ligitations (i know it's not a word but it sounded cool) to flow.
Easy answers and solutions rarely require posting on blogs. I'm like you, still thinking on this one.
Doug, you know, I think you need to watch this video and take its lesson to heart...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4
;->
Miguel
Miguel,
Watch it? I downloaded it and sent it to all my buddies!
Doug
A couple points:
1) I would like to know if you and your librarian readers believe that there is any legal or ethical justification for lending libraries beyond the first sale provision in copyright law. Put another way, if the elimination of the first sale doctrine was being argued, how would you argue in favor of keeping it?
2) I think Steve's question answers itself. Teach the kid not to download "Horton" from BitTorrent and move on.
It seems to me that there are a long list of things right now, like downloading a random YouTube video, that are probably legal, certainly ethical if they're legal, never enforced if they are illegal, and if they are enforced in many cases it is by a DMCA takedown notice, not a lawsuit. OTOH, there is a fairly short list of things, like filesharing current movies, that kids, by law at least, definitely shouldn't do, might get prosecuted for, and against which there is a clear (if not decisive) ethical and practical argument.
Shouldn't we focus on the short list?
That last post perhaps comes across as a bit more cross-examination-ish than I hoped. I do genuinely wonder about what librarians are taught and believe about the justification for lending libraries.
I've been teaching a Copyright & Fair Use class for my district for about 2 years. Compared to the workshop I do on Internet safety, the copyright one is poorly attended, No surprise, but many teachers - and administrators - are still under the impression that if it's for the classroom, no rules apply.
Great conversation! And I'll Tweet Miguel to thank him for the video resource:-)
Don't worry, no "attaboy" here. :)
I think there is a danger in comparing copying to stealing an apple from the neighbor's tree or going a little over the speed limit. (Both these analogies have come up in previous posts or comments by others).
If I steal 100 apples all of a sudden it becomes an issue. There is more potential harm done as the number of apples increases. After all, that's my neighbor's property! (On another note, I would hope that teaching children to think twice about stealing even one apple is important to parents. Such an act shouldn't be condoned even if the relatively insignificant harm is acknowledged.) As well, the potential harm increases as I add kilometers to my breaking of the speed limit. Soon, speeding becomes a very dangerous and unethical act.
But there is no more harm in downloading 500 unauthorized movies as there is in downloading 1 unauthorized movie because there was never any harm to begin with.
Hi Peter,
I'd have been disappointed had I garnered any approval from you. I'd have felt I'd completely lost my touch!
Considering your view that creative endeavors such a movies or songs have no monetary value, I can see how you would conclude that downloading 500 unauthorized copies would be no worse than downloading 1.
You haven't make the case, however, that digital versions of creative works have no value.
All the best,
Doug
I don't believe that movies or songs "have no monetary value". Where did you get that idea from? Please don't make statements about my "view" unless you quote me to back such statements up. Obviously, works of quality have value while works lacking quality have little or no value. It would be absurd to state that all "movies or songs have no monetary value".
The question is, what is the best way for artists to extract that value using copyright law whilst respecting the moral right of individuals to share copies?
I say reserving all rights disrespects the public and immediate public domain status goes too far against the artist (though if an artist wants to choose the PD right from the get-go, artists should have the freedom to do that).
Actually, let me correct one thing...even works lacking quality can still have value. It's possible for an artist to have enough momentum from previous works that many fans of those previous works will be willing to pay for copies (or associated merchandise) of new works before even doing a quality check of the new works.
Conversely, works of quality may not have much immediate value to an artist if the artist is relatively unknown. If you are producing quality work and you are unknown, you want people to share that work to increase name recognition. And if you ARE known AND you are producing quality works, then making money without the "property" approach should be a piece of cake. For example, look at Ghosts I - IV. CC-licensed and millions of dollars of economic value was generated.
Hi Peter,
I guess I still think there is an inherent contradiction here:
If a song has a monetary value, its unauthorized use (aka theft) should be morally suspect if not illegal regardless of its format.
All the best,
Doug
"(aka theft)"?
How is unauthorized use "theft"? If it were theft, then I'd agree. But copyright infringement is not theft, no matter how many times Big Media says it is.
How about if "little media" (like me) says it's theft if you take something I've written and used it without my permission - such as selling it for publication under your own name.
An owner is an owner whether a corporation or a peon.
Doug
Doug,
I liked the video suggested by Miguel, but it's a bit outdated!
This one is more contemporary.
I agree with the thinking that as educators, we are role models. Too often I've witnessed colleagues of mine take short cuts, rather than set an example for their students.
As far as monetary value, one need only look at the Writer's strike to see that there is monetary value to online content! That is what the writers fought for....and won!
Hi M,
Interesting video and it contains concepts/viewpoints the kids should certainly consider, especially those who see themselves one day working in a creative field themselves.
When did "douche" become mainstream vocab? I suppose about the same time "pimp" did. Feeling old!
Thanks!
Doug