If works were in the public domain, would the work have “COPYING IS ILLEGAL” printed prominently in the book?

What does “COPYING IS ILLEGAL” mean to you?

If you see a sign that says “(Doing this) IS ILLEGAL” do you do it, anyway? If your children see you ignoring “This is Illegal” signs, do you expect them to use their judgement when you tell them not to do something?

/sarcasm.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-congress-cant-put-public-domain-back-into-copyright.ars

Keep pressing forward, and you’ll end up leaving the teacher with no choice but using piracy or public domain / creative commons material simply because the copyrighted stuff is locked down so far.

It depends what “the point” is. Also, it depends whether rational discussion of a problem is a dirty trick. In the case of Napster, children were sued, weren’t they? There is a precedent.

Sometimes it is useful to play Devil’s Advocate. I infer that you do so through the use of irony.

My point is that children in America (and probably in Britain, too) are taught by their teachers’ example that everyone steals, and there is nothing wrong with stealing (if your budget constraints mean that you cannot afford to waste money paying for paper products).

How does a society “unteach” something we’ve grown up with over the last 20 years?

Maybe there are so many bigger problems in the world that we want to turn a blind eye to stealing as long as we only steal from artists, models, entertainers, celebrities, actors, writers.

Unfortunately, once people believe that they are entitled to take what they want, it’s hard to turn back the clock.

Of course, the scapegoat should be a well-insured teacher, whose very well-known and well-endowed school stands fully behind its staff, and whose local education authority fully supports all its schools. Children should not suffer.

Children are taught in school from a very young age that copyright infringement is acceptable.

My own child is to be in a school performance of an adaptation of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. At least the choir mistress (a lovely woman) bought a copy of the songbook for every child’s folder, but –still– the book says in large print COPYING IS ILLEGAL. Every child has a photocopied copy beside the bound, print copy, because one needs a copy in order to have ones lines highlighted.

For all I know, there may be some fine print saying somewhere that one copy may be made of each songbook.

Even if this particular teacher, in this particular school isn’t really breaking the law, because it makes sense to highlight a child’s lines –doesn’t it?– the children see “COPYING IS ILLEGAL” and they see that “copying is illegal” doesn’t mean anything.

For attitudes to change, children have to be “taught” that copying is illegal and those who copy can get into trouble.

I’m surprised that physically giving a loaded ipod (or computer) as a gift is considered infringement. One learns every day. I should think the musical artists would be absolutely delighted if Her Majesty’s people would list what was on the ipod. Does Apple have a royal warrant?

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/first-sale-president-obama-and-queen-england