Welcoming Another Source of Copyright Education
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
Today a San Francisco-based advocacy group rolled out an educational program for our nation’s teachers on copyright and fair use. I welcome their contribution to our nation’s educational resources, even if I don’t welcome their apparent reason for doing so, namely to counter the efforts of the nonprofit charitable organization Copyright Alliance Education Foundation (CAEF).
It appears we at the CAEF have a far greater confidence in the aptitude and reasoning of America’s educators than does the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We are fully in favor of multiple resources being available to K-12 educators, and trust that teachers, administrators, librarians and media specialists will recognize quality instructional materials and will make use of them appropriately.
CAEF’s Teach-the-Teacher program was developed in conjunction with educators, and highlights the importance of fair use and the increased latitude given regarding use of creative works in the classroom. CAEF itself is advised by and partnered with educators. We assume EFF is not dismissing the hundreds of schools across the United States that have already been adopting CAEF materials.
The CAEF program directs educators to fifteen different curricula, some produced by Copyright Alliance members in partnership with educational organizations such as Scholastic and Weekly Reader, and some done by other organizations such as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the World Intellectual Property Organization. CAEF values giving teachers options in designing their own curricula.
There is far too much animosity in the debate over creators’ rights. We would all do well not to allow that animosity to carry into our children’s classrooms. Our children are creators and are the future of our culture, and we should embrace all educational materials that empower them.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“It appears we at the CAEF have a far greater confidence in the aptitude and reasoning of America’s educators than does the Electronic Frontier Foundation.”
What is your basis for this assertion? Is it that CAEF’s materials were developed “in conjunction with [certain] educators” and you believe EFF’s were not? If that is your basis, then does disagreeing with whatever educators were involved with CAEF constitute a lack of “confidence in the aptitude and reasoning of America’s educators” or just the ones that worked with CAEF?
June 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Perhaps you need to read their press release, and then read my post.
It will then be clear that my basis is their press release, which instead of simply focusing on their own program, presents it as a counter-balance to what they assume is our slanted, unbalanced program. The idea that we are somehow going to be programming the minds of hapless educators with misleading propaganda — a charge made all across the P2P blogs — suggests a lack of faith in the intelligence and rational thinking of educators.
I think it’s great they have developed some curricula. There is a heavy emphasis in their curriculum on secondary creativity over the original creation of works, and that is to be expected. Both are forms of creativity, and they often emphasize the secondary over the primary. But it’s unclear to me why they have to launch it by also launching an attack on the curricula we are promoting or the teachers who are making use of our materials.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 am
“The idea that we are somehow going to be programming the minds of hapless educators with misleading propaganda — a charge made all across the P2P blogs — suggests a lack of faith in the intelligence and rational thinking of educators.”
I think most people would have faith in educators to come to reasonable conclusions, if they have a range of opinions to draw from.
“There is a heavy emphasis in their curriculum on secondary creativity over the original creation of works, and that is to be expected. Both are forms of creativity, and they often emphasize the secondary over the primary.”
Likewise, I see I heavy emphasis on the primary (if there is such a thing) over the secondary in Copyright Alliance material. Of course, it would be foolish to claim that any of us are capable of giving a truly unbiased viewpoint; we all have our opinions, subconscious biases and tendencies to make mistakes, which is why it is important to have multiple sources of information. For example, having looked around the CA site, one error, on the “Copyright & You” page, which stood out, was:
“Have you ever heard somebody say, “Of course, we want to see artists get paid,” and then they follow that with a phrase beginning with “but”? Generally the “but” and what follows it, implies a belief that copyright protections are not really important any more. That belief can begin to erode or even eliminate the intellectual property rights accorded to creators in the U.S. Constitution and through global treaties. The U.S. Congress in 1790 — in one of its first major acts — passed the first Copyright Act. They did that because they felt it was vital to a newly created and growing country that embodied a belief in the rights of the individual.”
What the constitution actually does is grant Congress the right “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.”
So, firstly, the constitution does not accord any intellectual property rights to creators, it merely gives Congress the right to grant copyright if it sees fit; it isn’t viewed as a fundamental individual right. Secondly, the constitution makes it clear that the only justification for copyright to be granted is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. There is no implication at all that a creator is entitled to copyright over his/her work.
If the EFF material goes some way to clarifying factual inaccuracies such as these (and likewise, if the CAEF can highlight any errors they might make), it has to be viewed as a good thing from an educational point of view.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 am
Paul, thank you for your comment. I wish EFF had shown the same level of respect you have. I would agree with you on the differing curricula except I dislike the word “bias” and prefer “interpretation” or “perspective.” The implication there, of which I would think you would agree, is that there could be truth found in the respective arguments and we likely will never be able to “prove” the absolute rightness of any position.
With that in mind, I’ll address briefly your quibble regarding the Progress Clause. When I look at what Madison wrote in his earlier version of this provision for Virginia’s Constitution, and his defense of the Progress Clause in The Federalist Papers, and in his correspondence with Jefferson, I see somebody who viewed this as a defensible right, and it is no coincidence he included the word “Right” (capitalized in original) as you accurately quoted, the only time that word occurs in the unamended Constitution. Yes, it was written in Article I, so by definition it was empowering Congress to act, but remember the default of the US Constitution was that Congress could only act if expressly permitted by the Constitution, so it was logical to frame it that way; enacting law was necessary to legally enable this right. (It could be argued Congress now gives itself wide latitude on its authority and the courts endorse that, but I’ll leave that debate to constitutional law professors.) Congress of course wasted no time enacting the first Copyright Act, and it has been part of our law ever since, and I see no sign of a movement among policymakers to be rid of it.
And I agree with you that the aim was to promote the progress of science and useful arts, and I agree with Madison that it made eminent sense to do that by giving creators a limited monopoly on their works.
I suspect we can argue this indefinitely; that’s the great thing about history. But please don’t suggest that your differing interpretation of a historical event suggests someone else has committed an “error.”
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
“I suspect we can argue this indefinitely; that’s the great thing about history. But please don’t suggest that your differing interpretation of a historical event suggests someone else has committed an ‘error.’”
I have never suggested that someone has committed an error when discussing a matter of opinion, I have only done that when discussing matters of fact. When somebody talks about “the intellectual property rights accorded to creators in the U.S. Constitution” that is clearly an error, because the U.S constitution does not accord any such rights. That is not a matter of interpretation. Congress could have chosen not to grant any such rights and it would not have been unconstitutional.
“Yes, it was written in Article I, so by definition it was empowering Congress to act, but remember the default of the US Constitution was that Congress could only act if expressly permitted by the Constitution”
That is true, which is why it is so important to note the wording of the clause; it empowered Congress to act only for the benefit of progress, not for the benefit of authors and inventors. The “why” is just as important as the “what” where copyright law is concerned.
“Congress of course wasted no time enacting the first Copyright Act, and it has been part of our law ever since, and I see no sign of a movement among policymakers to be rid of it.”
Clearly not, although I get the impression that is more attributable to lobbying and funding by special interest groups than a clear analysis of the facts. In the long run, I think the opinions of policymakers will probably prove irrelevant, as copyright in its current form will increasingly prove unenforceable, as evidenced by the fact that the current key battleground is not enforcement, but education.
From my perspective, the key choice we face today is not “do we retain copyright?” it is “do we scale back the scope of copyright to a point where it is broadly accepted and enforceable, or do we continue with increasingly futile attempts to enforce what is essentially a 19th century industrial regulation, until we eventually get to the point where it is universally ignored?”
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:55 am
We’re arguing semantics here. You seem to ignore the use of the word “Right” and instead focus on when that right was put into law. Fair enough. It is a right now, until Congress chooses to take it away.
There is a similar debate over whether fair use is in fact a right. Under the law the rights are with the creator and fair use is a limitation on those rights, and are an affirmative defense the user can cite in court. But it is important to a lot of people, it seems, that they call fair use a right. So be it. They and I agree fair use is important, semantics are less important.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
“We’re arguing semantics here. You seem to ignore the use of the word “Right” and instead focus on when that right was put into law.”
Call it semantics if you wish; I was simply pointing out the error in claiming that the US Constitution grants intellectual property rights to creators.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 am
My apologies to anyone who has read the comment chain all the way down here, has realized it is no different from any other comment field “debate” in that it appears the two parties aren’t hearing (or at least listening) to each other, and knows ahead of time my response to this is that it is not an error; see my comments above so I needn’t repeat them. Time to put this non-debate to bed and move on to other misunderstandings and faulty dialogue!