p2pnet news view Kids & Kartels:- | RIAA:- For me, the mention of Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s RIAA in the same sentence as children and schools always evokes the powerful smell of horse-shit.

The RIAA and its owners, the Big 4 labels, have for years been demonising children and their families across America as file sharing criminals and thieves.

And now the RIAA is actually running back-to-school ‘advice‘ for teachers from well-known educationalist and RIAA spinster Liz Kennedy, who kicks off with, “And although heading ‘back’ means a little more work (and a little less play) for most of us, there’s something refreshing about it that I look forward to every year –- the reminder that we all have something to learn.”

There’s no point in quoting her any further.

Over at TechDirt, Mike Masnick cites the RIAA’s special “curriculum” for teachers, wondering, “Do schools use science curricula provided by Exxon or Monsanto?”

He goes on »»»

As for the actual content included in the curriculum (which, by the way, the RIAA links to incorrectly twice), it’s almost a joke. Check out the RIAA propaganda. Fair use doesn’t exist — at all. Reading through the main document, I find not a single mention of it. But what does exist is all sorts of bogeymen about how evil file sharing is, how it exposes your hard drive to viruses and reveals your tax return info.

Oh, but the best part, is that the RIAA is pushing for a new totally made up term called “songlifting” which is the central theme of every single lesson.

Sounds like “shoplifting,” right? That’s the idea — though the RIAA cleverly tries to pretend that it didn’t make up the word. In fact, it presents it as if it’s a common term.

Of course, the curriculum doesn’t happen to mention the Supreme Court’s Dowling decision, where the court specifically talked about how very different infringement is from “stealing.” Of course, the RIAA also mentions the Grokster ruling — but is misleading there as well, claiming that the law is clear that parents could be found liable for their kids sharing unauthorized files.

The actual exercises are ridiculous propaganda. The first one is supposed to be about “math” skills for the lower grades and “spreadsheet” skills for higher level students. Guess what the “math” is?

This part of the activity should help students recognize how songlifting, though it might seem harmless at first, can quickly become a largescale problem. Have students complete the calculations on the worksheet using spreadsheet software or a calculator. If time permits, repeat the first calculation by having students choose a realistic number of songs they would take if they could get them all for free. Adding desire to the equation in this way can further dramatize why songlifting can have an enormous economic impact.

Answers
Total number of songs lifted = 7,800,000;
Total cost of songs lifted = $7,722,000.
$926,640,000 (i.e., nearly a billion dollars).

Hmm. If we’re simply making stuff up for propaganda purposes, how about “total number of new listeners a musician gets thanks to such sharing?” And then “total amount those musicians make when those new fans go to concerts or purchase merchandise thanks to hearing the songs for free.” Might change the math a bit, but what do I know? I’m not an industry lobbyist, so my “industry” math isn’t up to par.

Then there’s propaganda about job losses:

Ask students to name some people who might work in this part of the music business (e.g., machine operator, printer, packager, truck driver, store manager, cashier, online order handler, etc.). Talk about how these people might be affected by songlifting, then have students work individually or in small groups to list other music makers unnamed in the story.

Ok. Why don’t we talk about the jobs on the other side of the equation? How about all of the people employed by technology companies that the RIAA has helped put out of business through lawsuits? Or students that the RIAA has bankrupted via lawsuits? Have students put together a list of just how many lives and jobs the RIAA has destroyed. Point them to the story of MP3.com. And Napster. And Launchcast. And Grokster. Tell them how the RIAA tried to have the iPod (or, more accurately, its predecessor) banned, and have them think about how different life would be without it. Tell them how the RIAA is fighting hard to tax radio stations, putting so many radio people out of business. Tell them the story of the MIT student who the RIAA suggested drop out of school to pay a fine. Talk about how all of these people might be affected by the RIAA’s overreaction to innovation and new technologies, and its own inability to embrace new business models. Then have students work individually or in small groups to list other tech companies making lives better that the RIAA has threatened, sued or put out of business.

Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the music industry by having students research one behind-the-scenes music maker and write a brief description of that job.

Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the tech industry thanks to new innovations that the RIAA has tried to kill. Then highlight the career opportunities in the music industry itself that have finally opened up now that the major labels are scrambling to learn technology.

Next, draw the copyright symbol (©) on the chalkboard. Ask if students know what this symbol means and where they might have seen it (books, posters, CDs, etc.). Explain that the copyright symbol is used to identify the owner of a piece of intellectual property and serves as a reminder that it is illegal for anyone to copy or distribute that property without the owner’s permission.

Next, explain fair use, and how the above statement claiming that it’s illegal for anyone to copy or distribute without the owner’s permission is not necessarily true at all. Oh wait… that sentence isn’t in there.

You might also inform them that our nation’s Founders included copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), believing that it would encourage creativity by giving the creators of intellectual property an exclusive right to profit from their artistic talents.

You might also inform them that those Founders were highly cautious about this issue, and had stated their worries that these monopolies would do more harm than good, and that they should be greatly limited and monitored to avoid such harm. You might also want to point out that the RIAA seems to have forgotten the “limited time” part of this, but I guess you can be forgiven, since they (and their friends in the movie industry) have pretty much convinced Congress to ignore that part.

Then there’s this fun list of “brainstorming ideas” with some responses/corrections/clarifications after each one:

• Songlifters take millions of dollars of music each year.
  Actually, file sharers don’t “take” any money. This is a flat out lie.
• Songlifters hurt all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
  Those who have embraced file sharing in combination with smart business models have found it works for all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
  
• Songlifters keep new artists from getting their chance at stardom.
  Many up-and-coming artists are finding that giving away their music is a large part of how they build their fanbase and become stars.
• Songlifters are breaking the law.
  In many cases, those who share unauthorized files may have violated copyright law, though it’s a civil issue, not a criminal one.
• Songlifters can get other people in trouble by sharing illegal music.
  Because the RIAA isn’t very good with data, it’s been known to sue the wrong people
• Songlifters can get computer viruses when they illegally download online.
  Doing things online when not careful can result in getting viruses. That has nothing to do with file sharing. Careful users can avoid viruses.
  
• Songlifters don’t respect other people’s intellectual property.
  The RIAA doesn’t respect fair use rights, the need for a lively and dynamic public domain or the right of technology companies to innovate.

“The whole thing is pretty ridiculous frankly,” says Masnick on TechDirt, adding, “It doesn’t even make a half-hearted attempt at talking about the rights of everyone else or the actual purpose of copyright law. The whole thing is basically about brainwashing kids into accepting that the record labels’ old business model must stay in place forever. Luckily, most kids are smarter than that and can see through such propaganda pretty quickly.

“However, if schools really are interested in educating kids about copyright, why not use a non-industry curriculum, like the one put together by the EFF, called Teaching Copyright.”

Suggesting copyright or intellectual property law have a place in any school curriculum other than a law school’s is the wrong way to go, IMO, because it lends credibility to the entirely incorrect contention they should be there in the first place.

But it’s far too late. The labels (and movie studios) have now been accepted by federal administrations around the world  as  suppliers of ‘educational’ materials.

Kiddie mind-rape

In February, under the heading RIAA Music Rules – ’steaming pile of poo’, “You’ve heard of kiddie porn?” – I asked, going on »»»

It’s something Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA regularly dredges up so its bought-and-paid for politicians can raise it as an excuse to introduce corporate-friendly legislation.

But kiddie mind-rape is another favourite tool.

The RIAA and RIAA adherents scam teachers into believing intellectual property law is something every child needs to know. Then they use the teachers to plant ‘educational’ materials in schools.

The latest piece of RIAA bilge is called Music Rules with “Lessons respect intellectual property and responsible use of the Internet”.

The idea of the RIAA, of all corporate bodies, promoting ideas of respect and responsibility, and especially to schoolchildren, is somewhat like a paedophile being let loose in classrooms to promote safe sex.

And yet you can be sure you’ll see this promoted in the mainstream media and actually used by teachers.

Thank God we homeschool our daughter.

Asks Biff ‘Death of a Salesman’ Loman in a Reader’s Write, “is there any evidence that /any/ teachers have ever used this in their classroom? If so they should be exposed and thrown out of the profession.”

Then he comes up with an idea for a research tool, to wit »»»

• Lesson plan: read ‘Music Rules’ with students. Discuss.
• Have students pick out areas of bias and misinformation.
  
• Allow students to use the web to research and create a short report opinions opposed to those of ‘Music Rules.’
• … many humanities classes have something about detecting bias. This could be used as an introduction activity since it is so transparent.

“Personally,” Biff adds, “I would never use this steaming pile of poo in my classroom.”

Jon Newton - p2pnet

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

September, 2009

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm and is filed under Kids and Kartels, P2P, RIAA News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 3467 times