Survey: teens rely on parents to teach them about copyright

Most teenagers aren't familiar with the rules behind downloading copyrighted materials, according to a survey conducted by Microsoft. They don't think the offense is worth much in the way of punishment, either, at least until they're better educated about copyright. Even then, some still think it's ok because "rock stars don't need the money."<BR><BR>Read More

 

[novakyu]

If anything, this survey says one thing clearly:<BR><BR>We need to get them young. Instruct them, and reinforce their innate moral sense. Tell them that copyright law (as it stands) is morally wrong. That it is counter to the ideals of free culture. That it needs to be overhauled, if they (and their children) want to enjoy the free culture that we and our parents have for over a century. Tell them to take a stance.<BR><BR>It's not simple, "Rock stars don't need the money." It's the stronger: "It's WRONG to give money to rock stars who oppress our freedom." Would you have donated to Saddam Hussein's regime? Would you donate to support Fidel Castro's government? If not, why would you support such oppression in America, the supposed "land of the free"?<BR><BR>And, of course, to stop them from breaking the law, tell them about places like Jamendo.com and Opsound.com where the artists themselves license their music with licenses that give us the freedom that we need. They don't need to listen to the crap that comes from those who would take their freedom and sacrifice it at the altar of profit.

 

[novakyu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t_vor:<BR>if it is defined in the law, it should be a simple matter to point out where. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am no lawyer, but Google searching for "legal definition of theft" brings up this page.<BR><BR>If your whole argument is that the word "theft" isn't define in the legal code, then perhaps it is for a good reason. Namely, copyright infringement is not larceny, robbery, burglary, or embezzlement, and we should not use a term that can so easily be hijacked to evoke the same feeling in people as they talk about armed robbery.<BR><BR>If we were to define legal definition of "theft" (rather poorly, in my opinion) by saying "theft is any of larceny, robbery, burglary, or embezzlement, then people who say that "copyright infringement is, legally speaking, entirely different matter from theft" will be completely justified in their claims.<BR><BR>On the other hand, if we were to define theft to include copyright infringement, if you remember that fact and remember not to feel so strongly about "theft" until you hear about exactly what kind of theft it is (because, copyright infringement, in my opinion, is not only not (morally) bad, when done by public at large, not publishers, but actually good for the society at large).