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

 

[bersl2]

This is one set of data. Even if I were to trust it, I'd like to see other sets.

 

[J. May]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bersl2:<BR>This is one set of data. Even if I were to trust it, I'd like to see other sets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>At least it <I>is</I> data, as opposed to the standard music industry fare - plucked directly from the anus of some exec.

 

[KnightRT]

Am I reading that right? Three in twenty kids think it's fine to steal someone's cellphone?

 

[JW1]

Unfortunately, this only tells us that kids <B>say</B> they won't download music illegally. And they probably mean it. But it doesn't tell us what they actually do. Check out this article, which describes a similar conflict between what kids believe and what they actually do.<BR><BR>If they don't really feel that illegal downloading is wrong, I doubt that just knowing the law is going to affect their behavior much. And whether it's right or not, downloading music illegally <B>feels</B> different than stealing someone's CD from their locker. You're several steps removed from the people you're hurting. It's like caring less about someone in a far-off country than someone in your neighborhood.

 

[Edzo]

The solution is to add copyright law to the required curriculum in schools. Maybe as a replacement for a less important subject like history or math.

 

[Zorro]

Yep Teens are too stupid to dupe a survey and ALWAYS tell the truth.<br><br>You can trust the survey because it is a Microsoft product and they never lie.<br><br>Vista Ready anyone?<br> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[Morghus]

Because everyone worth their salt knows that kids are eager as hell to spend money if they think it's worth it, or there being a point to it, while BEING ANNOYING AS HELL about copyright and droning on about it will only create the opposite reaction. <BR><BR>For gods sake, if they could only pull their heads out of their asses and look at how people behave instead of how an imaginary perfect police-state would behave.

 

[nixar]

In other news, 0% of Microsoft executives surveyed felt that monopoly abuse should be a criminal offense, and less than 1% of them felt that bribing elected officials, subverting international standard bodies, defaming competitors or filing frivolous lawsuit should be forbidden.

 

[Mister Shrubber]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nearly half of all teenagers have no familiarity with copyright laws and don't feel that the same type of punishment is necessary for illegally downloading media from the Internet as other types of theft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Except it's not theft it the first place. So why compare?<BR><BR>Oh right, because big media wants you to.

 

[d4ddi0]

Every time this discussion comes up in my house I use this analogy:<BR><BR>If you could let me take your car, and still have your car right there for you to use as much as you wanted would you do it? And what if that was made illegal because the car companies wanted to make more money selling cars(we can talk about planned obsolescence and cheap plastic parts in a 20,000 piece of equipment another time). Who would be the bad guy? <BR>/START RANT<BR><BR>The current copyright regime has enabled an economy of fraud based on corporate fiat. OPEC has less control over production and prices than the cartel of media middlemen.<BR><BR>/RANT OFF

 

[Uncle Kadigan]

Oh Jacqui, how disappointing:<BR><BR>"...other types of theft"<BR>"...steal copyrighted content"<BR><BR>Please stop parroting lies from the *IAA. Copyright infringement is not theft. If it were, there would be no need for a separate term. It may be illegal, it may be immoral (both points are debatable), but it is not the same thing as depriving another person of their property.

 

[Quartz]

<I>informing the group that downloading media usually involves paying a fee or gaining permission to use it, and that violations could involve significant fines</I><BR><BR>And that legally downloading media usually involves oppressive DRM designed to make you purchase the same media multiple times, and/or enforce vendor lock-in? I'd like to see the results from THAT study.

 

[apocryphal triptych]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Edzo:<BR>The solution is to add copyright law to the required curriculum in schools. Maybe as a replacement for a less important subject like history or math. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, I did learn about copyright in school, including fair use, quotations, plagiarism and everything. Interestingly, they made a point about their Xerox machine being used for fair use since it was in an educational institution (this was in the Eighties, when photocopy machines were on the forefront of copyright controversy).<BR><BR>I think copyright <I>should</I> be taught in schools, as long as it done subjectively by the law without external corporate bias. Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen.

 

[crystalattice]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uncle Kadigan:<BR>Oh Jacqui, how disappointing:<BR><BR>"...other types of theft"<BR>"...steal copyrighted content"<BR><BR>Please stop parroting lies from the *IAA. Copyright infringement is not theft. If it were, there would be no need for a separate term. It may be illegal, it may be immoral (both points are debatable), but it is not the same thing as depriving another person of their property. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You beat me to it but my thoughts are the same. Theft and infringement are very different concepts. Copyright infringement involves the legal rights of the copyright holder. The original item is still available to the holder.<BR><BR>However, I'm curious to know if Jacqui wrote it this way or if the study from Microsoft already had these statements. I wouldn't be surprised if MS deliberately used "theft" and "stealing" in their results.

 

[Sulla]

Don't most artists get more money from live performances (tours) and merchandising than from actual sales of recordings?

 

[TheAce-MGT]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KnightRT:<br>Am I reading that right? Three in twenty kids think it's fine to steal someone's cellphone? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Those are the kids stealing cellphones. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

 

[bersl2]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bag:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Edzo:<BR>The solution is to add copyright law to the required curriculum in schools. Maybe as a replacement for a less important subject like history or math. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, I did learn about copyright in school, including fair use, quotations, plagiarism and everything. Interestingly, they made a point about their Xerox machine being used for fair use since it was in an educational institution (this was in the Eighties, when photocopy machines were on the forefront of copyright controversy).<BR><BR>I think copyright <I>should</I> be taught in schools, as long as it done subjectively by the law without external corporate bias. Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting side note: half of the handouts I saw when I was young said "Do not copy," or some variation thereof; however, the teacher <I>clearly</I> had ignored this direction. The implication: it's OK to copy.

 

[Geof]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uncle Kadigan:<BR>Oh Jacqui, how disappointing:<BR><BR>"...other types of theft"<BR>"...steal copyrighted content" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The article also states that "teens . . . don't feel that the same type of punishment is necessary for illegally downloading media from the Internet as other types of theft". Maybe that's a good thing, because the punishment <I>isn't</I> the same. You won't get hit with a $220,000 in penalties for stealing a CD.<BR><BR>The implication that copyright infringement is or should be treated like theft is extremely misleading about the reality of the law.

 

[Foodman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bersl2:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bag:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Edzo:<BR>The solution is to add copyright law to the required curriculum in schools. Maybe as a replacement for a less important subject like history or math. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, I did learn about copyright in school, including fair use, quotations, plagiarism and everything. Interestingly, they made a point about their Xerox machine being used for fair use since it was in an educational institution (this was in the Eighties, when photocopy machines were on the forefront of copyright controversy).<BR><BR>I think copyright <I>should</I> be taught in schools, as long as it done subjectively by the law without external corporate bias. Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting side note: half of the handouts I saw when I was young said "Do not copy," or some variation thereof; however, the teacher <I>clearly</I> had ignored this direction. The implication: it's OK to copy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sort of. I asked my teacher about it and they said "we don't have enough money to get the book for everyone." Which was true.<BR><BR>As I've gotten older and gotten more money, I find myself purchasing things in unrestricted formats. I still appreciate "previewing" something but now that I have a "real" job with income I'm doing my best to support people who make things I enjoy.

 

[Peter N]

I graduated last year from high school in NYC, and we never got anything about copyright taught except for the obligatory "Don't plagiarize" lecture every year in half of the classes. Parents may have the responsibilty, but they too are not nearly educated enough to know what their kids might be doing on the internet. I actually teach my parents about how downloading online works, not the other way around, and they are both fine with me doing whatever I please so long as I hide my tracks well enough so that I'm not caught, since they too are ideologically opposed to current system. The entire system is broken, and education isn't what will fix it, a total overhaul is.

 

[jobu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crystalattice:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uncle Kadigan:<BR>Oh Jacqui, how disappointing:<BR><BR>"...other types of theft"<BR>"...steal copyrighted content"<BR><BR>Please stop parroting lies from the *IAA. Copyright infringement is not theft. If it were, there would be no need for a separate term. It may be illegal, it may be immoral (both points are debatable), but it is not the same thing as depriving another person of their property. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You beat me to it but my thoughts are the same. Theft and infringement are very different concepts. Copyright infringement involves the legal rights of the copyright holder. The original item is still available to the holder.<BR><BR>However, I'm curious to know if Jacqui wrote it this way or if the study from Microsoft already had these statements. I wouldn't be surprised if MS deliberately used "theft" and "stealing" in their results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Bit of both I suspect. Jacqui wrote an article a while back with terminology that was very slanted as well. It was something to do with college file sharing networks, but I can't find it right now.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Edit:<BR>Found the story .<BR>My response .

 

[swokm]

I'll third the fact that I noticed a lot of "copyright infringement" in school as well. And the same here... the school really WAS underfunded (still had the purple mimeographs for copying, if you can believe it!). I was smart enough then to reason that the rights-holder was being deprived of NOTHING, since there was no money in the budget anyway. By adhering to a stricter interpretation of copyright, the only difference would be that the students would be deprived of more educational materials. Period.<br><br>Having said that, of course there is a negative effect of not paying for copyrighted materials, and that goes to the incentive to produce. But it's hardly theft, as others point out -- the kids are right.<br><br>This is hardly new... I don't know if you ever heard of a thing called a "walkman"... but making (very good) copies of vinyl albums for your friends or giving away "mixed tapes" was considered OK by 90%+ of the student population way back in the 80s and 90s. If fact, one could argue that the ease with which one could and did copy music was a major factor in spreading western culture behind the iron curtain and across the world, eventually benefitting rights-holders greatly. Before I hear some lame argument about quality, the fact is that a good tape (metal with Dolby) of vinyl was as good as most mp3s that are usually traded. Of course, 2nd generation lost a little, but why not just create another from the album? Also there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that almost ALL devices with cassette tape players had TWO cassette bays, EXPLICITLY for "hi-speed dubbing". There was no other reason. Copying music (technically illegally) was prevalent and well-marketed... in ALL age groups.<br><br>I think that teens out there actually have a very good understanding of people like Ballmer and the studio executives (that just argued for lowering the income to the actual artists in favor of more profit for "middle men").<br><br>If it makes Microsoft feel better (like I trust a "survey" by them -- its likely to be as accurate as the RIAA stats that have lied about piracy rates vs music sales for years) they could call it "embracing and extending" instead of piracy. There, problem solved! Otherwise -- THANK GOD -- the kids logically wonder why should a corporation have more rights than an individual when it comes to licensing just because they don't have a monopoly, gazillions of dollars, and the world's largest pack of lawyers to lean on people.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Teens who did feel they had a good understanding of the rules were much less likely to flout copyright laws Microsoft said. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>No, Teens who did feel they had a good understanding of the rules were much <b>more likely to SAY they wouldn't</b> flout copyright laws... sometimes people lie, often to tell the other person in the conversation what they want to hear.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of those who did feel punishment for illegal downloads was appropriate, 24 percent felt that notifying parents and <b>having "something" put on their permanent record would be fair</b>... </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br> -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif -- Those are the kids you should be watching! They apparently have no sense of proportionality or perspective. Downloading worse than drug abuse or violence? Really? Well, I guess the puppet masters have to get replacement puppets from somewhere...

 

[ethana2]

Here I am, using Ubuntu, listening to albums from jamendo.com. I get my books from project gutenberg and my FUD from microsoft. Some things are free and plentiful without having to infringe on anything to get them.<BR><BR>I say if you don't believe data should be Free, pay for it. If you do, use what information already is, maybe create or improve a little.<BR><BR>I don't view pirates as criminals. I view them as spineless mooches who don't contribute to society.<BR><BR>It's worth noting that I'm a teen. I made up my own mind about copyright, and I really don't give a crap what anyone else thinks.<BR>...was that a survey option?

 

[matthewv]

"Nearly half of all teenagers have no familiarity with copyright laws and don't feel that the same type of punishment is necessary for illegally downloading media from the Internet as other types of theft."<BR><BR>That's good, because not only is copyright not like other types of theft, copyright is not actually "theft" at all.<BR><BR>"Only 11 percent of those surveyed said that they clearly understood the current rules for downloading music, movies, and other literature"<BR><BR>Not too surprising, since most of the "noise" about copyright (from the RIAA/MPAA, etc.) contains more misinformation, exaggeration and distortion than actual information.<BR><BR>Actually, I would add this very ArsTechnica story to the misinformation campaign, considering the extremely misleading and incorrect (but probably just ignorant) phrasing of the reporting ("theft", "stealing": these terms have nothing to do with copyright, and should not be used in a story about copyright, other than to say something like "copyright violation should not be confused with concepts of property law, such as 'theft', 'ownership, or 'stealing'").<BR><BR>"Given the above, it's not too surprising to hear that less than half of the group felt that some form of punishment was necessary for those who steal copyrighted content."<BR><BR>I'm glad they have some common sense (though they may be taking it a little far): it appears they may correctly (if inadverdently) recognize that using copyrighted content without authorization is not "stealing" in the first place.<BR><BR>"about 28 percent said that they would continue to download and share copyrighted content without the owner's permission after being educated on copyright rules. Why? "Rock stars don't need the money," 40 percent of that group said."<BR><BR>Those kids are probably smarter than they look: it's not that rock stars don't need the money, it's that the RECORD COMPANIES don't need the money (or deserve it, really); the rock stars don't usually get the money in the first place (they're more likely to be in perpetual debt to the record company). Plus they may uncounsciously recognize that the constitutional intent of copyright is to provide only a very limited (in both scope and duration) monopoly on distibution of content, NOT a lifelong (and beyond) guaranteed gravy train for the rights holder.

 

[xoa]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ethana2:<br>I say if you don't believe data should be Free, pay for it. If you do, use what information already is, maybe create or improve a little.<br><br>I don't view pirates as criminals. I view them as spineless mooches who don't contribute to society. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>We <em>do</em> pay for it. Every single citizen who pays taxes at least. Or did you think that IP is some sort of magical construct that spontaneously materialized? No, it's an artificial government (ie., people) backed monopoly created, at least in the USA, solely for the benefit of the People. That individuals may make money at it is wholly incidental, a side effect, not the point. But over the past few decades the contract copyright represents with the public has been perverted. We will now <strong>never</strong> see any of this stuff enter the public domain and thus become available for others to build on. We see huge, outrageously burdensome penalties for infringement, criminalization on a large scale, the protection of outdated stupid business models instead of normal market innovation, etc.<br><br>In short, I believe there is no longer any societal moral reason to respect copyright. Personal choice of course can be whatever. I choose to pay for the works of authors and companies I like, though sometimes I do so by finding their home addresses and directly mailing them a check instead of buying it through the system. I absolutely support the idea of copyright, as I believe the extra works it helps encourage produced are a real benefit. But I have been forced to conclude that at this point copyright is so out of whack from what would be theoretically good that the public contract is dissolved, and thus I can't truly oppose anyone who chooses differently. Furthermore, I don't think even the best of us can manage all the time, since a lot of works under copyright simply aren't offered to us for sale. It's a depressing situation -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif --.

 

[Renx]

I have two words: OH PLEASE.<BR><BR>One thing that no one has apparently not noticed until this point is the group. 501 7th-10th graders.<BR><BR>501<BR><BR>Five hundred and one 13-17 -year-olds. Out of how many frickin' million? 90% of all statistics is made up. This is just utter horsecrap.

 

[Hinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ethana2:<BR><BR>I don't view pirates as criminals. I view them as spineless mooches who don't contribute to society. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Fine.<BR><BR>And I think information should be free, and I that no barriers should prevent me from gaining information.<BR><BR>That I also contribute and have contributed to providing information is irrelevant. I wouldn't be mooching anyway, as fot spineless, I guess you just felt like adding an irrelevant superlative to your tirade.

 

[LordHunter317]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Renx:<BR>Five hundred and one 13-17 -year-olds. Out of how many frickin' million? 90% of all statistics is made up. This is just utter horsecrap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone needs to study sampling theory, I think.<BR><BR>The whole point of statistics is we don't have to ask everyone's opinion to have a good idea of what everyone's opinion actually is.

 

[LordHunter317]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hinton:<BR>And I think information should be free, and I that no barriers should prevent me from gaining information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you truly believe that, then please provide now:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Legal name<LI>Place of Birth<LI>Current Address<LI>Phone number<LI>Employer<LI>Current Salary<LI>Complete list of voting history<LI>List of every sexual encounter you had<LI>Your last shopping reciept.</UL>Well, you get the idea.<BR><BR>I won't argue that copyright law in most of the Western world is perfect or even good, but "information deserves to be free [edit] and freely accessible" rhetoric hurts everyone on both sides of the issue.

 

[Hinton]

I understand what you mean. Ok, not all information should be free, I grant you that.<BR><BR>Though none of that really falls into the terms of copyright.

 

[Mister Morden]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Renx:<BR>I have two words: OH PLEASE.<BR><BR>One thing that no one has apparently not noticed until this point is the group. 501 7th-10th graders.<BR><BR>501<BR><BR>Five hundred and one 13-17 -year-olds. Out of how many frickin' million? 90% of all statistics is made up. This is just utter horsecrap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Take a statistics class. The uncertainty in the measurement is dependent only on the sample size, not the size that the sample was taken from.<BR><BR>Usual caveats, representative samples, &c.

 

[djfake]

Teens rely on parents to teach them a lot of things. <BR><BR>Schools teach students copyright. It's called not cheating. <BR><BR>Who conducted the study?

 

[LordHunter317]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hinton:<br>I understand what you mean. Ok, not all information should be free, I grant you that.<br><br>Though none of that really falls into the terms of copyright. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Your shopping list does once the grocery store sells it -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif -- (Yes, I realize I'm still being somewhat tangential, but it has a point: these issues aren't as simple as RIAA vs. poor consumers, and the answers have to cover all these cases).<br><br>It doesn't shocking me most people don't know the law, because most people don't care. As such, my personal belief is that as soon as the copyright holders find cheap, effective ways to provide content that are easier than outright piracy, they'll find plenty of users.<br><br>Now, admittedly, that's a hard problem. But nothing else is going to work.

 

[chintznibbles]

It is an interesting survey, but really, the sample size limits it to nothing more than a curiousity or a single data point on a big graph somewhere. Assuming the survey was administered competently and was reasonably neutral in construction, it's far from "horsecrap", but it be cannot be interpreted as representative of a wide variety of opinions and demographics.<BR><BR>It is probably a good "word on the street" sort of survey, however.

 

[swokm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djfake:<BR>Teens rely on parents to teach them a lot of things. <BR><BR>Schools teach students copyright. It's called not cheating. <BR><BR>Who conducted the study? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>An interesting point, but is that really teaching them "copyright" as we understand it, or the more sound and basic concept of attribution?<BR><BR>(They are claiming another's work as their own... but the actual answers might often be identical on tests and quizzes. In fact, recalling and recording verbatim a precise original work by the teacher -- or perhaps even a copyrighted textbook -- is often the whole point, no?)

 

[Hinton]

Yeah I worked for AC Nielsen (indirectly, I was imployed by a company hired by AC Nielsen to check themselved out) so I know about the shopping list. Well, they don't know my or your personal information (it's irrelevant), but they know where you bought something, what else you bought, what time of day you shopped, what you paid for it, where the item was placed in the supermarket etc. etc. (anything that would be relevant infact).<BR><BR>That information isn't copyrightet though, it's factual. Ofcourse you can't get it without paying AC Nielsen (I assume they're the ones supplying most of the data worldwide, atleast they are in Europe (Denmark excepted, which is whey they wont hire me again :/)).<BR><BR><BR>So perhaps I should have said, I don't believe any information should be copyrightet. I do believe some information ought to be secret, such as personal information. The AC Nielsen scanner data I'd be fine with being public knowledge, being that it doesn't identify persons by any way that can easily be used to figure out who they are.

 

[chimly]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JW1:<BR>And whether it's right or not, downloading music illegally <B>feels</B> different than stealing someone's CD from their locker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>The industry moles now come on this board not to argue their side, but to argue "our side" ineffectively.<BR><BR>It doesn't <I>feel</I> different to copy rather than steal. It <B>IS</B> different. Otherwise "copy" and "steal" wouldn't have different meanings.

 

[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.

 

[xoa]

Seriously, what's with all the conflation of IP with other things that's happening now? Is it just part of the ongoing 1984-esque media industry strategy?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by djfake:<BR>Teens rely on parents to teach them a lot of things. <BR><BR>Schools teach students copyright. It's called not cheating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Copyright is absolutely not the same thing as plagiarism. Plagiarism applies just as much to works in the public domain, or creative commons, or anything at all really.<BR><BR>Copyright infringement is not stealing. It is not plagiarism. It is a distinct thing, hence the different term for it.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chimly:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JW1:<BR>And whether it's right or not, downloading music illegally <B>feels</B> different than stealing someone's CD from their locker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>The industry moles now come on this board not to argue their side, but to argue "our side" ineffectively.<BR><BR>It doesn't <I>feel</I> different to copy rather than steal. It <B>IS</B> different. Otherwise "copy" and "steal" wouldn't have different meanings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Exactly.