No. There are many, many things that should be taught instead, but there’s apparently no time/place for them.
And, copyright laws change. Chances are that the ones who enter school, and those who leave it are going to know different directives.
I meant more the fundamentals of what copyright is, where and when it applies, and what conflicts of interest exist, for example, in weighing the value of freely available knowledge to a society against the monetary interests of creators.
I’d support a section on the Constitution overall, covering all of the clauses at least briefly.
The copyright clause is not complex. The rationale is debatable.
I studied it in college and it in multiple law school classes including constitutional law, first amendment law, entertainment law, and intellectual property, each separate classes with a different reason for addressing copyright.
For kids, I think saying hey, the IP clause exists, the idea is that by granting creators or inventors, in the case of patents, a time-limited monopoly on their work, it encourages creative and inventiveness by creating a market in which creators and inventors have the exclusive right to market and reproduce their work, among other rights. The idea is that creators and inventors wouldn’t do their thing if they can’t get paid on it.
After all the education, I just don’t think it’s true. People will still create and invent. Especially as to copyright; people are naturally creative and want to share it with others. Most artists, if they couldn’t get paid for it, would still do it anyway, and people will always pay to see the original work, even if there are knockoffs and copycats.
Again: no.
The basics may be covered in relatively short amount of time, what means it won’t get memorized - part of learning is repetition after all. It’s a waste of time & space that should go to truly important topics, then.
It’s one of those things that should either be part of more focused training, or should be studied by people interested in them on their own.
Surely there are more important things to teach kids than something that mostly serves the interests of large corporations
No small creators would exist without copyright. It doesn’t just serve large corporations. Tom Scott has an in-depth video on copyright as it relates to small Internet creators.
Knowing copyright laws can help you as an engineer, an artist and many other situations. Knowing this will equip you agains corporations.
I agree, of course, that many large corporations profit obscenely from copyright. But copyrights are also the livelihood of many small time players: from social media content creators, to artists and writers, to software developers and scientists.
Mandatory no. As an elective sure.
The problem with teaching law in the western world is despite what the law says a precident in a court case will function as a laws interpretation until the case is overturned or the law is updated.
I was thinking more in terms of absolute basics that can be applied in the context of everyday media use, for example. I simply think that this field is no longer just relevant for publishers and lawyers, but for everyone. After all, almost everyone is now a publisher in some way: social media and its influencers have spawned an entire industry of semi-professional publishers, content management systems and page builders make it possible for anyone to run their own website, and so on.
Maybe if the question was: Should children be taught Publishing 101, I could answer yes, publishing media is very accessible and ubiquitous now a days, as you mentioned. Then one of the subjects could be local and international copyright law.
Locally I think about 50% of teens enjoy social media training, so they at least won’t dox themselves etc.
Yes, that would have been a better question indeed.
If the students can identify plagiarism then that is sufficient unless they want to get in to media later in life. Copyright law should probably be an introductory college course for people getting into media though, sure.
No, it’s not important enough for the average person. It makes more sense as an elective maybe, or to wait until College/Uni when it becomes relevant.
Teaching them about privacy and security in our modern world would be far more useful.
You’d be hard-pressed in America to find a school that doesn’t address that.
Good to know. I wasn’t aware that this is already a thing in american schools. I just had seen earlier that lemmy.world blocked the biggest piracy community and got the impression from many comments that apparently not too many users are aware that the operators of lemmy.world might be held at least partly responsible for what content is made available on their platform.
I’d rather students have more time off for lunch instead of learning why mickey mouse shouldn’t be in public domain because of the evils of public domain or some dumb shit like that, defending multi billion dollar corporations. These shill posts are very cringe. Fuck copyright.
What about copyleft? Is that also cringe?
deleted by creator
Of course I am interested in a discussion about copyleft. I think that the corresponding licensing models are very interesting in the context of AI training, for example.
What I don’t find very fruitful, however, are blanket statements like yours. Discussions live on arguments and openness of mind. I can’t really find either in your two comments.
