We can’t have Big Content without Big Copyright everywhere you go! Big Media just wouldn’t allow it! My Big Blindness won’t let me see what’s really out there, just the Big Myth that I want to see. So I come up with Big Bull to spew here ’cause I’m a sucker for Big Money and Big Government and anything else that’s Big! It’s gotta be Big, Big, Big! Reality? Who needs it when you’ve got Big Delusion? And who’s best at providing Big Delusion? Big Hollywood, of course! My favorite Big Masters! I just can’t get enough of the word Big! Big! Big! Big! Big! Nevermind that I don’t have any evidence to support a thing I say. Big Deal! Nobody’s Big enough to matter except those I shill for. Big! Big! Big! Big! Big!

You’re either being disingenuous or ignorant. The copyright holders want to get paid. It is their raison d’?tre. “Authorized” is a code word for “properly licensed with full payment received.”

It is the very permission culture you promote that is the core of the problem. Knowledge does not require permission. It simply is. And with the ease of spreading information with today’s technology, permission culture is both unworkable and obsolete. All it has accomplished is to create a tangled, bureaucratic knot out of culture.

One should not need to obtain half a dozen (usually very expensive) licenses to use a part of human culture. They should just be able to use it. And digital technology makes it possible to do so. It is only those still clinging to the old system and who fear change who still wish to place tollbooths on as many pieces of culture (and multiple tollbooths per piece, whenever possible) as they can. There is a word for such behavior, and it is called greed.

What does the income level of the instructor have to do with the fact that students of whatever income-level who want to learn are being prevented from doing so because greedy corporations want to milk a turnip for blood?

“Mike quoted a possible, but unconfirmed 1 percenter about a topic unrelated to income disparity! He must be a 1% apologist! It’s blatantly obvious!”

Tell me, are your corporate overlords not also 1 percenters? Why do they get a free pass from your ire if you’re such an occupy protester? Keep mowing that astroturf.

Fortunately, there is a movement in the higher educational field concerning the release of Creative Commons-licensed text material for core subjects. It’s just a matter of the movement maturing and getting adopted by more institutions and not getting absurdly sued out of existence by gatekeeping copyright holders in the textbook publishing industry.

Yes, and the people who make text books should work for free, and not expect to get paid for their efforts.

It’s for a good cause, after all.

Say, are you volunteering for a life of writing textbooks? There is no pay, but you get a nice warm feeling.

Thinking that it is not only about payment is a real failing to understand reality.

FTFY!

“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.”

The constitution specifically states these rights are being secured for authors and inventors. Thus, once the author or inventor is dead, to continue copyright on their works is unconstitutional.

Marcus, you git. In a commercial world, almost everything is about payment. However, in the educational world, it is likely much more about perception, how much of a copyright work is used, and things like that – rather than any monetary issue.

As always I could say the sky is blue, and you would contradict me just to make a point.

and i’m proud to be an american, where i have no liberty

and i won’t forget the men who died, who took this right from me

and i’d proudly stand up next to them to defend my s-afe-ty

cause there aint no doubt i love this land

god bless the *aa

+1 internets to you sir!

So your position is that copyrights is more important than education.

How do you apply copyright to mathematics?

WTF are you even talking about?

Well, this story is a good example of how maybe it does. That’s all anyone is saying. We know you assume that copyright is peachy and benefits everyone but, in case you haven’t noticed, most of us disagree – largely because there are so many stories like this one.

LMAO! What story? Mike doesn’t know what works were intended to be used, or how they were going to be used, but that didn’t stop him from jumping in and shitting on copyright law. Fair use is a fact-intensive analysis. Without knowing ANY of the facts here, we can’t really say anything intelligent about this situation.

Not knowing the facts never stops Mike from crying and whining about IP, though. You guys don’t know shit about exactly what is happening here, yet you’re all too ready to burn copyright at the stake.

Techdirt just looks silly for stuff like this. Sorry, Mike, but that’s how I see it. It’s too bad you don’t actually try and dig up some facts and report an actual story–you know, actual journalism.

When the truth finally comes out, I’ll bet you it was the CA Teacher’s Union that shut him down.

Previously on ?Unions Suck?: Teachers Union Thinks It Blocked Online Classes…But It Didn’t
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03461116360/cal-teachers-union-thinks-they-blocked-online-classesbut-they-didnt.shtml

The only travesty here is using the word to craft a screed having no basis in fact. There is a website for a course, it says the course is being delayed because of copyright issues, and there is nothing that elaborates upon what these issues comprise.

Would it not be prudent to simply call the professor for clarification before writing yet another ideology-based article? Ideology is fine, but facts are a bit more persuasive.

I guess that explains why the content “creators” are losing.

Many people get confused and don’t realize that the “Science” part was really about copyright (not the “useful arts.”) And, by “science” they really meant “learning.” In fact, the very first US Copyright law, in 1790, was entitled:

Ahhh, Masnick now the Constitutional Law expert.

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.

PROMOTE THE PROGRESS… it’s PROGRESS not learning that they are seeking to promote.

Masnick, do you understand that progress and learning are not the same things ?

Lets take technology for example, you can learn what is allready known, but progress is the gaining of knowledge of the UNKNOWN.

I know it is a subtle difference, and you clearly cannot differentiate between the two terms.

If you read a science book, that contains information that is the result of progress you are learning from that progress, but you are NOT contributing to that progress by learning about it.

It is true that if you learn about it, you may be able to ‘progress’ that science by your own creativity or invention.

Progress in science is working out, discovering, inventing.. that certain chemicals arrainged in a certain way form a Transistor, learning is being provided that information or acquiring that information.

Because you have just read (LEARNED) that silicon can be used in a transistor, does not advance the progress of the arts or technology.

I know it confusing, especially when the basic meaning of basic words need to be redefined to support a weak argument..

I dont expect any logical or reasoned response or for many of you to even understand such a simple concept, but I DO expect the usual trolls, who will try to make some stupid personal attack, but as usual not address the actual points raised… so go for it.. show your ignorance…

we’ll said !!!!

But asking that Masnick actually try to dig up FACTS, and use actual journalism !!!!!..

Dont hold your breath.. that would require masnick to actually DO WORK, and be honest !!!! and possibly even have some talent.. these are not masnicks ‘strong points’.

Usually, as you probably know, people progress their skills and career’s over time, they get better over time, of course at some point you are the best you can be, after that peak your progress slows, and you are at a certain level.

I guess this is Masnick’s “life” peak, it’s the best he can do, we know it, he knows it… if the best you can expect from life is to spend your days running “Techdirt”, you can understand why he is the way he is.

Were reading Masnick at the peak of his career/life, dont expect much more… or any more…

You just aren’t grounded in reality at times. It’s sad, really.

I guess that’s why SOPA/PIPA/ACTA died.

See, we do agree on many things. In the vernacular of the 1700’s “progress” was used in the context of encouraging the dissemination of information to others, and dissemination of information is necessary for learning to take place on a larger scale than would be the case with one-on-one exchanges.

At the time they were the equivalent. I was just pointing that out.

And you make no sense whatsoever. Congress thought that learning could be encouraged by granting copyright to works that would be used for teaching. There was no exception for teaching materials, which is not the case today (Section 107).

If it was not unconstitutional for teaching materials to be copyrighted then, why would it be unconstitutional today, especially when you consider the explicit fair use exception for teaching materials?

You haven’t explained this, nor do I think you can. I bet you can pretend like people way smarter than me agree with you though, right?

All you’re doing in this article is what you appear to always do: You hate copyright so very much that if there’s anyway you can spin some story to say something bad about copyright, you’ll take it. It matters not that you have no facts about what’s actually going on here other than that some class was delayed for some copyright reason.

Good God, Mike. Send some emails, make some calls. Find out what’s actually happening before you jump to conclusions. Is that all you’re good for, jumping to conclusions? Seems like it. I’m sorry that I sound rude, but for fuck’s sake put some effort in. You seem to be about one thing only: Bashing IP, no matter how mindlessly or reaching it may be.

It’s a real shame, ’cause you’re a smart and cool dude.

LMAO! 😉

Kinda sad that you wasted all that time to argue the letter of the law and totally ignored the PURPOSE and SPIRIT of the law, which was to ENCOURAGE LEARNING.

What is really sad, is you believe your “purpose and spirit” is the same as everyone elses idea of what that means.

It is your interpretation of the law, whereas the LETTER OF THE LAW, is JUST THAT.. it requires no interpretation.

It’s also not a law, it is your constitution, from which your laws are (sometimes) derived from.

It says DISCOVERIES, NOT (NOT) learning..

Are you under the belief that all knowledge allready exists, you just have to find the right text book to learn it ??

Are you insane ?????????

Do you think einstein came up with E=MC2 because he found that right text book with that equationin it ?

The intension and spirit of a law is the LETTER of that law, not in the way you or me or anyone else wants to interpret that law.

BTW: copyright does encourage learning, it encourages people who allready have that knowledge to write text books with the understanding that their work is protected by laws.

In area’s of knowledge and human progress that are not protected by copyright or by patents (such as military, and commercial) do not have that freedom to publish their knowledge, because they know they do not have that level of protection.

So it’s either patented, copyrighted, or SECRET !!!..

Thats just how it is, if you cannot work that out, you are talking out of your ass… !!!!! are you ?

You sir are a complete moron.

Using phrases like “shitting on copyright law” and “over-simplistic”, just help the rest of us understand that copyright law is too complicated, outdated, and no longer progresses learning and art.

Argue all you want, but the writings already on the wall. You are obsolete, the internet will route around your pea-brain.

I want your job.

Where can I apply?

Do you put “Stupid ass paid bitch shill” on your resume when you’re out pounding bricks for the next job? That’s what I would do.

“All you’re doing in this post is what you appear to always do: You love copyright so very much that if there’s anyway you can spin some story to say something good about copyright, you’ll take it.

for fuck’s sake put some effort in”

fify

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

“Uh-huh. I was actually the first person in this thread to point out that we have no idea what the copyright issue is here, while you and bob were ready to shit all over the university without knowing a damn thing about what’s going on.”

So why don’t you say something a little more direct, like “Mike, how come you are running a story seriously lacking in information and detail, yet you still are slamming copyright with it”?

This is a perfect example of a rush to attack mentality that makes Techdirt harder to take as seriously as Mike wishes we all would. It shows how He is way too much in a hurry to point out that blocking education with copyright is a “travesty” without knowing what is blocked, or more importantly, WHY it is blocked.

Based on his usual logic, let me put it this way: if he is in a rush to draw a conclusion here, where else is he doing the same thing? He has done it before, and will do it again. How many times has it happened, but nobody really noticed, because they were all busy slapping each other on the back for the latest zing against copyright or patents or Chris Dodd?

It makes you wonder – and if I was Mike, I could draw a conclusion here about his reliablity. But I won’t do that, I will leave it open to discussion instead.

what time was that ??? 1790 !!!! do you think the definition of “learning” has changed?

if so, how ?

oh, yea,, it’s 2012 now !!!! get with the times !!!

Yes, they are. Educational and teaching purposes are generally fair use.

Of course, since they aren’t *always*, there are “chilling effects” — basically, the professors get threatened with long expensive lawsuits, so even if it is fair use, the professors are afraid to do it.

The Constitution is even stronger. It says the power granted to Congress is:
“To promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts, *by* securing (etc)…”

This means that any copyright restriction which does not promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts is beyond the Constitutional power of Congress.

Unfortunately the Courts have simply ignored this clause, just like they usually ignore the Ninth Amendment.

Kinda sad that you wasted all that time to argue the letter of the law and totally ignored the PURPOSE and SPIRIT of the law, which was to ENCOURAGE LEARNING.

It amazes me that you can’t understand such simple concepts.

[Sorry, I forgot about this thread. And it is me, just with a different IP address…]

Sigh. Of course I understand simple concepts, Mike. Give me a fucking break. The problem with debating you is that you’re all over the place. All you do is move the goalposts, make ridiculous claims that you won’t back up, and keep weaseling in general. It sucks.

At first you were saying that copyright law, as applied to this class at Stanford, was unconstitutional. This is hilarious because you don’t even have the facts here. Is it the Stanford’s own policies, or the actual law, that is the problem here? You don’t know because you, as usual, didn’t do any actual journalism.

Now you’re saying that copyright law in general is unconstitutional because it doesn’t encourage learning, or at least, that’s what I think you’re arguing. This is a pretty silly argument, and one that I doubt you could really flesh out or defend. I will tell you this: You need to look at the federal copyright scheme as a whole, not at some small slice of it.

To be constitutional, copyright as a whole must promote the progress. Sure, you might be able to look at one, small slice and say, “See, copyright is not promoting the progress as well as it could be.” But so what? That’s not constitutionally relevant. Even if some small slice in some regard retards the progress, that doesn’t mean that on the whole–in the net–that progress isn’t promoted.

See what I mean? It’s like if we have a business contract where you promise to make me a profit every year. I can’t point to one electric bill and say, “See, you lost money there. Contract breached.” That would obviously be absurd because maybe you made a million dollars profit when the whole picture is taken into consideration.

That’s what you’re doing. You’re looking at one small thing, framing it very narrowly, and declaring that copyright isn’t promoting the progress. It just doesn’t work like that. And if you actually were to cite these mystical geniuses that purportedly back you up, I bet I could find where they indicate a similar idea.

But, of course, you didn’t actually produce any of these mystical geniuses. You never do, Mike. Sad that you keep claiming they exist when you never produce them when called out. But I digress…

The fact that the 1790 Act thought that the progress and education were promoted via copyright is very much relevant, since that is the very way that progress and education is promoted today. You seemed to miss the point entirely that today, as it was then, progress is promoted via copyrighting works, not by giving works no copyright protection if they are to be used for education and learning.

You, of course, cannot explain how it is that progress was promoted by copyrighting works under the 1790 Act, but it isn’t promoted under the 1976 Act. You, of course, and as always, are just pulling nonsense out of your ass.

As to your claim that copyright “clearly” does not encourage learning, I can only answer with a, “Huh?” I don’t even begin to know what you mean. Copyright promotes the progress and education and learning and does all sorts of great and wonderful things. It’s all around you. I think it’s really weird that you don’t see it. You truly are incredibly blinded by your own biases. It’s why I will never be able to take you seriously. It’s why no one should ever take you seriously.

One last thing, if you’re going to write an article about how dumb copyright is and how it’s being abused and learning is being ruined, etc., i.e., your typical Techdirt parade of horribles, then why not do even the most basic of journalism and actually find out what’s going on at Stanford? Seriously, Mike, how can anyone take you seriously when you don’t even put forth the minimum amount of effort to get some basic facts about the stories you write.

You really just come across as an uninformed lunatic. Sorry, dude, but that’s all I see.