Totally False Propaganda About File Sharing Being Given To Students As Educational Material

from the will-the-next-pamphlet-be-about-lying-to-students? dept

It’s no secret that both the MPAA and the RIAA have created so-called “educational campaigns” for students about copyright. These educational programs are incredibly one-sided, of course, and it’s amazing that many schools actually allow this sort of corporate propaganda to masquerade as educational material. Even more problematic is when an entirely separate organization, supposedly offering a non-biased educational campaign, starts parroting the propaganda. The nonprofit National Center for State Courts, whose charter apparently is as an “organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice by providing leadership and service to court systems in the United States,” has done just that. As part of that, it created a set of “graphic novels” (more like a pamphlets) designed to teach students how the court system works. Except the first such graphic novel actually teaches a bunch of RIAA propaganda about file sharing that is mostly flat-out false.

Among the things that aren’t true is a claim that file sharing is a city level crime that will get you arrested by the local cops, and that you can face a 2 year jail sentence and a criminal record for downloading songs. You would think that a pamphlet designed to teach kids how the courts would work would actually get the legal issues correct. But, instead, it’s just a bunch of propaganda that is completely incorrect about the law.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: national center for state courts

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Totally False Propaganda About File Sharing Being Given To Students As Educational Material”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
46 Comments
chris (profile) says:

propaganda is part of college life

from the STD lectures cleverly folded into biology classes to *.rights groups that hand out fliers and rush stages.

that’s what college is for: getting drunk, finding outif you are a lesbian, and being exposed to people’s propaganda.

the MAFIAA are just getting in on the act. if anything it opens the door for the pirate party to hand out it’s own propaganda.

Substitute teacher says:

How DL torrents 101

1 – DL utorrent on the windows os or transmision for osx.

2- Always make sure you are behind a password protected router preferably wired.

3- Setup your torrent client and under the prefs. force stealth mode.

4 – Change your router dns settings to use open dns, with the following dns servers addresses:

208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220

5- resart the router to ensure new settings are in place

6 – Go to http://www.thepiratebay.org, and browse the category of DL you desire.

7 – Click the seed tab twice to ensure the DL’s with the most seeds are on the top.

8 – Scroll and DL torrents to your hearts content.

9 – Quit your browser (i like firefox) and open your torrent client.

10- drag your torrent files over the client window and it will ask where to put the DL. I use an external HD, actually many now since I have so many DL’s.

11- That is the end of today’s lesson. There will be a POT quiz tomorrow.

chris (profile) says:

Re: Re: How DL torrents 101

Why use OpenDNS? is there some level of security or anonymity it provides?

they are not your ISP and won’t be co-erced into monkeying with your DNS resolution. as dan kaminsky taught us, if you can trust DNS, you can’t trust ssl, ssh, certificates, basically the entire network.

the only thing missing from the lesson is using (and updating!!!) peer guardian. forced stealth is nice, but seeing the blocked connections from media sentry and their ilk is even better.

Bill Cole says:

Re: Re: Re: How DL torrents 101

Why use OpenDNS? is there some level of security or anonymity it provides?

they are not your ISP and won’t be co-erced into monkeying with your DNS resolution. as dan kaminsky taught us, if you can trust DNS, you can’t trust ssl, ssh, certificates, basically the entire network.

If you can’t trust your ISP to not screw with your DNS, using OpenDNS (or trying to) is useless. Anyone who can see a DNS query packet can simply respond to it as if they were the target: no port or query number guessing necessary. It has been rumored that some ISP’s are hijacking all outbound UDP port 53 packets from their customers, readdressing them to their own nameservers as a way to keep their typosquatting profitable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Neither Florida nor California specify “selling”, “offering to sell”, etc. as necessary elements of the offense. File sharing per se can get a person in trouble with state authorities.

California’s statute is interesting (Section 653aa) because of a twist it contains. Generally, it requires a file sharer to provide an email address that can be read at the time of download and that identitifies the location of the file sharer.

Doubtless, “Hollywood” was behind its enactment, and that it is difficult to apply given what one can do with email addresses. However, if an address is not provided and “Hollywood” still finds you, the authority of the state can also be invoked to place a file sharer in even hotter “hot water”.

The necessary elements of a particular crime vary from state to state, so what is criminal conduct in one may not be in another. The important point to note, however, is that file sharing is not necessarily just a matter of federal law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Another example can be found under Oregon’s criminal statutes at Section 164.377, “Computer Crime”. The prima facie elements of the offense are certainly broad enough to subsume file sharing withing its terms.

I do have to note that I have not made a comprehensive search of the laws of all states, commonwealths and territories of the United States. I will leave that to be performed at some future date by an academic who needs to publish something to add to his/her CV. I do believe, however, that the major lobbying groups for the “entertainment content industries” do have as one of their goals the lobbying of state legislatures to add matters such as unauthorized file sharing to the extensive laundry list of criminal conduct.

Merely as an aside, patent infringement is not a criminal act under federal law. Given how the federal courts have interpreted the issue of “federal preemption”, I would not be surprised to see at some time in the future patent lobbying groups to urge such conduct be subject to criminal sanctions under state law.

Nigel says:

Knock-off Nigel

I’m not sure how well the adverts in the UK will deter piracy, but they certainly make me chuckle.

“He’s the type of man who does things on the cheap, he gave his girlfriend a watch he found in the street. He buys knock-off DVDs, he’d rob his on gran, he scrounges his drinks what a grubby little man. He’s a knock-off Nigel, he’s a knoc-off nigel…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbqBPmInjQ

You just have to chortle when you watch it, it really is quite good.

Conrad says:

Get it right

“if you can trust DNS, you can’t trust ssl, ssh, certificates, basically the entire network.”

SSL and SSH exist specifically to deal with UNTRUSTED network infrastructure, including hijacked DNS.

Unless you deliberately bypass their protections (i.e. ignoring warnings about invalid certificates or unknown key fingerprints), you absolutely do not need to trust DNS to trust SSL and SSH.

Uther says:

Password Protected Router

Do you mean WEP/WPA encrypted or simply not “admin”?

Obviously “admin” is an awful choice of password, but I’ve always heard that for WEP/WPA that leaving them off is a better choice because it is a possibility that someone hacks your network and then illegally downloads something. If it’s encrypted, then you’ve got a lot harder case proving that it wasn’t you.

The same goes if you’re trying to get off the hook yourself – if it’s unencrypted, it could’ve been anybody.

Anonymous Coward says:

The B Story

It is odd that half the comic is about the eminent domain story where the city is trying to, in essense, steal houses at below market prices. They paint the justice department as the heroes which is rarely the case (with some notable exceptions, thanks Institute for Justice – ij.org). All in all, I took it more as a glimpse into the future or rather as the future envisioned by the IP crowd. This same crowd will try to steal your house.

mike acker says:

stealing

the argument I see repeatedly is simply that “copying” is not “stealing” because in the case of a copy the original stays where it was, un-affected. and so the owner of the original hasn’t lost anything, hence: no harm, no foul.

Copyright law exists to produce a market for copies: books, and recordings of various sorts: music, video, computer programs, and computer games.

The market has bee protected on purpose in order to encourage development and creativity in these areas.

Today there is a massive cry for a stampede to trample the copyright law into the dust.

an occasional illicit copy of a song or track here and there won’t have much affect on the market, overall. But left un-checked, the massive distribution of books, games, audio and video files over the computer net will change the overall market for these items from a basically corporate controlled environment to a freelance paradigm.

there is no reason the freelance paradigm cannot co-exist with the corporate one. we are doing that now in the open-source software area. there is no reason that music and video cannot do the same

but whether to publish freelance or to publish commercially is properly left to the creative artists.

subscribers should respect their decisions

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: stealing

I believe the original poster does agree with you, and in the beginning of his post was merely parroting much of what is posted as comments on this site. There are, unfortunately, a large number who see nothing wrong with using digital files, even though they know such files are unauthorized and in violation of the creators’ copyrights.

Anonymous Coward says:

“You would think that a pamphlet designed to teach kids how the courts would work would actually get the legal issues correct. But, instead, it’s just a bunch of propaganda that is completely incorrect about the law.”

I wonder why it is that MM posts replies when he believes that a commenter is wrong, but stops altogether when a commenter demonstrates otherwise?

Is it really that hard to admit that at least some portions of his posts may be incorrect? It is not as if the commenter is trying to get him to say “uncle”.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I wonder why it is that MM posts replies when he believes that a commenter is wrong, but stops altogether when a commenter demonstrates otherwise?

I’m more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I’m not engaging in the comments as much this week because I’m traveling.

I also haven’t had a chance to look at the details of what you pointed to for the same reason.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...