BSA and the MPAA

[ScoutingEMT]

I saw this article on an online news ticker... I haven't been able to fully investigate it - what do you folks think, and does anyone know the "full story"???

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_en_mo/scouts_piracy_patch

 

"Be loyal, kind and don't steal mMovies"

 

LOS ANGELES - A Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc., etc. He is also respectful of copyrights. Boy Scouts in the Los Angeles area will now be able to earn an activity patch for learning about the evils of downloading pirated movies and music

 

The patch shows a film reel, a music CD and the international copyright symbol, a "C" enclosed in a circle.

 

The movie industry has developed the curriculum.

 

"Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft," Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement Friday.

 

 

[theysawyoucomin']

I think this is a hoot!!!!!

 

I figure Hollywood was allied with most of the folks who were killing us because of the Youth Protection Policy we have denying gay men leadership positions. Now they want us to help protect their revenue stream?

 

Some of those people hate us for a religious requirement

 

Didn't Steven Spielburg say he wanted nothing to do with us?

 

PS I do think it's good to teach the Scouts that they shouldn't steal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I go the movies about once per year because of the high prices. I purchase VHS tapes from Garage Sales and watch them at home. I have to wait for a while to see first run movies (several years) but that hasn't kept me from my viewing pleasures. I do not participate or encourage anyone to steal movies. My one vote against the high prices may not bring down Ballywoo but I am sure that the market place has been trimming the fat from around their loins or they wouldn't be aligning themselves with Scouting. fb

[Beavah]

Yah, they're funny, eh?

 

When I look at the RIAA and the MPAA and their approach, I think to myself that

 

Sharing is a family value

[fgoodwin]

Sharing may indeed be a family value, but stealing isn't.

 

Its up the copyright holder to determine whether or not they will share and under what conditions; it isn't up to the viewer. We may not like it, but that's how it is.

 

A Scout is courteous and obedient.

[prairie]

This topic fits with the webtoon I saw yesterday.

 

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20061022

 

 

[EagleDadx3]

I always thought "Copyright" meant you have the right to copy! Right?

[OldGreyEagle]

SO its ok to shaft an industry because that industry and the BSA doesnt see eye to eye on an unrelated issues?

 

Does this mean we get to heckle the sermons and egg churches that allow same sex marriages or avowed homosexuals to be members of their clergy?

 

So the scout law should be amended to say a Scout is trustworthy ... unless of course he is committing an act of piracy against the godless huns of the MPAA and associated riff-raff then alls fair ?

 

So, I admit to acts of hyperbole, but help me understand why a law abiding citizen would not support this?

[Beavah]

So, I admit to acts of hyperbole, but help me understand why a law abiding citizen would not support this?

 

As long as you admit it, eh?

 

Yah, it's important to remember that the Constitution treats creative works differently than property. In fact, the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of "intellectual property." Creative works belong to the public domain, eh?

 

What the Constitution does permit (but not require) are laws that temporarily grant an exclusive license to the author/creator of a work, but only when doing so "promotes the progress of science and the useful arts."

 

So creative works are "owned" by the public, eh? If anything, the MPAA is actin' like the pirate, or at least a privateer. That's my difficulty with this badge. Da BSA generally avoids taking an "advocacy position" in public policy debates. But that's exactly what this is. It's tryin' to get kids to join the special interest lobby for the entertainment distributors.

 

More important for us is the discussions we have with kids over citizenship. Does da current copyright and patent structure meet the constitutional test of promoting progress, or does it now hinder progress as large, wealthy companies use litigation to intimidate smaller startups? If progress is advanced more by sharing and distribution electronically, are these older laws still constitutionally valid? What rights does the public retain to their creative works despite the temporary grant of a license to the author?

 

It's also a good discussion to talk about how special interests fool with language, using terms like "piracy" and "stealing" inappropriately, eh? In da U.S. and the free world, they don't "own" a creative work. It is not property. It cannot be stolen.

 

 

 

 

[fgoodwin]

As long as we're throwing hyperbole, the Constitution has no provision making child abuse illegal -- does that mean the Founding Fathers thought it OK to have sex with kids?

 

My point being there are many things that local and state governments have laws about, and many things the federal gov't has laws & regulations about, that are not covered in the Constitution.

 

Just because copyright isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean you automatically have the right to do anything you want to do with a creative work of mine, or vice versa. And it certainly doesn't mean my creative work (or yours) is owned by the public.

 

I don't think it's "taking sides" to teach Scouts to obey the law. If you don't like the law, you work to change it - you don't break it. That should be lesson in our Citizenship MBs.

[OldGreyEagle]

beavah, totally confused by your answer, although thats not all that unusual. So you are saying that its ok for scouts to download songs and not pay for them as the songs are in the public domain? That a scout can videograph a movie he has paid to see via a digital recorder and then sell copies of his recording? The constitution address intellectual property? Where? I do admit I have lots to learn, this is just another example

 

I guess I also didnt recognize the opposition that copy right laws engender in today's society.

[mk9750]

I am going to defer to Beavah on the Consititution issues concerning copyright laws. He sounds like he knows more than I do (at least it SOUNDS that way).

 

However, my common sense tells me that if I create anything, I should own the rights to what is done with that creation, and may give it away, throw it away, or sell it away as I see fit.

 

If I create something and sell the right to enjoy my creation to another person, I believe he has the right to enjoy it as he / she sees fit. In the instance of a recording, my common sense tells me that should I want to have a second copy to listen to in my car rather than transporting my first copy with me where ever I go, I have that right.

 

However, if I create something and sell the right to enjoy it to another, and as a part of that right (called a license, I believe), the buyer agrees not to make copies for the enjoyment of others, when a buyer does so, he violates a contract. The creator is entitled (in my opinion - I am NOT a lawyer!) to compensation.

 

The government may have also passed laws making it a criminal act to act in conflict with the license. If they did, and someone were prosecuted, at some point, someone would have appealed a guilty verdict on constitutional grounds. I am not aware of sch a case yet. If there was one, it must have been decided in favor of the person who created the work, or this would not be an issue any longer.

 

So I have alsways worked from the assumption it is contrary to contract law, perhaps to criminal law, and at the very least the Scout Law, to copy music or movies in order to prevent to original owner from collecting money towhich he should be entitled. And I do my very best to pass that philosophy on to my children and the boys in our Troop.

 

Mark

[Beavah]

Yah, easy there.

 

I think it's important that we teach kids to understand the laws, eh? And the purposes for which they are enacted. That is the first step to proper obedience.

 

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Powers of the Legislative Branch.

"Congress shall have the power 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."

 

Without this provision, Congress would not have the authority to create copyrights, patents, etc. (see 10th amendment). The Founding Fathers definitely did not consider writings and discoveries to be property, which is protected differently in the constitution. Copying or sharing a work is therefore not theft, and it certainly has nothing to do with piracy. We are lying to our children to tell them that such activity is stealing.

 

That doesn't mean that some types of copying aren't contrary to law, in terms of the temporary exclusive license which congress may give to the author. They may well be. Other types of copying are legal. Many types of copying and distribution are new, and the law and public policy are still under debate. U.S. copyright and patent law historically has done its best to thread the needle balancing the author's temporary license against the inherent rights of the people.

 

Dat's where this is a good citizenship discussion for kids, eh? Thinkin' carefully about whether laws meet the goals they were designed for, and whether they are in keepin' with the Constitution, and how some people may want more regulation and restriction for their own profit. Any restriction on individual liberty (the right of the people to share ideas, stories, and creative works) must be balanced by at least an equal and clear societal good ("promoting the progress of science"). Generally, society and scientific progress are better promoted by liberty.

 

This is a good and relevant citizenship discussion to have with kids, eh? And it's a topic that they care about.

 

We just have to be careful to do it honestly.

 

 

[Lisabob]

There actually was/is a debate among our founding fathers regarding this issue. Some made an argument for patents in perpetuity but others (Jefferson, among them) made the argument that permanent protections for new ideas/products would result in a permanent elite and eventually squelch the creative drive of the middle classes and inventors, not to mention potentially deprive ordinary people of reasonable access to these ideas. Consequently there was a time limit placed on copyrights and patents. That limit has been lengthened by Congress several times in light of technological and societal change (and probably serious pressure from patent and copyright holders). Whether this is desirable is a debatable matter of course.

 

But. The part of the scout law that discusses obedience includes this line: "If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them." And I think it applies in cases like this discussion.

 

Lisa'bob

[theysawyoucomin']

Wow! I never thought I said thieving copyrights was OK.

 

To clarify,

Think is is a hoot, that the industry that sells debauchery

 

Is asking a group that strives for ethical behavior, that said industry presecutes

 

To participate in a program that teaches members of the group ethical behavior.

 

OLD GREY bird of prey, I never said shaft anybody,

I just think it is IRONIC.

 

They have helped run the numbers of the BSA into the ground, as they shape society, how are they going to teach the other (fill in a number here) million kids not to steal their work.

 

Never said egg a church, never said heckle.

 

 

Ps I still do think it's good to teach kids not to steal.

 

Maybe the Tobacco companies could teach us not to smoke.