71–80 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give plagiarism more teeth? To deter students from copying each-others notes? To reinforce a policy of students accessing knowledge from only legitimate sources (ie: textbooks)? The applications are numerous and potentially lucrative.
If you cheat on your homework we'll sue you?
Every time I read something like this, I can't help but feel that society has lost sight that the primary purpose of copyright is to promote and encourage creative endeavors for everyone's benefit [1], not to safeguard individual ownership of 'intellectual property.' Is anyone at this school system even wondering, "does society at large benefit from this?" -- [1] As pyre points out below, this is the case in the US,…
There's no way the students would be thinking up what they were without the collaboration of their teachers.
Sure schools should have special rules, they need to encourage not stifle, but in any logical sense it is their IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much profit is being derived from the work of children though? It seems a stretch to make a comparison with plantations/slaves. Any profit that is generated from children in school is a side-effect, not a primary goal. Though I can see this setting up a situation of perverse incentives.
I doubt this is about profit. It's more likely that they wanted the copyright so they can use services that detect plagiarism without having to get consent from the students every time. Now they're saying it's all a big mistake. Not sure I believe it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a big difference between granting the school a non-exclusive copyright licence (including one that allows them to sublicense to anti-plagiarism companies), and assigning them your copyright. I'd be happy to do the first, but not the second.
The first has pitfalls. For example, is it even possible to grant a non-exclusive, non-revocable license? So, they are going to prefer the second, as the pitfalls of the second are primary the objections of students.
...Yes?
IAN(Y)AL. But licences aren't revocable by default. If I grant you a licence by contract, then you have a licence. If I want to revoke it, I have two options.
- One, I can ask you if you'd be willing to waive/vary the contract, in return for some good consideration. But you don't have to accept.
- Two, I can send you a letter saying "I revoke your licence", sue you, and crucially, try to convince a judge to imply a term into the contract that allows me to revoke the license. Which is pretty hard. Terms aren't implied lightly. Especially if I put the word "irrevocable" in the contract, no-one's going to imply a clause saying the exact opposite.
Important thing: "by contract". If I grant you a licence gratuitously, outside of a contract or deed, that's different.
Surely this can't be legal under existing copyright law. From the article, "The District holds common law copyright, at a minimum, to all relevant intellectual property its city and school employees create, a spokeswoman said." I take it that the school district's lawyer was not consulted before that statement was made, or else the lawyer was a doofus about copyright law. There isn't any "common law copyright," in th…
That isn't actually a copyright issue unless the teacher copies it and/or distributes it. It may still be some form of theft though that assumes it wasn't lost while in the teacher's care for valid reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I literally did no (assigned) work in High School, failed every class, and still graduated a year early. It was about 50% moral outrage at the state of our education system, %40 I could teach myself things better, %10 I was a lazy arsehole.
Graduated from the school, or ditched the school and got a GED from the state?
Every time I read something like this, I can't help but feel that society has lost sight that the primary purpose of copyright is to promote and encourage creative endeavors for everyone's benefit [1], not to safeguard individual ownership of 'intellectual property.' Is anyone at this school system even wondering, "does society at large benefit from this?" -- [1] As pyre points out below, this is the case in the US,…
It was intended that copyright would exist for a limited amount of time to allow people to get some profit in return for their creative endeavors. With the Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998 corporations can hold onto copyright for 95 years since publication or 120 years since production.