Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

-----Forwarded Message-----

> From: tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>
> To: Anatoly Volynets <av AT total-knowledge.com>
> Subject: Re: [Community_studios] Arguing the deprivation of culture in our 
> society
> Date: 30 Jul 2004 23:45:21 -0700
> 
> On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 15:01, Anatoly Volynets wrote:
> - - - snip - - -
> > 
> > However, it is quite obvious that modern challenge for education is to
> > provide creative, responsible, thinking individuals rather than skillful
> > loyal workers. Later qualities were real objective of the "School of 
> > Enlightenment", while former can be brought up by arts rather than 
> > science.
> 
> I like that statement.  Let me rephrase to see if I understand it,
> correctly:
> Can we agree that one of the biggest challenges of modern education is
> to "provide creative, responsible, thinking individuals", rather than
> "loyal workers".  If so, how is that challenge met by cutting school
> budgets in the arts?
>  
> > Today it is not just about "stimulating of progress" but about entire life
> > in all its dimensions. Dialogue and creativity are the most essential
> > features, requested by modern society, and these qualities are propagated
> > by arts.
> 
> We can question methods of instruction, but cannot frivolously 
> > give arts up, which does happen in reality.  
> 
> > 
> > "Instruction" in arts can be organized in very different ways, not
> > necessarily by lecturing and formal training like it is understood for the
> > last 300 something years. Still, whatever methods are, it is necessary.
> 
> > Reading/writing is already in question. Just ask first 10 people you meet 
> > today if they LIKE read and write. I believe that contemporary education 
> > has to revrse some fundamental trends and try to educate students in 
> > math, 
> > reading and writing as if these were arts.
> 
> > Hopefully (near)future generations will study this closely without
> > prejudices. It is my understanding that copyright nonsense has been
> > nonsense all along, that is since 1771. BTW, patent nonsense was not less
> > nonsense than the copyright one. The only reason I am not that much
> > concerned with patents is that they just slow down technology progress,
> > while copyrights badly damage humanity itself.
> 
> Consider today, where a copyright holder of songs dictates that those
> stations, whether broadcast or on the Internet, must not permit
> listeners to know in advance what song is to be played.  They can listen
> to it, enjoy it, but not be able to anticipate its being played at some
> future time.  The purpose of such restriction is to prevent others from
> recording a song for repeated playback outside of the broadcast or
> Internet play.
> 
> Now, let's add another scenario.  There are already some higher
> educational systems that provide textbooks for their students.  The
> copyright holders restrict how the textbooks are to be used.  One
> restriction requirement holds that students must not open a computerized
> textbook and share it with other students.  Another restriction, even
> more damaging, holds that students may only use the computerized
> textbook for the duration of one semester.  At the end of that semester,
> the book is no longer available to them, unless they pay an appropriate
> fee.  When they leave school, the textbooks they have "purchased" will
> no longer be available to them for reference.
> 
> Suppose we imagine such restrictions being adopted throughout the
> educational system.  For starters, those students who are rich, will be
> the students that can best access information.  The poor students will
> not have the ability to access information without tremendous energy and
> effort.  
> 
> I, personally, don't see much, if any, creativity and innovation being
> stimulated, taught, encouraged under such conditions.
> Tom
>