I meant more the fundamentals of what copyright is, where and when it applies, and what conflicts of interest exist, for example, in weighing the value of freely available knowledge to a society against the monetary interests of creators.
I’d support a section on the Constitution overall, covering all of the clauses at least briefly.
The copyright clause is not complex. The rationale is debatable.
I studied it in college and it in multiple law school classes including constitutional law, first amendment law, entertainment law, and intellectual property, each separate classes with a different reason for addressing copyright.
For kids, I think saying hey, the IP clause exists, the idea is that by granting creators or inventors, in the case of patents, a time-limited monopoly on their work, it encourages creative and inventiveness by creating a market in which creators and inventors have the exclusive right to market and reproduce their work, among other rights. The idea is that creators and inventors wouldn’t do their thing if they can’t get paid on it.
After all the education, I just don’t think it’s true. People will still create and invent. Especially as to copyright; people are naturally creative and want to share it with others. Most artists, if they couldn’t get paid for it, would still do it anyway, and people will always pay to see the original work, even if there are knockoffs and copycats.
The basics may be covered in relatively short amount of time, what means it won’t get memorized - part of learning is repetition after all. It’s a waste of time & space that should go to truly important topics, then.
It’s one of those things that should either be part of more focused training, or should be studied by people interested in them on their own.
I meant more the fundamentals of what copyright is, where and when it applies, and what conflicts of interest exist, for example, in weighing the value of freely available knowledge to a society against the monetary interests of creators.
I’d support a section on the Constitution overall, covering all of the clauses at least briefly.
The copyright clause is not complex. The rationale is debatable.
I studied it in college and it in multiple law school classes including constitutional law, first amendment law, entertainment law, and intellectual property, each separate classes with a different reason for addressing copyright.
For kids, I think saying hey, the IP clause exists, the idea is that by granting creators or inventors, in the case of patents, a time-limited monopoly on their work, it encourages creative and inventiveness by creating a market in which creators and inventors have the exclusive right to market and reproduce their work, among other rights. The idea is that creators and inventors wouldn’t do their thing if they can’t get paid on it.
After all the education, I just don’t think it’s true. People will still create and invent. Especially as to copyright; people are naturally creative and want to share it with others. Most artists, if they couldn’t get paid for it, would still do it anyway, and people will always pay to see the original work, even if there are knockoffs and copycats.
Again: no.
The basics may be covered in relatively short amount of time, what means it won’t get memorized - part of learning is repetition after all. It’s a waste of time & space that should go to truly important topics, then.
It’s one of those things that should either be part of more focused training, or should be studied by people interested in them on their own.