As some may know I'm a teacher so I talk to the future generations of our planet's inhabitants quite a lot. I have to say that some things really do surprise me and among these things is the understanding of internet.

I'm not talking about understanging how it works, or how we can iumprove on its performance, but purely on the inpact it has in people's conscesness.

The things I've seen so far are quite interesting.

A - many kids regard it as a credible source on everything. So if it is on posted on a site of its own, it has to be true, no matter what it is. If it's a site that not many people know about, it really has to be true, especially if it says something other sites don't say. The other sites are conspireing in order to hide that information.

B - all the knowladge in the world is on the internet, so I don't have to know anything. All I need is a browser.

C - I'm paying for the internet, so everything I find on it I have to pay for. Why are they saying then that those movies are illegally downloaded - I payed for them. I pay a full XX€ a month to have my connection.

Now the first two points do concern me a little bit, but no too much. This just proves that people have always been after easy and sensational information. I mean, same concerns were there when TV was introduced to the general public, when Cinemas opened up to the general public, when the radio was listened to by the general public, when the general public could read... This just falls into the category of masses not being able to think for themselves and wish to be lead by somebody.

But the third argument really bothers me. It could lead up to a drastic increase of prices. After all, you can't really stop the on-line piracy (just like no-body could stop bootlegging pirated videotapes, photocopying of books, taping TV and radio shows...). But you could really raise the prices of getting internet connections and the providers of the connection could really be charged a lot of money for their work. Most of that money might very well go to the major entertainment industries, which are the ones damaged most by the piracy.

I guess this is a matter that in a way could concern our comunity as well, so I'd really like to hear your thoughts on it.

Well, you said it yourself... It's kid thinking for ya. They need to understand that what they pay for is the connection rights itself, not the right to do illegal stuff with the connection.

It's exactly the same thing with about everything else. A good comparison would be: you go to the gaz station and buy yourself some essence. It's not because the essence is now yours because you paid for it that you also bought the right to start a fire somewhere and burn down a whole house or anything similar.

My two cents...

it's because here everyone that owns a TV needs to pay subscription it to the state TV.

WHich brings us to cable - my professors is battling on constitution courts, because cabel TV doens't want to unplug all other channels off except from national tv.

here is the catch. we pay for national TV so if we watched only that through cable then we shouldn't be paying anyhting to cable providers (because broadcasting is already included in our monthly fee to national TV). but they won't do that. yet the logic is i pay for TV connection so i can now watch everything on those programmes.

ergo i pay for internet connection so i can watch anything on internet. internet has a feedback option. which in turn means i can show anyhting i want on internet. i think here is where their thinking is comming from.

but there are countries where broadband internet conneciton is very expencive. for example here you will pay 15 EUR/month for 1MB/s. but in Indonesia for example is arround 450 EUR. which is a lot for us but for them it's liek 3 monthly salaries. and if yu payed 450 EUR a month for internet wouldn't you think it is your RIGHT to watch all movies available online? :D i mean it would be much cheaper to go to the movies.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Jun 1 2007, 04:16 AM) [snapback]292430[/snapback]</div>Yes, but there's the problem... is it possible to make everybody understand something they don't, or should some other arrangement be made?

I mean, there were laws like the speed limit in the UK (the speed limit was 20 mph) and that was back in the days around WW1. Because people regularly broke that law and because cars had better capabilities the law changed.
Not to mention unpopular laws like the prohibition in the US, where there were so many people violating that law it became ridiculous and the law was removed.

Laws are (and we should never forget that) an agreement between people about what is allowed and what is not. So they are changable. and most of those kids will grow up and if they never get to understand (either inable to do so, or unwilling - more likely), they will be the ones who will have the possibility to force a law change.

The problem here is not at all about laws, or laws that will or could be changed later on by the adults those childrens will become... The whole problem originate because they can't make the difference between stealing something and simply taking it freely.

Those children thinks that because they pay for the access to the internet, they also pay for everything which is on it... Which is completely false. There is absolutly no reason to link those two together, yet they do. Why? Probably because nobody explained to them yet about the copyright laws and, even more importantly, why they are there and why they been created in the first place.

Once this is done, it's pretty simple to understand that if you download copyrighted media on the internet without paying the fee first you are downright stealing money from the producers, the person who created the media and also ultimatly themselves because at the end, the government will have to act on this and who is the government? Us. And also, later on, them...

It's pretty easy for anyone to understand once you simplify the matter to a single digit...

I'd like to give a statement to Seb's point B:

I really have loads of knowledge from the internet. Sorry to tell you as an assertor of the profession but:
My teachers failed in an quite big extent, though I was at the highest school level in germany (we call it "Gymnasium", english people may be confused by that).
There was 10% of the teachers that I personally liked for their personality the others were bourgeois or just a$$holes, since they would kick you behind, when you could do the least about it.
I met lots of really competent people on the web that explain thoroughly, at a appropriate pace and just make you remember what they told you -> you LEARN it. Especially when you can exercise in real life. For me that were some computer interiors.

I just want to say:
The young people become more and more pessimistic and cynical or even sarcastical. They make fun of people who can't do their job. Be it police, teacher, lawyer, whatever.
Their view gets wider in an earlier age.

And we're not prepared.

Well isn't it the same with other media? I mean I know when something happens around me, there's a huge amount of mistakes/misleadings etc. from newspapers/TV I really don't regard them as a much more credible source of information than the internet. (perhaps a blogger that saw something happen etc.) Of course if you are talking about conspiracy theories that kids saw on some random site, they would again believe a report about UFO's or a hidden nuke in Slovenia (:P) that they read in an xy magazine, so it's pretty much the same, kids like to believe those stuff.

That is becoming more true by the day. Knowledge is becoming cheaper and ore available "electronized" if you wish, I don't see that as a bad thing. Text is still text whether it's in a book or on a web site. It was made by humans who make mistakes from time to time.
They'll stop rationalizing like that when they get their first job. :D
Sure I pirate software too, but I don't rationalize it, I'm an evil criminal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Jun 1 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]292453[/snapback]</div>i see what you mean, cause i too went on this kind of school. and on this type of school they are supposed to wide your perspective, but too many times teachers are not ready for it and instead narrow your perspective. lucklly when i was going there i met with internet that already had graphics developed and more ot offer than just some scientific data. it attracted me so much that i bought a modem and arranged a connection. suddenly i got all information that teacher werent' really willing to give it to me. i mean they could have looked for it and told me next day instead the asnwer was : "maybe" or "i do not know that" way too many times.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Jun 1 2007, 10:33 AM) [snapback]292466[/snapback]</div>To me it was worse. "You're wrong!" or "There's no such thing!"
Worst case: On the board we made a mind map for trade(in the english performance class, not the basic class). I raised my arm and was given the word. I said "barter". And he would say :"I never heard that., I doubt that it exists!" I translated the word or him.
End of the story was we went to the school-library in the break and I had to show him the word in the dictionary and he had to concede in front of the class that I was right.

I could tell hours of these stories...

Most people want to force others to do their will, and they think that it's moral if it's a majority who decides on every aspect of an individual's life. It's very sad.

Laws do change, but there are fair and unfair laws. And it's not about whether the law is endorsed by a majority or not; it's about whether they're fair or not.

All because these kids are not responsible/clever/honest enough to say
?