Close Up Foundation Curriculum

Copyright Curriculum – Close Up Foundation – Face the Music Program

· Location: http://www.closeup.org/ftm_homehtm.php (Free registration required)

· Target audience: High School

· Normative Values: The Close Up Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit provider of “civic education.” Their mission is to “educate, inspire, and empower individuals to become active citizens in our democracy.” They do this through a civics-oriented student field trip program to Washington D.C., as well as through supplemental social studies texts and videos for the classroom. They are backed by a long list of sponsors including large corporations (Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Exxon) and smaller foundations. They are one of the educational sources linked to by the RIAA, though they don’t appear to be in partnership in any way.

· Information Presented: The Close Up Foundation’s Face the Music program includes an eight minute video on illegal downloading, a “viewing guide” worksheet for kids to fill out as they watch, five suggested teaching activities, and eight “issue briefings” on specific subjects which can be incorporated into the activities.

o Video: I could not gain access to the video, but the website gives the following description: “Hear what Erin, Matt, Avni, Nishant, and Maggie have to say about illegal downloading and watch as they wrestle with the legal and ethical questions inherent in the issue…Also find out what American University student Brenda thinks of illegal downloading and what music store owner Fred Wilbur says is happening to his business as a result of illegal downloading. And listen in as an up-and-coming rock musician, one who is using the Internet to attract attention to his band, weighs in with his thoughts about following the law and making music and money.”

o Viewing guide: A set of questions about the movie. Some are aimed at just making sure students are paying attention (“List three reasons people in the video give for illegally downloading music”) while others encourage reflection (“Several people in the video compare the act of illegal downloading with that of shoplifting. What is your take on this comparison?”)

o Issue briefings: Each of the eight briefings goes into some detail on a specific issue related to music downloading. They range from general concepts like fair use and public domain, to legislation like the Sonny Bonno Copyright Term Extension Act, to landmark legal decisions like Sony v. Universal and Grokster. Each briefing is followed by discussion questions.

o Teaching Activities: Methods for facilitating discussion on music downloading. Includes anticipatory activities intended to get students brainstorming about

what they already know about music, as well as activities based on the issue briefings, where students come together to teach other what they’ve learned. Helpful discussion questions are included.

· Strongest Part: Many of the issue briefings and discussion questions are very well constructed, giving students the opportunity to delve into some of the details and controversies behind ©. One of the accompanying teaching activities also seems useful: The curriculum suggests that teachers divide the class into groups, with each group in charge of reading, discussing, and mastering one issue briefing. The teacher should then mix the students up into new groups, with each group containing at least one “expert” on each issue. These experts then teach their new group members the issue they have mastered.

· Weakest Part: Though I haven’t seen the video, it seems clear based on the description and viewing questions that it adds little to the discussion. While the issue briefings nicely summarize important arguments, and raise controversial issues, the video’s only aim seems to be to convince kids that illegal downloading is bad. This may be a valid point, but it doesn’t do much to enhance student’s understanding of the issue, which at the high school level should really be the goal.

· Aspects to Consider Using:

o The curriculum does an excellent job of highlighting the inherent tensions in copyright law between creators and consumers of content. This is drawn out in discussion questions like “When do you think a copyrighted work should move into the public domain? Keep in mind the interests of those who work to create and author original works, and the interests of the public in having unrestricted access to those works.” This tension is central to any meaningful discussion of ©, and is glaringly absent from many other curricula.

o Many of the discussion questions ask students to consider what kind of rules they would impose to best meet the goals of copyright. This is an excellent way to encourage reflection on the current copyright regime. For example, one question asks, “If you could write copyright law, how would you protect the rights of authors and creators as well as the interests of businesses and consumers?” Another asks, “how do you think the nation should respond to constantly changing technological capabilities? Are there any ethical or legal guidelines that you believe must be followed as new policies are made, implemented, and evaluated? If so, what are they?”

o The curriculum contains a discussion of copyright law in the context of the U.S. Constitution, something lacking in many of the other curricula currently available. Following this discussion, it asks the question, “Why was promoting ‘the Progress of Science and useful Arts’ important to the framers of the nation’s government?” It also asks, “Should Congress be allowed to extend copyright terms? Do you think it is good public policy? Do you think it is constitutional? Why or why not?”