As a teacher, if I become aware of a student who is being bullied on social media, I think it’s extremely important to have a conversation with the student but also let them know that you need to have a conversation with their parents or guardians and that the student may want or need to be involved in that conversation. I think it’s important as a teacher to model and teach about technology and social media being tools to be used in learning and not in negative or hurtful ways. I think it would also be a good idea to bring this to the attention of the school administration in case this negative behaviour is more widespread. Teachers also should reinforce the idea that kids need to be communicating with a trusted adult about their online experiences and especially with any illegal or harmful content.

Well I don’t necessarily have 6 tips but here are some things to think about. Teachers should avoid interacting with students on social media unless it’s directly related to school work firstly, because as role models, teachers need to be modeling healthy boundaries in relationships as well as healthy social media use. Secondly, engaging with students online socially may lead to a dependence in the relationship due to the power imbalance which could put the teacher or the student in a position of moral distress if they are expected to keep secrets or support the other emotionally. Interaction on social media also creates a digital footprint such that without even knowing the context but just that the relationship is outside of school work can be misconstrued as being inappropriate and crossing boundaries which could affect future career goals or current job security and prospects. 

We can help our learners manage their digital footprint by scaffolding online learning experiences that support productive and positive reflections of self such as creating a classroom blog focussing on community engagement, learning, and positive social and emotional growth.

Here is an interesting interview which touches on resources for parents and teachers and covers a variety of digital issues for teens including cyberbullying. It is hosted by a local Canadian organization specializing in cybersecurity and digital education for parents, teachers and kids.

Do copyright laws serve the majority of people any longer?

I believe that if you manipulate an existing soundbite enough you can eventually claim it as your own creation as long as the majority of the population can no longer recognize the soundbite as a previous song. As an example, some people take sounds from nature which are not copyrighted and use those to create their own musical pieces so using soundbites from other artists if they are unrecognizable in the end product seems like a reasonable activity. Furthermore, just like with text where if information is used it is cited appropriately perhaps that could be done in the same way for music such that new works build on existing works as long as they are given credit.

I can’t really separate whether I think the creative process or the final product is more important because the creative process I think is probably more important individually for those creating it and the final product is potentially more important publicly or for the intended audience.

To be fair to both the artist being sampled and the artist doing the sampling, perhaps there could be guidelines such that you cannot use any more than a total of 10% of anyone’s previous song and that any use needs to be cited appropriately. Further, perhaps only up to one percent of a song can be used per new soundbite created which makes up the new track with an overall maximum of 10% of the original song in the new track but spaced apart.

Copyright laws were originally intended to encourage people to create. However, I think that intention has changed in recent years whereby the copyright laws are being used to force litigation to compensate original artists which in turn limits future creativity.

How ’bout a library of pre-cleared music samples? Check out track lib.

I guess in today’s global online community one country has to impose copyright laws on another because everyone has access to everything which is posted online and so there are no borders of protection any longer which would prevent what happened in America’s beginnings, where the copyrights of foreign authors were ignored. To ignore copyrights and profit off other artists in order to support local artists seems outdated again because of our global online community.

I think there should be an expiry that is not in the distant future for some of these copyright laws to prevent people from profiting off somebody else in the short term, however maybe after five years or 10 years that copyright expires and others can build upon that for their creative interests. There’s also links to pharmaceutical companies like where Brazil defied US intellectual property laws by breaking multiple international patent patents on HIV medication. They produced their own copies of the drug for a fraction of the price. There are so many instances currently of people being unable to treat themselves medically because the medications are cost-prohibitive which seems like a major equity issue as well as a human rights issue. How much does a multi billion zillion dollar corporation need to make off people’s health?

Check out this Harvard Business review:

How Pharma Companies Game the System to Keep Drugs Expensive

by Erin Fox April 06, 2017

I think if there could be a global community initiative to create medications in a not-for-profit way then the impetus for such financial competition in the field would be eliminated and we would see a more cooperative humanitarian type effort to benefit all people and animals.