No. There is no link between people being creative and people respecting copyright law. I guess most people on DA who use Photoshop have pirated it, for example. The number of people who don't understand creative commons at all, even though they're using it, is also staggering. So there is no reason to believe that this measure would help at all.
I just realized that I hadn't read your post fully, and not replied to the second paragraph.
I am against government subsidies for creativity tools. Nobody needs the Adobe Creative Suite to be creative. It does make it easier, and I think it's worth the money (especially the comparatively cheap student edition), but people can also make art with GIMP, if they don't mind a lot of pain. Similarly, good cameras are expensive, but people can make great pictures even with iPhones.
It has never been cheaper to be creative than today. Most kinds of creativity are free today; they only cost time. So I don't really see a need here. Of course it would be nice to get CS 6 for free, but that isn't the job of the government.
Thank you. I guess most people would not need this kind of help. I still thought it would be helpful because of the premise that those who are serving time for violating copyright law can step into an intellectual property owner's shoes and see why infringement would be against the law, but it is not needed.
I think copyright law should be amended to apply to what it was originally designed for: protecting the rights of the author or creator of an original work, something which has sadly been almost forgotten today thanks to the distortions and misconceptions seen in something like SOPA which confuses the distinctly different legal concepts of property and intellectual property.
A creative course is for teaching people who to do things in art or design. They don't teach copyright law. If you want to teach people copyright laws, then you send them to a law school or seminar.
The problem is we don't have any (or just very very little) education on copyright laws in our primary schools. You might get a 10 minute lecture from your Government class teacher and that's about it. The expectation is that people will learn this stuff in college, but unless you're going into a law school, most kids never get any education on copyrights. They have to figure it out on their own.
So you had a single class session and that's it? What about all the people who didn't take Photography? The biggest problem is waiting until people are adults to start teaching them copyrights and that the teaching is short and inconsistent between schools.
So you're saying you had a class several weeks or months long dedicated to copyrights, right? That would be good, but unfortunately I don't think that's really done anywhere other than law schools or universities that make it an elective course. I just looked up both of the community colleges I attended when I was younger and neither has a course like that. One of them offered a section of a Literary course on copyrights, but I don't know how much they would go into that stuff in class. I doesn't look like it is something for other majors either.
But this is what I'm saying. None of them are consistent and it shouldn't be left until college (which not everyone goes to) for people to learn and fully understand copyrights.