IP Problems, YouTube, and the Future: Crash Course Intellectual Property #7
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Heather
Here's my solution. If you don't like it, please give constructive criticism. If you do, please perpetuate this idea and try to change the laws: In the future, I predict that the vast majority of IP will get its start on crowdfunding websites. Therefore, creators should 1. Decide ahead of time the net money necessary for their project, including how much profit they want to generate. 2. Describe their idea on their page in enough detail to prove that they can produce a creative work, but not so much so that any plagerizing parallel projects could make a completely identical product (and if they still do by accident, that means that only one design was ideal and therefore no one can cry foul) 3. Immediately release every aspect of their creation to the public domain the second it hits the market. Now understand, there would still be regulations in place; here are a few that I've come up with: 1. Intellectual Property can still be considered -stolen- if the theft occurred before the creation was officially unveiled to the public. Until that moment, the idea is still private, and creators should be able to develop their idea in peace without worrying about a competitor beating them to the punch if a blueprint got leaked. 2. Anti-plagiarism laws would be beefed up. Copying off of someone, even directly disseminating their work, would be all fair game, but only when doing so at least partially serves as guerrilla advertising for the entity that produced the original work. In the digital world, attention is valuable capital - we often overlook that fact - so copying someone's work with the appropriate citations is still valid payment. Only assholes have a problem with giving credit where credit's due, and users would actively benefit because - well - how frustrating is it when there's no way to find out where that piece of music came from? Everybody wins! 3. There would be institutions for moderating the exchange of money for creative works, by which I mean the websites supporting this model. Technically, they are the ones holding the money for the time in between the customer funding the project and the project being released. If a project is announced aborted, the money is automatically refunded to the supporters. Any money that is taken out of the pot during the development process must be declared to the supporters. Finally, a ratings system would be implemented to hold creators accountable across multiple projects. Now I am aware that what I'm describing is essentially money lending, and that practice has plenty of its own problems, but hopefully you'll agree exorcising IP from this tangled web is a step in the right direction.
reply
Here's my solution. If you don't like it, please give constructive criticism. If you do, please perpetuate this idea and try to change the laws: In the future, I predict that the vast majority of IP will get its start on crowdfunding websites. Therefore, creators should 1. Decide ahead of time the net money necessary for their project, including how much profit they want to generate. 2. Describe their idea on their page in enough detail to prove that they can produce a creative work, but not so much so that any plagerizing parallel projects could make a completely identical product (and if they still do by accident, that means that only one design was ideal and therefore no one can cry foul) 3. Immediately release every aspect of their creation to the public domain the second it hits the market. Now understand, there would still be regulations in place; here are a few that I've come up with: 1. Intellectual Property can still be considered -stolen- if the theft occurred before the creation was officially unveiled to the public. Until that moment, the idea is still private, and creators should be able to develop their idea in peace without worrying about a competitor beating them to the punch if a blueprint got leaked. 2. Anti-plagiarism laws would be beefed up. Copying off of someone, even directly disseminating their work, would be all fair game, but only when doing so at least partially serves as guerrilla advertising for the entity that produced the original work. In the digital world, attention is valuable capital - we often overlook that fact - so copying someone's work with the appropriate citations is still valid payment. Only assholes have a problem with giving credit where credit's due, and users would actively benefit because - well - how frustrating is it when there's no way to find out where that piece of music came from? Everybody wins! 3. There would be institutions for moderating the exchange of money for creative works, by which I mean the websites supporting this model. Technically, they are the ones holding the money for the time in between the customer funding the project and the project being released. If a project is announced aborted, the money is automatically refunded to the supporters. Any money that is taken out of the pot during the development process must be declared to the supporters. Finally, a ratings system would be implemented to hold creators accountable across multiple projects. Now I am aware that what I'm describing is essentially money lending, and that practice has plenty of its own problems, but hopefully you'll agree exorcising IP from this tangled web is a step in the right direction.
reply
MadMage
You talk about the 'life plus 70' term being so hard to change, but it was extended to 70 years in 1998. that's really not that long ago as far as the legal realm is concerned. This kind of explanation seems akin to the 'too big to fail' line of thought that if something is difficult to do, we pre-ordain the path of least resistance.
My problem with it isn't even necessarily that the term itself is ludicrously long or that wildly vague concepts have been allowed such protections - my problem is the non-viable nature of these protections in a digital age in the first place. A physical product is one thing, but information is a much murkier proposition and I think the efforts meant at one time to be consumer friendly have become very anti-consumer. Simply put, there need to be far more consumer end protections and rights (such as trial use for software due to the complex and often uncertain nature thereof or rights to create or obtain copies of products legally held in various forms. I would also argue that performance pieces such as music, movies and television should not receive protection and monetization should focus on a specific presentation, such as concerts or theater showings, rather than attempting to control all reproductions and distributions thereof.
reply
You talk about the 'life plus 70' term being so hard to change, but it was extended to 70 years in 1998. that's really not that long ago as far as the legal realm is concerned. This kind of explanation seems akin to the 'too big to fail' line of thought that if something is difficult to do, we pre-ordain the path of least resistance.
My problem with it isn't even necessarily that the term itself is ludicrously long or that wildly vague concepts have been allowed such protections - my problem is the non-viable nature of these protections in a digital age in the first place. A physical product is one thing, but information is a much murkier proposition and I think the efforts meant at one time to be consumer friendly have become very anti-consumer. Simply put, there need to be far more consumer end protections and rights (such as trial use for software due to the complex and often uncertain nature thereof or rights to create or obtain copies of products legally held in various forms. I would also argue that performance pieces such as music, movies and television should not receive protection and monetization should focus on a specific presentation, such as concerts or theater showings, rather than attempting to control all reproductions and distributions thereof.
reply
Andr-
I actually liked the -introduction- for the matter, but there are two related things I wanted to say.
First, a mention of -linux weirdos- was kinda. unnecessary, to say the least. Many Linux users actually know more about copyrights than the average proprietary OS user (yes, some are -weirdos-, but which group doesn't have these. Generalizing like this, since this was the only mention to this group is unfair to say the least.
Second, Copyleft was only barely mentioned. I think that they do make valid points whether you agree with the ideas or not and I think these -alternatives- to copyright should have at least an episode to make a just counterpoint. In the end, I don't think that the criticisms to the system and the proposed alternatives were suitably addressed in this series, just pinpointing individual challenges that the current system has to overcome to keep things running as they always ran.
But again, good work. Just trying to be constructive with my criticism.
reply
I actually liked the -introduction- for the matter, but there are two related things I wanted to say.
First, a mention of -linux weirdos- was kinda. unnecessary, to say the least. Many Linux users actually know more about copyrights than the average proprietary OS user (yes, some are -weirdos-, but which group doesn't have these. Generalizing like this, since this was the only mention to this group is unfair to say the least.
Second, Copyleft was only barely mentioned. I think that they do make valid points whether you agree with the ideas or not and I think these -alternatives- to copyright should have at least an episode to make a just counterpoint. In the end, I don't think that the criticisms to the system and the proposed alternatives were suitably addressed in this series, just pinpointing individual challenges that the current system has to overcome to keep things running as they always ran.
But again, good work. Just trying to be constructive with my criticism.
reply
Can
It is simply impossible to prevent this situation. And it shouldnt be stopped. If someone cares about something to the extend to pirate it, let him be. world is big and now 1 more mind working on the subject (tadaaa progress. Have few less bucks and let the idea spread. With digital age, we can almost always credit creators of contents. But noone will cry about monopolizers gaining extra millions. And like i said, everyone related to topic propably knows no matter how hard these monopolizers try, pirates will get you free stuff. Numbers u mentioned will grow faster faster muuuch more faster and at some point, those who gain unfair with little effort will have to give up that wealth and be humble creators who just create for the sake of humanity or themselves. not money.
reply
It is simply impossible to prevent this situation. And it shouldnt be stopped. If someone cares about something to the extend to pirate it, let him be. world is big and now 1 more mind working on the subject (tadaaa progress. Have few less bucks and let the idea spread. With digital age, we can almost always credit creators of contents. But noone will cry about monopolizers gaining extra millions. And like i said, everyone related to topic propably knows no matter how hard these monopolizers try, pirates will get you free stuff. Numbers u mentioned will grow faster faster muuuch more faster and at some point, those who gain unfair with little effort will have to give up that wealth and be humble creators who just create for the sake of humanity or themselves. not money.
reply
mackdmara
The better the internet, the faster ideas can travel. This includes these properties. The ease of taking implies consent. When I go to look at a video it is hard for me to know who gets the ad revenue, assuming anyone does. How do I know you have permission to display the logos that you do. Should I check if your official video was allowed by the owner of the content? Often the footwork needed is to great to expect of a viewer. Like TV, I feel that is between the shows staff and the owner of the properties. If you provide the material, regardless of who gave it to you, then you and the person posting are responsible. But, I don't know if that is reasonable to up hold. Hope we work it out in time so that things like crash course can exist. Thanks
reply
The better the internet, the faster ideas can travel. This includes these properties. The ease of taking implies consent. When I go to look at a video it is hard for me to know who gets the ad revenue, assuming anyone does. How do I know you have permission to display the logos that you do. Should I check if your official video was allowed by the owner of the content? Often the footwork needed is to great to expect of a viewer. Like TV, I feel that is between the shows staff and the owner of the properties. If you provide the material, regardless of who gave it to you, then you and the person posting are responsible. But, I don't know if that is reasonable to up hold. Hope we work it out in time so that things like crash course can exist. Thanks
reply
Darkstar1484
My issue with the long term holds on copywrite is linked up to the problem of a few large companies owning large amounts of major amounts of intellectual property. Disney is actually a good example, at current they have of course the full disney franchise but also the Muppets, Star Wars, and the Marvel Canon. Not to mention the films owned by their subsidiaries. Look at all the things that exist between Marvel Star Wars and Disney, it would be very easy for them to stamp out any new intellectual property simply because so many things could be analagous. While this may not be an issue for a large corporation for smaller groups it is likely to have some major consequences.
reply
My issue with the long term holds on copywrite is linked up to the problem of a few large companies owning large amounts of major amounts of intellectual property. Disney is actually a good example, at current they have of course the full disney franchise but also the Muppets, Star Wars, and the Marvel Canon. Not to mention the films owned by their subsidiaries. Look at all the things that exist between Marvel Star Wars and Disney, it would be very easy for them to stamp out any new intellectual property simply because so many things could be analagous. While this may not be an issue for a large corporation for smaller groups it is likely to have some major consequences.
reply
Fredrik
Trademarks are problematic when they are used to replace expiring copyrights. Can't keep the copyright to franshise, make the name a trademark.
Copyright is way to long, it needs to be 70 years or the lifetime if the creatore whichever is longest. Companies should have to pay exponetielly rising costs to retain copyrights, unlike people companies are immortal and thus can abuse these things in way people cannot.
And patents need to be more expensive to renew, or perhaps need to be renewed more often.
reply
Trademarks are problematic when they are used to replace expiring copyrights. Can't keep the copyright to franshise, make the name a trademark.
Copyright is way to long, it needs to be 70 years or the lifetime if the creatore whichever is longest. Companies should have to pay exponetielly rising costs to retain copyrights, unlike people companies are immortal and thus can abuse these things in way people cannot.
And patents need to be more expensive to renew, or perhaps need to be renewed more often.
reply
Kei
IP law makes a lot of assumptions. 1) That it is impossible for two people to share the same idea. 2) That no valuable IP can be gained without express consent from the owner. lets take a look at free software. why are these creators giving it away? Which invalidates that people will not create without incentive to do so. I would rather have a society that only people created if anyone could use their ideas; than be stuck with IP law and only a few could use the ideas.
reply
IP law makes a lot of assumptions. 1) That it is impossible for two people to share the same idea. 2) That no valuable IP can be gained without express consent from the owner. lets take a look at free software. why are these creators giving it away? Which invalidates that people will not create without incentive to do so. I would rather have a society that only people created if anyone could use their ideas; than be stuck with IP law and only a few could use the ideas.
reply
lamcho00
While I do agree that inventors and content creators should get a profit of their work. Especially when house hold 3D printers are around the corner. I do still think that copyright and patent laws as they are now are impeding progress, especially when it comes to software development. And after I've finished the IP series, I'm still not entirely convinced, IP is actually contributing to the number of useful inventions or creative works.
reply
While I do agree that inventors and content creators should get a profit of their work. Especially when house hold 3D printers are around the corner. I do still think that copyright and patent laws as they are now are impeding progress, especially when it comes to software development. And after I've finished the IP series, I'm still not entirely convinced, IP is actually contributing to the number of useful inventions or creative works.
reply
Floris
Awesome. Thanks for the videos. 1 question: how do you think social entrepreneurs should go about intellectual property? There are people that say social impact is maximized if social entrepreneurs keep stuff open source. Other people say that social entrepreneurs should use IP anyway in order to stay financially healthy, and to attain credibility among partners and investors. Any thoughts? (Anyone)
reply
Awesome. Thanks for the videos. 1 question: how do you think social entrepreneurs should go about intellectual property? There are people that say social impact is maximized if social entrepreneurs keep stuff open source. Other people say that social entrepreneurs should use IP anyway in order to stay financially healthy, and to attain credibility among partners and investors. Any thoughts? (Anyone)
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
