I disagree. After watching the video, I still conclude that both are broken. On one hand, Youtube's copyright is definitely broken making it far too easy to be a successful copyright troll who...
I disagree. After watching the video, I still conclude that both are broken.
On one hand, Youtube's copyright is definitely broken making it far too easy to be a successful copyright troll who simply scares away creators and lives off of it. There's misfires which are not checked by humans unless it gains press coverage and that's honestly a very bad way to go about things but it seems to be the only way to get Youtube to react to anything.
On the other hand, copyright law as currently implemented is simply deeply flawed not giving enough important to public culture and giving far too long longevity to works which do not encourage creativity ultimately.
Rant incoming
One thing in the modern world that bothers me a lot is how information very critical to our society such as geographical data (and of course a lot more domains but this is the one I chose to rant about) can be kept away from the public domain. This information is necessary from things as simple as travel but also more complicated things such as scientific research or city planning. It's truly a failure of our governments to realize how valuable this information is and that it shouldn't be selling it to corporations but rather allowing its citizens and the world to use. This is tax payer money, this is absolutely unacceptable. God this pisses me off.
Information wants to be free. Otherwise we wouldn't need this multitude of laws to prevent it from being so. I know I'm on the extreme end of this, but I'm a strong proponent of no patents or...
Information wants to be free. Otherwise we wouldn't need this multitude of laws to prevent it from being so.
I know I'm on the extreme end of this, but I'm a strong proponent of no patents or copywrites.
I do think that is a little extreme, but I would think the damages from having no patents or copywrites is probably less than an easily abused patent system.
I do think that is a little extreme, but I would think the damages from having no patents or copywrites is probably less than an easily abused patent system.
There'd be no incentive to research, invent, develop, create and so on if someone else can just come in to reap all the benefits. Without copyright or patents we get no movies, no music, no news,...
There'd be no incentive to research, invent, develop, create and so on if someone else can just come in to reap all the benefits.
Without copyright or patents we get no movies, no music, no news, no books and so on. If you can't live off doing those things, you can't spend your life perfecting how to do those things.
Corporate ownership and the length of rights and some types of things that can be protected as intellectual property is broken in the US and many other places. The concept itself is essential to the fabric of culture in our societies. And consumer protections like hindering dangerous forgeries/replicas of medicines etc.
I'd love to hear your arguments for how society could function without patents of copyrights. I can't imagine a modern society functioning well without them.
Nah. We just need to remove the need to make money off things in order to survive. There would be no open source software if profit was the only human motive. People invent, research, and discover...
There'd be no incentive to research, invent, develop, create and so on if someone else can just come in to reap all the benefits.
Nah. We just need to remove the need to make money off things in order to survive.
There would be no open source software if profit was the only human motive.
People invent, research, and discover because it is interesting and fun too. Not just to afford to live.
Without copyright or patents we get no movies, no music, no news, no books and so on.
Somehow all of these things were created and existed before copyright (except movies because they didn't exist yet).
We don't need copywrite. We just need attribution.
OSS is very profitable. Ask Red Hat. Costs for developing OSS are always cheaper than proprietary software both in the long-term and the short-term since volunteers and other corporations will...
There would be no open source software if profit was the only human motive.
OSS is very profitable. Ask Red Hat. Costs for developing OSS are always cheaper than proprietary software both in the long-term and the short-term since volunteers and other corporations will also work on it at no cost for you.
This line of logic really bothers me. It implies that people do art and research out of greed rather than interest. I think it truly undermines the importance of why people do art, why people do...
There'd be no incentive to research, invent, develop, create and so on if someone else can just come in to reap all the benefits.
Without copyright or patents we get no movies, no music, no news, no books and so on. If you can't live off doing those things, you can't spend your life perfecting how to do those things.
This line of logic really bothers me. It implies that people do art and research out of greed rather than interest. I think it truly undermines the importance of why people do art, why people do research. People are driven to art, they are driven to research out of their own will. Art has long been a field where you either terribly fail or succeed if you're lucky. These people are not doing it because money is involved, in a lot of cases, they can't make the money necessary to live from their craft, it's a story of passion for art. People did research out of curiosity for decades, Socrates didn't decide to become a philosopher because he'd be paid, he even refused to be paid and when given the choice between philosophy or death, he chose the latter because he couldn't live without it.
Those who've profited most from copyright law is those, such as Disney, who took inspiration from those works which were public domain and then made copyright longer and longer out of greed. The people who want to inspire themselves from things they had seen or read during their childhood are criminals in the eyes of the law even if the author of those stories had the opportunity to do the same.
I went on a rant and probably made some mistakes in there. Sorry.
Not at all! It implies that if you're to spend thousands of hours in perfecting a cerebral craft, whether that's in music, in science, perfecting an invention, writing a book, research or whatever...
This line of logic really bothers me. It implies that people do art and research out of greed rather than interest
Not at all!
It implies that if you're to spend thousands of hours in perfecting a cerebral craft, whether that's in music, in science, perfecting an invention, writing a book, research or whatever else, you don't have time to work a job on top of that.
The reason Socrates could became a philosopher was because he could do that without worrying about having a roof above his head and getting food. Socrates was part of a tiny elite who didn't have to work.
Practically every classical composer or painter you've heard of far into the later 1800s could spend time perfecting their craft, either because they had a hugely rich patron (royal) who paid for their work or because they were born into wealth.
Then the ability to copy others became industrialized. Both in music, books, arts, sciences, research and inventions. The great French writers were almost all producing serials for newspapers because that was the only way they could live off writing. In many cases because if they were to write and publish a book, someone else would just copy the book, print it on their own and the writer wouldn't get paid.
There's a reason copyright came about. It's because if you can't live off your intellectual work, you can't spend the thousands of hours required to push boundaries, create the unique, develop society.
Reasonable copyright and patent rights are imperative for this part of modern society to function. I repeat myself: The current corporate ownership and duration of corporate intellectual rights are broken, not the concept of copyright or patents. We have to be able to separate those two things from one-another.
I didn't watch the video (I'm that guy (but the video is so long!)) but I 1100% agree with the title. Copyright is utterly stupidly broken and I can't think about it too much without getting mad.
I didn't watch the video (I'm that guy (but the video is so long!)) but I 1100% agree with the title. Copyright is utterly stupidly broken and I can't think about it too much without getting mad.
I disagree. After watching the video, I still conclude that both are broken.
On one hand, Youtube's copyright is definitely broken making it far too easy to be a successful copyright troll who simply scares away creators and lives off of it. There's misfires which are not checked by humans unless it gains press coverage and that's honestly a very bad way to go about things but it seems to be the only way to get Youtube to react to anything.
On the other hand, copyright law as currently implemented is simply deeply flawed not giving enough important to public culture and giving far too long longevity to works which do not encourage creativity ultimately.
Rant incoming
One thing in the modern world that bothers me a lot is how information very critical to our society such as geographical data (and of course a lot more domains but this is the one I chose to rant about) can be kept away from the public domain. This information is necessary from things as simple as travel but also more complicated things such as scientific research or city planning. It's truly a failure of our governments to realize how valuable this information is and that it shouldn't be selling it to corporations but rather allowing its citizens and the world to use. This is tax payer money, this is absolutely unacceptable. God this pisses me off.
Information wants to be free. Otherwise we wouldn't need this multitude of laws to prevent it from being so.
I know I'm on the extreme end of this, but I'm a strong proponent of no patents or copywrites.
I do think that is a little extreme, but I would think the damages from having no patents or copywrites is probably less than an easily abused patent system.
There'd be no incentive to research, invent, develop, create and so on if someone else can just come in to reap all the benefits.
Without copyright or patents we get no movies, no music, no news, no books and so on. If you can't live off doing those things, you can't spend your life perfecting how to do those things.
Corporate ownership and the length of rights and some types of things that can be protected as intellectual property is broken in the US and many other places. The concept itself is essential to the fabric of culture in our societies. And consumer protections like hindering dangerous forgeries/replicas of medicines etc.
I'd love to hear your arguments for how society could function without patents of copyrights. I can't imagine a modern society functioning well without them.
Nah. We just need to remove the need to make money off things in order to survive.
There would be no open source software if profit was the only human motive.
People invent, research, and discover because it is interesting and fun too. Not just to afford to live.
Somehow all of these things were created and existed before copyright (except movies because they didn't exist yet).
We don't need copywrite. We just need attribution.
OSS is very profitable. Ask Red Hat. Costs for developing OSS are always cheaper than proprietary software both in the long-term and the short-term since volunteers and other corporations will also work on it at no cost for you.
Yes, but there are also plenty of open source projects that people work on for free, because they find it enjoyable.
This line of logic really bothers me. It implies that people do art and research out of greed rather than interest. I think it truly undermines the importance of why people do art, why people do research. People are driven to art, they are driven to research out of their own will. Art has long been a field where you either terribly fail or succeed if you're lucky. These people are not doing it because money is involved, in a lot of cases, they can't make the money necessary to live from their craft, it's a story of passion for art. People did research out of curiosity for decades, Socrates didn't decide to become a philosopher because he'd be paid, he even refused to be paid and when given the choice between philosophy or death, he chose the latter because he couldn't live without it.
Those who've profited most from copyright law is those, such as Disney, who took inspiration from those works which were public domain and then made copyright longer and longer out of greed. The people who want to inspire themselves from things they had seen or read during their childhood are criminals in the eyes of the law even if the author of those stories had the opportunity to do the same.
I went on a rant and probably made some mistakes in there. Sorry.
Not at all!
It implies that if you're to spend thousands of hours in perfecting a cerebral craft, whether that's in music, in science, perfecting an invention, writing a book, research or whatever else, you don't have time to work a job on top of that.
The reason Socrates could became a philosopher was because he could do that without worrying about having a roof above his head and getting food. Socrates was part of a tiny elite who didn't have to work.
Practically every classical composer or painter you've heard of far into the later 1800s could spend time perfecting their craft, either because they had a hugely rich patron (royal) who paid for their work or because they were born into wealth.
Then the ability to copy others became industrialized. Both in music, books, arts, sciences, research and inventions. The great French writers were almost all producing serials for newspapers because that was the only way they could live off writing. In many cases because if they were to write and publish a book, someone else would just copy the book, print it on their own and the writer wouldn't get paid.
There's a reason copyright came about. It's because if you can't live off your intellectual work, you can't spend the thousands of hours required to push boundaries, create the unique, develop society.
Reasonable copyright and patent rights are imperative for this part of modern society to function. I repeat myself: The current corporate ownership and duration of corporate intellectual rights are broken, not the concept of copyright or patents. We have to be able to separate those two things from one-another.
I didn't watch the video (I'm that guy (but the video is so long!)) but I 1100% agree with the title. Copyright is utterly stupidly broken and I can't think about it too much without getting mad.