Yep, 42 minutes of video. This was a big project. Plus: I've got an all-new five-part original series called Money over on Nebula, which you can watch as a bundle with CuriosityStream! curiositystream.com/tomscott
I was thinking that "death of the artist" would be a reasonable limit for copyright duration, but then I realized that it would create a new motive for murder.
Haha, yes, I am a writer and I also thought that "I won't need copyright after death" but now I'm scared to say it out loud. But I wouldn't want copyright to expire while I'm alive because I'm afraid of seeing what some people might do to my precious characters.
30:50 I love that he put the text above where the captions are so those that require/enjoy captions don't have to turn them off to read the text, turn them back on, and rewind. It is one of the most common things I see where people put text right under the captions, which are unmoveable on mobile devices. His videos are always so well thought out and lots of people appreciate your work.
@@AaaaaaarrrpirateI’m confused by this… In full screen the video takes up, well, the full screen, so there’s no way for the captions to be placed outside the video. And same for both computer and phones.
@@Spaccceethey meant in horizontal mode! but if you got the new updates.. youtube has changed it so you can only go full screen on vertical, for some reason.
I certainly agree that the music itself should come under something more akin to patent law. You get X years to make your cash from your product after which it's all fair use, recordings notwithstanding.
even as a fan of Tom’s content, i’m amazed at his ability to keep me interested in subjects like this for over 40 minutes straight. absolutely brilliant.
A video that takes Copyright seriously and discuss it in details? I hope it's 40+ mins long. It's one of the most complicated matter in our time and at the mercy of an old legal system.
What really pisses me off is that most Disney films aren't their original work. Many of their films are about fairy tales and similar stuff so that they don't have actually write new and original stories. Especially as someone who grew up with the tales of the Brothers Grimm (not written by the Brothers themselves, they just wrote down fairy tales) it really angers me how shitty and morally corrupt Disney is.
I don't even understand what the creators life has to do with it. It should just been x years after public release. (20 years should be plenty)* *Tom Scott seems to go for 50 years. Maybe 20 years is still short, but IMHO 40 years should be the max.
You forgot a very interesting fact about copyright expiry! The Peter Pan clause. All copyright in the UK lasts for the author's life + 70 years, apart from one specific work: Peter Pan. The author gave the rights to Great Ormond Street Hospital and the law was written to make sure this copyright lasts forever.
I suppose the idea of having a charity clause where royalties earned get sent to a charity but leaving it sort of partially public so that people could reference and use it's material but a reproduction by a new company would have to specifically get permission and pay the royalties.
I just love how the legal system is set up in such a way that is cheaper to admit you are guilty than defending yourself in court. You are supposed to have a fair trial but that's impossible when you are facing a multibillion company that can hire as many expensive lawyers as they want. The justice system isn't just at all.
That’s because it has been thoroughly and completely distorted over the past 150 years or so by government “regulators” on behalf of well-connected interests.
That's the problem with UA-cam's copywrite laws, the impossibility of contesting it. You get to send a request to the claimant and if that fails it's court or you just accept the loss. If someone uploads a 40 minute video and it has 8 seconds of fair use content, that content can be claimed and every cent of revenue goes to the claimant.
There are companies out there that just seemingly try their luck with claiming copyright on entire or parts of music videos by independent creators. A friend of mine had a claim filed against one of her videos for some of the footage…yet every second of footage was filmed by her; and it was just POV footage at a beach. Took her ages to get the claim settled.
Can we just talk about the fact that LegalEagle just appeared out of nowhere in this video acting like a vampire being fought off with “no copyright infringement intended” as the cross? I didn’t know how much I needed this.
You're an incredible speaker. Great eye contact with the camera, no stuttering whatsoever, animated speech with logical points of emphasis and no jump cuts! You must have rehearsed these quite a lot. Thank you for an extremely professional presentation!
@@xdesolateone8564 Eye contact isn’t weird objectively , it’s used to convey attentiveness and communication. It is only weird because of the way eye contact raises our heartbeats and makes us more alert , makes the awkward eye contact moments feel exponentially more awkward.
The thing that infuriates me is that many copyright cases end with the confiscation of computers. That’s not an eye for an eye; that’s an eye for a dirty look.
what i think is so interesting is that an artist of a song will own the video if there's a song and a video together... why don't I get to still own the video just because their song is on it?
if you mean an original video that you made with someone else's music in it you cold just delete the video, then re upload without the music. if the video doesn't work without their music, then maybe you should pay them to use their music.
@@connermarchetti7522 then don't use their music. It's their property if you you can't afford to pay to use their property, then don't use it. they worked hard to create that work of art, or paid tonne of money for the rights to the work of art.
@@grants7390 if I'm not making any money and giving credit to the artists I fail to see why it's wrong for me to use their music. I could care less about the monetization I just wanna make fun tribute videos for shows/movies I love.
I'd argue that while the phrase means nothing legally, it shows a willingness to comply if asked/told to take something down, which might be enough to keep some company from going ham against you (or UA-cam). Provided they're not making money on it.
The next step after dealing with copyright is dealing the reality that some works only ever gain serious traction after the copyright owner can no longer benefit from royalties. Like some now famous artists never being recognized during their lifetime.
And that's the issue if it became PD it would kind of incentivise author to give out free copies that could possibly interest someone. In my country anime became popular only because piracy. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what it is.
If you take a book with a colour illustration, and you: 1. Use tracing paper to trace the image outlines. 2. Transfer it to drawing paper. 3. Scan it digitally. 4. Use an art program to colour it in. That is still classed as copyright infringement 😉
phthalo blue you can’t copyright a single word and a phrase is difficult to claim copyright for. I think the smallest amount of text you can easily copyright is a paragraph or more.
@@tohfawalker159 I suppose a good example of this would be a poem, but even now not a lot of people really even respect that, especially considering how most people who write poems simply don't have the monetary or legal power to make such a maneuver
I don’t think a single string of words should be able to be copyrighted, like a single line from a poem, roses are red shouldn’t be able to be copyrighted and if you yourself are making a poem, and use “the raven was riding on the wind” etc. shouldn’t be copyrighted
If you are replying to me, it’s not supposed to be real poetry, it’s a stereotypical exaggeration not supposed to mean anything but to illustrate what part of the poem it’s talking about.if it’s not replying to me then cool
@@dolphinboi-playmonsterranc9668 The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences define "Feature Length" as 40 minutes or over. As just over 42 minutes, this video qualifies.
My problem is with the choice I get: I can tell it is a false claim, and the OTHER party has to agree "yes, it is wrong". That is the part which made me put up less and less videos on youtube, 'cause the other party can still say "it is mine" even though it clearly isn't. This disadvantage is my problem with youtube.
the good thing is that if they want to insist, they have to actually file a lawsuit. The bad part is you have to provide your details so you can be sued if you wish to dispute it
Tadtathep Thepboriruck Isn’t Leonard French an actual copyright attorney? (Rhetorical) Jay Foreman is a comedian, but one of them is a lawyer licensed to practice for sure
An actual copyright dispute I had to send to UA-cam once: "The Brandenburg Variation is a public domain work. This particular version I am streaming (as can be seen in the video) was rendered by myself from a MIDI file going into a vocal synthesizer, rendering the lines 'pee is stored in the balls'." I don't exactly think Sony has released anything involving that particular libretto.
Realize the title of this video is incorrect and misleading 'UA-cam's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.' BOTH are broken, there is no 'either / or' choice. That there are all kinds of problems in the real world copyright law and that it's been extended by corrupt special interests and legislators doesn't negate that what UA-cam does is obviously poor and often incorrect.
It's a bunny joke but also a really good argument: After decades, the IP holders of James Bond still have no competition so they don't need to produce anything of quality. Our whole society loses on potentially awesome James Bond movies because a company that already made billions out of that IP wants to have a monopoly on that IP forever, so they don't have to compete with anyone.
How you manage to keep someone with ADHD (me and probably a lot of other people) hooked on videos talking about the in theory most boring things on earth is beyond me. Yet you do, hats off because that is truly amazing.
@@Halorocker101 money is just a system of trade, it's an inanimate object, the users of the system did such things with it... Conclusion: Human's are evil.
Tom: hey Jay could you film a clip for a video about copyright? Jay: alright what do you need Tom: could you just wear a suit and tie while sitting at a laptop with a phone next to you and just go “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA” Jay: okay...
Fun fact to make you feel old: If copyright lasted only 20 years like patents, Peter Jackson's Fellowship Of The Ring would be entering public domain next year
The owner of the patent can renew it when it expires. Companies can't die so they can hold patents in stasis indefinitely. Car manufacturers bought other people's patents to hide electric cars and higher mpg and lower maintenance gas cars because it would cut into their return profits.
@@PaleGhost69 Renewing a patent is only possible for the 20 years mentioned (counting from the filing date, not the date of introduction to the market). The only exception I am aware of are products that require a licensing procedure, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides. For them, the maximum duration is 20 years + the duration of the licensing process, but no more than 30 years. Of course, you can improve your invention and patent the improvement in a new patent, which would again last for a maximum of 20 years. But the "base" version of your invention would be out of patent protection earlier than the improvement.
I think the biggest issue with the copyright system on UA-cam is that the holder of copyright from 15 seconds of a 2 hour video can just make money from your entire video. Let them ringfence the section of the video with mid rolls they can profit from, and not just take everything. thats just me though
Disney is mean about their stuff. They've limited releases and sales for eons; even calling it "the vault" where it all lives. They are the Scrooge McDuck of the corporate world.
there was also the time family guy used some nes gameplay footage and accidentally got the person claimed, then the family guy creators had to reach out to youtube to fix it (keep in mind the footage was multiple years older than the episode)
@@youraveragebedwarssweat5922 IIRC that speedrunner is called Kosmic, but not sure if that story was about 4:54 record or the 18 something warpless run
@@septanos nah it’s doubtful that’s definitely transformative. Inspiration is allowed, just not direct rip off. Like how when an artist mentions all his inspirations even if their music is similar the inspiration can’t go back and sue them.
Isn't there a compromise? Something like after 50 years copyright holders have to pay $10k per year to maintain their copyright. Small potatoes for seriously valuable properties, but this system would allow the other 90%+ to transition into the public domain.
As a social media lawyer in America, I have to say ... REALLY GOOD JOB, Tom. I love how you explained global copyright law intricacies in simple easy-to-understand terms.
The current trend of popular musicians selling the rights to their catalog to big media corps for hundreds of millions is only going to make the copyright system even more vicious
Tom: Copyright needs to be shorter Disney, who is effectively singlehandedly responsible for how long it is: Maybe it needs to be longer still, and we'll pay as many judges as we have to.
Another important thing I think about the difference between patents and copyright is that patents are described and archived as part of that process, so there isn't the "orphaned works" issue for patent. I honestly think the archival aspect of copyright is something that would be nice to be specifically addressed in law, like adding archival and backup without further distribution until copyright expiration to what is considered a fair use, or having a patent-like system where media must be submitted to a central government database whenever copyright is legally enforced (so if a cease and desist was sent or a lawsuit was brought, to be enforceable, the media would have to be submitted). And then there's the issue of DRM... anyways, that's all just to say that I think it's really important to not lose even obscure bits of culture and art.
The bit at 34:40 just makes me think about the current state of Mechanical Keyboards. The Cherry key switch patent expired and now the community is alight with superior reproductions.
I used to turn my nose at the cherry key alternatives when they started, but now I own one of those and I consider it better. I thought it was my lack my knowledge, but I guess it WAS better !
To me the only solution is Step 1: get every country to have an impossible to brake for a one vote system Step 2: massive world wide information campaign about copyright Step 3: ask the world if the laws would be changed Step 4: watch the big companies spend all there money to buy people's vote
Hi, I'm a mashup artist (if you can even call it art). I've been on the receiving end of copyright claims more times than I can be bothered to count and I always hated on UA-cam for it. Clicking on this video I was prepared to write an essay comment on every reason you were wrong and UA-cam sucked. ...You won me over. The video was truly enlightening and really opened my eyes on how UA-cam holds me behind a shield from copyright-infringement lawsuits. Thank you.
Current copyright law sucks! It should be that if you put the songs under Your name, which you don't. If the video you put up says, for instance, Olivia Newton John Physical extended Night club remix, by, and then your name, it's not putting the song in your name. It's your video, but not your song for crying out loud. If I was in charge of copyright law, I'd change it, but I'm not. Who's in charge of it? Somebody contact them and imploor them to change it for us UA-camrs, so we can create our own remixes and mashups without sick obsticles coming our way!
I think for IPs like Mickey Mouse, the copyright should continue as long as the owner continues to produce new content with it. This would keep Star Wars copyrighted while Back to the Future would eventually fall into the Public Domain.
@@krdjmtc Honestly this isn't even really necessary because Disney could very easily argue for trademark protection on the image of Mickey Mouse (given how his image is so fundamental to their branding) which already works like this. Trademarks are good as long as you're using them. Steamboat Willie would lapse into public domain but the image of Mickey Mouse would still be owned by Disney as long as Disney exists.
I still don't understand how we ever got to "past death" for copyrights. I mean the songwriters kids had no more role in creating the song than I or anyone else did.
My proposition would be 50 years or 18 years after death which ever comes sooner. While we can agree that it seems ridiculous that a person's kid gets to live their entire lives benefiting from creative work they had no part in, what about a literal child? Imagine a case where some artist dies and leaves behind a 5 year old child who has no other family. That artist's work shouldn't immediately go into the public domain, because that 5 year old child could fall into the type of poverty that takes an entire life time to dig yourself out of despite the fact their parent would have had the money to care for them if they'd lived. That's where my 50 years or 18 years past death comes in. My suggestion guarantees that any child of a copyright holder would at least keep their money coming in until their adult hood where they can rise or fall with the rest of us.
@@hamsterfromabove8905 I believe it's should be an inheritable fixed time after creation. Let's say you go with a copyright of 50 years after publishing, if the artist dies within that timeframe, it's family inherits the rights to said work, until 50 years after the publication.
@Mr Right utility for a corporation isn't justification for depriving the public of a free culture. While Mickey Mouse was the lucky one, there are many works from 1926 that aren't preserved because it's illegal to do so. Disney wouldn't "lose" Mickey Mouse; they could still produce works based on him, since Disney is part of the public. Mickey Mouse entering the public domain isn't "splitting" the two; it's letting people create stuff with Mickey Mouse, sure, but Disney will remain associated with the character for generations to come. Edit: Copyright is a bargain. Instead of paying tax money for public transportation, we pay freedom for increased production of creative works. However, at some point it becomes diminishing returns, and we shouldn't give up more freedom. As it currently stands, Disney is pirating Mickey Mouse from the public.
@Mr Right if you're being serious, I have lost all hope in humanity. It's over. Big media corporations win. Nothing can ever convince your brainwashed mind that copyright is not property and that too restrictive copyright is robbing the public of their creativity.
@Mr Right did want to also note that trademark law would still cover Mickey Mouse-based logos that Disney makes, so in that case consumers wouldn't be confused about which company is associated with that logo.
International students in China who chose to stay despite the crisis. Who's laughing now, mom? Of course, that doesn't prevent me from watching 42 minutes of Tom Scott...
Ok. I'm a composer and did a lot of work in my 20's that still makes money to this day. My royalties are how artists like me can survive and continue. So why should it be taken away from me later in life when I might need it most? It might still be an income I rely on. Copyright until death makes sense to me.
I really always have loved the format of your videos. There's just something whimsical about how things blip onto the screen at your command and all of these little clever camera tricks like smacking your reviewer self Tim off the screen.
It completely corrected what i thought fair use and copyright was like, I am on UA-cam a lot which made me more invested in the video and its subject matter. The video was also presented very well and in an entertaining way, this probably had months of effort put into it.
Absolutely brilliant. This has been a sore point online for a long time, and the way this video frames the problem, communicates the right points, the right way, legally and effectively, to bring everyone up to a common level of understanding is just amazing. This should be required viewing for every youtuber, streamer, copyright lawyer, and law maker.
Doctor: I cured cancer with a pill that also gives you the ability to fly and browse the internet in your dreams, how long do I own it? US Govt: That'll be good for about 20yrs. Better start thinking of your next gig. Disney: I drew a mouse driving a boat, what do I get? US Govt: You mad genius! You'll be milking this cow for the next century my friend. Welcome to the good life. Hey, wanna try this crazy new pill? Don't worry the patent just ran out on it.
You own the pill until you sell it. You don't own the idea of such a pill. Government has granted you the monopoly right, but the idea is not property.
One of the most intelligent, honest, insightful, useful, perfectly analytical, and descriptive takes on copyright law and infringement, with tons of fun & amusing jokes & references and clever, creative content delivery approaches that kept it entertaining and engaging from start to finish. You continue to surprise me, solidifying yourself as one of UA-cam's greatest content creators. Thank you for putting in all that effort for this masterful work.
Not really, it's full of straw men BS, nobody defends reaction channels when talking about how broken the system is. The problem everyone has with it is how the clement has to prove nothing about owning anything and can do it as much as they want, not only can it be abused, it is abused. This BBC wannabe jumps over the problem in a small sentence and paints the critics as mad because they can't stream a film with themselves laughing in the background.
@@jojokob5182 Precisely. Lots of the content of this video should be part of some kind of mandatory 'how-to' document for content creators, so that they could avoid these pitfalls in the future.
Yep, 42 minutes of video. This was a big project. Plus: I've got an all-new five-part original series called Money over on Nebula, which you can watch as a bundle with CuriosityStream! curiositystream.com/tomscott
Thank you!
Long form videos are awesome! Thank you so much Tom!
1 week ago
How did you post this a week ago but the video was released 3 minutes ago?
The hero we don't deserve but needed
Actually, don't ask photographers how much their gear costs. Unless you want to see a crying photographer.
Sounds like a good motif
i would like to see that
@@papasscooperiaworker3649 Something to take a photo of
some of the landscape photographers i know have over 35k in kit
@@hariseldon02 but then you'd be crying too
I was thinking that "death of the artist" would be a reasonable limit for copyright duration, but then I realized that it would create a new motive for murder.
Ooooo boy
not to mention artists who die young
Haha, yes, I am a writer and I also thought that "I won't need copyright after death" but now I'm scared to say it out loud. But I wouldn't want copyright to expire while I'm alive because I'm afraid of seeing what some people might do to my precious characters.
@@annakaro9081 We know you write furry porn
* stabs walt disney *
Mickey mouse for everyone!
Love how Tom always looks simultaneously 24 and 42.
but average would be 33 which is close to his age.
@@dibbidydoo4318 hM
He's a palindrome human.
@shrowdy ydworhs Receding Hairline
That's basically it
@@hatedumb - and greying sides - that's an even stronger hint of age.
30:50 I love that he put the text above where the captions are so those that require/enjoy captions don't have to turn them off to read the text, turn them back on, and rewind. It is one of the most common things I see where people put text right under the captions, which are unmoveable on mobile devices. His videos are always so well thought out and lots of people appreciate your work.
Yea I appreciated that too
Kind of late but you can put the video in full screen which places the captions outside of the video, or rotate for phones
@@AaaaaaarrrpirateI’m confused by this… In full screen the video takes up, well, the full screen, so there’s no way for the captions to be placed outside the video. And same for both computer and phones.
That happens so often!
@@Spaccceethey meant in horizontal mode! but if you got the new updates.. youtube has changed it so you can only go full screen on vertical, for some reason.
"We need to dramatically shorten copyrights"
*Disney didn't like that*
Well yes, but it takes a lot of time, as I’m not a copyright abolitionist either.
We know this is never happening
iTs NoT CaLlEd CoRuPtIoN iTs CaLlEd LoBbYiNg
-Disney
After all, if Disney didn't lobby for extended copyright, then lots of its stuff would be in public domain.
I certainly agree that the music itself should come under something more akin to patent law. You get X years to make your cash from your product after which it's all fair use, recordings notwithstanding.
No red t-shirt.
This looks serious.
I laughed more than I should have at this..
Oh boi this got serious real quick
13:32 + 22:16 Is this not red?
It comes in later dont worry
There is from 10:00 to 28:00
even as a fan of Tom’s content, i’m amazed at his ability to keep me interested in subjects like this for over 40 minutes straight. absolutely brilliant.
Except i stop at 16 minutes for a lunch.
Didn't last 5. This video was WAY longer than it needed to be.
@@youtubesuresuckscock I thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing. I would feel sad about missing so much of this video if it was only 5 minutes long.
Exactly. Around 22 minutes mark I realized it was not a regular 5-10 minute video and slightly surprised I was still interested.
A video that takes Copyright seriously and discuss it in details? I hope it's 40+ mins long. It's one of the most complicated matter in our time and at the mercy of an old legal system.
Love how the entirety of this video is Tom making absolutely *sure* this video won't get copyright strike
does this really have no comments
@@shayaanm7122Its just the two of us, buddy
@@TheBible2ElectricBoogaloono, it's just the three of us
@@ruler255I'm here too
@@NHikel319 well, its now the fifth I guess
Jay Foreman just can't exist without screaming once in a while
mood
Mahogany
Oak
Jay Foremapman
That was the best part
Disney lobbied copyright law into absurdity.
70 years after the creator’s death is bloody absurd.
70 years is enough time for Disney to create real life film to further extend the already fair use books.
speaking of that horrible corporation, get ready for them to make things worse again in 2024.
@@AugustusBohn0 what are they doing in 2024
What really pisses me off is that most Disney films aren't their original work. Many of their films are about fairy tales and similar stuff so that they don't have actually write new and original stories. Especially as someone who grew up with the tales of the Brothers Grimm (not written by the Brothers themselves, they just wrote down fairy tales) it really angers me how shitty and morally corrupt Disney is.
I don't even understand what the creators life has to do with it.
It should just been x years after public release. (20 years should be plenty)*
*Tom Scott seems to go for 50 years. Maybe 20 years is still short, but IMHO 40 years should be the max.
“This is an actual lawyer and I have no idea how I convinced him to do this”
Lmfao
His videos are actually really good. Legal Eagle.
His channel is really good! LegalEagle
They both use Curiosity Stream too :p
I saw him and was like wow its legal eagle
They both work for CuriosityStream
Michael Johnson sue tom wintle for infringing on your comment!
You forgot a very interesting fact about copyright expiry! The Peter Pan clause. All copyright in the UK lasts for the author's life + 70 years, apart from one specific work: Peter Pan. The author gave the rights to Great Ormond Street Hospital and the law was written to make sure this copyright lasts forever.
lmao
Only for royalties though
And I thought their libel laws were absurd. Geez.
That has to be the most extreme act of virtue signaling on record.
I suppose the idea of having a charity clause where royalties earned get sent to a charity but leaving it sort of partially public so that people could reference and use it's material but a reproduction by a new company would have to specifically get permission and pay the royalties.
Jay: aaaAAAAaaaaAAAAaaaaaAAAAAAAAA
Glad to see my favorite youtuber got some screentime.
Darn Wrong *screamtime
Darn Wrong classic jay
Jay
@@thedj9553 came here to say this
I'm also glad he got several more tales of that at the end 😆
"We live in a society" but its 42 minutes long and well made.
Underrated
We do, in fact, live in what is called a society.
Facts
@@TheFalseShepphard true
@@TheFalseShepphard I'm cool because I don't do popular things
I just love how the legal system is set up in such a way that is cheaper to admit you are guilty than defending yourself in court. You are supposed to have a fair trial but that's impossible when you are facing a multibillion company that can hire as many expensive lawyers as they want. The justice system isn't just at all.
It is what it is :/
Why do you `love` that? Disgusting.
Edit: It's ironic how the normies who never got my sarcastic response telling me if I ever heard of sarcasm~
They were being sarcastic
@@nullbeyondo heard of sarcasm?
That’s because it has been thoroughly and completely distorted over the past 150 years or so by government “regulators” on behalf of well-connected interests.
Seeing Jay Foreman casually appearing as a lawyer made my day
Funny scene
@@viruscumoruk aaaaaaaa
@@realhuman5688 hi
He is the best
Mine too!
Convincing Legal Eagle to be a vampire is a decent flex
true
I'm kind of curious who the voice behind the camera was during that scene.
Leagle
i immediately came to the comments to see what was said about this scene
Woah, I missed that. Anyone have a time stamp?
"How old are you?"
"Somewhere between 23 and 52."
Some where between 0 and 80
I’m 0-69
I am somewhere between 3 and 30. I guess Google knows..
@@grqfes ye i guess
I am somewhere between 0 to 1000
I think the biggest injustice is that you can't defend yourself without having buckets of money to spend on lawyers.
That's the problem with UA-cam's copywrite laws, the impossibility of contesting it. You get to send a request to the claimant and if that fails it's court or you just accept the loss. If someone uploads a 40 minute video and it has 8 seconds of fair use content, that content can be claimed and every cent of revenue goes to the claimant.
Why capitalism sucks
@@TheEndernal Capitalism doesn't suck, unfettered capitalism sucks. Well regulated capitalism is the only functional economic system out there.
@@giffkeplen2951 true
was gna comment about that being a problem with america but giffkeplen said it perfectly, we need more government assistance
There are companies out there that just seemingly try their luck with claiming copyright on entire or parts of music videos by independent creators. A friend of mine had a claim filed against one of her videos for some of the footage…yet every second of footage was filmed by her; and it was just POV footage at a beach. Took her ages to get the claim settled.
That's...
Evil
that's awful. I feel like we need law reigning in how corporations behave
Can we just talk about the fact that LegalEagle just appeared out of nowhere in this video acting like a vampire being fought off with “no copyright infringement intended” as the cross?
I didn’t know how much I needed this.
that made my day. that bit was funny.
Haha yes I watched the whole video too. I don't think your comment is fair use.
Ben Smith _sigh_ I’ll go get my lawyers...
LMAO WHYYYYY :D That's so perfect haha
Indochino...
You're an incredible speaker. Great eye contact with the camera, no stuttering whatsoever, animated speech with logical points of emphasis and no jump cuts! You must have rehearsed these quite a lot. Thank you for an extremely professional presentation!
Everything other than eye contact I can care about eye contact is weird
@@not.a.channel I think he's just complimenting him
@@xdesolateone8564 , only at the urinal.
@@xdesolateone8564 Eye contact isn’t weird objectively , it’s used to convey attentiveness and communication. It is only weird because of the way eye contact raises our heartbeats and makes us more alert , makes the awkward eye contact moments feel exponentially more awkward.
diss pi-oots
I like how Tom's idea of annoying is just Tom but wearing a Hawaiian shirt.
lmfao
I like to think it's a whole different alter ego called Tim
@@HashimAziz1 The dollar store Tom Scott, Tim Scot
Tim Scitt
@@lilylopnco tim scotch
The thing that infuriates me is that many copyright cases end with the confiscation of computers. That’s not an eye for an eye; that’s an eye for a dirty look.
Cases example? Give me pal
@@tristan5299that's even worse than UA-cam's!
The Creators: It's UA-cam's fault
UA-cam: It's the Creators fault
Tom: It's the world's fault
It's the greedy corporations fault
(Tom) Scott (not Pilgrim) Vs The World
Tom’s right
@@bakacdaz Friggin’ brilliant!
Found all the schills. TRIALS WILL BEGIN IN DUE PROCESS.
When Legal Eagle got scared away like a vampire... That cracked me up.
IKR. I had to stop and rewind I was laughing so hard. Especially about the little note at the bottom.
@@steveaustin2686 I couldnt see the letters so i kept thinking which video was that???
The third party "legal expert" is Jay Foreman btw (You can find his channel on yt)
And the other lawyer is Leonard French (a real deal copyright lawyer).
For some reason my time thing is backwards but if anyone is curious (like I was) it’s @11:50
The fact that you got an actual lawyer to perform as a vampire for a 10-second clip cracks me up to this day
He's a UA-camr too, channel name is LegalEagle.
For bonus points, he's a copyright lawyer!
666 likes. Please don't ruin it anyone.
@@priyanlevesque It's 888 now
what i think is so interesting is that an artist of a song will own the video if there's a song and a video together... why don't I get to still own the video just because their song is on it?
Lobbyists and lawyers. The end.
if you mean an original video that you made with someone else's music in it you cold just delete the video, then re upload without the music. if the video doesn't work without their music, then maybe you should pay them to use their music.
Damn that's crazy all I have to do is pay to use their music? let me just whip out my wallet full of ca--oh wait
@@connermarchetti7522 then don't use their music. It's their property if you you can't afford to pay to use their property, then don't use it. they worked hard to create that work of art, or paid tonne of money for the rights to the work of art.
@@grants7390 if I'm not making any money and giving credit to the artists I fail to see why it's wrong for me to use their music. I could care less about the monetization I just wanna make fun tribute videos for shows/movies I love.
Tom: Copyright shouldn't last longer than 50 years...
Disney: I sense a disturbance in the force...
*a disturbance in money
5 years would be even better
Originally, it was 14 years, with an option for a 14 year extension, just like patients. A lot has changed over the years.
14 years should be the most it should ever be.
It's ironic that you're quoting Star Wars: the franchise that Disney bought to be their cash cow and will most likely hold on to for years to come.
"I'm really surprised nobody has sued giphy for all their money yet."
giphy: *sweats profusely*
Hahahha exactly my thoughts.
*giphy sues Tom for being mentioned*
Ah hah! But in order to sue us, you have to pronounce our name!
I think some organisations should not exist.
My name gif.
So basically, "No Copyright Infringement Intended" is the lawyer version of "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" right?
Kirisaki Mortis yanno, some people are allergic to apples.
Oxy Bright Dark and others are allergic to copyright
@@sanmoon3543 you are brilliant.
I'd argue that while the phrase means nothing legally, it shows a willingness to comply if asked/told to take something down, which might be enough to keep some company from going ham against you (or UA-cam). Provided they're not making money on it.
Yes!!! Exactly
7:12 not Tom foreshadowing the worst apology video that would be released 3 years later 💀
😂
Omg😂😂😂😂
Could you elaborate which video you're talking about?
person who has only seen coleen ballinger's apology seeing someone playing ukelele: 'getting a lot of coleen ballinger vibes from this'
@@sidchainitoxic gossip tra-
Tom : We need to shorten how long copyright lasts.
Disney : So you have chosen death.
I actually thought of this for some days
Nice comment
Did you get a loisence for that quote?
Disney hater
@@changsiah2 they're an evil company, dude
Love how Tom has to add a criticism to all his examples to dodge copyright
I think it's more to drive the point home, to make the message of the video more clear.
*Still sets a copyright strike*
@@SteveFrenchWoodNStuff It's Both!
That literal switch from "fact" to "opinion" was smooth.
I heard some facts after that switch was thrown; I want my money back
@@Phroggster i'lll pay in like
These are the best closed captions I have ever seen. Great work by your subtitler! I'm a subtitler too and this inspires me a lot.
RIP TomReacts, you were ahead of your time.
What?
@@shadetraveleroftheunknown4949 bruh
True legend, swiped away by Tom Scott.
@@luginess0 an example of how big channels are asses like tom scott
This scared me for a sec ngl, but then I realized what u meant
I love that Tom stopped mid video to rant about gifs and emojis.
+
The shaky cam really sells it.
Jay foreman screaming is way funnier than it’s supposed to
Jay foreman is always funny
Timestamp please
@@TechnicallyLogical2009 2:56
And, ironically, I really want to use it as a reaction gif
Also 11:45
The next step after dealing with copyright is dealing the reality that some works only ever gain serious traction after the copyright owner can no longer benefit from royalties. Like some now famous artists never being recognized during their lifetime.
That partly arose due to the lengthy copyright durations.
And that sucks, sure, but is that a problem that needs solving?
Well, _somewhat._
Because of copyright slaugthering them like sheep
And that's the issue if it became PD it would kind of incentivise author to give out free copies that could possibly interest someone. In my country anime became popular only because piracy. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what it is.
Looks like my old IT teacher’s advice that “crop the top off an image and it’s not copyrighted anymore” might not quite be right...
Lmao not copyright if you alter the image
ok, the Regit who plays battle cats is here?
If you take a book with a colour illustration, and you:
1. Use tracing paper to trace the image outlines.
2. Transfer it to drawing paper.
3. Scan it digitally.
4. Use an art program to colour it in.
That is still classed as copyright infringement 😉
Regit the Cat Battler
Just crop the whole image
The guy who wrote the dictionary: imma bout to end everyones career
phthalo blue you can’t copyright a single word and a phrase is difficult to claim copyright for. I think the smallest amount of text you can easily copyright is a paragraph or more.
@@tohfawalker159 I suppose a good example of this would be a poem, but even now not a lot of people really even respect that, especially considering how most people who write poems simply don't have the monetary or legal power to make such a maneuver
I don’t think a single string of words should be able to be copyrighted, like a single line from a poem, roses are red shouldn’t be able to be copyrighted and if you yourself are making a poem, and use “the raven was riding on the wind” etc. shouldn’t be copyrighted
If you are replying to me, it’s not supposed to be real poetry, it’s a stereotypical exaggeration not supposed to mean anything but to illustrate what part of the poem it’s talking about.if it’s not replying to me then cool
It's joke
if photographers weren't more generous they could singlehandedly destroy the meme industry
If by industry you mean random people's instagram and facebook accounts
Annoying 15 year old your name fits you really well :)
@@n30m84 Thank you :')
@@n30m84 you quanaze q AYAUAUNEN quaaaannze depressed year old
@whistletoe No they couldn't and that's why they haven't.
I'm just impressed by how long he can monologue without making a mistake
I think you missed the credits then haha
"Tom Scott: the feature length film" is finally here
wow that's a lot of likes when all I did was say the predictable comment under any long video
Nah, this is TV documentary sized. Feature length is an hour and a half or longer.
@@dolphinboi-playmonsterranc9668 The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences define "Feature Length" as 40 minutes or over. As just over 42 minutes, this video qualifies.
Tom Scott: The Movie
Tom Scott 2: Legal Boogaloo
Tom Scott 3: Tom Scott Is Not Free
Tom Scott 4: Scott Goes To War
I can go on.
@@pavarottiaardvark3431 Thank you, gallant aardvark, for rescuing my joke from the veritable gutter of technical inaccuracy.
Imagine just how many contracts Tom needed for this video.
Tom's lawyers needed lawyers to sort this one out.
Yes, a UA-camr with less followers would probably be in trouble. (Or they'd ask UA-cam for help and hope they say yes)
I think the contracts might be copyrighted..
@@ten.seconds Which is why we’ll never see them
:thinking: Can contracts be a work of art or be modified to become a work of art?
"one of the largest advertising firms"
*ad plays*
Very smooth, Tom.
LMAO SAME HERE
*PREMIUM* 💯
I laughed so freaking hard when that happened
_extreeeeeeemely smoooooooooth_
@@RobertPayne556 adblocker...
My problem is with the choice I get: I can tell it is a false claim, and the OTHER party has to agree "yes, it is wrong". That is the part which made me put up less and less videos on youtube, 'cause the other party can still say "it is mine" even though it clearly isn't. This disadvantage is my problem with youtube.
the good thing is that if they want to insist, they have to actually file a lawsuit. The bad part is you have to provide your details so you can be sued if you wish to dispute it
@@justalonelypotetoThe bad part is when people actually steall content and you can't do anything about it unless you file a lawsuit
guilty till proven innocent
>using quasi-lawyer for the legal cameo
>using actual lawyer for the vampire cameo
Tom has his priority right
Tadtathep Thepboriruck Isn’t Leonard French an actual copyright attorney? (Rhetorical)
Jay Foreman is a comedian, but one of them is a lawyer licensed to practice for sure
Leonard French isn't just a copyright attorney, he's our *favorite* copyright attorney.
Leonard French is a practicing attorney besides being a youtuber.
I totally missed that it was Leonard, though I did spot the Eagle.
An actual copyright dispute I had to send to UA-cam once:
"The Brandenburg Variation is a public domain work. This particular version I am streaming (as can be seen in the video) was rendered by myself from a MIDI file going into a vocal synthesizer, rendering the lines 'pee is stored in the balls'."
I don't exactly think Sony has released anything involving that particular libretto.
Damn them. I want that song.
Sony doesn't want the truth of pee stored in balls to come out.
We must hear that song.
Du Cuxel
Realize the title of this video is incorrect and misleading 'UA-cam's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.' BOTH are broken, there is no 'either / or' choice. That there are all kinds of problems in the real world copyright law and that it's been extended by corrupt special interests and legislators doesn't negate that what UA-cam does is obviously poor and often incorrect.
"Anyone should be able to make a James bond movie by now"
"Cause they'd probably do a better job"
Lmao
I seriously believe most fans have a better idea for a Bond plot than "Spectre".
I've heard the same argument made for Batman and Superman movies... And I tend to agree!
Same goes for Star Wars and Doctor Who
@@siphillis spectre was the exception, not the rule
It's a bunny joke but also a really good argument: After decades, the IP holders of James Bond still have no competition so they don't need to produce anything of quality. Our whole society loses on potentially awesome James Bond movies because a company that already made billions out of that IP wants to have a monopoly on that IP forever, so they don't have to compete with anyone.
How you manage to keep someone with ADHD (me and probably a lot of other people) hooked on videos talking about the in theory most boring things on earth is beyond me. Yet you do, hats off because that is truly amazing.
This is how we learn 🙃
Tom's such a good presenter. A consistent energy and pacing, with no
overly-complex words. Doing that while still being engaging is a underrated skill
I fell asleep. 🤣
Okay, I do that all the time and just rewind when I wake up and see what I missed
It’s hyperfocusing, getting rlly in depth about weird random things is an ADHD trait
Because the topics are not actually boring, and a lot of work went into them to ensure that translates onscreen.
the problem at the root of all of this is that it costs money to defend yourself in court
A lot of money
imagine hating people trying to get into the mainstream so much in order to be considered innocent you need to be rich
@@Halorocker101 Well... Mostly all evil
@@Halorocker101 money is just a system of trade, it's an inanimate object, the users of the system did such things with it...
Conclusion: Human's are evil.
@@jackasshomey Someone gets it.
Tom: hey Jay could you film a clip for a video about copyright?
Jay: alright what do you need
Tom: could you just wear a suit and tie while sitting at a laptop with a phone next to you and just go “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA”
Jay: okay...
300th like
@@iLoveMalikToo I’m not even surprised this has 1 reply at 300
MAP MEN MAP MEN MAP MEN men
MEN MAP MEN MAP MEN MAP MAP MAP MAP
"Only if you can pretend to put a coin into a street light in return, though."
Look at him - showing off being outside.....
La Di Da
@@affalaffaa schlob on me knob.
In Milton Keynes, no less.
a) Britain only closed down this past week.
b) It was probably shot weeks ago and only finalized editing now.
Probably prerecorded before the entire mess
I think that getting your work to enter public domain on a large scale should be an honorable thing.
I feel like if there were a school for becoming a UA-camr, this video would be apart of the syllabus.
I disagree, I think it could instead be a part of the syllabus.
Courses have syllabi. Schools have curricula.
I mean, we should put together a class for it at some point.
Quick question, would they ask for permission?
769 likes lmao
Fun fact to make you feel old: If copyright lasted only 20 years like patents, Peter Jackson's Fellowship Of The Ring would be entering public domain next year
@Dan Stuart bruh
The owner of the patent can renew it when it expires. Companies can't die so they can hold patents in stasis indefinitely. Car manufacturers bought other people's patents to hide electric cars and higher mpg and lower maintenance gas cars because it would cut into their return profits.
@Dan Stuart You rarely see people disliking Fellowship of the Ring without mentioning the book and holding it up to the sky like their holy bible.
@@PaleGhost69 Renewing a patent is only possible for the 20 years mentioned (counting from the filing date, not the date of introduction to the market). The only exception I am aware of are products that require a licensing procedure, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides. For them, the maximum duration is 20 years + the duration of the licensing process, but no more than 30 years.
Of course, you can improve your invention and patent the improvement in a new patent, which would again last for a maximum of 20 years. But the "base" version of your invention would be out of patent protection earlier than the improvement.
STOPPPPPPP
Never thought I'd live to see the day when Tom says "Wassup worl, is yo boi"
I know. That really took me off guard.
I think the biggest issue with the copyright system on UA-cam is that the holder of copyright from 15 seconds of a 2 hour video can just make money from your entire video. Let them ringfence the section of the video with mid rolls they can profit from, and not just take everything. thats just me though
What if I rip off a complete music video or movie even and then out 10 hours of random footage after it?
@@squeakybunny2776Then people probably won't watch the random footage, and the ads there wouldn't make any money
> "We need to shorten how long copyright lasts"
*Disney would like to know your location*
Every relative of a famous artist: yesn't.
Disney is mean about their stuff. They've limited releases and sales for eons; even calling it "the vault" where it all lives. They are the Scrooge McDuck of the corporate world.
Hilarious and original joke, mate
disney going bankrupt
also Nintendo to be honest.
The Content ID worst case was the movie "Pixels" when tried to set a claim over the original Pixels video which inspired the entire movie
bruh
there was also the time family guy used some nes gameplay footage and accidentally got the person claimed, then the family guy creators had to reach out to youtube to fix it (keep in mind the footage was multiple years older than the episode)
@@youraveragebedwarssweat5922 IIRC that speedrunner is called Kosmic, but not sure if that story was about 4:54 record or the 18 something warpless run
I am thinking in another thing
because pixels movie was inspired by that video, can the video maker copy right the movie?
@@septanos nah it’s doubtful that’s definitely transformative. Inspiration is allowed, just not direct rip off. Like how when an artist mentions all his inspirations even if their music is similar the inspiration can’t go back and sue them.
Tom: "We need to shorten how long copyrights last"
>Mickey Mouse wants to access your location
🤣🤣🤣
Mickey Mouse wants to wipe your location off the face of the earth
*Mickey mouse wants to commit war crimes*
The reason it is already 70 years is because of Mickey Mouse... and it is up in 2023
Isn't there a compromise? Something like after 50 years copyright holders have to pay $10k per year to maintain their copyright. Small potatoes for seriously valuable properties, but this system would allow the other 90%+ to transition into the public domain.
Still come back to this gem every once in a while. One of Toms greatest works
As a social media lawyer in America, I have to say ... REALLY GOOD JOB, Tom. I love how you explained global copyright law intricacies in simple easy-to-understand terms.
I just want to say, Jay Foreman as "screaming attorney" was a genius idea.
Jay "The Screaming Attorney" Foreman vs "The Vampiric Lawyer" LegalEagle in a steel cage match.
@@JouvaMoufette i would see that.
* sees Jay Foreman *
Me: "He's gonna scream"
Jay Foreman: * screams *
I was so pleased the moment I saw him, I knew what was coming and was immensely satisfied when I was right.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
what time stamp?
Just at start... 2:55
@@robdavidson4649 3:00
The current trend of popular musicians selling the rights to their catalog to big media corps for hundreds of millions is only going to make the copyright system even more vicious
I watched half an hour of this thinking it's been 10 minutes. Imagine having Tom as your professor...
69 likes
Then we would have learnt some thing!
Imagine your professor putting 10% of the time into his lecture
"Welcome to todays lecture... thanks for listening, goodbye."
I would get thrown out of his class for showing him that he's a simple-minded twat with myopic vision.
Imagine being a little kid online who doesn't know what copyright is, and accidentally losing your family 35k from uploading baby shark
Literally this
Back in my day kids lost their family's money in online poker.
-Any game with lootboxes ever
.. deserved
@@gdxnsk Geez, those kids were actively investing online though it was a short time investment 🤣
Tom: Copyright needs to be shorter
Disney, who is effectively singlehandedly responsible for how long it is: Maybe it needs to be longer still, and we'll pay as many judges as we have to.
They don't pay judges. They pay lawyers. And members of Congress who mostly don't have a clue.
How about shortening it to zero?
@@Kian139 Umm, no?
@@cy5434, do it like Prince did with Planet Earth in UK.
@@Kian139 unfair to content creators
Another important thing I think about the difference between patents and copyright is that patents are described and archived as part of that process, so there isn't the "orphaned works" issue for patent. I honestly think the archival aspect of copyright is something that would be nice to be specifically addressed in law, like adding archival and backup without further distribution until copyright expiration to what is considered a fair use, or having a patent-like system where media must be submitted to a central government database whenever copyright is legally enforced (so if a cease and desist was sent or a lawsuit was brought, to be enforceable, the media would have to be submitted). And then there's the issue of DRM... anyways, that's all just to say that I think it's really important to not lose even obscure bits of culture and art.
I think there's an easy parallel for orphaned inventions whose original creator can't be traced
The most random Legal Eagle cameo ever and I love it.
This is not legal advice. This is legaltainment...
Jay Foreman appears: oh i know where this is going.
Legal Eagle skit: whaaaaaaat the hell is going on?!
The bit at 34:40 just makes me think about the current state of Mechanical Keyboards. The Cherry key switch patent expired and now the community is alight with superior reproductions.
Never expected to see you here!
I used to turn my nose at the cherry key alternatives when they started, but now I own one of those and I consider it better. I thought it was my lack my knowledge, but I guess it WAS better !
Ayeeee the homie
Are you telling me I can buy a cheap mechanical keyboard?
@@NoobOfShame redragon uses kailh or gateron if I remember correctly, both of which were before cherry copyright expired
"you have to be a subscription service, or one of the largest advertising-"
*ad plays*
And, of course, sponsored by CuriosityStream+Nebula. So both ;)
Every time I’ve watched this I’ve thought to myself “That looks like Evan Edinger’s bedroom” and I finally checked and indeed it is
so this is where jay foreman has been for the past 6 months
filming a 2 second scream
That's actually a 6 month scream sped up to two seconds.
dont forget the bloopers
its been a 6 month scream
New Map Men at the end of the year
"We should shorten how long copyright lasts"
Disney: *laughs in money*
To me the only solution is
Step 1: get every country to have an impossible to brake for a one vote system
Step 2: massive world wide information campaign about copyright
Step 3: ask the world if the laws would be changed
Step 4: watch the big companies spend all there money to buy people's vote
Copyright isnt in the schooling system for some reason and it really should be as it is the basis of basically every career thats not being a janitor
@@426shelby426 I like how you think. =)
@In-game Event ah, a frenchman
In The Case of Disney or Disney Corporation; If they're still actively using The Character of Mickey Mouse, which they are, then that's an Active Revenue Producing Creation & should remain © Protected. But for many of The Characters created by Cartoon Artists of The 50's that aren't commercially active, even though The Creator may still be alive ( ? ) ( !!! ) Then those characters should be in The Public Domain. / i like to make collages from Art & Photographs from Magazines; & The way that i look at it, is that that Artwork that was used for a story in that Magazine that had a circulation live span of 30 days; They made their money off of it, & now it's effectively worthless ! It might be reused for something else, but in all probability, it won't be. It's up for grabs now ( !!! ) The Story that accompanied it, might go into an anthology somewhere, but even that's unlikely !
Hi, I'm a mashup artist (if you can even call it art). I've been on the receiving end of copyright claims more times than I can be bothered to count and I always hated on UA-cam for it. Clicking on this video I was prepared to write an essay comment on every reason you were wrong and UA-cam sucked. ...You won me over. The video was truly enlightening and really opened my eyes on how UA-cam holds me behind a shield from copyright-infringement lawsuits. Thank you.
Current copyright law sucks! It should be that if you put the songs under Your name, which you don't. If the video you put up says, for instance, Olivia Newton John Physical extended Night club remix, by, and then your name, it's not putting the song in your name. It's your video, but not your song for crying out loud. If I was in charge of copyright law, I'd change it, but I'm not. Who's in charge of it? Somebody contact them and imploor them to change it for us UA-camrs, so we can create our own remixes and mashups without sick obsticles coming our way!
Lawyer: "We're going to sue you out of existance"
YT/Aphabet: "I don't think so"
You've come a long way from dropping part of a drum kit off a cliff Tom, excellent job.
Daleterrence when did that happen?
Jordan Leighton search for „two drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff“.
ba dum, tish
The single reason copyright was extended from 50 years to life + 70 years was Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain.
I think for IPs like Mickey Mouse, the copyright should continue as long as the owner continues to produce new content with it. This would keep Star Wars copyrighted while Back to the Future would eventually fall into the Public Domain.
@@krdjmtc Honestly this isn't even really necessary because Disney could very easily argue for trademark protection on the image of Mickey Mouse (given how his image is so fundamental to their branding) which already works like this. Trademarks are good as long as you're using them. Steamboat Willie would lapse into public domain but the image of Mickey Mouse would still be owned by Disney as long as Disney exists.
@@krdjmtc Why?
@@CatCheshireThe Oh okay, that makes sense.
I think Disney is trying to get around that with their steamboat willie introductions logos.
I still don't understand how we ever got to "past death" for copyrights. I mean the songwriters kids had no more role in creating the song than I or anyone else did.
@@ninjashot37 Nope, copyright going past death was a thing before Disney even existed. It has just been extended since then.
My proposition would be 50 years or 18 years after death which ever comes sooner. While we can agree that it seems ridiculous that a person's kid gets to live their entire lives benefiting from creative work they had no part in, what about a literal child?
Imagine a case where some artist dies and leaves behind a 5 year old child who has no other family. That artist's work shouldn't immediately go into the public domain, because that 5 year old child could fall into the type of poverty that takes an entire life time to dig yourself out of despite the fact their parent would have had the money to care for them if they'd lived.
That's where my 50 years or 18 years past death comes in. My suggestion guarantees that any child of a copyright holder would at least keep their money coming in until their adult hood where they can rise or fall with the rest of us.
Honestly the burden for that should be on the parents to plan ahead smartly
@@hamsterfromabove8905 I believe it's should be an inheritable fixed time after creation.
Let's say you go with a copyright of 50 years after publishing, if the artist dies within that timeframe, it's family inherits the rights to said work, until 50 years after the publication.
ever heard of inheritance?
this video is amazing! the way you play out scenarios to showcase how absurd copyright laws are is genius
Leonard French, Legal Eagle, Jay Foreman and Tom Scott?
Now this is a crossover.
don't forget Oliver Thorn (Philosophy Tube) is also listed in the credits
UA-cam Cinematic Universe in progress?
And mumbo
Legal Eagle is an incredibly biased Lawyer who takes advantage of his reputation to make baseless claims and describe them as facts.
TheSpoonKing lawyers are supposed to be baised
Nothing is a better example of copyright being a joke than how disney was able to maintain copyright of mickey mouse after the copyright expired.
Disney claims copyright on things like Grimm characters. Disney seem to think they can own copyright on the public domain.
And, furthermore, the Supreme Court being like "sounds about right" in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
@Mr Right utility for a corporation isn't justification for depriving the public of a free culture.
While Mickey Mouse was the lucky one, there are many works from 1926 that aren't preserved because it's illegal to do so.
Disney wouldn't "lose" Mickey Mouse; they could still produce works based on him, since Disney is part of the public.
Mickey Mouse entering the public domain isn't "splitting" the two; it's letting people create stuff with Mickey Mouse, sure, but Disney will remain associated with the character for generations to come.
Edit: Copyright is a bargain. Instead of paying tax money for public transportation, we pay freedom for increased production of creative works. However, at some point it becomes diminishing returns, and we shouldn't give up more freedom.
As it currently stands, Disney is pirating Mickey Mouse from the public.
@Mr Right if you're being serious, I have lost all hope in humanity. It's over. Big media corporations win. Nothing can ever convince your brainwashed mind that copyright is not property and that too restrictive copyright is robbing the public of their creativity.
@Mr Right did want to also note that trademark law would still cover Mickey Mouse-based logos that Disney makes, so in that case consumers wouldn't be confused about which company is associated with that logo.
Tom just called the entire meme community the Internet's nerdy underbelly.
I'll take it.
haha look at this epic memer
We'll take it
that’s bullsh*t
*insert mike wasowski face
He's right, and we're proud of it.
3:05 that jay foreman cameo
I was like no way is that jay
Then he did the aaaaaaaaa hahaha
we stan Jay Foreman ✊
You've done a better job explaining why content ID is important than UA-cam has.
Honestly, that’s one of the biggest problems UA-cam has: communication.
42 minutes of Tom Scott? Oh well, I'm stuck at home anyway.
Well... who isn't?
International students in China who chose to stay despite the crisis.
Who's laughing now, mom?
Of course, that doesn't prevent me from watching 42 minutes of Tom Scott...
Ok.
I'm a composer and did a lot of work in my 20's that still makes money to this day. My royalties are how artists like me can survive and continue. So why should it be taken away from me later in life when I might need it most? It might still be an income I rely on.
Copyright until death makes sense to me.
We all are. And our boy is filling the void in our soul.
I can’t believe a 42 minute video on UA-cam was completely engaging and got my full undivided attention.
All his video is like this
especially a 42 minute about copyright. I'd have never watched something like that usually
You may find other video essays intriguing, check out Philosophy Tube and Lindsay Ellis.
You haven't been on the site for a while.
That's Tom
I really always have loved the format of your videos. There's just something whimsical about how things blip onto the screen at your command and all of these little clever camera tricks like smacking your reviewer self Tim off the screen.
World said no then Tom said yes but didn’t show his bad side
Edit: wow so many likes thx guys
edgy, cool
that's tom scott for you
And even the fact that most people don’t even care/know anything about copyright and watches this at 3 am... (Yep, it’s me)
It completely corrected what i thought fair use and copyright was like, I am on UA-cam a lot which made me more invested in the video and its subject matter. The video was also presented very well and in an entertaining way, this probably had months of effort put into it.
why wouldnt you?
My mind: oh that's Jay Foreman! He's gonna scream, isn't it?
Jay Foreman: *SCREAMS*
Lmaooo
+
Absolutely brilliant. This has been a sore point online for a long time, and the way this video frames the problem, communicates the right points, the right way, legally and effectively, to bring everyone up to a common level of understanding is just amazing.
This should be required viewing for every youtuber, streamer, copyright lawyer, and law maker.
Dale Horton well said. This should be an introduction video on new channels and more 😅
"No Copyright Infringement Intended" is like saying "No murder intended" after killing someone.
Doctor: I cured cancer with a pill that also gives you the ability to fly and browse the internet in your dreams, how long do I own it?
US Govt: That'll be good for about 20yrs. Better start thinking of your next gig.
Disney: I drew a mouse driving a boat, what do I get?
US Govt: You mad genius! You'll be milking this cow for the next century my friend. Welcome to the good life. Hey, wanna try this crazy new pill? Don't worry the patent just ran out on it.
Well I guess if you persistantly extend the copyright long enough, you get to keep your mouse.
A pill that did all of that would make so much money that you should have no problem living the rest of your life off of it.
You own the pill until you sell it.
You don't own the idea of such a pill. Government has granted you the monopoly right, but the idea is not property.
@@superbob24 That's.. I don't think that is his point.
Don't pills have that same patent issue in the US? They minimally change the formula to renew the patent, and they monopolize it.
One of the most intelligent, honest, insightful, useful, perfectly analytical, and descriptive takes on copyright law and infringement, with tons of fun & amusing jokes & references and clever, creative content delivery approaches that kept it entertaining and engaging from start to finish. You continue to surprise me, solidifying yourself as one of UA-cam's greatest content creators. Thank you for putting in all that effort for this masterful work.
Thing is, what he's saying is something that every creator should be clearly informed of before being able to publish his work.
Not really, it's full of straw men BS, nobody defends reaction channels when talking about how broken the system is. The problem everyone has with it is how the clement has to prove nothing about owning anything and can do it as much as they want, not only can it be abused, it is abused. This BBC wannabe jumps over the problem in a small sentence and paints the critics as mad because they can't stream a film with themselves laughing in the background.
@@yor9783 What you just did is a strawman...
@@jojokob5182 Precisely. Lots of the content of this video should be part of some kind of mandatory 'how-to' document for content creators, so that they could avoid these pitfalls in the future.
putting my feelings to words, thx to scott and u koolstr3
Was not prepared for the Legal Eagle crossover but I definitely appreciated it
Apparently Legal Eagle is a Copyright Vampire :O
Did I see a lawful masses cameo too?
Yup! This made my day.
I was way more excited for the Leonard French (my favourite copyright attorney)cross over
Need more Jay Foreman