Yall saying there is no such thing as intellectual property but when your classmate tells the same joke you did but louder and everyone laughs, you get mad smh
@5OWGPIN1GQ politics and abstract political theory are two different beasts, in the former you choose between shitcakes whereas in the latter you have no such restrictions. I'm with orange man even though he's kosher.
All property is a paper from state that state will protect your exclusive use of the property with full force of the state. Without state there is no property.
@@ionezgb The state is the biggest infringement on property, even bigger than private theft or private destruction of property. A thief steals once or twice from you. The state steals from you for your whole life. You pay the warlords a tribute to leave you and your property alone. If you don't, they throw you in a cage, steal your property, or both. If you resist, you will be killed. How can the biggest violator of property rights defend property rights? This is beyond absurd.
@@redacted6658 that works great right up until the day that it doesnt, and then it all comes crashing down. when it does you will wind up paying it all back and then some. hope it will have been worth it. i would also be careful with your publicly bragging about committing tax evasion.
That's basically how it is in Greece, or was until 10 years ago. Anyone could just make a "cover", basically a distribution of the song and that's how we have multiple versions of each song, each one of them with their unique style and flavor. Sometimes they sound like entirely different songs. Some of the greatest pieces are just copies of other pieces that may have been a good idea but were poorly executed etc. The idea that a song (or any other piece of art) can be only distributed by one creator still seems ridiculous to me.
When you mentioned "copyright" you would actually mean a patent. Which is an exclusive right to the patent holder to manufacture that product for 25 years. You have to apply to make a patent. "copyright" is an automatic legal protection attached to any sort of literary work (code, books, poems, songs) that protects works for being copied. That's why we need to attach "open source" licences to code. Not because we would want to be protective of our software but because we need to circumvent the automatic legal "protection" that already put on our code. Otherwise we would be open to a law suit (if the person was so enclined) that's probably why people ask permission. It's because a boomer may sue them for using his build of dmenu. Not saying that's valid but it may be an explanation
@@dkk9819 Because some people seem to think: "Oh, you are against intellectual property and you want to collectivize other people's property, therefore you're a commie!"
@@PhoenixIgnisChannel Yes. But communism deals with material, not intellectual property. Those are two very distinct realms. You can be pro private (material) property and against intellectual property at the same time. The difference is that material property only exists once and you actually take something away from someone when you steal his material property. Intellectual property is infinitely reproducible. Therefore, you can't "steal" intellectual property it in the same way.
It's such a post-printing press idea too. In the middle ages and frankly every other time period before that, the only way books got around was by people independently copying them by hand. If the original authors back then had exclusive rights to distribute, basically no one would have read their books lmao
It's sad that the progress is always only in the way of more regulations. I want to witness the decision to take patent law back as it didn't benefit the public. And other laws, too.
"B-but Luke, if there is no IP, then the big corporations won't make more CONTENT for us to consoom. AAAH, I'M CONSOOOMING!!" Even though that's what you're doing right now.
Here's an idea. I'd love a program that shows me all the coders who wrote everything installed on my system and provided donation links to them if they have it set up. Free software is great but rewarding people for making useful stuff is great too. I know the main motivation for writing Free Software is personal use and returning the favour but I want the best people to have all the money.
@@davedimitrov It really depends on what kind of software you're writing. Good luck writing an extension for any of the big browsers without js for example. Yeah, you can use other languages and compile them to js but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea as it adds another layer of complexity.
I imagine this is the longterm intended usecase for blockchain. Lets you tag yourself into a 'blockchain - of - works' and it's no longer modifiable. That way at any point someone can hunt you down from the four corners of the earth and throw you a nickle
Writing scripts for your computer doesn't make you a programmer the same way changing a lightbulb doesn't make you an electrician and replacing a broken board on your deck doesn't make you a carpenter.
The easier something is to copy the less value it has. Basic supply and demand. Intellectual property is just the government limiting supply to create artificial scarcety to inflate the value of things that are fundamentally worthless like marvel movies.
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.
I agree. And I think he got copyright confused with patents, since in the example it was applied to inventions (which is was patents generally are for) instead of creative works/art (which is what copyright generally is for). Though I suppose the two sometimes overlap.
That’s the point of the term “IP” - to confuse and lump together different things. Stallman wrote an essay you can find on the GNU project site about that
"An illegal number is a number that represents information which is illegal to possess, utter, propagate, or otherwise transmit in some legal jurisdiction. Any piece of digital information is representable as a number; consequently, if communicating a specific set of information is illegal in some way, then the number may be illegal as well" - wikipedia
@Biologist Blogger This is why IP is bullshit. It's literally just information, which exists naturally, of its own accord, whether we realize it or not. Every possible idea, media, or artwork already exists as a number, and has done so for an eternity before humans even came to be. Nothing new under the sun, yet we claim it as such.
@@Cris-bj7ee that really romantic, there is "philipl/pifs". filesystem, where all possible files must exist within π. But art is complicated, most annoying is common sense, technical ideas. For few generations skype had monopoly, coz they got patents you will "infringe" without knowing, just by scaling voice calls service, or "one click purchase" from amazon, borderline insane patent imo.
abolishing IP is not a leftist idea, it's actually quite impartial. Only big corporations shill for IP and bribe governments to extend it, and no one is happy, maybe apart from the 5 people in the world who believe in corporatocracy.
IP is a made-up term anyway, copyright is usually the issue. Copyright was originally invented as a form of guratantee for authors that others couldn't just take their work and run with it. Let's say I spend a year writing a book, could be a novel, could be a textbook, whatever. The price of the book will not only include the cost of manufacturing copies, but it also has to cover for the time it took me to write the book in the first place, plus salaries for editors, technical reviewers, typesetting, promotion, and that's if I just want to break even. Without copyright some other publisher could simply buy one copy of the book, copy it and sell it cheaper because that other publisher only has to cover the cost of copying. He does not have all the other upfront cost that I as the original author have. So copyright was invented to let me as the author control who gets to copy my original work. That licensee, such as a publisher, would then pay me either upfront or in form of royalties if he sees a value in the work. But that was at a time when making a copy carried a massive amount of effort and was something only few corporations could affort. Copyright was only meant to last a few years, not to be something to hold on for a century.
What now, when any digitally-distributed book can be stripped of DRM and re-published online for free? How will authors (forget the multi-billionaire publishers) make any money then? This is my only concern with this copyright-abolition thing. Honest-to-God authors will get shafted because anyone can just copy-paste a year's work and circumvent the whole process of paying them for it, lol. Thus most prolific authors will cease to write for a living and have to do other things for subsistence, with writing demoted to a side-hustle. That sounds like we'd run short of creative energy, if it ends up costing so much more.
@@spaghettiking653 Well currently the copyrights still applies to those drm free copies. So you can still take down or receive compensation for that theft. Abolishing copyrights is a terrible idea which will ultimately lead to an demonic dystopian future. Luke can talk all he wants, but if someone copied his entire channel and took all his subscribers he would definitely stop posting and his entire income would dry up. So it’s definitely something people like to talk about, but in reality it’s a foolish argument.
@@ghost-user559 Exactly, I agree. Standalone authors still need this protection dearly. At the same time, it's clear to see that companies benefit far more than the average author from the continual extension of copyright, because their decades-old IPs are always threatened to fall into the public domain by the passage of time. They really do just need to shorten the span of copyright to some more sensible figure like 50 years after publication, and call it a day, because beyond a certain point, the protections that copyright affords are evidently being abused. Perhaps that's what we all don't like about copyright; or maybe how aggressively DRM services are being deployed now.
@@spaghettiking653 another thing is the work of dead authors should lost copyright. Like how is ethical that people make money of a dead person providing not value?
The thing about IP is that it was made for protecting the entities that distributed the goods produced, not the goods or the ones that produced them. This creates the illusion that goods are protected because the distribution channel is preserved. Basically a law from big corporations, for big corporations.
Good presentation, but one fundamental error: the idea that primitive societies, even permanently nomadic ones, did not have a concept of property is simply non-historical. They did. True it was more "fluid" (to use a contemporary buzzword) than what we have enshrined in our laws now, but it certainly. The idea that people without civilization, whatever that even means, we're living in some kind of proto-communistic situation is just not true from a linguistic or archaeological perspective.
IP can get silly though for sure. I think it's mainly the case when it is applied to something really general. Like the old mmo "Worlds" that patented "a system and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space". Which is so vague that it is palpable how absurd it would be to enforce given how ubiquitous online games are now. But they do enforce it and companies rather than having to go to court almost always fold and pay the fine.
So much yes to this! This message needs to be sent and shared! I've been saying this and I love that you speak out to a bigger audience, because this is so important! Thank you!
big artists stole a lot of songs from small ones. And what about projects like mongodb, they needed some license mumbo jumbo for competing with AWS on providing cloud database services, some ip\cr enforcement is a must, coz big fish will always swallow small without even noticing.
A really good example for why open free shit is really great, is remixing. It spawned so much creativity, but the legal action taken against sampling has basically killed it digitally.
On a small scale I guess it would be true that creativity would "thrive", but large scale productions of movies, games, you name it, just can not exist without IP. Not that it would matter to me at this point, there is enough stuff out there right now which would take lifetimes to watch.
Wow. I have so much respect for the openness of your opinions. You made some great points in this video. I hope to see you return to content creation soon.
itd be crazy if all games were open source, people could take all the best bits of their favourite games snd combine them into one fame thats perfect for them, people could collaborate and work together to make perfect games, itd be an amazing world
Someone I follow also puts some videos behind a paywall. But it's fine in that case. Everyone who donated at least one dollar on patreon can see all the exclusive videos. But he just analyzes the growth of his channel there. And he also reuploads the videos deleted by UA-cam.
But doesn't IP help reward and incentivize people for their creativity? Obviously there will be "starving artist" types who do what they like regardless of the money and there are people who can make a decent amount of money without any paywalls, but that's not everyone. There's a reason why our labor market has financial incentives and rewards - many people (Not all, but many) need them as motivation. That being said copyright law in the US is atrocious and needs to be way less restrictive.
"If people could not monetize their products of intellectual labor, people would just do it for the passion and that would even get rid of mediocrity, maaaan" "People would consistently organize together and sync for one unified vision for big projects for the passion, maaaaan" "If they were truly passionate they would find 8-12 hours of the day to work on projects which require that kind of work to ever be completed, maaan ...and they would find other 10-100 like minded passionate people, maaaaan" "All the other enlightened cultures that we conquered (because they didn't have the same level of development) didn't use "IP",maaan"
The most important reason why companies make it big have nothing to do with IP. Most companies don't even try to patent things anymore, as those really doesn't work. You would have to be quite large company that actually can afford massive legal battles that take years. IP protection is great only for the selected few giants that can block competition away. For the total economy and level of inventions it's quite horrible. One way to think about this is to try to figure what would have happened if IP never would have happened. To me it's obvious that not having IP would have resulted in totally different, more leveled society, with higher level of innovations. Trademarks would still apply, as those could be seen as signatures of the company. And corporate espionage would still be illegal. But when the product is sold as public goods, then it's free and open, and using government to enforce threat of violence against others that use ideas from these public products, that's bad idea. Many say this is form of communism, while it's exactly the opposite. And this is not to say that we should remove all IP immediately, as in the current structure of western society, that would cause damage. But doing it slowly (or as fast as possible, after researching the effects) would give edge back to western countries. So many areas of business have been totally phucked in the west because of China (and other countries) raping our IP laws. They reap the benefits of no IP laws, and all of this is orchestrated by small group of people who control our world and have only certain global goals in mind. China is their chosen country, because the people are so conditioned and collectivists there.
I think you would appreciate David Graeber's take on how debt was the initial form of currency, historically speaking, based on the established group norms because societies were smaller more sedentary and interwoven, so property didn't need to be protected because it was an artefact of status and not the other way around.
Without IP, how would you remedy things like people copying innovation and presenting as if it was theirs? Like someone stealing an artists creation and presenting it elsewhere as if they made it.
One some markets IP practically disappeared. Like the creation of new programming languages. Propriety programming langues became very rare and no one want to buy licenses for programming languages anymore. Yet the progress here is extremely high, despite the fact that a language is a lot of work, it not only needs a compiler/interpreter, but also a lot of libraries and tooling. IP is a scam, just like owning trade-routs have been.
Lol that's Max Stirner in the thumbnail. I'm from Germany and even here almost no one knows him. His book was my introduction to the idea of individualism. I love it.
The question to ask here is whether it’s better to have a select few wealthy patrons sponsoring individuals to produce things that we typically turn into intellectual property, with that sponsorship being inspired just by the good of the works, or if we would be better off in a world where people can support themselves off of their works. I think the latter made its way into the U.S. Constitution because it was thought that the young nation would miss out on important inventions, cultural works, and so on, should people with ideas be forced to shelve them in favor of survival by normal means. Right or wrong, it is an interesting experiment, and that’s probably what the framers intended. There was an idea at the time that there should be a revolution every 50 years or so, which would keep things from being enshrined in old legal documents beyond their useful lifespans.
How do you protect intellectual creations against fraud without being able to claim some type of intellectual ownership? GPLv3 for example lays out guidelines for how a given IP can be distributed and attributed. Without IP, you can't make any such rules for distribution and attribution. Once they copy it, they own it, and can do what they like with it. Saying "fraud and trade secrets are totally different" is too hand wavy. How do you actually enforce fraud without IP?
How are independent musicians meant to make money if we did get rid of copyright and IP Luke? I'd be interested on your thoughts on this, because I can't think of a way that could work...
On the comment on mediocrity with art/music. Its one of the reasons as to why I love black metal. It wasnt for profit and copyright shit. They took insipiration and/or "copied" from the first wave of BM from England and made it their own, as today we call it '(true)norwegian black metal'.
This is not based content. IP is the legal framework that allows someone to profit off of what they create. If you wanted to sell that shell script, legally you can't sell something that's not yours, so IP makes it yours for you to sell. Also the idea that people will create just as much shit without profit incentive is a fantasy meme
still, without ip, games like GTA 5 would not be possible. There were so many people programming for years on the game. It would not be realistic that everyone would just do it out of passion.
what about: 1) i make a code and share only binaries, not because o I.P. just but because i don't want to... maybe because of shame of bad quality code, or because im a a-role 2) gnu-tards start to prosecute me saying that i used gnu code in it, disrespecting my right to be an a-role and trying to force me to give focks
They would have to prove that the GNU code you alledgedly use compiles to something, which has a 1:1 correspondence in your binary. To circumvent that, simply only use code with an MIT license or something similar for your closed source projects.
literally right now, im in this situation: im making a game and i want to sell it when it's done. i mean i want people to buy my game but i don't want them to copy and distribute to their friends. any suggestions?
DRM is what your looking for, Most platforms offer some form of basic protection. If your game is good people will buy it to support you. IMHO piracy can drive sales if your game is good. (fuck DRM)
Yall saying there is no such thing as intellectual property but when your classmate tells the same joke you did but louder and everyone laughs, you get mad smh
He delivered better
Not a good analogy
@@p504504 issa joke
@@p504504 why is it not a good analogy?
Na that’s fraud watch the video
He stands, he sits and he stands again. Church habits ingrained in this man’s unconsciousness
Imagine not being orthodox and standing for 3 hours lol
The participation in the liturgy is best achieved not by passive observing of a spectacle, but by searing leg pain.
Get Scholl sole pillows and knee-straps for church?
@@HiPhish The agony felt as your knees buckle 2 hours into the liturgy is just a physical manifestation of the spiritual pain of your sins.
@Jesus is Lord! Fucking cringe
NOOOoooO, you can't just steal from those poor billion dollar corporations!! ✋😦🤚
@@ster2600 as everybody should be
NOoooOoOOO, they need the money for \\\donations///
@5OWGPIN1GQ did he say he did? i didn't know that
@5OWGPIN1GQ politics and abstract political theory are two different beasts, in the former you choose between shitcakes whereas in the latter you have no such restrictions. I'm with orange man even though he's kosher.
@5OWGPIN1GQ Trump is not literally a Fascist. Not even close. Fascists do not believe what Trump believes 99% of the time.
"People should exploit the legal system that they live in"
I wish more people get this. The legal system isn't morality.
Thats something I never considered before
Can't even blame him, that's where we are
In a country with 400 years of chattel slavery enforced under a legal system, nothing about legality is correlatable to morality.
the legal system has been put in place to protect privilege and justify ignorance.
morality is a spook anyway.
Actually Luke, I came up with this idea in my head before you so I will be copyright striking this video.
Gake and Fay
Aktully
One reason it's obvious that "Intellectual Property" is not property is because you have to ask the government permission to own it
B-but, you have to ask gubermint permission to own a house or land- oh wait
All property is a paper from state that state will protect your exclusive use of the property with full force of the state. Without state there is no property.
@@ionezgb The state is the biggest infringement on property, even bigger than private theft or private destruction of property. A thief steals once or twice from you. The state steals from you for your whole life. You pay the warlords a tribute to leave you and your property alone. If you don't, they throw you in a cage, steal your property, or both. If you resist, you will be killed.
How can the biggest violator of property rights defend property rights? This is beyond absurd.
@@redacted6658 that works great right up until the day that it doesnt, and then it all comes crashing down. when it does you will wind up paying it all back and then some. hope it will have been worth it. i would also be careful with your publicly bragging about committing tax evasion.
@Andai living off inheritence, self employement, and refusing to use anything other than cash.
"You cant copy axes or houses". You'll be telling me I cant download a car next.
Download RAM?
*3D printing has entered the chat*
@@oscarrzga4615 swap
That's basically how it is in Greece, or was until 10 years ago. Anyone could just make a "cover", basically a distribution of the song and that's how we have multiple versions of each song, each one of them with their unique style and flavor. Sometimes they sound like entirely different songs. Some of the greatest pieces are just copies of other pieces that may have been a good idea but were poorly executed etc. The idea that a song (or any other piece of art) can be only distributed by one creator still seems ridiculous to me.
When you mentioned "copyright" you would actually mean a patent. Which is an exclusive right to the patent holder to manufacture that product for 25 years. You have to apply to make a patent. "copyright" is an automatic legal protection attached to any sort of literary work (code, books, poems, songs) that protects works for being copied. That's why we need to attach "open source" licences to code. Not because we would want to be protective of our software but because we need to circumvent the automatic legal "protection" that already put on our code. Otherwise we would be open to a law suit (if the person was so enclined) that's probably why people ask permission. It's because a boomer may sue them for using his build of dmenu. Not saying that's valid but it may be an explanation
Copyright used to require registration.
Also FREE SOFTWARE (LIBRE) - See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” (Stallman)
Frankly, I'm just pleased with how Luke was so frank with us during this rant.
anne frankly
Ah, finally someone who makes this argument. Protect material property, abolish intellectual property! Hating IP does not make you a commie!
Why would it make someone a commie?
@@dkk9819 it doesn't
@@dkk9819 Because some people seem to think: "Oh, you are against intellectual property and you want to collectivize other people's property, therefore you're a commie!"
Well... It does, kinda. "Commies" make a distinction in personal property (things you own) and private property (The means of production).
@@PhoenixIgnisChannel Yes. But communism deals with material, not intellectual property. Those are two very distinct realms. You can be pro private (material) property and against intellectual property at the same time. The difference is that material property only exists once and you actually take something away from someone when you steal his material property. Intellectual property is infinitely reproducible. Therefore, you can't "steal" intellectual property it in the same way.
It's such a post-printing press idea too. In the middle ages and frankly every other time period before that, the only way books got around was by people independently copying them by hand. If the original authors back then had exclusive rights to distribute, basically no one would have read their books lmao
It's sad that the progress is always only in the way of more regulations. I want to witness the decision to take patent law back as it didn't benefit the public. And other laws, too.
Luke, you need to stop this, the based-o-meter is going to blow up
I've heard that he has to disconnect his phone because the based department calls him continually.
Theres literally colours that are IP lmao
make a silly system, get silly outcomes
I went to URI and I’m pretty sure the school has some legal claim to “keaney blue”. Insanity.
"B-but Luke, if there is no IP, then the big corporations won't make more CONTENT for us to consoom. AAAH, I'M CONSOOOMING!!"
Even though that's what you're doing right now.
Here's an idea. I'd love a program that shows me all the coders who wrote everything installed on my system and provided donation links to them if they have it set up. Free software is great but rewarding people for making useful stuff is great too. I know the main motivation for writing Free Software is personal use and returning the favour but I want the best people to have all the money.
Something like 'npm fund' would be noice
@@kurokurovich I hope bio-luminescent Nigerian hackers steal your money for writing it in babby JS. Write software in sane languages pls
@@davedimitrov It really depends on what kind of software you're writing. Good luck writing an extension for any of the big browsers without js for example. Yeah, you can use other languages and compile them to js but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea as it adds another layer of complexity.
Would you buy a car if you couldn't open it to see the engine? that's proprietary software in a nutshell
I imagine this is the longterm intended usecase for blockchain. Lets you tag yourself into a 'blockchain - of - works' and it's no longer modifiable. That way at any point someone can hunt you down from the four corners of the earth and throw you a nickle
"I write a bunch of software on my computers" - Luke "Not a programmer" Smith
Writing scripts for your computer doesn't make you a programmer the same way changing a lightbulb doesn't make you an electrician and replacing a broken board on your deck doesn't make you a carpenter.
but some people believe it does and want to restrict your ability to self-repair
The easier something is to copy the less value it has. Basic supply and demand. Intellectual property is just the government limiting supply to create artificial scarcety to inflate the value of things that are fundamentally worthless like marvel movies.
I wouldn't call art (not including marvel movies 😂) worthless. Maybe valueless, but not worthless.
You right though
I have been trying to argue this for years. This is a nice, concise video that captures what I think.
Inventions are protected by patent not copyright. Copyright protects prose and works of art.
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.
I think you haven't elaborated enough. The distinction between copyright and IP seems muddy here.
I agree. And I think he got copyright confused with patents, since in the example it was applied to inventions (which is was patents generally are for) instead of creative works/art (which is what copyright generally is for). Though I suppose the two sometimes overlap.
That’s the point of the term “IP” - to confuse and lump together different things. Stallman wrote an essay you can find on the GNU project site about that
yep 1:20 THAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, it's called trademark
>bro how can ideas be illegal, they’re literally a series of excited neurons
"An illegal number is a number that represents information which is illegal to possess, utter, propagate, or otherwise transmit in some legal jurisdiction. Any piece of digital information is representable as a number; consequently, if communicating a specific set of information is illegal in some way, then the number may be illegal as well"
- wikipedia
@Biologist Blogger This is why IP is bullshit. It's literally just information, which exists naturally, of its own accord, whether we realize it or not. Every possible idea, media, or artwork already exists as a number, and has done so for an eternity before humans even came to be.
Nothing new under the sun, yet we claim it as such.
@Biologist Blogger a lot of legal stuff not make sense to me either, i read that wiki entry ~10 years ago, confusion is the reason i remember it
@@Cris-bj7ee that really romantic, there is "philipl/pifs". filesystem, where all possible files must exist within π.
But art is complicated, most annoying is common sense, technical ideas.
For few generations skype had monopoly, coz they got patents you will "infringe" without knowing, just by scaling voice calls service, or "one click purchase" from amazon, borderline insane patent imo.
@@GCoda the ideal world of Plato. Ando no, no numbers but ideas.
Never before have I seen such an effective use of right-ish memes to spread leftist ideas. Excellent channel.
abolishing IP is not a leftist idea, it's actually quite impartial.
Only big corporations shill for IP and bribe governments to extend it, and no one is happy, maybe apart from the 5 people in the world who believe in corporatocracy.
Huh? Right-wing libertarians have been against IP for a VERY long time. IP is a fundamentally liberal structure.
One of these days I feel like I'm going to see something come out of the woods behind him.
@@shaurz I was thinking that too!
"OMG Luke I gotta pay megacorp to consume product"
I'll tell ya about fraud. I was going to something like $0.80 in the form of BAT in November and I didn't get anything. That is fraud.
man i had like $12 in BAT and then i updated Brave Nightly and it erased all my BAT and now i am mad
Glad to see the thing I've been ignoring for forty years doesn't exist.
IP is a made-up term anyway, copyright is usually the issue. Copyright was originally invented as a form of guratantee for authors that others couldn't just take their work and run with it. Let's say I spend a year writing a book, could be a novel, could be a textbook, whatever. The price of the book will not only include the cost of manufacturing copies, but it also has to cover for the time it took me to write the book in the first place, plus salaries for editors, technical reviewers, typesetting, promotion, and that's if I just want to break even.
Without copyright some other publisher could simply buy one copy of the book, copy it and sell it cheaper because that other publisher only has to cover the cost of copying. He does not have all the other upfront cost that I as the original author have. So copyright was invented to let me as the author control who gets to copy my original work. That licensee, such as a publisher, would then pay me either upfront or in form of royalties if he sees a value in the work.
But that was at a time when making a copy carried a massive amount of effort and was something only few corporations could affort. Copyright was only meant to last a few years, not to be something to hold on for a century.
What now, when any digitally-distributed book can be stripped of DRM and re-published online for free? How will authors (forget the multi-billionaire publishers) make any money then? This is my only concern with this copyright-abolition thing. Honest-to-God authors will get shafted because anyone can just copy-paste a year's work and circumvent the whole process of paying them for it, lol. Thus most prolific authors will cease to write for a living and have to do other things for subsistence, with writing demoted to a side-hustle. That sounds like we'd run short of creative energy, if it ends up costing so much more.
@@spaghettiking653 Well currently the copyrights still applies to those drm free copies. So you can still take down or receive compensation for that theft. Abolishing copyrights is a terrible idea which will ultimately lead to an demonic dystopian future. Luke can talk all he wants, but if someone copied his entire channel and took all his subscribers he would definitely stop posting and his entire income would dry up. So it’s definitely something people like to talk about, but in reality it’s a foolish argument.
@@ghost-user559 Exactly, I agree. Standalone authors still need this protection dearly.
At the same time, it's clear to see that companies benefit far more than the average author from the continual extension of copyright, because their decades-old IPs are always threatened to fall into the public domain by the passage of time. They really do just need to shorten the span of copyright to some more sensible figure like 50 years after publication, and call it a day, because beyond a certain point, the protections that copyright affords are evidently being abused. Perhaps that's what we all don't like about copyright; or maybe how aggressively DRM services are being deployed now.
@@spaghettiking653 another thing is the work of dead authors should lost copyright. Like how is ethical that people make money of a dead person providing not value?
@spaghettiking653 You can charge for books before releasing them though.
What you described as copyright is accually a patent, copyright lasts entire lifetime + 80 years.
@@GhostSamaritan Books, films, and video games are not usually patented, they're copyrighted. Patents are for novel inventions.
@@GhostSamaritan I'm an artist, too... I don't believe in copyright.
The thing about IP is that it was made for protecting the entities that distributed the goods produced, not the goods or the ones that produced them. This creates the illusion that goods are protected because the distribution channel is preserved. Basically a law from big corporations, for big corporations.
Good presentation, but one fundamental error: the idea that primitive societies, even permanently nomadic ones, did not have a concept of property is simply non-historical. They did. True it was more "fluid" (to use a contemporary buzzword) than what we have enshrined in our laws now, but it certainly. The idea that people without civilization, whatever that even means, we're living in some kind of proto-communistic situation is just not true from a linguistic or archaeological perspective.
Ohh boy Luke is gonna become a Linux Gaming channel now
Finally!
IP can get silly though for sure. I think it's mainly the case when it is applied to something really general. Like the old mmo "Worlds" that patented "a system and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space". Which is so vague that it is palpable how absurd it would be to enforce given how ubiquitous online games are now. But they do enforce it and companies rather than having to go to court almost always fold and pay the fine.
Cool max stirner meme in the thumbnail there, scared me for a second
1:20 THAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, it's called trademark
So much yes to this! This message needs to be sent and shared! I've been saying this and I love that you speak out to a bigger audience, because this is so important! Thank you!
imagine thinking that me making my hard drive's 0s and 1s match someone else's hard drive's 0s and 1s is "theft" lmaoooooooo
Yes officer this man right here
big artists stole a lot of songs from small ones. And what about projects like mongodb, they needed some license mumbo jumbo for competing with AWS on providing cloud database services, some ip\cr enforcement is a must, coz big fish will always swallow small without even noticing.
A really good example for why open free shit is really great, is remixing. It spawned so much creativity, but the legal action taken against sampling has basically killed it digitally.
On a small scale I guess it would be true that creativity would "thrive", but large scale productions of movies, games, you name it, just can not exist without IP. Not that it would matter to me at this point, there is enough stuff out there right now which would take lifetimes to watch.
Time to consooome
Sorry, LukeSmith+ is not yet available in your area
Nice, more vids from my favorite irl wojak :)
Wow. I have so much respect for the openness of your opinions. You made some great points in this video. I hope to see you return to content creation soon.
itd be crazy if all games were open source, people could take all the best bits of their favourite games snd combine them into one fame thats perfect for them, people could collaborate and work together to make perfect games, itd be an amazing world
I feel a similar way about news agencies putting up paywalls just to read their version of the news. lol
Do your part to make the world a better place. License all of your code under the GPL and everything else under the CC-BY-SA.
i am so glad you made this video! it will be much easier for me to argue with people about IP now. thank you for making this.
Germany here. "Geistiges Eigentum" exists here, too 💪
Yes, I saw someone commented in larbs github "GPL3 for dotfiles! Are you crazy?"
Xd
Exactly I should be able to download all my anime in peace.
Fugg, that made me really think... Thanks 👍
Feels like Luke visited some institute in Auburn.
The best book to read about this topic is "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella.
Luke Smith Plus?
Where can I sign up?
Someone I follow also puts some videos behind a paywall.
But it's fine in that case. Everyone who donated at least one dollar on patreon can see all the exclusive videos.
But he just analyzes the growth of his channel there.
And he also reuploads the videos deleted by UA-cam.
who
@@crusaderACR Der Schattenmacher (german channel)
Brave for a Christian to acknowledge Max Stirner! 😱
But doesn't IP help reward and incentivize people for their creativity? Obviously there will be "starving artist" types who do what they like regardless of the money and there are people who can make a decent amount of money without any paywalls, but that's not everyone. There's a reason why our labor market has financial incentives and rewards - many people (Not all, but many) need them as motivation. That being said copyright law in the US is atrocious and needs to be way less restrictive.
"If people could not monetize their products of intellectual labor, people would just do it for the passion and that would even get rid of mediocrity, maaaan"
"People would consistently organize together and sync for one unified vision for big projects for the passion, maaaaan"
"If they were truly passionate they would find 8-12 hours of the day to work on projects which require that kind of work to ever be completed, maaan
...and they would find other 10-100 like minded passionate people, maaaaan"
"All the other enlightened cultures that we conquered (because they didn't have the same level of development) didn't use "IP",maaan"
This. Such a fucking fantasy lmao
Like yes can I just get the source code to Google's entire codebase, they would do it for the love anyway
@linlinö önilnil miss the point harder
Urbanite seppostani cope
None of which was actually said or even implied.
The most important reason why companies make it big have nothing to do with IP. Most companies don't even try to patent things anymore, as those really doesn't work. You would have to be quite large company that actually can afford massive legal battles that take years. IP protection is great only for the selected few giants that can block competition away. For the total economy and level of inventions it's quite horrible.
One way to think about this is to try to figure what would have happened if IP never would have happened. To me it's obvious that not having IP would have resulted in totally different, more leveled society, with higher level of innovations. Trademarks would still apply, as those could be seen as signatures of the company. And corporate espionage would still be illegal. But when the product is sold as public goods, then it's free and open, and using government to enforce threat of violence against others that use ideas from these public products, that's bad idea.
Many say this is form of communism, while it's exactly the opposite. And this is not to say that we should remove all IP immediately, as in the current structure of western society, that would cause damage. But doing it slowly (or as fast as possible, after researching the effects) would give edge back to western countries. So many areas of business have been totally phucked in the west because of China (and other countries) raping our IP laws. They reap the benefits of no IP laws, and all of this is orchestrated by small group of people who control our world and have only certain global goals in mind. China is their chosen country, because the people are so conditioned and collectivists there.
I think you would appreciate David Graeber's take on how debt was the initial form of currency, historically speaking, based on the established group norms because societies were smaller more sedentary and interwoven, so property didn't need to be protected because it was an artefact of status and not the other way around.
Great content as always!
"Bald in the woods" season 1
Without IP, how would you remedy things like people copying innovation and presenting as if it was theirs? Like someone stealing an artists creation and presenting it elsewhere as if they made it.
One some markets IP practically disappeared. Like the creation of new programming languages. Propriety programming langues became very rare and no one want to buy licenses for programming languages anymore. Yet the progress here is extremely high, despite the fact that a language is a lot of work, it not only needs a compiler/interpreter, but also a lot of libraries and tooling. IP is a scam, just like owning trade-routs have been.
Lol that's Max Stirner in the thumbnail. I'm from Germany and even here almost no one knows him. His book was my introduction to the idea of individualism. I love it.
imagine copywriting a math equation
Ip is somewhat in the us constitution although what that constitutes is grey but the aim is to promote the arts and sciences
The question to ask here is whether it’s better to have a select few wealthy patrons sponsoring individuals to produce things that we typically turn into intellectual property, with that sponsorship being inspired just by the good of the works, or if we would be better off in a world where people can support themselves off of their works. I think the latter made its way into the U.S. Constitution because it was thought that the young nation would miss out on important inventions, cultural works, and so on, should people with ideas be forced to shelve them in favor of survival by normal means. Right or wrong, it is an interesting experiment, and that’s probably what the framers intended. There was an idea at the time that there should be a revolution every 50 years or so, which would keep things from being enshrined in old legal documents beyond their useful lifespans.
How do you protect intellectual creations against fraud without being able to claim some type of intellectual ownership? GPLv3 for example lays out guidelines for how a given IP can be distributed and attributed. Without IP, you can't make any such rules for distribution and attribution. Once they copy it, they own it, and can do what they like with it. Saying "fraud and trade secrets are totally different" is too hand wavy. How do you actually enforce fraud without IP?
If people couldn't charge for Intellectual Property, it would get a lot scarcer. A lot of it would become trade secrets.
Fully agree, been saying similar things for a while myself. Learnalilgivinanlovin, basically.
I just did an assignment on this, and I agree
Thank you ❤
one would think its just a fabricated concept made to make money from lawsuits... nah what society could possibly endorse that behavior?
How are independent musicians meant to make money if we did get rid of copyright and IP Luke? I'd be interested on your thoughts on this, because I can't think of a way that could work...
Have you tried directly supporting them?
probably in the same way they make money right now, there is not a lot of artists that can life on their music and spotify gives them pennies
Git gud
Is 11:29 a euphemism for "Nvidia, fuck you"?
A bit cliche but "be the change you want to see" is personified very well here.
On the comment on mediocrity with art/music. Its one of the reasons as to why I love black metal. It wasnt for profit and copyright shit. They took insipiration and/or "copied" from the first wave of BM from England and made it their own, as today we call it '(true)norwegian black metal'.
What is an impact driver? Minecraft doen't have that
intellectual property is like social justice
If you need a qualifier, it's not [property, justice].
WHOA, Luke is becoming more based by the second I see.
Is it just me or Luke starts to sound like Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight?
>I think that you should exploit the legal system you live in
You really are treading a fine line here
Funniest thing about IP is that it violates real property rights
This is not based content. IP is the legal framework that allows someone to profit off of what they create. If you wanted to sell that shell script, legally you can't sell something that's not yours, so IP makes it yours for you to sell. Also the idea that people will create just as much shit without profit incentive is a fantasy meme
Nice Tillandsia usneoides in the background.
I remember when Einstein said he dedicated his life to science because he was going to make billions of dollars.
still, without ip, games like GTA 5 would not be possible. There were so many people programming for years on the game. It would not be realistic that everyone would just do it out of passion.
I'd argue that the differences between and impact driver and a drill are significant enough that it is worth mentioning 😁
Kino rant, it's proven that people who pirate software never planned buying it in the first place so no one loses one dime.
what about:
1) i make a code and share only binaries, not because o I.P. just but because i don't want to... maybe because of shame of bad quality code, or because im a a-role
2) gnu-tards start to prosecute me saying that i used gnu code in it, disrespecting my right to be an a-role and trying to force me to give focks
They would have to prove that the GNU code you alledgedly use compiles to something, which has a 1:1 correspondence in your binary. To circumvent that, simply only use code with an MIT license or something similar for your closed source projects.
Open source books might not be as crazy of an idea as it seems
Mwf ranting about Hydewars being behind $5 gumroad paywall.
Lenin Rants About Trotsky
Bald Ben Shapiro channelled by Richard Stallman's ghost
Idk man sounds like the argument a 15 year old makes at lunch to defend pirating Sausage Party.
Just when I rewatched the "right side of history is a spook" video.
Wooah. DT got a beard!
literally right now, im in this situation:
im making a game and i want to sell it when it's done.
i mean i want people to buy my game but i don't want them to copy and distribute to their friends.
any suggestions?
Release source but keep assets (graphics, music, etc.) Proprietary - this is a position that Stallman himself endorses.
DRM is what your looking for, Most platforms offer some form of basic protection. If your game is good people will buy it to support you. IMHO piracy can drive sales if your game is good. (fuck DRM)
fuck drm gang
Does posting content on patreon behind a paywal notl count?