Why Creators Shouldn't Own their Creations (And Why its Good for them too)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 кві 2021
- This video and every other on this channel is released to the public domain with CC0 1.0 creativecommons.org/publicdom...
Previous video: • You Hate all these Com...
Airlock Bound is being reworked with a new art-style:
www.webtoons.com/en/challenge...
Airlock Bound and all its assets are released to the public domain with CC0 1.0 creativecommons.org/publicdom...
Support Studio High Sea here: / studiohighsea
Music
Kevin Macleod - Celtic Impulse
Newagesoup ambient - freesound.org/people/newageso...
Kevin Macleod - Achaidh Cheide
Frankum - Enchantment - freesound.org/people/frankum/...
Kevin Macleod - Danse Macabre
2 5 8 3 - 816 -42 -144 - 288 - 33 -24 - 13 - Herman Schmidt - freesound.org/people/HermanSc...
Low slow metal - Be-steele - freesound.org/people/HermanSc...
Kevin Macleod - Village Consort - Фільми й анімація
Guys I use Star Citizen to prove consumers will pay for something that doesn't exist or isn't fully realised. Its not SPOSE to be a perfect example of crowdsourcing as an alternative. Current crowdsourcing is still ravaged by intellectual property, which I talk about later in the video.
Also if you're crowdsourcing for profits, rather than funding costs, crowdsourcing websites can hold customers money until they can confirm its not a scam.
A rather specific counter argument. High as fuck on weed and drunk my dude and I wanted to rewatch this video.
A rather very personal anecdote if this helps but my very first book was CC-BY-SA and I did an amazon promotion for kindle exclusives that did get me peak top 19 in science fantasy genre downloads in kindle but I got no reviews. So I am all for this movement but I know myself since I am rewriting that because I have you opinion that reusing work is a slow, patient process.
Hope to re-release this year and this video inspired me to do better but ngl I am three shots, six bowls of pot in in and I must be missing something lmao
Dont worry buddy, you have the ethical high ground but I got what you meant lmao. Trust me, thirdish time rewatching.
Have a good day unique ❤️ can’t wait to simp after university is over because hoo boy i need more free time.
But what about when those services claim some kind of escrow fee? This is still the king putting his thumb in the pie.
Star Citizen is a great example Because it is a failure and it preys on desperate fools. It's not a scam, it's just incompetent at everything but selling dreams. This is the kind of product that would succeed in your world.
@@KyriosHeptagrammaton Probably less likely to succeed in that world than this one, because Star Citizen succeeded due to being niche for doing that. We haven't seen other campaigns get that big in large part because that can only be done so many times.
Also, "selling dreams" is not so bad. To some extent all games are doing that. They rarely fulfill their full potential.
@Erwin Lii If what they did was truly the most essential part, without IP they could have reclaimed the property by going directly to the fans and creating new, better Superman comics.
Me going to read the web comic: ah there's no website just imgur
Me one second later realizing someone can create a website with a good ui for it: ooooohhhhhh
😂😂😂
Make it and then plug the link there's no copyright remember, maybe put the ad's on the side bar cause you know.... ;)
Oooooohhhh he's not just making it legal to steal his web comic. He *wants* people to steal his web comic because his patreon link is on the first page.
@@fredrickreloaded4488 It's not stealing though, because it's public domain
Or just post it directly on webtoon, tapas and youtube.
This reminds me of how Id Software had a policy of releasing their source code a period of time after the game. It's the reason why there are so many 90's shooters, because people could just build off of the quake/doom/wolfenstein source code.
I'm doing that right now. It's called Relentless Frontier.
@TheHoratiosvetlana good luck with your Project!!!
@@RenegadeShepard69 There's a playable alpha out if you like boomer shooters.
So is that why people are running Doom on everything? xD
@@gigas115 That, plus it's really easy to get in to mapping and modding it.
So basically: nobody should have a monopoly on an idea.
Yeah.
Oh if it's phrased like that it makes so much more sense
Stolen comment
@@atlasfrog5730 you could even say it was "pirated?" ;)
@@kingofpigs6630 Too bad OP released their comment into the public domain
I think the biggest problem with switching to a production gain model would be that you're relying on the audience knowing enough about the industries to make rational choices. I think the flood of choice would end up causing alot of people to have choice paralysis or be willfully ignorant of creator's quality/background.
It's a good point but I think it would only be a problem in the early stages of the model and the audience will become smarter over the years
@@haze1258 I wish I had your optimism.
@@haze1258 I really hope you don't actually believe that. Because you're going to be very, very disappointed
@@drunkborb5463 If you don't allow people to grow and become smarter about their choices, of course they will be paralysed. Keep people in fear and you rule the world.
It would most likely take at least a whole generation for the shift to happen, or even begin, but people would shift and make changes to their choices to better everyone else in their circles.
It's only natural for us to take care of others, and we are incredibly compassionate and respectful beings, and peer pressuring is one hell of a method to stop any major disruptors, that we would change for the better.
We live in a world where companies have been in control for over a century now, obviously you're going to say it's a dream to think of a better world because you can't even fathom a better reality as years of being taught this way has wore you down and accepted the reality as it is.
Counterpoint - that already exists. People get choice paralysis from the 20 different streaming services out there and later you get choice paralysis from opening the app - what movie do i choose? that choice isn’t a monetary investment but a time investment. And people already have to learn how to make those choices bc the market is already so saturated with creative content. As for being willfully ignorant - as if half the people who use Amazon, Google, or Disney products don’t already know they are giving money to shitty companies. They just have no choice but to give it to Disney or pirate the movies bc Disney owns the copyright.
"I wrote with the Kraken's ink, and now I forsake my creation to the seas" is SUCH a badass line.
I spoke too soon. The ending is better.
yar, matey.
Welcome to the pirate water son, no property shall sit sealed
The mental image of a Kraken as a marine Crossroad Devil...
XD
Better than the first I had
Q_q >:D
Feel free to use it, in whatever you want to create!
it in itself is bound to the waves for all to plunder!
To my eyes this is the official You Should Pirate Anime part 3.
ikr lol
This is canon to me for uniqueverse.
Can’t wait for part four.
came back to like this after watching p. 1 & 2; you can see his progression from "well obviously IP is in place for a reason", to "IP is very flawed, but still useful for creators", to "IP SHOULD BE REMOVED ENTIRELY"
Technically part 4, counting "You hate all these companies for the same reason" (or something along those lines)
@@Unknownslenderman No that's the recap episode.
This idea is extremely scary, but also absolutely fascinating... This could be really interesting, wonder what the world would be like.
No new ideas. Fewer books, no films and no TV shows other than reality TV.
@@JE-zl6uy Right because theres absolutely no demand for films or TV shows
@@0sac Reality TV and such will take over.
Or worse: the ideas will just stagnate.
Creators who create content will not release it for fear of them not receiving anything for their work.
@@JE-zl6uy I disagree, I think the most passionate creators care more about making and sharing than actually getting money.
@@0sac We do care about sharing but not for free... Try and share any story posted on r/nosleep and you'll get a copyright strike real fast.
"At some point in the future I might make something copyleft"
I though that was a joke at first because I've never heard the term "copyleft" in my life.
Same dude
Comments like these make me realize how people on the internet desperately need to learn the ways they're being abused and controlled and the ways they can take back their freedoms. Seriously, join the world of FOSS and never look back.
@@andrewface2355 elaborate on "FOSS" a little bit. You're telling people to join it but you're not saying what it is. Is it a website? A UA-cam channel? A club in real life? What is it and how would you join it? Is it called "FOSS"? Is it called "world of FOSS"?
@@SilencedLamb69 Free and open-source software. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
@@andrewface2355 so it's an acronym, gotcha. Thanks for the link
Skyrim mods are a pretty great proof of concept for how small creators can get going off of a large ip. Coders, voice actors, modelers, animators, sfx people... so many disciplines coming together to make mods, some of which can rival or even outclass the games they are derived from.
Lookup Team Fortress
Hell, basically that's how Valve form as a company
This is very true. Skyrim is ten years old now and is still relevant. Can you think of another 2011 game that still lives without being multiplayer online and fully supported by it's developers? I certainly can't.
@@Mathewrath smash bros DX is an exception, it's a 2001 game with no online and 0 support from developer (actually Nintendo actively shuts down any community effort to support the game)
@@YounesLayachi That's a big exception. lol. It's such an exception that this case should have it's own movie about. The story of a community that fought a super company to be able to keep the company's creation alive.
The greatest achievement of this video it's a 45 minute long essay about open domain and it doesnt mention Touhou or Homestuck once.
touhou
Funny thing is, someone could add a tangent about those things and reupload it hahaha
Missed opportunity.
@@CapPotato388 That's the beauty
i don't think either of those are actually in the public domain
I must say this video changed my mind on intellectual property. However, something I have to add is I'd like to still keep a certain form of intellectual property, but only to enforce credit to the original artist and nothing else. If for nothing else, it would (ideally) make it easier for people to know who the original artist is, which would obviously benefit the artist themselves, but also the fans as they know where to find more of that artwork
because, to me, that is the strongest use of IP: my worst nightmare if for someone else to get credit for something I did. Yes, people do get called out for stealing art right now, but credit-oriented intellectual property, I think, would simplify this task a lot, and since it has no effect on monetization, I don't think there would be much of an incentive to abuse it
This guy wants it to be completely gone, in his idea world you would NEVER own your work
@@mk_gamíng0609 which I heavily disagree with, and outside of himself, I have yet to know an artist who would be fine with not owning their creations and not getting credit for it
Also btw your pfp is GORGEOUS
I think there is a good case to be made for being able to prove your work is yours - this proposed system is heavily reliant on reputation, in that creators are more likely to be supported if they have put out good work in the past, so it becomes paramount that new work can be reliably attached to its creators.
Fortunately, you don't really need heavy IP laws to do that - digital signatures, such as the ones that power HTTPS, can do that just fine. All you really need from the law is the establishment of a certificate authority.
@@mk_gamíng0609 But what's being said here is not about ownership of your work. It's about acknowledging where the work comes from. Like how if you buy a hammer from a guy who makes hammer, that guy doesn't own the hammer anymore, but you still acknowledge that he made it.
In a way, it's like how academic research works. Like, for example, Albert Einstein never owned general relativity, like, he didn't receive money from people using his equations or something, but we still acknowledge him as the one who created that theory.
I agree with this take. (Though I'd caution against the use of the word "Intellectual Property.")
By the way, if you want this to be reality for your own art, consider licensing it under CC BY-SA.
One of my favorite examples of what a lack of copyright can do for a work is this one Japanese indie game series known as Touhou Project. What started out as just some guy selling a bullet hell game he made with wonky art out of a booth at a convention has exploded into a multimedia phenomenon with hundreds of fangames, fan animations, and fan merch, all because the creator gave the fans complete freedom do make and sell content without even needing to ask him. The only reason it isn't more well-known is because for the most part he's only granted this privilege to the little guys, and kept big companies out of the picture.
yeah, a world with more creative freadom, it will came with other problems, though , but i prefer that over what we have today, a copyright system that only serve for the ones who can pay a lawyer
Most ppl don't even know it's a game, lol^^
Stuff like this reminds me of the SCP project. A bunch of people contributing to a public work.
Exactly what I was thinking of
@Fana Nox did you come here just to make people angry? Because if so you're going to have to be a little less blatant about your trolling
@Fana Nox Zero IP doesn't mean collaborative work. It means derivatives are free to be made. If you don't like some derivatives, you don't have to read them. You can curate your experience.
@Fana Nox Zero IP means that anyone can make a better SCP if there's a demand. If the original sucks, offbrands will take over. Did you even watch the video?
@Fana Nox you're just mad your waifu doesn't exist
My god. The Pokémon games that could be made.
There are a few fan games like Pokémon uranium but sadly only a few due to ip.
The Pokemon games are already good but the greedy fans would just abandon the real Pokemon and play the knockoffs. There'd still be a ton of people playing the real Pokemon games but GameFreak will no longer be told to step in to shut down the knockoffs.
@@Hauntaku And? Clearly if the games are still already good then GameFreak would have nothing to worry about. If GameFreak fails, then clearly GameFreak isn’t good enough. If people backed a Pokemon game made by GameFreak and the game the produced was good, then people back another GameFreak Pokemon game, even with people creating their own fan games. Without IP laws it would be ‘cool, more Pokemon games to choose from’ rather than ‘I just have to accept whatever GameFreak creates’. With the current Pokemon games, people would be able to offer fixes for what people don’t like, such as the stiff animations and the limit on which Pokemon are in the newest game. I don’t see the reason to have loyalty to a company that won’t put in the work.
If there were no IP laws, and GameFreak announced they were looking for funding for a new Pokemon Mystery Dungeon game, I would go to back it in a heartbeat. I love the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon franchise, and with their recent remake of the first PMD game I have enough trust in them that they’d create an enjoyable game. Not only that, but without IP laws there would probably be someone who would create better walk animations for said remake, because for me that was the most noticeable flaw for the game. And if anyone else came along with promises for a remake on an existing PMD game, or for a new game altogether, I’d be skeptical and unlikely to back it unless they had proof that they could create a good PMD game. However, if a new person did prove that they could produce a good PMD game, I’d be excited because GameFreak only comes out with a new PMD game every five years. And you know what, while on the subject of Pokemon spinoff games, if Pokemon were public domain then the Pokemon Ranger game series could be revived as the last time a new Pokemon Ranger game was made was in 2010, and the last time it was known to have been touched was in 2016 with the latest game being released on the European Wii U. At this point in time fans have lost hope that there will ever be another Pokemon Ranger game. Without copyright protections, either someone could create a new game without legal troubles, or GameFreak would see the interest in a new game and might start making a new game for the series themselves.
And what if you they all let you upload a file with all of a pokemon's info. You could transfer your pokemon from game to game, or even make your own.
Game freak only makes money from the ip because they have exclusive rights to the up. This pushes them to provide value outside a popular ip
Your mantra is an absolute full physical realization of my mantra.
I have a very strong belief in something I call “Contactless Collaboration” basically the idea is that everything I make is usable by anyone. Mainly I started this mantra with my Uncommentated Gameplay videos, in the description of each of them, I’d say that you can use these in the background of your videos and I’d even have an unlisted companion video of all the takes and related footage I made along the way.
Not trying to brag exactly, just saying that I believe in the same mantra.
Also the “You can even make money from it” I have never heard from a soul aside my own. But think about it, if I did gaming streams or something, instead of paying people to make compilations, just let people make them and put ads on it or some other monetization and I can just sit back and have all that spread, that is a dream scenerio.
Another thing, I am a lazy person, I don’t really like to do work. Obviously I’m not saying this as an excuse not to or whatever, I do try at least a little to achieve my dreams. I made the telesystem, I made games, I made drawings but to me it is generally a means to an end. So when someone looks at my stuff with $_$ in their eyes and chooses to steal my casually created stuff and use their position to fully realize it into a completed work; I’m not just okay with it, from my perspective, I just witnessed some rando make my dream come true without me putting any work into it. I’m not just ok with it, I would actively love this to happen.
Anyways thank you for being a voice for this. I can’t stress this enough, I am shocked how much this extracts thoughts I’ve had for years.
Big problem with paying before the product is out, is that you don't know if the product is worth it if you do that. I see so many kickstarter scams or if not scams just shoddy overpriced products, that i doubt this "invest in your media" model will work. ESPECIALLY for things outside media like drugs, which is where copyright is most an issue for me.
One benefit of paying before the product is out is that you can shape what is made, no studios getting to decide
A product is really only worth what someone is willing to pay
[flashbacks to Tumblr Kickstarters like All or Nothing]
In a world without IP or patents, at least for physical products, a Kickstarter doesn't really work. Once you create your invention, you allow anyone to do whatever they want with it. You can only really do a Kickstarter, in this case, for perhaps the construction of a business that produces and sells a particular product. At that point, it returns to what we have now, as production and selling of products isn't changed, at least functionally, by the abolishment of IP and patents.
@@luviana_ - surely if you take whatever wages would be enough to fund you from the kickstarter, it could work? But I'm unsure how that would be managed
@@WorthlessWinner Well, you can kickstart a business. People have done it before, with things like Anki's Cozmo and certain other tech (some scams, some not). However, most of those are based on both a new invention AND the production of said invention. They seek to profit off of being the exclusive owners of that technology. Without patents, however, you could still totally TRY to kickstart a company that produces an invention, but even if you don't release the information on how to make it into the public, people will still come in and try to do what you're doing and make your invention as well. In this kinda scenario, it would honestly make more sense to kickstart based on a business, rather than a new invention, since anyone can create an invention. You'd wanna advertise your company as being "great at making ___" rather than being "the place where you get ___". Scams wouldn't really work, since people would probably not desire to kickstart a business for producing products. They'd just start making them, perhaps modding them, too, and selling them on their own. It doesn't seem logical to kickstart a business like that in a world without patents, in my opinion.
I will preface this comment by saying when I watched your first video on piracy, I wasn’t against the idea. However, I definitely wasn’t for banning IPs. Going into this video as a small creator, I didn’t really think I’d change my mind. Especially because art content (which is what I make) relies so heavily upon IP. But I think the ethics argument is really strong. When I think about it, most call out posts for art theft and stuff are not to protect profits or something like that. It’s to give the creator recognition and not let others steal work they didn’t make. Even when public domain stories that have been repurposed over and over still are often traced back to their original creators i.e. grim’s brothers fairytales. There is literally no reason for people to honor these fairytales as no one adapts them directly, the original creators and their descendants don’t hold claim to them, and if you stole them word for word, no one would sue you. However, we still go “hey, by the way, this thing you like was based off this old story” and copies of the work are more preservation efforts (with a profit motive) than a profit scheme.
Oh this was a great example. I should have thought of this.
Fun fact: Grimms' fairy tales were themselves a preservation effort (collecting stories from oral tradition), they're famous for being the ones to put the stories on paper, kinda like Homer with the Iliad and Odyssey.
@@Uniquenameosaurus Your video definitely convinced me too. Fanart is also very important and big companies and small companies don't bother to shut down artists for drawing fanart.
"Ethics" only work on a small scale, even with IP laws a bunch of big names get away with it, without IPs things will only get worse.
It's a matter of volume and scale, yeah you can expose a tracer on twitter, but if a big name hollywood director steals an idea from a peer on the other side of the world and make millions there would be little to no repercussion (it wouldn't be enough to force a proper response). Even if a twitter mob arises they could just apologize and avoid giving the other guy a single penny, "but this happens today" No, most cases don't even go to court because the parts come to an agreement beforehand.
Regarding volume, If there's less risk associated with an activity people will definitely be more likely to do it. Right now, plagiarists risk profit and prestige, without IP laws they'd only risk prestige, and good luck trying to stop a guy who just doesn't care about his public image. Now here's the thing, if more and more people see plagiarism as an option the "ethics" argument becomes unsustainable, you can only expose so many people until you just don't give a **** anymore.
Uniquenameosaurus was confident about getting more views even if someone else plagiarize his videos, but what if a channel with more than 10 million subscribers decides to do it? Would "ethics" be enough to stop them? Come on, if their fanbase is big enough people can get away with grooming and even worse things... Never rely on ethics.
@@AA-lz4wq What are some examples of people getting away with things like grooming without repercussions?
"Even though all my videos are public domain, I guarantee I'll have the most views"
In before PewDiePie reupload his video on PewDiePie being underrated
PewDiePie might get more views on that video, but he inadvertently will bring a lot of viewers to this channel by doing that. That’d probably be a win-win scenario.
@@luckylucas8596 Not to mention that Pewds wouldn't do that to another creator, PD or not.
@@UltimatePerfection yeah as like he mention ethics wouldn't dissappear like the animation example the studio posted an video and the animator of the video stole bunch of scenes wich wasn't copyright claimed but still was fired and video removed cause people recognize it was stolen
@@yoyo6912 Exactly.
It almost feels like a standardization of production in the ways the scp foundation works
My main complaint about this idea (which I think is interesting) is samples with music- small artists already struggle to get money when their stuff gets sampled, and without IP they don't even have to! That just seems crazy to me. They can't even cause outrage consistently (due to them, well, being small). Most people probably wouldn't recognize the samples.
how's this different from the point about stolen art which was already addressed in the video? As per his scheme, the small music makers receive money before the content which can get sampled is even released. As such, their samples being recognized is not essential to gaining profit. I have zero idea about the music industry though, could that work in context?
You assume everyone making anything has time to run a crowdfunding program for literally everything they ever do/release. It takes a huge amount of time and energy to keep track of who paid what, and then give them their reward.
Some people just want to make stuff and release it (without having their work stolen). They don't want to spend time running a business, they want to spend time producing their work.
@@kennuimuffins2426 Yes. And you addressed something. Without having their work stolen. At the very least, intellectual property rights allow retaliation
@@drunkborb5463 But without IP it can't be stolen becouse you don't even own it in the first place.
@@monotonousprotocol8319 While I don't recall the details of his proposal (and I am not gonna fish through a 45 min video for this, lol), why would they have to pay them?
This also gets even messier with cases where it isn't just a sample, but you steal the melody, or some other large part. You can just claim that you came up with it yourself (which is at least plausible!)
actually, in an otherwise-no-ip world, trade secrets would probably still exist
because if they didnt, there would be very little to prevent an employee from just giving that stuff out to _remove_ the first move advantage
Yeah, I really disagree with the "no 'Intellectual Property'" take. The very term "Intellectual Property" just isn't a good descriptor. This entire discussion is a good example. Copyrights and patents are conflated, and he even says "abolish trademarks," despite trademarks not really being much of an issue. Trade secret law, as you mentioned, is pretty much fine and doesn't affect the noncommercial sphere since reverse-engineering is still protected (unlike with copyright and DMCA § 1201). Hell, copyright might even be an okay necessary evil to increase production, should it have an actually limited time like with the Copyright Act of 1790 and the Statute of Anne with their 14 year term with 14 year renewal.
See www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for a good article on this. The entire GNU philosophy is a really good read, really.
he didnt say to remove trade secrets... now did he :D
Trade secret law isn’t needed either. Contracts take care of that issue anyways
NDAs can still exist in a world with no IP.
If it wasn't obvious, you can find chapter 1 here:
imgur.com/gallery/IoCwxRH
And again, do whatever you want with it. Put my theories to the test!
And you can support us here:
www.patreon.com/StudioHighSea
But only if you want to.
Imgur link isn't working for me, the one in description works fine though. Think you may have accidentally added an "A" to the end of the link
@@TheRealBrit Oh whoops, u right. Thanks bud.
@@Uniquenameosaurus this would also make it so games that are old like the ps3 games that are gonna be literlly unplayable in a couple of months sense the ps store is closeing or like hundreds on dollars that goes to some rando on ebay. Or someone could just remake it and pepole could play certin games like mele or smt games
@@Uniquenameosaurus
Genuinely love the video, and fully agree we would be far better off without IP law, but do slightly disagree with your one point regarding defamation/false advertising being used against those who plagiarize and take credit for others work. It would most likely abide by the same issues as standard copyright, in that smaller creators would likely not get caught doing so or otherwise be able to sue those who steal from them due to legal fees, and only larger creators would be financially worth it for law firms to sue for doing so. The issue of slightly larger creators weaponizing their fanbases against those who 'falsely' accuse them of plagiarizing feels relevant, also.
I think this issue can be bypassed by making accurate accreditation of sources/influences a legal requirement instead of just banning reproduction, or by just creating stronger social safety nets so that artists don't 'need' to produce a particularly high income in the first place (also so legal fees are more manageable/more patrons due to excess funds for everyone), but either way felt I should mention it, it's my only concern with doing so. Genuinely love the video, you brought up a lot of points I hadn't actually considered as someone who has debated this with their friends hundreds of times over, and all around it's just awesome to see you upload, great work as always.
AHHHH YOU GENUIS BUT ALSO CRULE MAN! You left a speech bubble blank which is very integral to the story! You are encouraging people to fill it in yet driving me nuts as to what could have possibly been said! It’s genius! Yet I love and hate it!
The "source code/assets as stretch goal" is the most galaxy brain idea I've ever heard that might actually work. It also provides a solid insurance plan in case a project's production nosedives into hell like Barkley 2 or Routine.
The issues with the first point; That profits can be made from an No IP world,
would be that its essentially only possible to make a profit off the first step of something and then basically have fun working from there. Why? Because you only need someone to take one step down the path of any idea for everyone else to get their own ideas on how that idea should be used. When that happens, the first step advantage isn't an advantage because its basically only an advantage for that one product and nothing else.
To give an example;
Creator A makes the first issue of a web-comic. This first issue doesn't have everything but it has the general idea of the main characters, the execution/form of the magic system, a central goal for the characters and a world's aesthetic. That's enough of a starting point to continue anything even if its going to be in a different direction as Creator A's work. Because all of those elements can be repurposed and reused without too much thought into the initial set up of those things. Creator B doesn't have to worry about the main characters since they are already made. Doesn't have to worry too much about the setting because he's got a general idea of it and can make up the parts he doesn't have on his own with his own ideas. Doesn't have to worry about motivations because the characters already have them. Everything else is about the execution of the set up ideas and the filling of the rest. Creator C then works off of Creator B's 5 issues of the webcomic and goes off his new characters, new ideas and new concepts and it just keeps going from there.
If the idea that 'people aren't going to fund the creators whose work off of stolen ideas' then I have two concepts for you. The first is the comic concept; 'every issue is someone's first' and this goes into the idea that no matter what you make, someone one might jump into it at any time. This means that even if they go back to the original somehow, they might just continue with the one they jumped onto for the sheer idea that its the first and you tend to stick with what you get onto first. The second concept is 'diversity breads adversity' which means that just by there existing multiple versions of the same thing, people are going to argue and fight over which is better. When that happens, some people are just going support some just out of spit for the other and that's not going to go back to the original creator at all.
The reason why copyright and IP exists is for that very reason. If everyone can take your first step and take their own step, the idea of the IP itself becomes dilutes to the point of obscurity. There is no verification of the original past the first one since after that point, the guy with the authentic original isn't going to matter so much as the product they produce and that can be just as much up to preference of the public.
Hell, seeing as we have essentially gotten rid of the idea that any one creator is entitled to the work they produce than why does it matter if someone else takes, recreates and than produces versions or even copies of their work if that's all allowed? You say that ethics would kick in to stop this but why would it keep kicking in if things happen to essentially disprove that specific ideal of the ethics? Considering that this fashion of IP creation/production/propagation is essentially tailor made for only the best creative works to survive in what is essentially a Darwinist model of 'survival of the fittest' sense, why should we care if the originator of the idea doesn't get to profit on it if someone else just takes it and make just a few edits to make it a better version by only a fraction? If ethics were all that mattered or were as big in this regards as you claim, then no one would be buying any product that has any connection to modern china and their legal sweat-shops.
So while you can say that profits would still be earned, it would be the equivalent of saying that a man in the fighting pits of Rome is earning his right to live every round. Sure they are, but that winning streak can easily turn on them and and in both the creative world and the fighting pits, if you loose that streak you might never get it again.
The issue with the second point; That artist have no intellectual right to the IPs they create,
seems to only be predicated on the fact that 'IP doesn't apply equally'. That premise is false but I understand why its formed. It isn't that IP isn't apply equally but that it can't be fought always on equal grounds. This is different because it establishes that while all IP is the same, not every can fight the same. This is true but the solution you have come up with is to abolish it altogether which is basically leaving everyone pants-less but with only one group the ability to manufacture them at any decent rate at all.
If you abolish all IP, what is there to ensure that people have any incentive to create anything? One might say the need for X is going to do it but at the same time, why would anyone put there neck out to fulfill the need for X if there isn't a way to ensure their own needs are met or even that their own ideas aren't abused even further than what they wanted. Now in an IP-less world, everyone has to either defend their ideas or products until they are produced and hope no one reverse engineers them or is able to produces them at a higher rate and quality than the original.
Your argument about the differences about the differences between Copyrights and Patents is also blatantly false as there are legal definitions for both and different criteria each one has to meet before it can be recognized. You can be denied patents if the Patent Office doesn't see it fit for actual Patent use which is its own long thread of legal cases and conditions. Its also wrong because you aren't given an IP just because you thought of an idea that's potentially new, you are given IP when you are able to create something of that idea of from it. Just having the idea doesn't protect it ,but proof of actual creation that does so. Then it becomes IP and patentable/copyrightable because the world wants you to expand on it. The whole deal of copyright and patent is basically saying 'you are allowed to make money of this with the express hope that you will expand this idea further than initially created'. People create shit from hard work, determination and innovation and if all of that can be removed from than just by putting it out into the world for use; why in gods name would you do so and not just keep it yourself and sell the product and monopolize it yourself? We had a system like this! Remember the workers guilds of the Middle Ages where you had guilds for candle making, glass making and even blacksmithing? That's what no IP means because if everyone who knows how to do it can make it and you have to make sure your the first to do it at all times, you are never going to share the secrets to anything you make as a way to make sure you can reap profits. And this is just for the more utility based ideas such as Patents and possibly Trademarks, this is whole new bag of beetles for Copyright and art based ideas.
so insanely smart and true lmao, you're an underrated genius in this black sea of comments.
Then we need to either, 1: reduce the years copyrights/patents last, because most companies stop doing anything after it's secured, nullifying the point of expanding on the idea. Or 2: Supply smaller creators with the necessary tools to fight on equal grounds, otherwise the courts will continue to be wars of attrition where the larger of the two will always win, making the point of protecting one's ideas from someone who can mass produce the idea null as well. Or maybe a combo, or someyhing else entirely.
You are understimating the power of Name Recognition,here's an example:Remember when Street Fighter 2 came out? Everyone went crazy creating their own fighting games,and at the front of that line was SNK that had been making Fatal Fury before SF2's release,and they had Takashi Nishiyama at the director's seat,who is he? Well the creator of Street Fighter 1 of course,yeah that game was kind of wack but still,imagine in a copyright free world SNK comes with the campaign of "hey,that game everyone is talking about? here's the original creator making this new game,wanna fund?" Yeah,someone could take your creation and start from there,but who would fund a nobody? They want the real deal! Hell,im interested how networking would evolve in a reality like that.
Great rebuttal to a lot of points in the video, I agree
This is bogus, Have you SEEN fanfiction? Try coping someones work without attribution, I dare you.
Do I think this will ever happen? No, almost certainly not, definitely not in my lifetime. Do I think the idea sounds super neat, and would love to see more on this topic discussed to further flesh it out, and maybe start to see how it could one day become a reality? Yeah. Yeah, that'd be neat.
Yeah for such a thing to happen peoples mindsets have to be change. The collective populace would have to change how things exist currently and breakdown the current way copyright exist by becoming companies and doing such practices this way and being business smart and ethical. We have prototype versions of this that already exist it's just they aren't wide scale or things people tend to remember/want for themselves when the time comes to put it in practice when they are a producer.
You also have the problem of crowd funding being tainted by stuff like Kickstarter having scams which also is half a blessing as it forces actual real creators to first build up their money first to fund a proof of concept and have a ready to go product to be sold/build up a fan base first to then show off the product and then rake in funding from crowdfunding to go into full production and rake in the profit.
Oh it’s happening and has already happened ever heard of Shenzai products? Scene how China develops their products? It’s here not in the west but the east we are seeing the fruits to the lack of copyright
@@moonmango8356
Oh yeah, that is a thing. I was thinking this from a Western perspective but true, China does just ignore stuff like that and make knock-off versions for themselves.
I mean, your bias is already evident just from your phrasing. It’s already part of reality. Independent artists already rely almost entirely on upfront payment. The examples in the video aren’t hypotheticals, they’re real world proof that this can and *should* be done because it’s already being done. Removing copyright just opens wide doors to places that we currently sneak into through the cracks. I can’t think of any way the concept needs to be fleshed out. It’s more so about people being unconvinced and telling themselves that there must be a downside that outweighs the benefits. There isn’t.
This is now my life's cause.
Mindless Self Indulgence is the best example of this.
They held a new album hostage, in their heads, for a kickstarter campaign, it worked.
I think it's great in theory but how would you know that anyone you crowdfund will actually release a high quality product? You're relying on their own moral compass, which may or may not be good. This happens all the time with early access video games, devs charge the fee, then once enough people get into the beta, they stop giving a shit because they already made their profit. And that is precisely the reason why we pay AFTER the product is released. We aren't so trustworthy lol.
Exactly. I can absolutely see a larger company take an excellent concept and trailer and, once enough people have pre-paid, make a half-assed product that fails to live up to the hype. This already happens with the current IP system, but when a company releases a product that fails to meet expectations word-of-mouth and bad reviews dissuade people from making the purchase. Under this hypothetical new system, this sort of scam becomes profitable and will certainly become more common, since the company in question will have already received massive amounts of money pre-production funding that they/their product don't deserve and wouldn't get under the current system.
That's not a sustainable business model for the fraud.
Good luck doing it a second time.
@@probablyfacetious2895 On a smaller scale this is absolutely repeatable. Just rename your company over and over again.
In terms of big business, companies like EA and Bethesda aren't going away anytime soon despite enacting similar cons with pre-orders. At least they could suffer consumer wrath through loss of sales on Star Wars battlefront and fallout 76 respectively.
Any company big enough to stomach consumer dissatisfaction will be able reel customers back in with their next big project, "Oh, Activision may have wasted my crowd funding cash and made Destiny 2, but I know the next Call of Duty will be good so my money's still going there."
@@mimicry5713 crowdfunding websites can just hold the cash until the product comes out
@@mimicry5713 Tracking a company's history and their workers would certainly become a standard in that timeline,people are going to point out "Heeeey,you are the guy that made that trash game!"
What I'm gathering from the comments section is that it's basically a 3-way tug of war between big creators and their respective companies; a large normie/middle class/hobbyist populous as well as a small but devoted creative class or creators on who gets to win over control of copyright or who wants to state their case in order to benefit themselves in a world without copyright.
The reason Minecraft went so long without getting out and out copied is because of a phenomena called "First In, Best Dressed".
even though Minecraft was ironically enough originally a copy itself
Zachtronics is a cool developer
@@nyankers You realize infiniminer only went public domain because the source code was leaked by hackers, right?
@@carso1500 I didn't actually know it went public domain, but I'm not accusing Notch of copying the source code, just pointing out the irony that though many games are called Minecraft clones, Minecraft itself was a clone of something before it.
Here after the premiere this is a rollercoaster
Great video. If you haven't already, I suggest reading "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella that build a really strong argument as to why the concept of intellectual property doesn't make sense because ideas cannot qualify as property and IP as a whole is uneeded and borderline unethical. The book not only tackle copyrights but also patents, trade secrets, and trademarks (though I don't fully agree on his position on trademarks).
You've basically convinced me to make all of my creative work public domain.
On an artist standpoint, it saves the drama that comes from art theft. Not the pain, but the drama.
Kind of. That’s part of the point he made. Art thieves are bad, but when’s the last time you heard about one being taken to court? You aren’t forsaking your right to call them out and whatnot
I love your work! :)
Don't put your pride in your art. It's a part of yourself you're giving to the world, it's inherently meant to be shared and if people steal it and claim it as their own then eventually the truth will come out if they can't recreate it or you prove you were the original creator. Utilize Blockchain technology on your creations?
@@wrigglenight93 art thieves can be reported though? Most art platforms have a report system?
@@snappa-stick6458 Believe it or not, those exist entirely independent of the law
watching the space jam 2 trailer with all of Warner Bros. IP on display feels very uncanny after this video
I think the one place that comes to mind where this model might not work is within music. If you have an idea for a musical project (or any artistic project for example) and people don't like the 'proof of concept' you put out, or your idea isn't fully developed at a presentable stage, you can't build up an audience who would want your work. Similarly, one issue that crowdsourcing all art could have is unintentional monopolization. If a certain number of artists already fulfill everyone's expectations for art (i.e. a webcomic about X topic, movie about X topic) then once those desires are met then there's no new space for creators. If you've got a brand new idea for a musical album, a track, or any other piece of art but it will only be fully realized (and appreciated) upon completion, then the crowdfunding model falls apart. Nobody commissions you ahead of time, you release your work, it's public domain, and you don't earn anything from it. Basically your idea of "a lack of production motivating people to pay for productions" will still kill artistic productions, and not all of them will get funded, with the equilibrium possibly landing with a few creators/well-liked genres on top, and everyone else on the bottom earning nothing. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is great in the current artistic landscape, but it just doesn't seem sustainable in the longer term, or for an artistic environment saturated with creators. (Although now that I say this, the current artistic environment isn't that great for small creators either, so idk)
The rich will always eat the poor as they say. So it doesn't really matter at this point.
That seems to me only a problem of "it's hard to build a clientele from nothing", but that's exactly the same currently.
Public domain doesn't mean you can't ask money for it upon completion.
If no one is interested in your product yet, either because they don't like the pitch or because of market saturation, it means no one is gonna "steal" it and you can get paid at distribution like it's done today. It won't change anything on that front.
Then if your stuff is good and gets popular enough for others to try and profit from it, it means there's a demand for what you're making and people can fund you directly for more content.
Well this also means said artist will have to be able to fund themselves and start it off as a hobby that they smartly put saved money away for to try and expand on it later.
But like another guy said they already put there music out there as a test run and try and bring people in based on whoever listened to it and try and build based on word of mouth and people listening to the music. Hell, look at UA-cam and stuff like Justin Beiber. Random kid doing song covers gets picked up by a record label and becomes famous because he's pulling in an audience. You also have Spotify or Garage Band (is that still a thing?) and try and build up a name that way while also making money.
Really not that much would actually change. The thing that needs to change is peoples mindsets on how to actually operate in this new environment which we have a prototype run of already. Look at the Touhou doujin music circles that make money off song remixes because they upload there music to video sharing sites and then sell the actual albums at fan conventions. They end up also making original music as well and sell that at such conventions along side the remix covers.
@@RavenCloak13 yeah, I mean, patreon is already the proof of concept for this. People pay, just to support. It's no different from buying a shirt or mug I don't need. Not everyone does it, but people do. And if you didn't have to pay to watch, but you could pay to produce, more people would. Not everyone, never everyone. But more, and enough. Passionate fans would be producers.
This is the future. The old order is already becoming untenable. We just need to fight for the future. It's already happening. You used to have to buy a cd for music. Now everyone streams. Exclusive deals are the last gasps of the old guards as they try to milk every dollar. But we are going to bring their castle down around them, and bring power to the people!
@@shorewall
Helps even more if people can make their own pay process system for themselves to use and don't need to have the patreon/kickstarter/etc middle man for more of the money.
Id imagine since your content is public domain you will become a legend in the ytp community
Interesting idea, but I've two questions:
1. How do you make sure that companies spend money on research. Why shouldn't they just wait for somebody else to do it and then just copy the invention?
And
2. How would you prevent big companies from remaking the public domain comics, and then over time merging in a monopoly?
1. That would be fraud and is illegal even without IP.
2. Big companies cant take things out of the public domain, if they make comics, they add to the public domain.
1. Inventions are protected by patents, a type of IP. With no IP, what OP says would be legal.
1. Without IP or patents, companies can wait for inventions to be made, and then they can sell those inventions. That's completely fair. They just can't own those inventions. Anyone can make them, distribute them, or sell them in any way they desire. That is intended.
2. Big companies can "remake" art all they want. They can't have a monopoly on any art, since they can't control any of it. They don't own anything they even create. They just have to have good ethics and good content, or they'll otherwise be ignored by potential customers. They can sell printed copies of something, or attempt to sell digital NFTs or some weird digital thing, but people aren't going to bother with that garbage when other people will be doing less greedy things. They can't merge and become monopolies, because they can't own anything. There is no stealing, because nobody owns any art. Anyone's allowed to use a brand name, or a character, or a story, etc. That's intended.
1. They won't *have* any of that money in the first place unless they promise to do the research, because they're getting that money from people who are paying for them to do research
2. Anyone can copy from the big companies as well in turn, so there's no way they get to monopolize anything
I've actually been thinking about this for a while. Fan works are sort of historical, if you think about it. All the old myths and fairy tales we know today were told over and over, and they kept changing. People told many stories about popular characters, like Hercules, and the best ones were retold and passed down. People painted these figures on pots and carved them in stone. Historically, fan works have slowly become the cannon, creating stories that people love to share and coninue to pass down and revise. I mean, look how many Cinderella adaptations we have. Hollywood puts out a new one every couple years, and the ones we remember are the ones that stick out, that inprove on the simple story of a girl and a shoe. These kinds of stories persist, continuing to grow and change along side us. And IP makes that outright illegal. This is so contrary to what's great about stories- they can and should shift and grow until they become the best versions of themselves, mirroring the humans that perpetuate them
Man, contextualizing it like that makes the whole thing kinda sad. Fan contributions used to be so universal and ingrained into the way people consumed media, and now the idea of a story with no single author is something completely alien to the average person. Like, the iliad was a poem like that, with no one author carried down through oral tradition, but I see people citing Homer as the author because he decided to write it down. Stories have become something which people are only allowed to admire from a distance.
@@fredrickreloaded4488 I completely agree. I think the modern conception of the "author" is really depressing. Even films, which often have tons of writers who will look at the script at some point, usually only give 1-3 any credit, and everyone talking about the movie just gives all the credit to the director. Films are always a collaborative effort, yet we still feel the need to give only one person the credit. This really makes me sad, and I think it needs to change.
@@amarvelousgeek222 I can't imagine what you think can be done to make people care more than they already do. We have credits before the movie start (some sequences are even hella entertaining to watch); no one cares. We have credits after the movie; no one cares.
And getting people to care about these things is just an uphill battle, because then you have to acknowledge every person individually who made the movie what it is right, but on top of that do you reward someone more than the other? Let's say one writer contributes 10 pretty standard ideas that get portrayed on the movie, but then you another who contributes to one single, powerful scene; who should get more credit, is this even something you can efficiently qualify?
I just don't understand what you're trying to say, it needs to change, like... What exactly needs to change??
Obviously, the people who care about the cast/crew in specific areas are going to care about those things and that exists already, but are you trying to suggest that we should somehow get everyone to care about everyone who is involved in a single project? I don't see this as a problem for things on a small scale, but things like movies? Lmfao, unrealistic and idealistic af.
Like I'm sincerely not trying to be mean, but upon reading that comment it just sounded like fake deep; like you had this idea that made sense and seemed profound, but the more you actually think about it, it just kinda presents more questions than solutions; which... You don't really have one. Just that something needs to change which is vague.
@Benjamin Decimo i'm not saying we can realistically make everyone care about every person who worked on a movie. Credits sequences keep getting longer because movies keep getting more complex amd difficult to make. But I wish people acknowledged that it's not just the work of the director. When a movie is bad, the discussion is always about the director being bad. And yes, sometimes this is the case. But often times, the acting and camera work and all that is good while the script just fails, or the editing was bad, etc. And still, the blame goes to the one guy because, as much as people know films are a collaborative effort, they don't often acknowledge it. A movie isn't a solo project like a novel. Yet directors such as Spielberg or Burton or countless others always get the credit, with at most some acknowledgment of an actor or two. What I wish would change is that people looked at bad films and saw which departments made them failures, while people saw good films and gave credit to the occasional screenwriter or cinematographer.
Like Unique said in his video, this proposed system could allow for people to fund projects that have creators that have already made things they liked. Maybe on the crowd funding ads a company could list that they have the costume designer from this movie and the editors from another and the cinematographer from another. And if you thought the costumes that designer made were great, but disliked the editing in that other movie and thought the cinematography of the third film was bland, you might not want to fund the project because it might have really choppy editing and boring camera work. I just like the idea of some of the little people getting more credit and acknowledgement and maybe getting to be selling points for future projects.
@@amarvelousgeek222 I’m not reading all that. I’m sorry that happened, or good job man.
This is an interesting video. After watching it, I will admit that you've raised some fantastic arguments. But the whole time I was thinking in the back of my mind, "I feel like there's a massive downside to this system in a practical setting that I cannot forsee right now."
It's definitely food for thought and maybe my worries are founded in the fact that I've lived in a world built around IP. Regardless, maybe one day we can see a rise in crowdsourcing.
ඞ
If I don't own my ideas, I'm not going to show them to the world to corrupt as they please. It's that simple.
Your idea will be "corrupted" no matter what i'd say. Fanfiction of copyrighted works exist after all. If that was your point anyways
That's fine and dandy but eventually someone will come up with the same idea that you have. People are creative and just because you thought of it doesn't mean you were the first to think of it.
@@SlayerP3 and how would you find creative people? If that happened would be stupid to not steal from everyone and milk everything people love until nobody cares anymore
I mostly agree with this type of future. The main problem I see as it pertains to creative fiction work, and it's not without possible solutions, is the dillution and balkanization of what happens as a result. You'd still have organizations creating, I think, some kind of canon system or other mark of saying "the following work has been considered part of the canon" or "the following work is not canon" or something else.
Because otherwise you get one bad event and suddenly 1/3 of the people who made some show (say The Expanse) going off and getting a bunch of people excited for THEIR version of the next season, while another chunk of the creative staff go off and get a different group of people excited for their version, while some of the executive producers and production people go off to a completely new team and then create a third competing season of the work. All have, to some degree, legitimate 'claim to the throne' in public opinion; and will each attract a portion of the public interest, and it'll divide up who puts dollars where.
People will be like "which of the 4 series do I support? Which is the true continuation of the story?" And each studio will have marketing to explain why they have the true continuation of the story you should listen to, and to consider the real one. To make it worse, half the actors are on one project, the other half decided to go to the second project, some have been killed off in previous seasons but decide to just pretend that wasn't the real story and keep going, the third project in Toronto has the physical access all the original sets and the extras but has to recast 90% of the main cast, and another series just goes straight to animation as it has the original writers who felt it frees them up to tell the story better.
And without Copyright, they're all reusing footage and elements from previous seasons, so they're like, definitely building on a common starting point. So we can't consider them just completely separate stories entirely. They're divergent alternate universe stories.
And you can't just be like "oh did you see Season 5 of The Expanse last night?" but like "Did you watch Season 5 of the Prime version of The Expanse last night, not the Xbox version which I hate?"
On the surface this is a good thing. We now have 4x the content from groups competing for our dollar. But I don't want 4 half-baked stories with a fraction of the content that made the original good, and that get only a portion of the viewership. Because that means none of them will likely survive. None will likely get the same level of budget or interest. Or maybe one or two do, but they're left a husk of what was before.
Ask the fans of Batushka about how that goes.
So even without copyright as we have it, there'd likely need to be some kind of organizational body (and maybe one does exist) that can help say like "this studio has the title of teller of a given story, for as long as they uphold that title in good standing, and continue telling the story they want, they have the backing of industry to support their claim as the official version of the universe they are creating"
Once a story is told, and the people who were telling it decide that they have finished it, then open up the gates for new creators to come in and add their own bit. But while a story is being developed, even if there was no legally enforceable IP, I'd like us to have some method of saying "regardless of who else is involved in the project, these people are the Authors and have the final say"
I think if there is a splintering like that, they will soon start riffing on each other, taking the good ideas others had, and eventually there would be a consensus about what the canon is. The fan response to different aspects would definitely play a role.
I would argue that contracts could still be made without IP law, so you can sign an actor, writer, etc for multiple seasons or movies or whatever. Also, we live in a world where individual creators and writers are getting fan based such as Alex Hirsch, Rebecca Sugar, Owen Dennis, etc. (though I’m aware those are each animation-focused, the trend is still out there). With a fan base linked to a person, and contracts possible, I think it might be easier to organize continuity and such than you might think.
Honestly it sounds more like you answered your own questions.
This wouldn't happen most of the time because... it be a headache. For starters the bases of this argument your suggesting is the first season was a success already and everyone would get paid... that in general would keep people from wanting to actually splitting up cause hey, people liked this thing already with us working together, it made money and it exist as it does now. It be kind of hard to split it all up cause of it already existing as how we made it from the start.
Not saying it's not possible but it be harder. Take your point of if the separate projects took different actors from the original season and put them on there new project. It was already hard getting people in the past to accept new casting for characters like Aunt Vivian from Fresh Prince and such so this logic would already make people not want to even attempt this if they don't have the majority of the same actors for one project.
Again this whole argument is going off the bases of again, first season was a success so that means that if nothing else that first season is the original and these people working together are what made it the original. However in this new logic suggested by the video it be common consensus that states what's canon and what's not and similar to SCP you could have different canons based on what you said. Production split and and now different derivatives exist that be like a choose your own adventure. Hell by this logic it means if you have the money for it you could basically make a high production fanfic and it would have just as much legitimacy as any of these derivatives since the original creators split and made different continuation similar to how "2001: A Space Odyssey" are different from book to screen because the writers of both were different people who came together to try and make a good sci-fi story and both made there own versions of the story. Basically it all depends on whats considered the good one and in general that concept alone would keep people from wanting to split up in the first place.
This whole logic would also mean that when creators come together to make something like this they would have to already have a good idea if they can work together or not. It forces creators to become more business oriented and really see if thye can work together so headaches like this won't occur. Now this won't mean everything will be smooth sailing and we sort of will have to accept that such things could happen and somethings might just become shit. We already have to accept that with current media projects so won't be that different from now.
Why would you want an "original" or "canon" one in the first place? What if the "original" turns into shit whereas a fanmade one turns out to be really good? Why would the fanmade not have the right to be called "original"? Shouldn't the best version of a story be considered as the "original"?
What do you get from branding something as "original"? As Scott said, if the first season of a show is great, chances are the same team will create the best possible season 2. If it's not the case, and some fanmade season 2 is a lot better and they continue with a 3rd and 4th season, wouldn't it become the "original"?
Where I have to agree with you though is that this gives no buffer for error. If you mess up your story at any time, you'll probably not get the fund for the next season, which could be really bad. And if some fanmade stuff starts getting a lot of views instead, you'll have a hard time trying to convince fans that your version gets better.
Also, if your season 2 is not good because it was supposed to introduce something bigger for the 3rd one, you might not get the fund for the third season. I feel like this system encourages everything to be as perfect as it can, but sometimes things need to go slower and start building up, which would probably not please the fans as much as huge reveals...
This system definitely has issues, but most of these issues we already have in the current system anyway. It just has a lot less of them.
@@felixp535 if avatar the last Airbender worked this way, they would not have made The Divide. 😀
Two vids on the same day? You spoil us, Unique
11 months without uploads? you spoil us, Unique XD
Just watchout for the Touhou IP.
It is free for everyone to use it because the creator gave free right of the use of the IP and look at the cheer amount of fan works it has.
You didn’t mention a really common way small creators make money - live events. You can’t copy and reupload a living person, and tons of creators make significant money from live readings, signings, meet and greets, and other various kinds of tours.
Ye well lucky we have technology to simulate that now
@@kingkazain person shows will never die.
Imma be honest, the moment I heard the CopyLeft exists, it had to put down the video for a day to process that
My brain feels like it’s exploded honestly
I know right? It's like a public domain virus, like what the fuck..?
i really love the fact that you dont just say stuff ( like almost everyone who does these types of videos, because its much easier) but you actually went ahead and tried to prove your own idea right by putting your own work, time and effort to support this idea. I find this really refreshing and different than the type of content i watch and hopefully th is will workout and you can bring some type of change however small or big to the way we see IPs and copyright issues
I'd certainly be concerned that, as a disabled person, I'd be left behind even further than I am now. I work slower than most people, and I struggle to understand marketing (which is already hard enough for neurotypical people). First move advantage doesn't sound like it's actually an advantage when someone else can say "I'll do it faster (implied: because I'm not disabled)", and spread that message better than me.
... I mean, I'm not sure that IP could protect me from that either. But I don't see speed and reputation as being as fair as this video seems to make out.
Still, it's an attractive idea. Perhaps this is just something to keep in mind.
Thats why a helping hand is always welcome,there's always the chance to contact a buddy to help with marketing and other to make produccion go smooth.
I think that the first-mover advantage arises from the fact that you can complete the work before anyone sees it. You may release small samples, but surely people wouldn't gather enough info and material from the sample to create something similar to your final result before you've published your complete work. You'll get your work in front of people's eyes, and then anyone who would want to make a very similar work would have to start from that moment instead of before. This advantage, to the extent that it exists in practice, isn't a consequence of the new system. The first-mover advantage applies to the current system, but copyright eliminates the relevance of the first-mover advantage because it would be outright illegal for someone to make a similar work to yours. Regardless, the first-mover advantage isn't the main point of the video. As long as you get commissioned before you start making your work, you will still be able to profit.
The problem with this theory is when a well known company that has a international reputation can completely steal someone's idea or work that is just starting out or has little to no reputation.
They already do anyway.
Whats the company?
The counter argument is "well, if the small creator can't outpreform the international company, then go with the international company, so long as it results in better content"
But it sucks for small producers. They simply won't have the resources to compete with huge companies, so long as they stay small.
Preferable to a monopoly though, and preferable to that content not being created at all.
@The box pinochio was already a well liked character before disney because it's a folklore take writen down by the grimm brothers a couple hundred years ago, the only Disney did was grab the original tale, make it more kid friendly and anímate it, but pinochio is still a free character and you can do whatever you want with him
There might be a solution in the idea of paying for it preproduction. For instance, say that this UA-camr’s webcomic was taken by Disney. They presumably have a better chance at making his work, than he does. But, it is public knowledge that he created the story, or at least that information is out there and can be proven. There would still be an audience that would want HIS version of the work. Also, Disney is a massive company. They still have a bloated process of getting people to work and still have to rely on THEIR ability to remake the work.
Think about the Death Note Live Action Adaptation, but instead of buying the the IP, they made it as Death Note was still being made. It doesn’t change the fact that it sucked as an adaptation and still prefer the original. Even at its worse, it being about Death Note brings awareness to the IP, thus fans of that adaptation would still find the original one.
So, yeah, companies can just start poaching IPs from smaller creators but the nature of fandom eventually brings it back to the original work.
wait i signed up for a 10 minute video how did you trick me into another 45 minutes
This, I really need to be doing my assignments :/
Wasn't this also a big part of how Vocaloids became so big? Like, you have to buy the Vocaloid program first, but after that you can use it and it's voice bank's however you please?
That's also part of the reason why the fanon develops them as they see fit in song series and whatnot. They can be cast as vocal actors of sorts depending on the song series. And then you get cases where the song series gets super popular and spinoff into something else like KagePro and the Evillous Chronicles
vocaloid is tightly controlled proprietary software. you have to pay for a license to use it, like photoshop.
For those composers, paying the initial cost of having their first vocaloid definitely was their biggest hurdle. They did have to go through that license first. After their songs become "partially" open source because off vocals exist, the covers are helping themselves and the original creator to grow together. Everyone in the Vocaloid community relates the song to its composer first before its singer. The singer elevate themselves by making a lasting impression on the song we love, and in return helped the composer gain even more fame. Vocaloid single handedly allowed composers to become known without having someone sing it. Thus was the Golden Age of Vocaloid. The time when composers were king.
@@X1erra you're right, in that aspect the vocaloid is a good example of the ways zero ip would benefit artists. also the fact that lots of people just pirate the extortionately expensive vocaloid software.
No because what this guy is suggesting is that you would never have to pay, so no one would create because food still needs to be put on the table
I would really enjoy seeing a rebuttal video of the comments and concerns from this concept in the future, if you were ever considering it.
“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”
― George Bernard Shaw
But if you kill the other man then you have both the ideas and can make money off them while the other man has nothing
I just wanna point out that the Snyder cut is basically a test run for this... But I guess we won't ever know if it was profitable or not
Wow that realization hits hard. They could have kickstarted it and earned so.much.money.
Welp, time to commission a ship, I'm going sailing me hearties
It was an interesting watch feel like it'd be incredibly hard if not impossible for small artists to make a name for themselves in a system like that.
And that is the reality because that is EXACTLY why Patent and Copyright laws were made in the first place. To protect little people who create something but may not have the means to fully realize it at a mass production level. Which is why they would pitch their ideas to investors, but then investors would say no, and find someone to do it for them then mass produce it. Even current patent laws still can be loopholed. It's how Beats by Dre legally stole the rights to earbuds that were invented by a lone Chinese man and his son. Small businesses can sucked into things they don't understand while big companies take advantage of them. Just imagine what we would go back to if we removed these laws in a day and age when anyone can try to invent and there are the means to get started and anyone's fingertips.
@@SeraphX2 Bu tthat's the thing, Patents and Copyright *doesn't* protect little people, like he stated in the video, so what's your point?
@@SeraphX2 What do you mean go back to?
Wouldn't this just be gambling hoping that you get a product that you want, and if not you've lost your money to some crowd fund?
Well do we get refund after bad movie? We don't. You can play games and refund in few hours. That is cool.
You can read other people opinions for choosing to pay. We have that one. That is awesome too.
I don't know. We could create the world both of the option is avaible. Which is we live in. We need to build better systems for the our second option. And we should join projects we think it will be cool right now. Maybe we should use patreon's of the creators who are making or made good contents.
I read that you can refund for fake crowd refund. I didn't research it
@@windums560 if you watch a bad movie, you atleast knew for a fact you were going to watch a movie. Crowd funding everything makes nothing a dependable product. No one can review what doesn't exist.
@@iandwyer8310 Crowdfunding sites can and do hold money in escrow until the initial goal is met, if it is met. There can be and are lawsuits based on incomplete campaigns where goods or services weren't rendered. Reputation ensures a creator could only make a mistake that big once. And at the end of the day, fans could legally take what is known and released and create the thing people originally wanted from it. I'd by far much rather support a creator I love, who has a good reputation and has made many games, for a decent chance at something good, than definitely get something bad.
@@iandwyer8310 That's why reputation and track records exists. Plus, it's actually better for the studio this way, they get to ensure they get the money they need regardless if the product sucks or not, but if this happens with a movie that earns money via sales, they would be in for a loss.
@@iandwyer8310 this already happens in the current system, where do you thing movies get their budget? They need investors that trust them when they say "this movie will produce millions in profit"
Dear God, this video is the most inventive and creative Video Essay I’ve seen. AND ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Now, onto the counterpoints.
I think that where Crowdfunding can shine is in installment-based art, say I Webcomics and TV Shows. You present the audience with a Proof of Concept, (like a Pilot), which while being a finished product, is still apart of an incomplete narrative. If the Audience likes what it see’s, then it can finance the completion of that narrative. In this regard, Making a Profit in Production makes a lot of sense.
Movies, on the other hand, don’t have that same Proof of Concept, at least to that extent. The closest you get are Movie Trailers, but there’s a lot of room for misleading or mishandled production, I.E. Frozen 2. When the Trailer to Frozen 2 was released, Disney didn’t know what Frozen 2 was about. They just came up with a bunch of cool shots, put it together in a trailer, and BAM, put it out there. The result was a Movie built for a trailer, not a trailer built for a movie.
Now, Frozen 2 was still a success, but my point is that Films wouldn’t thrive in an environment where the Trailer dictates how much money they get. Cause then, its not about making a good movie, it’s about making a great Trailer, and a movie that isn’t shit. I.E Batman V Superman
Pharmaceuticals also don’t work in this environment. The reason Pharmaceuticals are so overly priced is because you’re not paying for the product. Rather, you’re paying for the 99 failed products that led up to it. My father worked in the business, and I recall him saying that 95% of products that are invented are rejected by the FDA for a whole slew of reasons. (Feel free to search up, I might be wrong)
So, Pharmaceutical companies are all financing 100 ideas for drugs, in the hope that 1-2 of them pass the FDA’s trial runs. And then using the profits of those 1-2 successful drugs to finance another 100 ideas. That’s how it’s worked, and while a bit pricey, it’s resulted in consistent advancements in the medical field.
Say what you will about the drug industry, but the FDA guarantees your paying for something that works.
Problem is that when people crowdfund something, they are putting faith in a single creator/ small group of creators to make something good. If you put faith in a single person to make a cure for Diabetes, even if what they make doesn’t have negative side effects and is cost effective to make, it might not even be effective enough that Doctors will recommend it over the current drugs out there.
Ultimately, While Crowdfunding would work fantastically in Webcomics, Commissioned Art, and TV Shows, (both animated and live action) it falls short in Products with much more Intensive and prolonged Production Periods.
If you’ve gotten here, First, I’ve been a huge fan of your work for 3 years, and I’ve been continually blown away by your videos.
Second: I love this argument, and I love how you communicate it. I think there’s some serious potential for this idea. Personally, I had some counterpoints, but I’m not trying to prove you wrong, I’m just desperate to see further into wrinkly brain of yours.
On the pharmaceuticals point, what abolishing patents would do (in all likelihood) is make governments make more public funding available for medical research. Most major out-of-nowhere breakthroughs happen with public money anyway because pharmaceutical companies don't tend to invest in something so risky. For instance, insulin was originally discovered through public funding. The polio vaccine was never patented. The recent new hepatitis C drug that is really expensive due to price gouging from the patent holder was also discovered in the public sector.
@@katieroberts7012 I'm curious, how did discoveries on public finding end up privatized?
Honestly, you brought up some pretty good points. I think something that exemplifies your point about crowdfunded installment TV entertainment is Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss by Vivziepop.
@@katieroberts7012 Yeah, I think the current IP scenario in medicine is just monstrous. "creator's rights" do not take precedence over lives that are at stake, and pharma companies routinely overstate their role in the creation of medicine. Public research plays such a pivotal role in medical advancements, but these fucking corporations want to hog all the money just because they got the product to the market, even if it literally kills people.
@@TimothyJesionowski I think it has a lot to do with making the product market-ready. Pharma companies pay for refining the formula via trials, marketing and distribution. Very rarely do they come up with the ideas. Most of their products essentially originate from the public domain.
In fairness, a LOT of these same issues are easily addressed under the current IP system by reinstating its original expiration concept. IE, your IP is only protected for ~12 months before entering the public domain.
If nothing else, This would be a MUCH more palatable "first step" that we could take to smooth such a transition.
Yeah this right here 👌 Based
Tbh I think going from current to zero is just impossible, but there is no reason for it to be as long as it is and I think that is politically viable. It is insane the Wizard of Oz movie is going to be protected for another ten years, as if it is still culturally relevant and MGM Studios will be bankrupted were it freely available.
At longest, anything that was new during your childhood should be available by the time you are an adult (to average out the time one is a conscious child from age 2-18, make it an 8 year term). That is plenty of time for a specific piece of media to be culturally relevant and monetizable under current models before the creator has to get going on their next thing.
In a alternative universe where Copyright doesnt exist:
"Creators SHOULD own their creations"
I was about to comment that
I wrote a series of fake wikipedia-like style pages called 'Fakedpedia' where I imagine living in a world where IPs entered public domain in early years (4 years in North America / Asia, 5 years in Europe, 3 years in Latin/South America). Really wish we live in a world like that so we don't have a to deal with greedy corporations and idiotic bigots.
As soon as I finished the video of creating monsters, I came to watch this one, after I heard you were gonna be doing a public domain , I haven't heard anyone in my life who I now have utmost respect, awe and hope now.
The abolishment of Intellectual Property was something I believed would benefit creators, but I didn't think it could realistically happen without a practical elimination of scarcity, but this convinced me that it could be done without that happening first. Fantastic video.
How does scarcity play into this? As far as I know the property rights require scarcity as removing one unit of infinite can not cause harm.
While stealing your car results you losing the car stealing an idea of a car does not deprive you of that idea.
@@JohnSmith-ox3gy My previous belief was that due to the capitalist or demand economic systems of modern nations any endeavor one put time into needed to monetizable or it came at the expense of one's personal profit. The current Intellectual Property system is a way to make creative and innovative works monetizable by ensuring they cannot be copied. In a practically post-scarcity society, works would not need to be monetizable. One could make creative efforts for their own sake without losing out on the opportunity cost. Before watching this I saw this as the only practical way of ensuring the creation of creative works and inventions while still in a world with scarcity.
@@koukaakiva And hopefully now you realize that IP laws are antithetical to the free market, not a "feature" of it
@@SepticFuddy I already felt that way. That's what I meant when I said that I believe abolishing IP would benefit creators. My general attitude towards it was like the video's author said: I felt it a necessary evil, but the video convinced me there is another viable method for achieving the intent of IP.
There is no scarcity of interlectual property, that's litterally why it's stupid
Preface: I'm not a content creator, but as someone going into a field where creating is a big deal, this is immediately relevant to me. And while the ideas are solid, as it goes, every idea can and should be challenged. Note that as I haven't finished the video yet, these are mostly the notes I'm writing down
Biggest issue: As with it goes, Star Citizen is an absolute meme. It just kept producing, never delivering, and just all in all isn't exactly...a great example. What stops other companies from setting up a similar scheme where they keep asking for money and never deliver a product besides "consumers shouldn't be stupid?" I know I'm specifically laser-focusing on Star Citizen and it goes to show that the idea can make it with enough marketing, but this also opens a wide world for scams of a colossal scale that people just get away with. This would drive consumers away, or make them hesitant to put their money in anything that isn't obscenely over-marketed.
Well, this world already has absurd amounts of marketing. The only reason why CP2077 was so popular was because of its absurd marketing budget. A shitty mobile game (Warpath) managed to show up on everyone's radar for a short amount of time because they threw millions, if not tens or hundreds into advertising. Our world is already over-saturated with marketing already, filled with terrible mobile game ads (think all the horny game ads), who's not to say it'll get worse?
This can go in both ways -- think a My Hero Academia ad in the style of Mafia City, or advertising getting crammed down your throat 24/7 because "we want to make the money for the next installment"
I think the argument is interesting. It's very strange in the idea that going backward in protection would instead only help. You are right that IP doesn't help small creators at all, though. Small creators have no budget to enforce IP. I also think it's right in many ways, and it's not founded on baseless claims (like many modern arguments can be).
The ethics side is also very valid, but personally (and this is my lens on it) I feel it's smarter to look at every argument with perfect logic and no morals attached. With this in mind, copying artwork and such only further pushes the scam potential, and further drives the whole point home about the person with the biggest marketing budget winning. Remember that even though ethics can be a big thing, if you are loud and the artist is quiet, with your massive marketing budget you can squish anyone else's voice as a big company stealing small company works.
Again, this is how the world works already. Remember that McDonald's managed to make an old woman's severe coffee burns that *fused together her skin* seem like she spilled slightly hot coffee on herself. Bigger marketing budget wins.
One major counterpoint to the scamming argument is that crowdfunding platforms could force creators to deliver their promised product within a certain deadline and, if the creator fails to deliver in time, can force the creator to refund all the backers their money. It could give creators the option to set this time limit themselves, which would actually be good for consumers because it would give them an idea about when they can reasonably expect the product they funded to release.
This still leaves the option of scamming by releasing an unsatisfactory product, but there's a simple solution to that: let the people who funded the product decide if it is satisfactory. When the product is released, the backers have the option to claim that they are 'unsatisfied' with the result. If too many people are unsatisfied, the creator will have to refund part or all of the donations. This encourages creators to focus on creating as high a quality as they can and, perhaps more importantly, strongly discourages raising people's expectations beyond what you can reasonably provide.
A second issue this comes with is that it punishes people who underestimate how much time they need for a project. There's several actions this hypothetical crowdfunding platform could take to prevent this from being a major issue. First of all, when a creator sets the time limit for their project, they'll get cautioned that it's better to give yourself significantly more time than you think you'll need. While a shorter deadline makes your product more interesting to back, the risk of making it too short far outweighs the risk of making it too long. The second option would be to yet again have it be decided by the people who funded the project. If partway through the project, a creator finds out that they'll need just a bit longer, they can ask the backers permission to extend the deadline. If a creator can show that significant progress has been made in the time that has passed, the backers will likely grant that extra bit of time. The same would apply when unforeseen circumstances cause a delay (lockdown, natural disaster, creator gets hospitalized, etc.)
Now, this creates an opportunity for the backers to scam the creators, sure. So, our crowdfunding platforms could make all those controls optional, a creator can choose to apply those restrictions to themselves. People will be more willing to support projects that do have these restrictions set in place, but for small projects where relatively few people will have to support it to reach the fund goal (think stuff like commissioned art), the security for the creator in turning it off may be worth it. But even with the controls in place, if a person *is* satisfied with the result of the project, there is an incentive for them to *not* try to get their money back. You'd want the creator to reap the rewards of their hard work because that makes them more likely to start another project - and you were satisfied with their previous project, so there's a good chance this will be something you appreciate too.
Lastly, the crowdfunding platform could keep track of your ratio of being satisfied/unsatisfied with products you funded, and if you're too often unsatisfied with the end product, you're exempt from getting a refund. This further encourages only claiming to be unsatisfied when you truly are, and it encourage people to only fund products with a reasonable chance of completion - which will also allow creators to more comfortably set longer deadlines for their projects.
And why would creators use this platform that is so heavily geared towards the consumers? Because it's where the consumers are. If they genuinely intend to make their product as good as they can make it, there is very little risk involved for the creator, and this platform would allow the creators to guarantee the consumers that the project will get finished in a reasonable amount of time.
Another thought that just popped up is an option to set an inconsequential 'expected release date' aside from the project deadline. The expected release date is when the creator thinks the project will probably be finished, and the deadline can be set to a later date to give the creator some room for unexpected delays.
@@Felixr2 boy I'd love to be receiving funding for a game I'm working on from a month to month set of patreon donations, that I use to not only work towards the game but also pay my bills and buy food, only to have a bunch of people literally retract every cent they gave to me and force me into debt because I didn't make the best product ever.
@@nikolaitheundying Did you not get the part where I said it could be optional, so you don't *have* to take the risk if you don't want to, but it would just make it easier to get people to fund you? Or where scamming creators out of their money despite delivering a good product can make you exempt from getting recompense?
Don't get me wrong, I know it's hypothetical and it's good to bring op possible issues. But your cynical tone and complete ignorance of all the solutions to that problem I already listed really bother me. As I said, if you're a small-scale development team, you're probably better off not offering any sort of refund guarantee. Maybe even make the refund option a slider where you can select the percentage of funds that can be refunded. And none of this would be an issue if you set realistic expectations for your backers. It's fine if you don't release the best game ever, just don't promote it to be the best game ever. Show bits of what it'll look like, how it'll run, what the story's gonna be like, while working on it. Give a reasonable (and safe) estimate of how much time a main story playthrough will take and how much time can be put into optional content. It's not about making something that's perfect, it's about not disappointing the people who pay you. *They* are giving *you* money to make the product *you* are telling them you will make. Just be honest about what you're making, people aren't going to drive you into bankrupcy for no reason.
Oh, and the exact same holds up for the current system: if you spend way more resources on development for a game than you can make on sales, you're not going to recover from that investment, unless you have adequate reserves. The only difference is that you'd essentially be borrowing money for development, and if you deliver on your promises, you don't have to return it. If you can't deliver much, don't promise much. And even the burden of instantly having to refund everything can be lessened by giving the option to pay back in terms, which of course would be a statistic visible to your potential backers and can play a part in their decision on whether or not to give you their money. Did I mention that in my previous comment? No. Could you have thought of that solution yourself? Probably.
So all in all, while I do see that what you're saying is a valid counterargument to the basic principle of 'people can ask for a refund if you disappoint them', I'm pretty sure I've given more than enough counterarguments to that in my original post. What I *would* be interested in, is if you could point out issues with it that I *haven't* provided solutions for. Thanks in advance, and have a wonderful day.
@@Felixr2 to me it's just the issue of "Hey I can refund here if needed, so I'll buy this instead of what I can't refund. So now a big company can afford the refund risk with minimal sweat while small groups are boned. You can't please everyone in a system. No matter how you format a system people can and will game it. They will abuse every thing they can for an extra edge if it puts them on top. Do not discredit human greed.
@@nikolaitheundying See *now* you're making a good counterpoint. It's going to give large companies an advantage over small creators. However, I don't think that's as much of an issue with the system as it is with how things work in general. Large companies will *always* have an advantage over small creators, unless you're specifically limiting 'large companies' in some way. A limiting factor for large companies could actually even be implemented.
The platform would have to take a part of the donations anyway, because the people running it need to make a living too. Now, one way this could be done, is if for bigger fund goals, an incrementally greater portion of the acquired funds will be directed to the platform. Heck, the platform could rake in quite a profit this way, and that profit could go towards covering (part of) the refunds of small creators who are either just starting out or have generally positive track records. The lower the fund goal and the better the track record, the more your refund will be compensated for by the platform.
Of course, the fee would be quite a hurdle for large companies, and would encourage them to move to a different platform that doesn't charge them as much of a fee, so basically you can't make the fee too high, and it'd probably be a delicate balance - if a balance can even be found at all. As I said, the large companies will always have an advantage, no matter what the system is. They have more resources and a larger audience, and there's no sustainable system where that's going to have a negative impact on your brand.
So no, this system likely wouldn't change the fact that large companies have an advantage on the market, no matter how the crowdfunding is handled, because the large companies will just find the crowdfunding platform that provides the best circumstances for *them* while still being a sustainable platform. That's a problem that can never really be fixed. But again, that's not a problem we don't already have. Zero IP would still have some benefits, and imo they could still outweigh the issues.
Anyway, I appreciate the comment! You made a very good counterpoint and it gave me something to think about.
Good Idea, i'll take all of your Story
modify it a little bit and then i will cashing out from it, yayyy
thank u for making it public domain xD
Ok,can we see it?
This is so incredibly fascinating, ive been toying with the idea of "what if companies just had complete transparency so that consumers would only buy their product if they knew they could trust and just didnt have the resources to produce it themselves which would incentivize making a quality product from the start?" And this is an excellent supplemental idea to that.
It even works when people don't *have to* buy the products and have it for free. See Blender, which got like a million of dollars last year. And Blender is totally free for everyone, companies and people alike.
OOO!! I just realised, doesn't this already happen in the manga community? I remember learning once that doujins don't get policed for copyright issues because many great manga artists started as doujin artists. This is basically the system you proposed!! Even though doujins exist and are popular, everybody still buys the original mangakas work, and doujin artists get to start their careers off other people's IPs until they get big enough to sell their own!
Kind of, the doujin thing is more of a "gentlemen's agreement" between the doujin artist and the copyrights holder. The original author could bring down the hammer of the law rather easily on a doujin seller but don't because of the reasons you stated, which would lead to massive ostracization from the community, as well as the fact that the doujin writer isn't a threat to their copyright as they still own their series.
The writer of girl's last tour was also a doujinshi writer at some point. Just putting it out there
Oh, and this season's nagatoro san is also the same case but more 18+ origins.
Doujinshi authors often explicitly prohibit illegal copying or even reselling, basically spreading the work in any way. Japan has productive copyright infringement, the West has productive copyright infringement, but they aren't that similar.
It really is brave of you to stand behind this idea by making your own work public domain. I've had similar ideas about copyright as well but had always been nervous to give that kind of leeway for my own potential works only because I felt that in the current economy and legal system I'd be putting myself at a disadvantage. But I may do public domain works in the future as a result of being inspired by your commitment.
The video really did a really great job explaining how only the biggest companies profit off of copyright.
Thank you, someone who understands the potential of PD. I really like public domain 'cause it gives content creators and filmmakers/artists liberties on creating something that they might enjoy. Sure, they might be some who just want to make or adapt other IPs into crappy projects for the sake gaining money but NOT everyone are like that; they are other content creators out there who want to create something that they are passionate about and show how much they actually do care and love the IP we grow up with. If everything turned public domain within 14 or 4 years, I would make a Lion King, Super Mario or Marvel film/series with my own ideas with endless possbilities and apportunities.
Maybe I missed something. My problem is not so much small or amateur creators expanding on the work of huge filthy rich companies but rather filthy rich companies preying upon the work of small creators. For example: I'm a musician who doesn't have a huge company, huge production, advertisement, etc behind me and who'll never see the type of reach of your average popstar. Your average popstar is a brand, not a musician. It's a pretty face and body with rehearsed dance moves, with a gossip industry that creates interest around the person's "private life" really creating a very catered public persona with a flashy lifestyle, etc. The popstar is more the center of a kind of a cult of personality than a musician. But there are musicians that work for the industry writing their songs. It's usually a bunch of them to write every single song and they get payed. If there was no IP, what would stop these big industries from instead of hiring musicians to write the songs for their popstars, just look around for the work of unknown musicians like me and then have their pretty face of a popstar re-record the same songs with huge production value, in the most expensive studios with the most expensive sound engineers, shoot a million dollar music video, etc etc and earn millions in return while the small musician remains small and broke?? Even if they credited the small musician, who cares?? It's a cult of personality anyway, no one cares who wrote the song! Do you know who wrote the latest hit of your favorite popstar?? They are credited already, only no one cares. If they could do the same without even paying any musicians, better still! Who'd want to listen to my amateurish sounding version, recorded, played, mixed and mastered in my small amateur home studio, all DIY, without any production value, without a music video to promote it, without a huge machine behind me building a public persona and publicizing my cool lifestyle, etc? Or let's say you actually are a more or less successful musician. And let's say you're vegan. Would you really want McDonald's to be able to use your music in their ads to promote themselves, for example? Shouldn't you have a say when it comes to your work being used in ways you consider unethical? What if they decide they'll always use your music in their ads, to make it part of the brand and they do it for years? Do you really want to have your work hijacked by a huge company with huge reach and become indistinguishable from their brand? Your voice will be the voice of McDonalds. Your music is reduced to the sound of their advertisement and you can't break away from it. Every time people hear your music it's not you who pops into their head, but the already huge company and brand and there's absolutely nothing you can do. You focused a lot on small creators wanting to expand the work of the big companies but to me it seems like the ones who are already rich and powerful get to exploit the small independent creators instead. Am I missing something?
Thank u this video pissed me off so much because i was thinking of that the whole time. I feel like this thing is good in idea but once you actually think of the realistic side effects it kinda falls apart
1. Abolish copyright. You can download everything for free, Large companies cant make a dime.
2. Pay for production. Because everything is free, you need to be paid before you let an idea out of your mouth. Teachers already do this, pay me and I'll share some information with you.
3. Lying to get someones money is illegal. That includes saying you made something you didn't make. Large companies need to credit you.
Did you actually watch the video?
@@roxsy470 1 - Large companies can make a dime since people pay them in advance to release products.
2 - That's exactly the point, you're contradicting your point number 1. People pay in advance, that's how companies make a dime, and people will pay for more of whatever's popular. Meaning people would rather pay in advance for the next Taylor Swift record than my record. I don't have the sort of reach industries like the ones Taylor Swift is a part of have. So they could be crowd funded to release the next product even tho their product can potentially be outright copied from smaller artists but branded with the famous pretty face and voice and huge production values of Taylor Swift.
3 - Lying? Credit? Who said anything about lying? I'll quote myself: "Even if they credited the small musician, who cares?? It's a cult of personality anyway, no one cares who wrote the song! Do you know who wrote the latest hit of your favorite popstar?? They are credited already, only no one cares." Did you actually read the comment??
@@tasfa10 So will you pay fifty bucks for a better looking version of a game that already exists?
Dang, I'm honestly speechless but I feel the need to comment to show support.
Just imagine I typed some intellectually inciting observation about the quality of your presentation and left a comment displaying a trepidacious yet hopeful agreement with your assertions.
You've got yourself another sub.
I can say a lot of stuff, but all I wanted to say was already mentioned in the comments. A lot of people brought up how this system actually makes small creators even more vulnerable
And here's another thought, much more personal to me: I'm very protective of my creations, it would devastate me if someone would try to claim my story and my characters as their own and try to sell it.
Well damn, this is a chunky one. I guess the anime piracy videos have both led us up to this behemoth of a video.
imagine theaters having an onsite panel showcasing movie crowdfundings in the lounge. Want more popcorn?
I went into this video thinking that I would disagree wildly with every point. And I did... until you kept making points. Every time I felt like there was a gap in your argument, I got ready to write a comment saying "fine video... but what about x", and then you'd cover x. And so I'd write "good video, but what about y". And then it would be "great video, but what about z". And now I've run out of counterarguments because you really thought through everything. Amazing work with this one, really. Absolutely brilliant.
This video had me grinning from ear to ear the by the time it finished. I really hope this gets popular enough to become the norm and anything I create will be apart of the public domain 100%. This is the future, this is the high seas!
I am going to do the same as well!
Makes me wonder....what if..
Let's say this does get popular. Somehow by some miracle most people on the internet agree to all do public domain for everything they create. What about the big corporations? Will more people start to dislike them since they are being greedy with their ips? Most likely not. But what would be the companies reaction to this "new craze"? Or perhaps finally people will make a big enough boycott to actually hurt some of these companies financially? Figuring that theres plenty of better or similar content out there that's free public domain anyways? One can dream.....one could dream...
@@maximumforce8275 No. What would happen would be that the companies would use the free shit to make a higher quality and better produced version of it and make a shit ton of money off of it. The small guy loses without copyright, and the small guy loses with copyright. Its the way the world works. The small guy loses.
@@Eli-gn6dr I know. That's why in the dream scenario people would just ignore or boycott the companies
@@Eli-gn6dr it's not actually how the world works on itself but how the current economic system works.
It's just designed like that so no matter the changes in details - if the economic system is on itself like it is now, tied on profiting INSTEAD of producing or regardless of it and on the matter to hoard more and more capital resources to grow your influence and power on the world around you to subjugate more resources to work on YOUR favor regardless of it's will by the sheer fact you have tons of money to the sole purpose of gaining more and to meatgrind resources to meatgrind more to maintain some status quo - no any changes WITHIN this system is going to change it drastically, those problems are going to continue to pop-up.
Not saying that the point that was offered in this video is useless, not at all, it's a fine and reasonable thoughts that can make many changes in the current production of things in a good way - but because of such current system, some problems can make... Problems on the way.
I think copyright is incredibly important in defending people from the same companies you hate. When you see a system is flawed the solution is not to replace it wholesale within an Entirely new system which will only be more flawed because it hasn't even had the chance at refinement that the current one has.
You grind for 10 years making an awesome web-comic for pennies, and then Disney makes the movie for Billions and you get none of that. (granted the current system isn't that different and Disney is in the news for now paying people anyway)
@@snowpoint720 1 of the current problems of copyright is actually in applying the law. In theory it should be fair so change in the law will do nothing until it can be enforced.
small creators would stand to benefit a lot more from free use of disney IP than disney would benefit from free use of their IP. if copyright did anything substantial to protect individuals from big corporations, then why would big corporations spend so much money lobbying to not just defend copyright but extend it? lets say right now disney decides to just blatantly steal your shit. what are you gonna do? sue them? good luck. maybe you could milk a settlement out of them if it's an exceptionally clear cut case, but what does that accomplish? it doesn't prevent disney from doing whatever they want, since they can afford to eat the cost, and the only small creators that benefit are the ones that win the lottery by having disney blatantly infringe on their copyright. why would we prioritize a nominal benefit to the very very few creators who might get picked up by disney over the tremendous benefit to everyone else that comes with the abolition of copyright?
@@user-lk2vo8fo2q That's an enforcement issue. And defending copyright and defending copyright extension are 2 different things entirely.
@@KyriosHeptagrammaton It's not an enforcement issue. The issue is that small creators can't currently use corporate IP, but they would be able to if copyright didn't exist. That is an immediate and tangible benefit. Now, are there drawbacks that outweigh this benefit? The only one I've heard goes something like "but if copyright didn't exist, corporations could just take the things you make and re-sell them". This is certainly true, but you can't just leave it at that. In order for that to be a compelling argument, it must also be the case that this potential for corporate exploitation is so bad that it overrides the benefit of never having to ask for permission to use any IP ever again. Well, is it? How many small creators, would you estimate, make most of their income through royalty payments from large corporations? We're excluding people that are hired by corporations to produce IP (which, incidentally is how most corporate IP is created) because their salary is not dependent on royalties.
I personally like Public Domain and I consider to be very important 'cause it allows/gives content creators, filmmakers, animators, game developers and artists the liberties on creating something that they are passionate about, making something new with their own set of vision and show how much they actually do care and love the IP we grow up with. Without it, we wouldn't have gotten the stuff people would see. Yes, I'm aware that they're some greedy bastards out there who might take advantage of this by creating a cashgrab project for the sake of gaining money but NOT everyone are like that; I know there are other content creators out there who want to create a project that they have dreamed and show how much they actually do care and love the IP we grow up with endless possibilities and opportunities that indie filmmakers/animators can explore. But this shitty copyright law has now become broken thanks to Disney and is now preventing creative people making something they wanted to do, fan games exists for a reason and Nintendo doesn't care on how they're actions are hurting their own fans and name. I'm hoping that someday, this copyright timeframe gets changed for the better and give artists the freedom they deserve.
I just remembered this video and realised I already knew something like this working and I knew it for years.
It's the pixel dungeon community. It's a free mobile open source roguelike game made by watabou.
So anyone can change the mechanics or add something unique to it and the players can choose who they support by donating to the creator that they feel make their favourite version of the game.
For a long while the original pixel dungeon was the best even though there were a lot of different versions until the dev added in a durability mechanic that was poorly implemented and the community disliked it.
Then 2 games came out and stood out to the community. Yet another pixel dungeon which took the durability mechanic and changed it to work well for it.
Then shattered pixel dungeon which is now considered the best pixel dungeon game that removed that mechanic and added unique things into the game.
Evan Debenham(the developer) puts in the most effort and creativity out of all the developers and it's so good that it even has it's own modded versions because he implemented a class armour ability, added class talents, reworked the alchemy system twice, added more challenges and other changes.
Even though it's open source and people can take the exact same game(and some people do while adding changes like in rat king pixel dungeon 2 and rat king adventures) shattered is still considered the best and most supported by the community because of Evans history of making changes so good that it becomes the standard for the community and a lot of the mods of it going forward.
The idea of going open source as a stretch goal is actually pretty intriguing. I'll do that for sure if I ever crowdfund a project.
It's really not, though. All software should be free, regardless. His whole argument is that people should be able to modify stuff and create, but with software that's infeasible without releasing the source code. The reason "vanilla" public domain works for most works is because everything is human-readable. Software is different. I would link to a really good article, but since either UA-cam or Uniquenameosaurus is censoring hyperlinks to the GNU Project's philosophy, just look up "gnu project shouldbefree."
I agree that copy right law should be greatly revised and the years should be reduced by a lot. But I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, not precisely crowdsourcing all the way. My problem with crowdsourcing is that it is a popularity contest, people have to go viral to be paid, which is a problem with first time creators. I mean even in your star wars example, you had to assume that the original star wars already existed and I don't know who paid for it. The original star wars was already a financial risk, which would be an even higher risk if it didn't get monetized after production or without any crowd to support it initially. If you are a first time writer who knows how many years it would take to gain enough popularity to pay for your bills without resorting to becoming a youtuber or doing something to start building your popularity outside of the merits of your writing. When sometimes in the IP world you only need one editor to enjoy your work enough to make a risk in publishing, making a profit on how many copies you sold. It is not perfect, but everyone needing to go viral isn't perfect either.
Sometimes experts make the best decisions and not the public, and one thing that definetely shouldn't be crowdsourced is science... Because the majority of people don't actually know a lot about science, they don't know what is possible or whats not possible, what is important for science and what is not so important. A lot of groups would profit greatly advertising themselves as trying to discover the secret of inmortality or the cure for cancer, while smaller more possible diseases to cure get less atention. There are a lot of small scientific advancements that are very important but not very well known outside of their respective scientific community, monetization of science should be handled by experts. And I think that is ultimately my problem overall with crowdsourcing, that the public not allways has the right answer, the consensus is not allways the best option.
Of course crowdsourcing does happen, in science and in art. I'm just not sure if it should be the overall system to handle everything.
Regarding crowdsourcing of science: this already happens to an extent, but the general public isn't the patron party. At least in the US, a lot of scientific research gets funded through government grants, which could be described as indirect commissions: tax dollars go toward funding scientific research (and unfortunately, big science publishers such as Elsevier keep much of that publicly funded research locked up behind subscription fees even against the wishes of the scientists). Prospective researchers have to apply for the grants to convince the government to give them money, so the risk from the indirection in theory gets balanced out by the discretion of the "experts" in government, whoever they are. Presentations (i.e. papers, models, etc.) of findings of scientific research fall under copyright law and the practical inventions fall under patent law. Issues of copyright in the context of scientific research usually don't lie with the scientists, so those issues are less relevant with respect to funding. In cases involving inventions, especially medical inventions, there is a lot of abuse of patents. The government should continue to play a role in funding scientific research, but patents should still be drastically weakened or abolished in the context of medical inventions to prevent abuse.
@@gene8512 That is a great point and I agree that copyright for scientific papers and patents are a huge problem in todays world. I mean I get what they are trying to solve, they want to incentivize people creating and publishing things by guaranteeing that the creator would get the money if the invention is successful.
Ironically enough I think that big companies would be the ones that would benefit the most of a world without patents and copyright. Since they would have the resources that individuals don't have to mass produce their inventions.
But I agree that the patent system gets abused enormously and I think a middle step would be a good solution. Like for instance a non-exclusivity clause, the creator has the rights under the patent but a company cannot pay an inflated fee to have the exclusive rights to produce it. Make it so that anyone that wants to buy the rights from the creator to produce the invention can do it at a standardized price, regardless if it is a big company or an individual who has the patent.
The same goes with copyright... In general I think exclusivity is one of the biggest problems that gets abused. And I think it is wiser to tweek the problems within our system, than changing it entirely for a system with a new set of problems.
A system that already exists... Everyone is allowed to have their work crowd sourced and in the public domain.
Gotta say, as an online artist working on my own web comic, I did not watch this video expecting to be convinced. But tbh, you got me, I'm on board for this model.
I'll say it right now, I find this insanely intriguing, and would love to visit an alternate world with this, but I am ok with the fact it will not happen in my lifetime. I am someone who is already very anxious about how good or bad my own work is, I would not really enjoy someone going ahead and creating more of my own work in a way thats just similar enough for people to still like it, but not nearly be what I wanted. I hope this doesn't sound wrong, but I want control here, I am writing and creating so maybe someone else can like this as I do, not so someone else can critic it so much they create their own version of it. I don't know if that made much sense, it just feels like an artist doesn't always create just for profit but would still want the IP as to keep it their own.
in a counter to my own argument I guess an artist could ask that those who want to add on should ask, but that almost counters the entire idea.
and this entire idea also doesn't account for how chaotic continuity would be. I think SCP wiki and universe is amazing and this fits it wonderfully, but anyone being able to officially add to anything else will not work for anything outside of something based around that ideal like the scp universe, it makes sense, its built to be chaotic, built to be anomalous, it's in its source code essentially. are star wars or marvel or ATLA or really any of the popular and great media of recent year in a position for multiple continuities so chaotically organize its up to the reader to choose their own?
I find it interesting and would like to see the real outcome, but personally disagree with some of its parts and know it will not come in my lifetime most likely.
This is I think the biggest point completely missed in the video. Art and copyright law isn't just a profit thing, it's devistating as an artist to have something you pour love into be copied. Even if it's not sold for money, it can just really suck and hurt. Art goes beyond just economics.
As a wannabe future game dev, It would be horrifying to have my characters and world stolen, done better, and maybe not even be credited. (if I understood the video correctly.) This also puts crowdfunding as the ONLY means of production, or at least the only one that works well. That seems like a bad idea... I generally like crowdfunding but it’s not as stable or reliable as getting paid for access to a product, and there’s no way that, if IP is eliminated that people would pay for something when they could just pirate it. So if your Kickstarter doesn’t work out cause no one wants to put money into something that they might be interested in but not enough to donate and would rather just pirate, and you can’t get money any other way, then your screwed.
I agree with this. As an artist, I just saw yesterday a case of someone tracing a work, and profit or not it didn't really sit well with me.
Those things already happening with the law doesn't make me want the law to disappear, just to work properly (also, the law existing in the first place already is a means to make it somewhat less common than it could be).
However, big companies abusing the system doesn't sit well with me either, there should be laws that prevented these scenarios of buying an IP and not doing anything about it.
Having said that, I'm not too found of the idea of me putting my heart and effort into creating a character/ story and then anyone can own it and make something big with it without asking me first.
Fanart and asking me about using my creations is totally fine, but to use them without my knowledge or aproval for anything - and I do mean ANYTHING - is just too much.
I agree with Zach Jones
@@UmTois same it doesn't sit well at all
How are you allowed to just...change my entire worldview in an afternoon? How...Y-...I was doing other shit! Now I'm here, just alone, thinking about these videos?
dont worry brother, we are destinated to fail and forced to lern about the world all over again and again D; unless you want to enter the world of boomers
Regarding the "If Knowledge of Crowdsourcing Wisdom Spreads" argument:
You neglect the one _tie-in_ all IP hoarders need to bear with: Marketing. Star Citizen was able to amass all those views and funds over a very small outreach, compared to Disney who can run ads for Avengers: Endgame on TV, radio, *multiple* social media platforms; banners, cabs, in the trailer sections for their *own* movies... You get the idea. IP giants compete with IP giants, possibly eventually combining into an IP-cartel as mentioned in the first video, but until then even one IP giant is enough to "outbid" an indie crowd-sourced project.
Similarly in the first video there was much discussion on medical patent hoarding. But even with an "open-source" bio-similar project, if the efficacy cannot be demonstrated then it won't be adopted. Now out of an open community and *BIG SCARY PHARMA* , who have the funds and resources to conduct extensive research? Who has the prestige to have said research published in big journals, presented in annual conferences and _warrant praise_ from prominent physicians?
And don't forget, those company coffers are fueled on licensing. Remove licensing out of the picture, and suddenly all those IP giants not only lose their control over an IP, but also their very ability to market said property, at all.
Thus, I really do not believe that this can apply to the real world, *outside of developing economies* . Crowdsourcing _can_ help niche industries and arts flourish, niche to the degree that those who are willing to fund them are *actively* searching for a channel to back them through. Conversely, IP marketing is reliant on _passively_ converting new people into customers, you are convincing people to pay for your IP whose value you are solely responsible for projecting onto them. If you can't project that image, you're not going to receive any funding.
So not only do we need a spread "Crowdsourcingwise Conciousness" but also alternative visibility methods for product and productions for this to ever work outside of a small sphere.
I bet you've never heard of "Kindred Fates" before but it's a product funded by fans
@@Hauntaku I didn't say Crowdsourcing can't work through increased consciousness, I'm merely stating it can't become the norm.
From what I can tell, your arguments main point seems to be that some parts of products (such as research or advertisements) requires larger funds than they can afford long before they could be made. I could be wrong but after reading through it a few times I honestly can't see anything in your comment that can't be boiled down to that.
I don't think advertisements are a problem unique to not having patents or copywrites. You're not gonna have funding for advertisements *before* your ip is popular and successful. Marvel can afford to do crazy advertisements? Marvel is a multi-billion dollar corporation who can afford to do that stuff; this model won't change that. New projects wouldn't be able to afford marketing out the gate? They can't now either.
Even if he's arguing that the products should be absolutely free on open to everyone instead of just the backers who basically already bought the ticket (which would lead to big issues in and of itself if said backers aren't even guaranteed a seat), then the advertisements for the movie would effectively bring peoples attention to the studio for their next product to fund.
The same argument could be said about the 'extensive research' with the added benefit that research doesn't have to be extensive. Mind you, it does have to be accurate, but you don't need a hadron collider to analyze the effects of insulin on the body. You can research one type of chemical and let others research others. Sure you don't get all the trophies but when we're talking about *chronic illness* that doesn't seem that big of a deal.
Unless your argument is that marvel makes all their money from suing youtubers and that it should be that way. If that's your argument: gross.
TL;DR: marketing and research will still be a thing for rich people, and still not for poor people.
@@psychopompous489 All fair points but that's not quite what I meant. I merely argue that the "If Knowledge of Crowdsourcing Wisdom Spreads" line of thought is a bit of a slippery slope, not that a world where crowdsourcing has become a standard is impossible.
I'm not arguing that Marvel makes money from suing UA-camrs, they do **however** make a substantial amount of money (through redirection of funds) by blocking off organic exposure and smaller advertisers.
Amazingly, you reached the exact same conclusion from a whole other angle in your TL;DR. Marketing and research will still be a thing for those who already have funds. And that's precisely **why** increased consciousness alone would not be enough.
Crowdsourcers will need channels of exposure beyond Kickstarter or Twitter alone. They will also need access to sources more than just _funds_ ; think human resources or _"cell tissue"_ .
The reason why I say this is likelier to happen in developing economies first, is that they have shallower bureaucracy (read less people and job titles you have to get through to get something done). Compare trying to license the work of a small local artist vs. something from a company like Ubisoft who literally have separate offices to specifically for handling of their IPs.
Gross? Maybe. Naïve? I don't think so.
" who have the funds and resources to conduct extensive research? Who has the prestige to have said research published in big journals, presented in annual conferences and warrant praise from prominent physicians?" you know that goverments can (and already have) pay people to do the work right? stuff like insuline wasnt invented by private companies, it was invented by university students with the purpose of saving lifes, not making profits, in fact, a lot of companies exist because they got economical support from the goverment.
you dont even need a goverment, if people were organized enough you can educate your population to become the experts the people need.
I wonder how many mangakas would try to give an ending to berserk, vagabond, hunter x hunter in a zero IP world.
y e s
Less idolmaster lolis, more GRIFFIIIIIISU
@@apt-get2587 YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HSoTD
It wouldn't matter because people want the ending of the author, not some nobody who doesn't understand it.
Thank you for making some of your stuff public domain. Thank you so much.
I literally screamed when I heard this. I felt like I was alone in this matter.
I like the idea of this, but I have a few questions...
1. about croudsourcing and distribution: Wouldn't this just incentivize companies to focus on spectacular hype and empty promises, (like Fallout 76, No Man's Sky and preordering in general) get their money and release a shoddy product?
2. about croudsourcing and distribution: I think the Star Citizen example only really works for interactive media like videogames. A good chunk of the reason Star Citizen did so well is because of its stretch goals (Promising more content) and personal rewards to players (Like personal ships, vehicles and such). How would a movie company do something similar? Would they keep making the movie longer the more stretch goals are made? Maybe sequels?
3. What if a small creator with a small budget makes something that is ok quality (lets say 5-6/10) but then a larger company takes that idea and just improves the visuals, advertises with a bigger budget and then says that they made it? Now that small creator with a small budget will lose a sizable portion of the crowdfunding to that bigger company because they can make a "better" product. For a hypothetical example, what if Studio Madhouse remade One Punch Man without giving the One any credit? Their visuals are much better than the One's and on a more appealing type of media. Suddenly, One would be losing out on a good chunk of funding because Madhouse is offering a product they "stole" from one.
4. (Not really a question) I feel like the Bubble Tea and Uber examples arent the best examples. They cant copyright the right to cab service or food products in general. They can only copyright to their specific brandings of those products. the infringement would occur if someone else made Uber, called it Uber and did the same thing as Uber. I think this is a good argument against Monopolies but not Intellectual properties. I do agree that many intellectual properties should fall into Public Domain after a certain time no matter what.
5. On theft/plagiarism of intellectual properties: Isnt the reason that people hate it when companies do this is because intellectual properties exist? If intellectual property is no longer exist, then big companies can claim that they arent stealing (since the idea of ownership is no longer a thing) but are just "updating the visuals" or "adapting the product to a new type of media" and then give the original creator nothing.
In general, i like the idea, but i think the idea definitely needs to be thought out, or it will be abused as much as the system that is currently in place.
Personal take Text Wall
1. While it is possible, the incentive to do so would be less than the current system with IP. In a world without IP, it would be more profitable to act ethically because (as unique said) you can get crucified socially which severely reduces the potential for future profits. In the case of Fallout 76, Bethesda could release a shoddy product with little risk because people WILL buy the next Fallout game bc it's Fallout. Granted, people with a good reputation could trash it for a quick cash grab, but that would be sacrificing future profits for profits now which companies generally don't want to do unless they're exiting the market or the amount they could earn by scamming is just really fucking high. The thing is that people will do this whether or not IP exists, just look at Cd Projeckt Red. People trusted them so they bought into a shitty, unfinished product.
2. Unique mentioned talent as a possible stretch goal which I think is probably the most likely thing to be used as stretch goals. But the thing is, large project don't really need stretch goals to be profitable. People would fund a big Marvel movie because it's a big Marvel movie.
3. Pricing out people from their work can happen even with IP. If a small creator has their work stolen by Disney, what is the small creator going to do? Sue them? They can't fight that legal battle. What's stopping Disney is their image, it would look real bad to get into a legal battle with some small creator over stealing their work. In both the case with IP and without IP, what's holding companies back is public sentiment which is WAY more important in a world without IP.
4. it's not that you can copyright a service or bubble tea; it's kinda just a logical extension of the concept of IP. If we treat any idea as an IP (because an idea is something that should be protected like property), then we would end up with a ton of monopolies. In a sense, an IP is a form of legal monopoly, you have a monopoly on the justified use of an idea. Extending IP to all ideas seems unfair and wrong, so it could be said that using IP to project a small subset of ideas (media) should also be unfair.
5. People don't really care about things because a law says so. At least for me, I don't get mad because some company broke the law while they stole an artist's work; I get mad because that's a shitty thing to do. Humans not really logical beings, so even if big companies claim that "they aren't stealing" people will still think that the move is scummy and not want to support them. Also, nothing is stopping the original creator from being like "These motherfuckers stole my shit, so imma just rip their shit frame by frame and sell it myself. I AM the original creator and people can check that. After all, its not stealing right?" which would only really work if the large corp was ACTUALLY stealing content.
@@ventuswill5817 for answer for the third point: Disney already thanks the staff of the concentration camp they filmed nearby in the movie credits, i don't think they, or their viewers care about looking bad.
You are giving way too much credit for how much the average consumer knows or even cares about the producs they are consuming, fallout 76 was a financial success, as will the next fallout.
@@TourFaint You are right, people don't care much about the companies whose products they are consuming. But given the choice between similar products where one is exploitative and the other is more ethical (even marginally), I feel that people will choose the latter. Even if the dichotomy isn't ethics (quality or novelty for example), an IP-less system promotes more competition between companies. The next Fallout will be a financial success whether or not the game itself is good, but that is in large part because there CAN'T be any other Fallout games other than Bethesda's. Their Fallout is THE Fallout. If the Obsidian hired the devs from Fallout NV to work on a new Fallout game and Bethesda just did what Bethesda do, people would likely be more hyped over the Obsidian game. This forces Bethesda to innovate to stay relevant. It makes "Fallout" as a brand a market with competition rather than a monopoly owned by Bethesda. An IP-less system pits novelty against innovation. The old must innovate to stay relevant while the new needs to capture the attention of the market.
Before all, listen to this. You can not know the answer, I can not know the answer, and that is fine. We don't need to solve all the problems beforehand. If we do, then we'll never get to the goal, as there will always be someone coming up in their minds with an edge case or a specific situation.
1. They destroy their reputation and the next project doesn't get as much budget.
2. Yes. Whatever they want or think the public would give more funds to reach that. It's their problem to solve, not yours, not mine. But for the discussion's sake, lets enumerate: Additional soundtrack, extra scenes, more time for the video effects to be done, behind the scenes production, release of assets, script, original footage, video effects project files...
3. "Did you know? Popular Movie was based on The Blastmeister's story "Cool Story Name". That's free publicity bro. The more they market their movie, the more your art thing will get popular. "Author of the story StoryMadeBetter was based on disses Company". People will always respond to everything that happens. If One say stuff about Madhouse everybody will start distrusting one of them.
4.
5. "is because intellectual properties exist" NOOOOO. People do that because 1. It's fraud to say you created something you didn't; 2. People don't like injustices period. If someone is profiting unjustly people will complain, always.
Again, big companies can't say they created it, or else every consumer can sue them. The original creator will get popular nonetheless. People could fund their next thing. Can you imagine something like you proposed happening and the public not coming together to help the original creator of something they love?
@@ventuswill5817 "Happy Birthday" and "Band-Aid" are prime examples that weren't covered in this video. I hope there'll be a follow-up or somthing.
God, if only the world would move to this in my lifetime
We're working on not only achieving this, but going even further.
@@MxPokirby Sounds like a Gurren Lagann speech
@@MxPokirby And this is tO GO EVEN FURTHER BEYOND.
@@caleb_artzs2533 BELIEVE in the Uniquenameosaurus who BELIEVES in US! Your content is the content THAT WILL PIERCE THE HIGH SEAS!
Just WHO the HELL do IP-holders THINK WE ARE?!
I hope that one day we can topple the obstinate ruling elite and establish a world globally based on meritocracy, but with the grace to also not punish people for the mere act of existing. A meritocracy where everyone has an equal, inalienable right to the ability to prove what they are capable of.
I dont think IP should be abolished.
But i do think it should be much much shorter and it also shoudn't be appliable to such minor improvements as in the medical industry.
This, i'm all in for changes in the copyright laws and to abolish certain patents like there should be no patents for medical products, it would be nice if scientific journals can also get rid of those pesky copyrights, but outright abolishing the entire copyright system seems like burning your house down because it has an ugly coat of paint
@@duncanohoge it was 14 years with one renovation and they changed it before disney as a concept even existed, the only thing Disney changed is how much copyright last after the death of the original author
@@carso1500 which is so long
Copyright back then was fine
For how long it lasted but Disney came buy and just extend to a point were the public domain is just not a thing anymore
I won't be surpirsed in the next year they extend it again
agreed but put a mechanism where the original creator has to be credited even after the seven year period
I wonder if this stuff were to come to being, if there might also be groups of people who join together to make investors unions based on shared interests. For example, a MCU fan union which would vote on where to invest, join their funds together towards filming.
Direct democracy investing? Interesting
Look at Angel Studios. Their entire business model is based on crowdfunding. They pitch shows, you put money into their pitches that draw you.
How could you say soemthing so controversial yet so brave. Mad respect
not controversial, pretty milktoast.
if you want something controversial, reppeal women´s vote, now we are talking
@@Avoloch Controversial means opinion is split down the middle, not something that every rational person disagrees with. You frickin edgelord.
@@Avoloch Based.
@@Avoloch I'm reporting you for stupidity
@@Avoloch
Repealing women's right to vote is reactionary.
More in like with this video would be abolishing *all* private property, not just IP.
Break the chains, comrades!
The market would get so saturated with “knock off” versions of things. Rather than companies trying to make the best version of something to get their money back, they’d be incentivised to make it as cheap and quick as possible because someone else can come along and make exactly the same thing but better, cheaper or faster. I mean there is a lot of crap out there but imagine how bad bandwagonning will be. Also I don’t like the idea of paying for something that might or might not get made. I can’t imagine a lot of people will either.
Companies aren't incentivized to make the best products now, either. They usually opt to overwork and underpay their employees and constantly cut corners on products in order to raise their profits.
@@CollinBuckman that’s true. I just don’t think that completely goes away under this model. I mean imagine the rush to release you’d be under to produce and release something once you’ve announced it, least it gets stolen, copied or innovated upon. Could be better than it is now but as you have no protection on the ideas, it could be even worse.
Wouldn't that be a good thing for the consumer tho? If someone can make something better,people are going to support the guy that makes something better! If the company does something mediocre,people are going to lose trust on that company and they will make less profit.
@@GamerTowerDX yes it’s better for the consumer but it’s legit only better for the consumer and leaves the person who first started the idea in the dust.
There will always be someone that can improve on your own story because they are from the outside looking in which is why I severely dislike this model.
@@eem2wavy133 Idk man that only sounds like you hate competition.
This is so beautifully done I will support you in the future when I will able to...
keep up the good work :)
WHY ARE YOU SO GOOD AT MAKING ME HATE THIS WORLD????
Because this world is easy to hate.
God I'm so glad you're back. UA-cam has been dark and cold, void of hope.
I still think that no, copyright should exist, but should be reformed to benefit small creators and fight against corporations.
In a world with no copyright, we would still have a problem with huge corporations exploiting the work of small artists.
Fully locked IP is realy bad, is basically asking for a monopoly to happen. But i think all free doesnt work neither because bigger companies can just steal things from smaller creators and, most of the time, nobody can do anything about it. I think the best way is a payment for usage, so you can use IP but you need to pay some percentage to the original creator based on the sucess of your version. The percentage can be from 20% to less than 1% depending on your actual finnantial power (A company would pay 20% while and independent creator wouldd just pay 1%, for an example)
Companies already do this, The Lion King was a copy of an old japanse film, disney got away with this even tho the copyright system was exactly like the one we have now, copyright only be used by people who have money and time for a lawsuit.
@@educprof2160 Lion King was a copy of an old Japanese film? You mean Kimba the White Lion? I thought YourMovieSucks proved that that was a myth: ua-cam.com/video/G5B1mIfQuo4/v-deo.html&ab_channel=YourMovieSucksDOTorg
@@educprof2160 No it wasn't. This was already disproven.
FASCINATING I would love to see this in practice in some larger scale.
I dare someone to make a Kickstarter and have a stretch goal be the final product will be free.
People would JUMP on that.
Edit: WOW I wrote that before you mentioned it in the video. I think that just shows how much sense "no ip" makes when the systems seem to all work together so well.
Why stop there. If I ever make a kickstarter, I'd make one to have the true final goal of having it be OPEN SOURCE.
Also just realized Corridor Digitals website has a feature where you put your subscription dollars towards what production you want to see from them. Subscribers are paying for production.
@@johnc._9822 That would be the absolute best, stretch goals that everyone benefits from. I would absolutely support such a project so it could be free and open source
At this point it seems like it would be in companies best interest to follow this model. There's less risk and all the work going into cracking down on copyright stuff takes money, time, and work that they wouldn't have to spend anymore.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about the free and open-source software movement. It seems very aligned with your vision, with some of the bigger projects (Linux, blender, godot, krita, etc) get massive monthly subscription donations, and it has been going on for quite a long time.
Building on top of libraries of code in the free and open-source public domain is arguably the biggest factor as to why the web or even computer software is as popular and impactful to the world as it is today.
Overall, a very solid video, and it's given me a lot to think about. I think large companies would still be able to abuse it, mostly because they control so much power given the wealth they have. And, like you mentioned, it may also lead people to make over-promised, under-delivered or even non-delivered products if they are being paid before they do the work. However, those problems would probably be very minor compared to the current state of copyright-abusing-power that the large media conglomerates are allowed to wield.
What a great video. Especially the ending.
Vintage Story is a better example of the "Minecraft clone" [it isn't at all] as it actually released a beta. FOSS is the future