Thank you for including intellectual property in the great Crash Course universe. History is fantastic but there's not enough formal education on current issues. I really appreciate that you made this a priority in 2015.
I just really like the idea of "internet years". The speed of change is much different in tech, and I think it's good to recognize that 17 years is a LONG TIME by that standard.
Awww. I was hoping to see more than seven episodes. Oh well. I guess I'll have to settle for Economics instead. :) Also, I really like Stan as a host. Please bring him back in the future!
Pretty good series, and while i am interested in more details and would love that, at least i got myself a decent filling of information. Good job Stan Muller! Let's hope that patent trolls can get obliterated or at least hindered to be so annoying so that we can get some piece or more focus onto more important things in the field of copyright.
I thought this series was going to be boring but I gave it a chance as I thoroughly enjoy most everything else on crash course. To my amazement, this turned out to be one of my favorites. I can't explain it, but this was a very enjoyable series. Thank You all involved.
You talk about the 'life plus 70' term being so hard to change, but it was extended to 70 years in 1998... that's really not that long ago as far as the legal realm is concerned. This kind of explanation seems akin to the 'too big to fail' line of thought that if something is difficult to do, we pre-ordain the path of least resistance. My problem with it isn't even necessarily that the term itself is ludicrously long or that wildly vague concepts have been allowed such protections - my problem is the non-viable nature of these protections in a digital age in the first place. A physical product is one thing, but information is a much murkier proposition and I think the efforts meant at one time to be consumer friendly have become very anti-consumer. Simply put, there need to be far more consumer end protections and rights (such as trial use for software due to the complex and often uncertain nature thereof or rights to create or obtain copies of products legally held in various forms. I would also argue that performance pieces such as music, movies and television should not receive protection and monetization should focus on a specific presentation, such as concerts or theater showings, rather than attempting to control all reproductions and distributions thereof).
Another problem with user generated content is the issue of derivative works. It is hard to determine how much of a new work used the previous work in its creation. There is a gray area as to how much of an original work can be used in a derivative before it is considered a infringement. These are very interesting legal issues that need to be discussed more. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on problems regarding user generated content and it opened my eyes to this issue.
pyrotheevilplatypus We touched on that a little in one of the two copyright episodes. The reality is, there was a ton of stuff we wanted to cover, but we just didn't have the time! -stan
CrashCourse Well, there's always Crash Course Intellectual Property 2? ;-) Also, what about a series on privacy law with a focus on online video? With so many bloggers and people recording video in public and then uploading to YT it might be useful to shed some light on what is and it's allowed. Also, how this affects non-US citizens. For instance if I upload a vlog to my channel do I have to observe US privacy laws, local privacy laws or both?
was hoping for an episode on open source and software licenses, programmers chose to handle IP in a totally different and awesome way. thanks Stan, this was the best crash series yet
***** CGP Grey should do that, as I'd imagine they share the rights over Hello Internet and its trademarks. I'm sure he'd have a good reason to take this down ;p
Hi, You guys make great informative and educational content. But, would you guys consider making an updated Crash Course on Intellectual Property with any changes or updates since the last time this series ended. I'd be interested in knowing where things currently stand now. Thanks.
This has been an awesome course and I really enjoy the host, which is critical in a complicated topic like this one. Also, having stared at Mr. Muller for 7 episodes, I have great admiration for his excellent skin. Whether that is the stellar work of a makeup artist, a reflection of his own dedication to good skin care, or simply excellent genetics, it's awesome and should be said.
Hi Crash Course, greetings from Alabama. I've been a big fan since I stumbled upon this channel, last semester. (I'm returning to college after a 15 year sojourn, and my skills are shamefully rusty in everything but reading. ) The American Government series was so useful while I was taking PSC100. Thanks Craig, I got an A! Can Craig or Mike possibly make an English grammar series? Possibly cover Essays and Research Papers? The thought bubbles have been what has given me the 'a-ha' moments, for me. (example: structure, citation, the difference between typing format methods, over coming Southern dialect in writing. ) My daughter is also struggling in 7th grade AP Math, and said that she understood how Hank explained elements. Maybe if he or someone over at Crash Course Kids could cover it? She got a B on her science test, thanks Hank! Lots of love, wickedshizuku
I would like to commend everyone involved with this course for never even once conflating "IP infringement" with "larceny," as so often happens in the popular lexicon.
While I do agree that inventors and content creators should get a profit of their work. Especially when house hold 3D printers are around the corner. I do still think that copyright and patent laws as they are now are impeding progress, especially when it comes to software development. And after I've finished the IP series, I'm still not entirely convinced, IP is actually contributing to the number of useful inventions or creative works.
This is really really good stuff. Presented so well. I will write notes over these videos to supplement my education because I want to. Thanks for that opportunity.
Fun fact, Jane Ginsburg, who is mentioned in the video as the provider of the corporate greed and consumer greed quote, is the daughter of everyone's favorite Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'd love to see more episodes of this! I'm an artist, publisher and general creator of things, and all of this is really applicable to me, and will probably become even more applicable to everyone in years to come.
Hello Stan, I believe in the usefulness and need of intellectual property. For a long while in my life I attempted to abide by it the best I could... worked really hard at it... it was near maddening to do it all. One day I just broke down about it and I realized it was just madness and I will tell you why. I went into this video thinking if there was someone you could reach maybe it would be me because I was a former member of that choir... But in a system were nonprofit or even purely free sharing is treated the same as claiming something as your own work and making profit off of it... it just doesn't make sense. The enforcement is without any consistency. Lets just call them 'holders' will allow their product to go out like say on TH-cam to increase interest in a product and then pull it back down. Holders charge a lot for their games... Lets say you want to play older games, in the process of modding/revisioning them there are a lot of IP issues that gets in the way, like a project I strongly support called the "Deus Ex Revision" project. At the same times these holders expect customers to pay MORE for their games now than they were released meaning the profit margin has increased, and in some cases the only reason to go back and get it is because your copy was damaged or has become unusable because of compatibility issues. And if I sit and record the radio and play back the songs later to myself... technically this is taking something I dont have a right to, even when there is no profit or claim of work, and the idea that me lending it to a friend or playing it to myself with my windows down so other people can hear this looted work will make me just as guilty as someone claiming to be taylor swift and making profit off of it is just insanity. All of this is tantamount to making people to pay subscription to something you under a traditional view of this would already have a right to and would at worst be not paying a fair price for artistic genius. But that isn't it anymore. Really it falls down to the Declaration of Human Rights Article 27 in my view. Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. What this ultimately means is that the poor and the individual trying to navigate and fairly pay into this system are being cheated and are not freely (and Im not talking about free of charge) participate in the cultural and artistic life of the community sharing in its benefits. Which is the exact opposite of the need for art and beauty in our culture, I get that they should be paid but how much, and how much do these companies need to make profit off of work that is 10, 20, 30 years old and when that profit margin for these old works continue to increase in value when no new work has been established? When that means that something you should already have a right to in buying it once you don't have because of the complications of new softwear. How are you a single person supposed to carry all of that on your shoulders? The answer I eventually came to was I can't. I'm not Atlas. I'm just a small man trying to make my way in life, have a bit of fun and happiness before I die, and avoid prosecution for crimes that seem outright bogus and everything that is wrong with American capitalism today. The burden is on them... the ones with billion dollar profit margins... to make this easily accessible and reasonably affordable, not me.
Awesome. Thanks for the videos. 1 question: how do you think social entrepreneurs should go about intellectual property? There are people that say social impact is maximized if social entrepreneurs keep stuff open source. Other people say that social entrepreneurs should use IP anyway in order to stay financially healthy, and to attain credibility among partners and investors. Any thoughts? (Anyone?)
"But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement." - partial quote from John Carmack
+abcvideoyoutuization Have you considered law school? ;) Seriously though, if you want to learn more about IP, there is a series called Examples and Explanations. There is a book in that series on Intellectual Property and a book that specifically deals with Copyright Law. I've found them to be very helpful. The only problem is that they're kind of pricey. Like 50 bucks per book, which kinda sucks.
In most countries, you have to file a patent for something before it is made public such as being released in a product. However, I do agree a patent should only be enforcible if the owner is marketing a product or can show that they are actively developing the product.
My issue with the long term holds on copywrite is linked up to the problem of a few large companies owning large amounts of major amounts of intellectual property. Disney is actually a good example, at current they have of course the full disney franchise but also the Muppets, Star Wars, and the Marvel Canon. Not to mention the films owned by their subsidiaries. Look at all the things that exist between Marvel Star Wars and Disney, it would be very easy for them to stamp out any new intellectual property simply because so many things could be analagous. While this may not be an issue for a large corporation for smaller groups it is likely to have some major consequences.
So if a bunch of governments don't want to change a particular law, they just sign international treaties with each other and whenever a citizen questions said law, they throw their arms in the air and say "sorry, treaties!".
You say a "bunch of governments" if this clustefuck ever should be solved, everyone needs to be in on it. unless we get a sudden complete reform of everything, its naturally gonna be a slow and long transition towards better.
I would wish you guys would have time to cover trade secrets.
9 ปีที่แล้ว
What episode take up Copyright snatching, ie when a company claim Copyright on something that is (or should be) belonging to the public domain like "Happy Birthday to You" and most of the Disney's stories that are based on older works and often inspired by other artists works.
Ooooh I so wish my parents spoke english so i could make them watch the economics series of Crashcourse... Mind you, the language barrier is the least of the problem.
Please tell me I'm not the only one who is driven batty by Stan's emphasis of "Liquid filled die AGITATOR," when it should clearly be "Liquid filled DIE agitator," as it is a liquid filled agitator, not a liquid filled die.
We have laws against copyright of generic plot lines for movies. Why can't game concepts and softwares be the same? For example, there are tons of multiplayer games. There should be no copyrighting of such an idea.
Auto license is a better option and generate more revenue for people, and more transformative content would be created, instead of removing content people write profit sharing checks (assumining you nail the original owner issue with block chain or similar method).
GuyWithAnAmazingHat Music cover videos are covered under license agreements. The labels grant licenses for particular songs for anyone to make cover videos of (hence why many of the same songs are always covered). Otherwise they still need permission to license the work since although they are performing it themselves (and sometimes differently) its still encroaches the original artist's composition copyright, performance copyright and derivative works copyright. Music cover videos ARE NOT covered under fair use at all. For it to be sufficiently transformative would require it be much different than the original work, and it would no longer be a "cover"
Ddub1083 I see, but what about acapella covers like those done by Smooth Mcgroove? I'm doing such acapella videos on my own channel and I'm interested in how it actually affects me. And also there has always been many kids who covered pop music, like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga's songs, I don't think they acquired any licenses, but they still go viral without any incident.
GuyWithAnAmazingHat You're singing someone elses song... its copyrighted. Right again many pop songs have automatic licensing and any revenue from those videos is automatically given to the original artists. There is no incident because the revenue is either automatically sent to the licensees or upon them learning of it they file for monetization of the video in their name. Copyright is rather simple... if you didnt create it, you must get permission to use it. There are firms which kinda sit between labels and licensees and you go to them to license a song and they can provide it but normally requires not only a fee but relinquishment of most if not all of the monetization (this is how radio works too). Check out cdbaby or limelight or discmakers. But be careful there are a lot of scams out there that will just take your money without ever getting you a true license.
Here's my solution. If you don't like it, please give constructive criticism. If you do, please perpetuate this idea and try to change the laws: In the future, I predict that the vast majority of IP will get its start on crowdfunding websites. Therefore, creators should 1. Decide ahead of time the net money necessary for their project, including how much profit they want to generate. 2. Describe their idea on their page in enough detail to prove that they can produce a creative work, but not so much so that any plagerizing parallel projects could make a completely identical product (and if they still do by accident, that means that only one design was ideal and therefore no one can cry foul) 3. Immediately release every aspect of their creation to the public domain the second it hits the market. Now understand, there would still be regulations in place; here are a few that I've come up with: 1. Intellectual Property can still be considered "stolen" if the theft occurred before the creation was officially unveiled to the public. Until that moment, the idea is still private, and creators should be able to develop their idea in peace without worrying about a competitor beating them to the punch if a blueprint got leaked. 2. Anti-plagiarism laws would be beefed up. Copying off of someone, even directly disseminating their work, would be all fair game, but only when doing so at least partially serves as guerrilla advertising for the entity that produced the original work. In the digital world, attention is valuable capital - we often overlook that fact - so copying someone's work with the appropriate citations is still valid payment. Only assholes have a problem with giving credit where credit's due, and users would actively benefit because - well - how frustrating is it when there's no way to find out where that piece of music came from? Everybody wins! 3. There would be institutions for moderating the exchange of money for creative works, by which I mean the websites supporting this model. Technically, they are the ones holding the money for the time in between the customer funding the project and the project being released. If a project is announced aborted, the money is automatically refunded to the supporters. Any money that is taken out of the pot during the development process must be declared to the supporters. Finally, a ratings system would be implemented to hold creators accountable across multiple projects. Now I am aware that what I'm describing is essentially money lending, and that practice has plenty of its own problems, but hopefully you'll agree exorcising IP from this tangled web is a step in the right direction.
And I want these crowdfunding platforms to be managed by both private and public sector alternatives. The public sector should be directly democratically controlled by the users.
Thank you for including intellectual property in the great Crash Course universe. History is fantastic but there's not enough formal education on current issues. I really appreciate that you made this a priority in 2015.
Thank you for calling out consumer greed at 9:38. Someone had to say it.
"Came up with these categories in 1998, which is, like, 80 years ago in internet years."
I just really like the idea of "internet years". The speed of change is much different in tech, and I think it's good to recognize that 17 years is a LONG TIME by that standard.
*****
that may be true today, but in 10 years ago it was less, and in 10 years it will be more : )
@@andy4an Oh no, so we're gonna end up with some differential equations then :'(
Awww. I was hoping to see more than seven episodes. Oh well. I guess I'll have to settle for Economics instead. :)
Also, I really like Stan as a host. Please bring him back in the future!
Man Brady must be so proud.
Seno I thought this as well when I heard Freebooting being mentioned. Also, for the unaware, Hello Internet #5: Freebooting.
Haha, I'm proud as hell for him.
Seno IKR, i was like HOLY CRAP freebooting is getting spread around!
This is historic
I wonder what he will do with this newly found power?
Very well done series. I hope that Stan does more as host. His speech is very engaging.
Pretty good series, and while i am interested in more details and would love that, at least i got myself a decent filling of information. Good job Stan Muller! Let's hope that patent trolls can get obliterated or at least hindered to be so annoying so that we can get some piece or more focus onto more important things in the field of copyright.
I guess if.. Life + 70 is here to stay.. It's time to burn the whole thing down, right?
I thought this series was going to be boring but I gave it a chance as I thoroughly enjoy most everything else on crash course. To my amazement, this turned out to be one of my favorites. I can't explain it, but this was a very enjoyable series. Thank You all involved.
You talk about the 'life plus 70' term being so hard to change, but it was extended to 70 years in 1998... that's really not that long ago as far as the legal realm is concerned. This kind of explanation seems akin to the 'too big to fail' line of thought that if something is difficult to do, we pre-ordain the path of least resistance.
My problem with it isn't even necessarily that the term itself is ludicrously long or that wildly vague concepts have been allowed such protections - my problem is the non-viable nature of these protections in a digital age in the first place. A physical product is one thing, but information is a much murkier proposition and I think the efforts meant at one time to be consumer friendly have become very anti-consumer. Simply put, there need to be far more consumer end protections and rights (such as trial use for software due to the complex and often uncertain nature thereof or rights to create or obtain copies of products legally held in various forms. I would also argue that performance pieces such as music, movies and television should not receive protection and monetization should focus on a specific presentation, such as concerts or theater showings, rather than attempting to control all reproductions and distributions thereof).
Another problem with user generated content is the issue of derivative works. It is hard to determine how much of a new work used the previous work in its creation. There is a gray area as to how much of an original work can be used in a derivative before it is considered a infringement. These are very interesting legal issues that need to be discussed more. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on problems regarding user generated content and it opened my eyes to this issue.
High five Stan and the whole "Crash Course" crew!
I wish Stan had addressed First Sale Doctrine and how digital IP has basically tossed that out the window.
pyrotheevilplatypus We touched on that a little in one of the two copyright episodes. The reality is, there was a ton of stuff we wanted to cover, but we just didn't have the time! -stan
CrashCourse Well, there's always Crash Course Intellectual Property 2? ;-)
Also, what about a series on privacy law with a focus on online video? With so many bloggers and people recording video in public and then uploading to YT it might be useful to shed some light on what is and it's allowed. Also, how this affects non-US citizens. For instance if I upload a vlog to my channel do I have to observe US privacy laws, local privacy laws or both?
Gary Kenny
An extremely comprehensive series. Thank you so much Stan!
was hoping for an episode on open source and software licenses, programmers chose to handle IP in a totally different and awesome way.
thanks Stan, this was the best crash series yet
Not freebooting, but viewjacking!
Did he really just do that!? XD Amazing.
Brady should monitize this video for copyright infringement
***** CGP Grey should do that, as I'd imagine they share the rights over Hello Internet and its trademarks. I'm sure he'd have a good reason to take this down ;p
Maybe we'll get a lagniappe segment from HI about it
I can't wait for Crash Course Economics!
I really like Stan as a host, he should do more :)
Nice video.
Eugene Khutoryansky :D Physsssiiiiiics! Keep the videos coming!
Eugene Khutoryansky That dog is historic! Reminds me of a younger internet.
Excellent course, I learned more then I excepted from it! And hooray for Econ next week!!!
You guys need to put this one in the playlist :)
Watched all seven. That's dude, they were awesome.
RISE OF THE MONGOLS. I want this game to exist so badly.
Nicole Sweeney its called Civ V
They literally took that exact scenario from Civilization V
Hi,
You guys make great informative and educational content. But, would you guys consider making an updated Crash Course on Intellectual Property with any changes or updates since the last time this series ended. I'd be interested in knowing where things currently stand now. Thanks.
TH-camrs deserve work rights
This has been an awesome course and I really enjoy the host, which is critical in a complicated topic like this one.
Also, having stared at Mr. Muller for 7 episodes, I have great admiration for his excellent skin. Whether that is the stellar work of a makeup artist, a reflection of his own dedication to good skin care, or simply excellent genetics, it's awesome and should be said.
Hi Crash Course, greetings from Alabama. I've been a big fan since I stumbled upon this channel, last semester. (I'm returning to college after a 15 year sojourn, and my skills are shamefully rusty in everything but reading. )
The American Government series was so useful while I was taking PSC100. Thanks Craig, I got an A!
Can Craig or Mike possibly make an English grammar series? Possibly cover Essays and Research Papers? The thought bubbles have been what has given me the 'a-ha' moments, for me. (example: structure, citation, the difference between typing format methods, over coming Southern dialect in writing. )
My daughter is also struggling in 7th grade AP Math, and said that she understood how Hank explained elements. Maybe if he or someone over at Crash Course Kids could cover it?
She got a B on her science test, thanks Hank!
Lots of love,
wickedshizuku
Woot Woot, can't wait for CC Economics!!!
Thanks for a very informative and useful course, Stan and team!
I would like to commend everyone involved with this course for never even once conflating "IP infringement" with "larceny," as so often happens in the popular lexicon.
While I do agree that inventors and content creators should get a profit of their work. Especially when house hold 3D printers are around the corner. I do still think that copyright and patent laws as they are now are impeding progress, especially when it comes to software development. And after I've finished the IP series, I'm still not entirely convinced, IP is actually contributing to the number of useful inventions or creative works.
Information wants to be free. You will not stop it!
This is really really good stuff. Presented so well. I will write notes over these videos to supplement my education because I want to. Thanks for that opportunity.
You should watch this video. **No links at all**
Thomas Mishler It's in the description :)
Soundole VGM Covers I must have missed it when I first watched it.
sooooo true
How can we register products from copyright or trademark? Is copyright law the only way to protect video games and computer programs?
I'm going to miss this series. It was a good 'un!
Another great crash course series.
Looking forward to Crash Course Economics!
Will there be more Stan in the future? That would make my day.
Fun fact, Jane Ginsburg, who is mentioned in the video as the provider of the corporate greed and consumer greed quote, is the daughter of everyone's favorite Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Excellent! This is informative and educational survey
I'd love to see more episodes of this! I'm an artist, publisher and general creator of things, and all of this is really applicable to me, and will probably become even more applicable to everyone in years to come.
"artist, publisher and general creator of things" applies pretty much to everyone these days ;)
Really shows how relevant this is ;)
This was amazing!!! Keep up the great work people at CrashCourse =)
Brady will be truly humbled to know that his word is spreading so fast.
Thanks Stan
Hello Stan,
I believe in the usefulness and need of intellectual property. For a long while in my life I attempted to abide by it the best I could... worked really hard at it... it was near maddening to do it all. One day I just broke down about it and I realized it was just madness and I will tell you why. I went into this video thinking if there was someone you could reach maybe it would be me because I was a former member of that choir...
But in a system were nonprofit or even purely free sharing is treated the same as claiming something as your own work and making profit off of it... it just doesn't make sense. The enforcement is without any consistency. Lets just call them 'holders' will allow their product to go out like say on TH-cam to increase interest in a product and then pull it back down. Holders charge a lot for their games... Lets say you want to play older games, in the process of modding/revisioning them there are a lot of IP issues that gets in the way, like a project I strongly support called the "Deus Ex Revision" project. At the same times these holders expect customers to pay MORE for their games now than they were released meaning the profit margin has increased, and in some cases the only reason to go back and get it is because your copy was damaged or has become unusable because of compatibility issues. And if I sit and record the radio and play back the songs later to myself... technically this is taking something I dont have a right to, even when there is no profit or claim of work, and the idea that me lending it to a friend or playing it to myself with my windows down so other people can hear this looted work will make me just as guilty as someone claiming to be taylor swift and making profit off of it is just insanity.
All of this is tantamount to making people to pay subscription to something you under a traditional view of this would already have a right to and would at worst be not paying a fair price for artistic genius. But that isn't it anymore.
Really it falls down to the Declaration of Human Rights Article 27 in my view.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
What this ultimately means is that the poor and the individual trying to navigate and fairly pay into this system are being cheated and are not freely (and Im not talking about free of charge) participate in the cultural and artistic life of the community sharing in its benefits. Which is the exact opposite of the need for art and beauty in our culture, I get that they should be paid but how much, and how much do these companies need to make profit off of work that is 10, 20, 30 years old and when that profit margin for these old works continue to increase in value when no new work has been established? When that means that something you should already have a right to in buying it once you don't have because of the complications of new softwear.
How are you a single person supposed to carry all of that on your shoulders? The answer I eventually came to was I can't. I'm not Atlas. I'm just a small man trying to make my way in life, have a bit of fun and happiness before I die, and avoid prosecution for crimes that seem outright bogus and everything that is wrong with American capitalism today. The burden is on them... the ones with billion dollar profit margins... to make this easily accessible and reasonably affordable, not me.
Awesome. Thanks for the videos. 1 question: how do you think social entrepreneurs should go about intellectual property? There are people that say social impact is maximized if social entrepreneurs keep stuff open source. Other people say that social entrepreneurs should use IP anyway in order to stay financially healthy, and to attain credibility among partners and investors. Any thoughts? (Anyone?)
this was a great series, thanks Crashcourse!
This series has been so helpful as I'm trying to figure out how to be an internet creator
Finally we can see the economics series
Fantastic series, thanks Stan!
Thanks for all your great content and work, it makes a big difference when people want to learn and find answers to many things in life. :)
Looking forward to crash course economy. Good work you guys.
"But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement." - partial quote from John Carmack
There's a Mongol in the bottom right @ 12:30
What do I win?
Pikuseru clearly you get your very own mongol horde to roam the steppes
Pikuseru You dont win anything.... its an exception to the normal rule.
Kryos Now I can finally conquer the tri-state area!
Viewjacking not freebooting. (A message from CGP Grey)
What! Awe This was soo short! This was my favorite Crash Course, thanks Stan Muller
What would it take to get a more in-depth IP course. If it takes 40 episodes, I am in.
+abcvideoyoutuization Have you considered law school? ;) Seriously though, if you want to learn more about IP, there is a series called Examples and Explanations. There is a book in that series on Intellectual Property and a book that specifically deals with Copyright Law. I've found them to be very helpful. The only problem is that they're kind of pricey. Like 50 bucks per book, which kinda sucks.
Have you tried a public library? Bookshop? Video isn't the only way to learn, and in fact skimps on an awful lot of detail.
That TPB page is fresh, masterchef Aus. e40 is only hours old
Stan is glistening today. I guess he must have just came back from the gym.
WHERES THE OORT CLOUD EPISODE, DAMN YOU CRASHCOURSE
I think you should only patent something once you bring it to market.
In most countries, you have to file a patent for something before it is made public such as being released in a product. However, I do agree a patent should only be enforcible if the owner is marketing a product or can show that they are actively developing the product.
@@MusicalRaichu "Use it or lose it" rule. Trademarks already have a similar rule, so it's not infeasible that it can be applied to patents as well.
My issue with the long term holds on copywrite is linked up to the problem of a few large companies owning large amounts of major amounts of intellectual property. Disney is actually a good example, at current they have of course the full disney franchise but also the Muppets, Star Wars, and the Marvel Canon. Not to mention the films owned by their subsidiaries. Look at all the things that exist between Marvel Star Wars and Disney, it would be very easy for them to stamp out any new intellectual property simply because so many things could be analagous. While this may not be an issue for a large corporation for smaller groups it is likely to have some major consequences.
Loved seeing that video of Nintendo when he searched for Content ID
Freebooting as a term was invented by CGP Grey on hello Internet
NotSoSober Gamer It was Brady Haran.
Well... That soared very high above my head.
Jeremiah B I remembered that once you told me he was joking, i completed forgot that at first.
Companies like long copyrights. People like short copyrights.
Therefore, copyrights will be long.
I am sad that you are stopping this series😓😓😓😓😓😓😓
Pls continue
Civ 5 reference!!!! @4:40
What will it take to expand this course?
love you stan
So if a bunch of governments don't want to change a particular law, they just sign international treaties with each other and whenever a citizen questions said law, they throw their arms in the air and say "sorry, treaties!".
You say a "bunch of governments" if this clustefuck ever should be solved, everyone needs to be in on it. unless we get a sudden complete reform of everything, its naturally gonna be a slow and long transition towards better.
dota (or just video game mods in general) would be a fun topic for this show.
Oh my gosh, they used Freebooting, that term from the Hello Internet podcast. Wow.
Beautiful!
Very interesting video
The light (negative + positive = power.)
The principle is not copyright, Negative transform + positive= power to success (changes or transform) the big data.
Sometimes the most informative answers are those that that could never be described as definite.
I would wish you guys would have time to cover trade secrets.
What episode take up Copyright snatching, ie when a company claim Copyright on something that is (or should be) belonging to the public domain like "Happy Birthday to You" and most of the Disney's stories that are based on older works and often inspired by other artists works.
I'm sure someone has already coined this phrase but; Copysnatching
She was able to trademark _"This sick beat?"_
But it's very similar to Lady Gaga's previous line _"This beat is sick"_
Ooooh I so wish my parents spoke english so i could make them watch the economics series of Crashcourse... Mind you, the language barrier is the least of the problem.
yes, crash course economics!!
Pirate Bay is the only BEA I need...YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME SAY THAT!!!
Please tell me I'm not the only one who is driven batty by Stan's emphasis of "Liquid filled die AGITATOR," when it should clearly be "Liquid filled DIE agitator," as it is a liquid filled agitator, not a liquid filled die.
great series, but way too short!
Stan, will you be hosting future series? plz?
We have laws against copyright of generic plot lines for movies. Why can't game concepts and softwares be the same? For example, there are tons of multiplayer games. There should be no copyrighting of such an idea.
Auto license is a better option and generate more revenue for people, and more transformative content would be created, instead of removing content people write profit sharing checks (assumining you nail the original owner issue with block chain or similar method).
Freebooting!!! The scope of Hello Internet increases!!
12:32 bottom right
CGP Grey FreeBooting ftw!
Yes, everyone should know that freebooting and CGP Grey go together. #hellointernet
Why is Crash Course not published using a more liberal license like CC-NC?
Stan in the beginning: "Welcome to the final episode."
Stan in the end: "Next week..."
Stan, are music cover videos on youtube covered by fair use of any sort, e.g. transformative, or are they infringements?
GuyWithAnAmazingHat Music cover videos are covered under license agreements. The labels grant licenses for particular songs for anyone to make cover videos of (hence why many of the same songs are always covered). Otherwise they still need permission to license the work since although they are performing it themselves (and sometimes differently) its still encroaches the original artist's composition copyright, performance copyright and derivative works copyright.
Music cover videos ARE NOT covered under fair use at all. For it to be sufficiently transformative would require it be much different than the original work, and it would no longer be a "cover"
Ddub1083 I see, but what about acapella covers like those done by Smooth Mcgroove? I'm doing such acapella videos on my own channel and I'm interested in how it actually affects me.
And also there has always been many kids who covered pop music, like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga's songs, I don't think they acquired any licenses, but they still go viral without any incident.
GuyWithAnAmazingHat You're singing someone elses song... its copyrighted. Right again many pop songs have automatic licensing and any revenue from those videos is automatically given to the original artists. There is no incident because the revenue is either automatically sent to the licensees or upon them learning of it they file for monetization of the video in their name.
Copyright is rather simple... if you didnt create it, you must get permission to use it. There are firms which kinda sit between labels and licensees and you go to them to license a song and they can provide it but normally requires not only a fee but relinquishment of most if not all of the monetization (this is how radio works too). Check out cdbaby or limelight or discmakers. But be careful there are a lot of scams out there that will just take your money without ever getting you a true license.
12:30: Except for the Mongols!!!
Here's my solution. If you don't like it, please give constructive criticism. If you do, please perpetuate this idea and try to change the laws: In the future, I predict that the vast majority of IP will get its start on crowdfunding websites. Therefore, creators should 1. Decide ahead of time the net money necessary for their project, including how much profit they want to generate. 2. Describe their idea on their page in enough detail to prove that they can produce a creative work, but not so much so that any plagerizing parallel projects could make a completely identical product (and if they still do by accident, that means that only one design was ideal and therefore no one can cry foul) 3. Immediately release every aspect of their creation to the public domain the second it hits the market. Now understand, there would still be regulations in place; here are a few that I've come up with: 1. Intellectual Property can still be considered "stolen" if the theft occurred before the creation was officially unveiled to the public. Until that moment, the idea is still private, and creators should be able to develop their idea in peace without worrying about a competitor beating them to the punch if a blueprint got leaked. 2. Anti-plagiarism laws would be beefed up. Copying off of someone, even directly disseminating their work, would be all fair game, but only when doing so at least partially serves as guerrilla advertising for the entity that produced the original work. In the digital world, attention is valuable capital - we often overlook that fact - so copying someone's work with the appropriate citations is still valid payment. Only assholes have a problem with giving credit where credit's due, and users would actively benefit because - well - how frustrating is it when there's no way to find out where that piece of music came from? Everybody wins! 3. There would be institutions for moderating the exchange of money for creative works, by which I mean the websites supporting this model. Technically, they are the ones holding the money for the time in between the customer funding the project and the project being released. If a project is announced aborted, the money is automatically refunded to the supporters. Any money that is taken out of the pot during the development process must be declared to the supporters. Finally, a ratings system would be implemented to hold creators accountable across multiple projects. Now I am aware that what I'm describing is essentially money lending, and that practice has plenty of its own problems, but hopefully you'll agree exorcising IP from this tangled web is a step in the right direction.
And I want these crowdfunding platforms to be managed by both private and public sector alternatives. The public sector should be directly democratically controlled by the users.
Soon we will have copyright trolls on top of patent trolls. Well done internet. You never think things through!
I... I don't know how Congress is.
Off to Crash Course Politics!
So let's say a certain video game company released a game 10 years ago and this game is no longer sold would it be ok if i download and play it?
I'm afraid not, because copyright lasts a long long time. There may be patent violations as well unless they've expired.