The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For...

[Bradison99]

What an excellent talk! Anyone who has worked in the Open Source community can relate to what he is saying. I for one, would love to see a world with free exchange of information. Artists will still create art, even if copyrights go away. Movie blockbusters will rely on product placement and advanced sales...every movie will make money or it won't be made. Another problem with the current system is that the consumer has ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE when they purchase a DVD or music CD they dislike.

[bluegreen1138]

knowledge

[3sixmanny]

And another thing, under this guys system the 'few blockbusters' would be reduced to zero. 'Few blockbusters' my ass, there are millions of artists who make a ton of money under copyright. Moreover, it's the potential to make unlimited profit. Under this social-utopia-dreamland, you can kiss all that goodbye. It's funny, a for-profit company is arguing that artists should find another way, 'take a grant', hahahaha!!! Ok, why doesn't google give ALL of it's profits to charity! Hypocrites!!!!!!!

[3sixmanny]

The bottom line is people want and need some remuneration for their labor. Google can copy without labor and profit. This is theft. An artist labors to create something, and should receive remuneration based on the value of their work. Google is the new Stationers' Company with the biggest monopoly and now they are crying because the government might take it away.

[3sixmanny]

This sounds like google is in the same position as the Stationers' Company. They are making billions of dollars a year off of other people's labor and content. They freely crawl content and index it, then make a profit by advertising as people search their databases. They essentially have a monopoly to copy every piece of information in the world and now technology is catching up and soon they will not be able to copy at will.

[linkzellda]

Cpyright is stupid and include who support copyright!!!

[Melki]

I think copyright should remain but if the author decided to made public his/her works, then that publicly available material should by law be able to be freely distributed in its original form as well as in the form of obvious derivatives. People who wanted more should pay if they wanted to access the exclusively available materials. Just an opinion

[independence4wales]

@Melki Exactly. As I understand it the gentleman's argument is completely flawed. If artists didn't care about copyright then they can make their work freely available to everyone. Stuff only has copyright if people say they don't want their work freely distributed. To me it sounds like he saying that copyright should be made illegal even if the artist wants their work copyrighted. At the end of the day it is the choice of the author how they want their work distributed

[Melki]

@independence4wales thanks. I think that shows on tv, and advertisements on public streets as 'publicly available'

[puuuuuuch]

I was actually pretty disappointed by the Q&A - his answers were very weak and the questions themselves are good counterarguments.

[coaxx]

most professionally released music albums and movies cost thousands of dollars.. especially big movies costs MILLIONS so the analogy to the old printing press is still there.

[vanderbiltst]

I am in the music industry and ALL bands make AT LEAST 10% off the sales of their CDs! This guy is wrong. Great bands like U2, Rolling Stones, Bruce Springstein, etc, make anywhere from 15%-50% off the sales of teir CDs!

[bobthedoorknob]

@vanderbiltst I thought you said great bands

[666Tomato666]

@vanderbiltst and you suggest that this is much!?

protip: making an audio cd doesn't cost even one quarter of the cost of vinil

[aifammafiaaifam]

I OWN ThE COPYRIghT TO M.A.F.I.A any body wants to sue me can fuck em selves Motive Action Fusion Interesting Anachist Q why should i have to pay to live on my own planet?

[elviskrstulovic]

wtf ... did I saw what I did as a last frame of this video?!?!?

The lecture that is directly opposing copyrights is copyrighted such that no one can use it if they don't contact google.inc .. which is another way of saying no one can use it?!?

down with google hypocrites

[yourcamden]

What about moral rights?

[demonikreaper]

Subjective entirely.

[yourcamden]

moral rights: - the rights of the creator of the work in question to have their name associated with their work at all times while the copyright exists..

[demonikreaper]

He mentioned that in the video several times, hurp. And do you know what the term "subjective" means?

[yourcamden]

yes, but subjective has nothing to with copyrights or sales on intellectual property.

[demonikreaper]

It does entirely. Every culture has different views on what is morally okay to do and what is morally not okay to do. Sweden, for instance, doesn't give a damn about protecting artists other than assuring they are credited in full. But the major labeling companies in America see it as an opportunity to ruin lives and make examples of people who use their software/music/art without crediting them. It's disgusting.

[yourcamden]

"Moral Rights" is a term used in Intellectual Property law denoting the person(s) who creates the work having rights to have their name attributed to the work in question. It also gives right of the author(s) to be consulted if the creation is to be altered in anyway,

It has nothing to do with the morality of the creative work.

[demonikreaper]

Then what the fuck is your issue? This guy, if you watched it all the way through to the questions, said he was in favor of having work attributed to artists, and legally enforcing that.