The only reason this works for the industries mentioned is because they can afford to organise high-publicity stunts to make sure THEIR idea is released as THEIR idea first. In niche industries like music where struggling artists can release a work of perfection but not achieve any stardom due to a lack of publicity, shouldn't they be protected from the faceless corporate giants who'd steal their genius, claim it as their own, and not given them credit??
If I were to steal her ideas from this video and use it for my class presentation without giving her credit, would she be for or against it? *Note: This is a hypothetical, I'm not actually doing it*
@Gamecubesupreme For - because you would be advancing her own agenda I suppose, or making more people aware of it. People who have a great idea, and are passionate, truly, about it, want many others to see it, and probably talk their friends ears off with it. It is very hard to contain the kind of enthusiasm a real fire of inspiration and creativity gives you. If they start talking about it with each other - it just feeds your inspiration.
One more point. None of this is directly applicable to any digital arts field, movies etc. because in these field it is often not the idea being stolen (like in fashion) but the actual product being redistributed "as is" by people who don't want to pay for it to others who also do not want to pay. So what you get is not more new creation based on the original but less, as there is no incentive for creatives to create.
@Microbius88 Are you saying that a designer can't simply copy someone else's design completely without altering it at all? That's basically the same thing.
@xgreciandelightx not really. The product is the final garment not only the design. With movies etc. the digital copy is the actual product.
If you mean that a designer could legally just copy another designer's design as is, no they couldn't as any original design would be protected by copyright law. Contrary to what the woman in the video seems to think.
Also she shows some examples of cuffs collars lapels etc. that have not been protected as designs, as if copyrighting the design would stifle creativity by stopping people using the typical shirt collar etc.
Just think about how many different amazing designs there could be if IP law forced designers to think outside even these basic boxes. We wouldn't have suit designs that basically haven't changed in decades. Maybe design stop working by just rehashing the same stuff over again 20 yrs later.
@Microbius88 If people thought they could profit more by creating a new type of collar, then they would. You're making it sound like a new collar would be so successful that it would be more profitable than conventional collars. If that is the case, then there is still motivation to do that without IP law. Clearly if someone came up with a better idea, then they'd come out with that idea and compete with the other collars to try and make some money on it before anyone else did.
The only thing IP law would be able to motivate would be for an unconventional collar that were unprofitable with respect to conventional collars. If those were copyrighted, though, then a designer would be forced to come up with something else. You're right there. That does not mean, however, that the unconventional collar will be better or even profitable, though. A profitable unconventional collar is just as likely to come about without IP law as it would if there were IP law.
@xgreciandelightx "If people thought they could profit more by creating a new type of collar, then they would."
Not now they know there is a tried and tested collar they can just rip off. Any new idea is going to take years of refinement to get to that level sophistication. And there's going to be a lot of false starts on the way.
Why invest in trying new things when someone else can take all the risks and you just rip off the successes?
@Microbius88 With no IP protection they can't "make some money on it before anyone else did". Big companies would be able to turn around more product and advertise their rip off version to more people than any new innovator possibly could.
Interesting, shame a lot of the facts are incorrect. Fashion designs are often protected by copyright law as works of applied art, often companies also use the Hague System for the international registration of industrial designs to protect work further. Fashion designs aren't usually individually registered in practice not 'cos they can't be due to the utilitarian nature of the fashion, but 'cos each trend is so transient it isn't worth the time and effort of registering it.
clothing industry has become a way to change the environment .. great designers, are trying lately more and more, to use recycled materials..and this is grate
The key point to take from this video, is that art, music, movies, book, etc are NOT physically instantiated objects, but ideas, aka. information aka just a structural property. Hence is is physically nonsense to act like you could “own” or control them. And numbers show that that would harm yourself anyway, while not doing it wouldn’t harm you at all. How’s that for a deal? :)
Why are people laughing so much in the second half? "Fireworks". Is that funny? It's food for thought, not funny. Kind of gives me the feeling that the audience is hand-picked.
I think that graph is dishonest. It suggests to me that physical objects cannot be replicated illegally and enjoyed electronically, and not that copyright has anything to do with the success of sales of their sales. Of course it would have something to do with it, but largely I would think it due their physicality.
I agree that copyright laws need to be changed but for such industries like music, movies, and books, it shouldnt be abolished. Fashion is a utilitarian product. It must be made and there things other than creativity that seperate two piecs of work, for example quality. People need it and at the end of the day it must exist physically. That is not the case with music, movies, books. As soon as a song is created no matter how complex or creativity it can be copied and sold w/o artist credit.
Well actual FLOSS functions because of Copyright protection, and would not function if it did not exist. The GPL and the BSD licenses would not work if there were no Copyrighter protection.
I am an expert in information physics, and I have proven in multiple ways, that information can not be owned. Ever. Simply said: If you prove it exists (passing it on is *mandatory* to do that), you can not keep control. If you keep control over it, you can not prove it exists.
You can try to punish people when you can prove they passed it on. But for all but a minute fraction you can never prove who passed it on to who. As that literally requires blocking DRM between your brain and your body.
As neat as this was, it equivocates two very different things. In many ways, this video is dishonest to the real arguments surrounding Intellectual Property. Copyright, with consumer goods, can largely protect the consumer as well as the creator.
is it actually so easy.. a lot of bands work for a year or 2 and come up with 9 songs that represents their style... with fashion, it might be different.. there are hundreds of designs which people can buy; there is really one design for everyone... but with music, its also a question of quality.. the bands want all their songs to be good...
furthermore, people need clothes to cover their naked bodies, people may not need music to survive...
It is amazing to me how the lecturer blissfully ignores the fact that the entire fashion industry relies on IP in the form of trademark protection in order to grow brand name and market share.
She completely misses the most obvious point: Fashion, furniture, auto-mobiles etc have copy-protection built in! You can't put a Prada shoe on a photocopier and produce a new identical Prada shoe. You can't take a picture of a sports car and have a laser printer print you a new car.
Legal copy-protection in other creative industries is to deal with the fact you can make perfect identical copies of CDs, DVDs, (PDF) books etc at no (or close to no) cost.
I'd disagree. The reason a Prada shoe is difficult to copy is because of the composite nature of the final product. The designs, however, can be copied. Flexible IP laws contribute to the development of future IP: if designers can freely use existing tools (i.e. Prada designs, or stitching patterns) they have an advantage of those who cannot. "Locking-in" or "Closeting" IP has a retardant effect on economic development, which is what the video poster wants to show via comparison.
Copyright is utterly broken, as evidenced by the fact that fashion innovation flourishes while "protected" art forms struggle to maintain their place in new spaces. And the supporters of copyright as it stands sure as hell don't have an interest in your right to remix, revisualize, reinvent, collaborate, borrow, be inspired by, improve upon, artistically respond to, or otherwise share in the participatory culture of art that SHOULD belong to all.
I think this analogy is unacceptable, music is different from cloths we where. And if we are to compare : in music you can use my style of rhythm or groove, drums etc but you can't use me lyrics. you can even use my melody line but not my lyrics. so I'll say my lyric is = to the label on a bag or a shirt.
...and why not? If I put your lyrics to a radically different music style/tempo/medium, is it not a different product? If said product does not compete directly with yours, why would you protest? Is there a fundamental difference between a drum line or a line of words?
Protection of brand names and trademarks ensures that other producers cannot pass of their product as yours. That's it.
The simple physical fact is, that an idea/information/data is not a physical object. Hence it can not be owned at all. Search for what defines ownership. It does not fulfill the definition at all. You can not control it, it can not be stolen (since you still would have a copy), and most important of all: Why would you get money a second time, for what is just a copy of the result of the service that was already paid for the first time.
Digital property rights and copyright laws have become appallingly unrealistic. We have an environmental Horror Show in the Gulf and the government is more concerned with chasing down and passing fascist laws to make it easier to prosecute teenagers that listen to some songs on their iPod.
Corporations are taking over government, and thanks to their being no limit to the amount of "donations" they can give to a presidential campaign, it's very simple. How can you call this a democracy?
While Blakely makes interesting points, she is completely discrediting the fact that fast-fashion is detrimental to the environment and is a waste of dying resources like cotton and energy. Fast-fashion brands like H&M are notorious for punching holes into garments that can't sell b/c these poorly constructed garments themselves are no longer trendy or in fashion. This is an issue that seriously needs to be considered not only by fast-fashion companies but the fashion industry as a whole.
Opensource is propected by copyright, but it is explicitly allowed to copy and modify. It also sometimes demands that the knock-off are shared as well.
What about design protection? I thought fashion & automobile industry relies on them.
Get rid of software patents and we will be sorted in the digital era ;-)
I like the presentation, but the graph on 12:32 is misleading. Since when are patents not a part of IP ?? I don't understand what is the basis for Ms Blakely's classification of Low IP and High IP I will give some figures instead: Automobile: Volvo - 8365 Hits Ford - 51402 Hitts General Motors - 24328 Hitts Audi - 12745 Hits Food: Coca Cola - 3495 Hits (These are the number of hits, MICROPAT, a patent search engine, gives, now I haven't standardised my search by adding subsidiaries)
Very good points, and copyright statutes (they are not laws) don't even need to be abolished, just don't consent to them lawfully. If you do feel the need of a copy agreement, just sell your products with that agreement.
didn't realize there was ZERO copyright for designs... I thought I was just a shady thing we all knew about but pretended didn't exist. Logos are the thing you can't copy legally... everything else is fair game.
This video does not present a resonable analysis with regards to IP protection. Copywright is not the only means to protection intellectual property. There's also patent and trademark -- not to mention various licensing arrangements.
its so strange every time i have a delema there is a hint that comes from somewhere to think about it. I was just wondering how i would deal with copyright if i had my own country and that it really a burden on society most of the time. Still dont have final solution but this video definitely helps me to shape the idea in my head.
The difference with the book, music, and movie industries is the fact that anyone can copy their works easily. In order to copy an outfit, you need to have the materials, the eye to see how to copy, and the ability to make it. Not everyone can do it. However, anyone with the internet can copy books, music and movies. That, is why their industries are dieing, not because they have copyright laws. Correlation does not equal causation.
This was excellent! As a growing fashion designer myself, I've been thinking a lot about how I'll protect my ideas. There is so much good stuff here - that both consumers and creators want an identity, a BRAND that they can adhere to. I was sort of boycotting Forever 21 for a while for their "plagiarism", but now I think I'll simply not shop there because of the crappy quality. xD
As a musician myself, I am all for people mixing up my music and putting their own brand on it- it would also mean I could take the best elements from other sources and mix them with my own to make great sounds. I think that the model of intellectual property being something that can be 'owned' is too much of a grey area for corporations.
@Composer1992 spot on :) am a graffiti artist / painter and the colab work with others in the field will always spawn new, more complex and radical work than what one can do alone in a basement
@Composer1992 I think this analogy is unacceptable, music is different from cloths we where. And if we are to compare : in music you can use my style of rhythm or groove, drums etc but you can't use me lyrics. you can even use my melody line but not my lyrics. so I'll say my lyric is = to the label on a bag or a shirt.
Here's my one problem with this talk. The Low IP protection industries are the ones that people need more than High IP protection. I'm not sure if she is skewing this intentionally or not but I don't like the approach she's taking. If you added a need factor to it then you would probably find that they all are similar. Possibly low IP ones will make slightly more.
I agree otherwise like this talk and I like the concepts that she promotes.
Or not! You see fashion,they make a good profit every year,just because they have to inovate. I think those people want is their own profit,they don't want other people getting profit,no matter what cost.
@dnarby - Not, actually. I invite you to look up Stephan Kinsella, an ex-IP lawyer (very recently ex) for a non-intuitive but very compelling view of IP laws.
the comparison to music, movies, and books is glaringly fallible. stealing a design is different than stealing the handbag itself. a free movie online, placed there by well-funded online pirates, is a stolen handbag, not a stolen idea. i'm sure the fashion industry would have a different point of view if stealing their idea or design meant stealing their actual product.
The main difference I see between theft of design and theft of a product is that in the first case there is no direct loss to the creator (they still have their original design) and in the second case there is. Clearly this isn't what you are thinking of.
A digitized movie is a set of instructions that allow a combination of hardware and software to decode and display audio and images. So sneaking in to a cinema fits your analogy much better.
if you download a movie instead of going to a cinema, you're taking money away from the creators of the content. multiply that by millions of downloads and the financial damage is tremendous. it's suspected that Iron Man 2 lost anywhere between 20 & 40 million dollars in opening weekend worldwide box office due to illegal downloads. the fashion industry never suffers this kind of loss unless someone burns down the Prada factory.
Your original argument was about different KINDS of theft. Let's forget about that then and consider relative financial impact.
Indeed, as was said in the video, cheap knock-offs and high fashion have different consumer bases. Retail fashion is another story though since it targets the upper middle-class and hence DOES "steal" income from high fashion.
If your figures assume that some unemployed pirate could have afforded 50$ to take his family to the cinema, they are useless.
i'm not saying the pirate can afford to go to the movies. i'm saying the people who watch the stolen film online are foregoing the theater experience in favor of a free download which they should not have access to without compensating the people who make the content. in the same way, you wouldn't want someone using a Zac Posen bag without paying for it.
To recap, you are claiming that if Joe pirates a movie that he would not have seen otherwise (and hence by doing so does not influence the producer's revenue in any way), then his (victimless) actions are immoral. (it's not clear if this is because it's "unfair" towards those who pay or you simply believe producers should have full control.). Correct?
However you see no problem if TopShop makes a (100% legal) copy of a Zac Posen bag (minus the logo) and sells it on the high street?
IG Farben spends a large sum of money developing a miracle drug which cures everything (Cancer, AIDS, old age...). Production costs are ~0.
However, they determine that due to the unequal distribution of wealth in the world, the best strategy to maximise profit is to sell only 10 doses a year for 10 billion $ each.
Bill Gates buys a dose, reverse-engineers the formula, and gives away free drugs ridding the world of disease for ever. Is this immoral?
There is a solution to the dilemma which is to say all nations of the world should set up a progressive tax and pitch in to offer 1 trillion +1 dollars a year to the drug company in exchange for the right to produce and distribute the drug. That way everyone wins.
In a sense, this is the solution that has been applied multiple times before with taxes on recordable media (cassettes, VHS, CDs...) called private copying levys.
but the unspoken problem is that google and other search engines become facilitators of theft by providing this stolen content. i'm sure as soon as google, like comcast, starts generating its own content, they'll be less inclined to provide it for free.
Google is a classical example of why practice overrides theory in this discussion. Search engines do not have the manpower to screen every web page for illegal content and they are a vital component of the web. The same applies to the hosting of user generated content.
IMHO, an uncensored internet (not just the web), provides a protection against authoritarianism and disinformation which is humanly, economically and morally more important than Hollywood.
Another sign that the fashion industry is a lot healthier than the music: if you think about the big fashion designers, they are also the tycoons of the industry. The fashion designers own their industry. If you think about the big labels in the music industry, they are not led by artists. The artists do not own their industry...
Hard physical fact is: You can not own ideas. It is physically completely impossible. Thinking you can, is like thinking gravity would go away if you stopped believing in it.
Because an idea can not be stolen. Because you can not take it away from someone(’s brain). Also, and idea that you don’t pass on, can not be proven to exist. At all. But if you pass it on, you by definition gave up control. And that’s also something required for it to be ownable.
I wish there wasn't as much copyright police on youtube, if I'm doing a video with a song as background music, I'm not making any money out of it! Why should my video have its music removed?
And remember it's not illegal download that kills the industry, it's the prices.
This will work anywhere that creating the first of a new object is relatively cheap and creating copies of it are relatively expensive. Movies are very expensive to make currently but are very cheap to copy. While the look of a piece of clothing or a car is relatively cheap to create but has high production costs. Medicine is another example of something that is hard to invent or create the first copy of , but is easy to reproduce.
What the fuck are you talking about? Ever heard of cover bands? Have you not yet realized the thousand of screamo fucks trying to knock of a bigger bands sound? You can't copyright a scale, time signatures or a note. So WTF! are you talking about? We create and fabricate just like designers. We study other musicians art to further progress ours. We do this with a law saying you can't sell or claim another persons "song" as your own. Why don't you take more lessons from musicians?
@vurtuality Style patents are also common, but like pattern copyrights they are virtually worthless and unenforceable. Taking a protected piece of material and tweaking it is trivial.
Other idea that are more interesting are subscriptions. If you like what an artist has done pay her/him to do more. When enough people pledge to buy to make it worthwhile to the artists, the artist produces or releases what they have created.
I'm in great support of less IP and greater open-source its a catalyst for innovation and advancement and greater economic equality.. that is freedom but the ego appears to feed the need of people wanting praise and credit for their creations... in spite of the positive implications that said idea may rear in others.. to close this practice will actively support innovation unhindered innovation!
the gross sales chart is very misleading, because it doesn't reflect whether it was based on IP laws alone. the speaker admitted it's the more utility, the less protection, so the sales of overall food vs music can probably be explained by utility alone, and irrelevant to regulations.
in fact, if all food and all music were free, you'd probably still see less music utilized vs food.
how is being forced to up your game and keep up with copiers a good thing for innovators? how is making more work necessary an incentive for innovation?
@daxx2k fashion is, when you wear, what others tell you to wear.
If you don't care about fashion-trends, the whole industry looses its usability.
But that's kind of self-inflicted by the industry... when they started to think of people as walls that need to be decorated instead of people who need clothes for their everyday-life, designer-fashion lost it's functionality.
applications without function are useless. "looking good" is not a function.
I was surprised about the possibility that such a, in my view, luxurious field such as fashion can teach other fields about copyrights. not that it justifies the modern fashion world, but certainly an interesting analogy.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. You can live without pictures, movies and books but everyone has to eat and wear clothing. My copyright on my pictures doesnt stop someone from taking a "knock off" picture. It does prevent them from selling my picture as theirs. I imitate other photographers all the time - just like designers. But I cant resell their image as my own. Same with software, same with books.
@ksuwildkat "It does prevent them from selling my picture as theirs."
This is false. You are confusing trademarks with copyright. It is lying, fraud, etc. and a violation of trademark law to claim or represent something as having been created by someone who is was not. Trademark law stops them from selling your picture as their own. Copyright law however goes one step further and stops them from selling your picture while correctly attributing it to you.
@prashantpawar her boyfriend is a lawyer. Welcome to the USA, where lawyers, bankers, and insurance take all your money and women too. Keep a steady stream of fresh-blood, immigrants, to do the work, believe in the marketed "dream" and basically get played and used.
Here's the thing about conforming to a groups standards: the individual doesn't decide if they are part of a group; it's the group that chooses if that individual is in or out. This may sound like a chicken-egg thing, but it's true. By appealing to a group's standards by, oh, say, dressing a particular way, you are essentially putting in your application to join said group.
As stated previously, the fashion industry relies completely on intellectual property, namely trademarks. Pretty much, the fashion (computer) industry has to pay a lot of money to their designers (developers), money which they raise by preventing people from freely copying their brand (software functionality) by the use of trademarks (copyrights).
Many here seem to think that because the fashion industry uses TM instead of C, the computer industry could thrive without C as well. But no.
@dingoperson actually the computer industry do thrive without copyright. If it was not or the lack of copyright enforcement in the 1980's, 1990's the fact is the computer industry would not be where they are today.
DOS, Windows (Both NT and 3.1), Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, Media Player to name a few are knock offs of other products. With strong copyright protection and strong patent protection these products would not have existed or alternatively have been 3 times the price.
Fashion is so vane in nature. I can't understand how people can make such a big thing from such a minuscule thing. I wear what feels and looks good on me, I never look how others dress or what fashion "trend" there is and I feel great!
Fashion is just another thing you don't actually need, that makes you buy stuff you could be happy without.
@Tnat1on People care about fashion for a number of different, legitimate reasons. Indie kids dress indie, preppy kids dress preppy, business men dress business-like. They do it either to look good or to fit in with the people around them. The way you dress can also reflect your social status, your religious views, the amount of sleep you got last night, etc. Fashion is not vane, it's just a part of culture (a very significant part)
@Tnat1on actually fashion influence exactly what you wear. All the clothes you buy in the store are influenced by high fashion. As she have said in the talk what you wear in the street influences what you see on the walk.
And just how is the producer of a video that cost millions of dollars to make going to ever afford to make another one, if everyone can simply download it for free, without commercials? Yes, they could sell access to behind the scenes views, payed viewer participation in the creative process, etc.. But those sorts of monetization are a tiny fraction of the gross that a multi million dollar production needs. The bottom line for many non-performance artists, is that free means extinction.
@SpEcImEn128 The people will encourage it by downloading it for free? Just how is that supposed to encourage it? And while you may be happy to see all television and movie production other than government financed simply disappear, I and a 'huge' proportion of the world most emphatically would not.
@Panpiper yet the movie industry copy freely. Walt Disney makes money of stories that do not have copyright so why should they have the protection.
The other more interesting thing I would like you to look at is how much of this high cost of production is directly related to copyright protection or patents.
That graph that shows the size of the different industries along with the implication that the size is largely due to the lack of copyright is a beautiful example of how to lie with numbers and charts. That's one for the textbooks for sure.
She's actually the director of a thinktank at USC that studies the convergence of society, entertainment, and commerce. One would think that she probably has some expertise on economic issues and IP law. I can't help but think these comments that "she doesn't know what shes talking about" are due to gender bias.
Here's the thing. The digital universe is a universe of abundance. And all the copyright people want to do is put artificial scarcity into it to maintain their outdated business models.
@hurkle True, artificial scarcity is what owners of intellectual property need to profit, but I think you're wrong to dismiss them as having "outdated business models." Scarcity is value - infinite supply means no value. If we value the work of artists, we should be willing to pay for it. If we don't value the work of artists, then what do we value? Advertisers? Corporations?
@tylerwilde What we value ARE the artists: so we pay them directly. A couple bucks from paypal is more than they'll get from several sales of their CD. The middlemen (RIAA/MPAA) are being disintermediated, but they are such powerful industries that their desire to perpetuate their business models is generating ill-thought-out legislation that will affect the future negatively. Disney is the cause of the current copyright term (life + 70-some years) - again, through legislation. Sigh.
@hurkle Would agree that there's plenty of ill-thought-out legislation, and I won't defend the RIAA/MPAA, but I think that the "open culture" movement is going too far, to the point of blurring the lines between individual works and derivatives. And while we are paying some artists directly, the model hasn't seen enough precedents to be proven viable for all creatives. People will pirate even if asked for just a small amount from the creator (See: Humble Indie Bundle)
@hurkle I think there are a lot of interesting new models to explore, but what I despise is the idea that authorship isn't important, and that everything should be blurred together, remixed, and stripped of individuality to create One Book of the Internet. It's becoming a religious belief that all information should be free, but I disagree - information has value, information does not want anything - to be free or otherwise. If I write a book, the fact that I wrote it is massively important.
@tylerwilde You bring up a good point, but please elaborate... why is it massively important? The money? The recognition? If it's the former, then the challenge is to find alternative revenue streams that spin off from the book (the tour, speaking engagements, etc). If the latter is important, then perhaps a culture of acknowledgement should be adopted.
Perhaps the recognition could lead to alternative revenue streams as well?
"The digital universe is a universe of abundance. And all the copyright people want to do is put artificial scarcity into it to maintain their outdated business models. "
@hurkle the digital universe is abundant, but lazy people decide not to reference their sources and often plagiarize and claim the work as their own to create money. Copyright isn't about scarcity. It's about getting credit/reward for one's own work. Meanwhile, bloggers copy/paste other people's work so that they get paid from web traffic. Is it fair for someone else to get paid for the work you've done without at least some credit at the end of the quote?
If credit is the issue, then the creative commons license standard is enough, and classical copyright is unnecessary.
If what's bothering you is that other people are making money off your work; if you would be getting significantly more income/traffic if the plagiarist didn't exist. In this case the problem is clearly that the plagiarist is decreasing the scarcity value of your content, and probably presenting it in a more accessible form. Otherwise, you haven't been harmed.
@Paulginz the issue is not about being harmed or not. It is about giving credit where credit is due. Consider it like this: Let's say each person in a neighborhood does their own landscaping in their front yards. There is no "harm" if someone decides to distribute small lawn ad signs saying, "Landscaping by ACME Landscaping". It would be false but those who respond to the ad are not aware of that. Plagiarism is either mental lethargy or dishonesty. "oops can't find my source" or "mine now".
I thought we were comparing piracy of hollywood movies with the situation in the fashion industry.
When someone puts out a torrent of a hollywood production signed "l33thaxor release", they aren't implying that the film was directed by l33thaxor, and I doubt that anyone misconstrues them as saying so. Also the movie contains credits.
The same applies to a Nikhe shoe.
The problem is that clothes don't come with a reference list, even if the plagiarist is well-intentioned.
@romeoneverdies "ppl misunderstand the open-source. open source doesn't = free. it means source is viewable."
Actually it does mean free. With just about any open source application, I can install it and use it. I can download the source code, modify it and publish the resulting binaries, as long as I make the source code modifications available to everyone else -- for free.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This article is irrelevant the fashion industry isn't the real world. If prada release a piece of plastic as a dress, everyone would buy it, not because its innovative. Can't believe anyone sat through this....
the purpose of the talk is this its not about laws and copyright its the effect of those on industry . because you cannot copy you cannot create from and thats her argument . when you copy protect something you basically prevent creation from it
The only reason this works for the industries mentioned is because they can afford to organise high-publicity stunts to make sure THEIR idea is released as THEIR idea first. In niche industries like music where struggling artists can release a work of perfection but not achieve any stardom due to a lack of publicity, shouldn't they be protected from the faceless corporate giants who'd steal their genius, claim it as their own, and not given them credit??
harrykinomoto 1 week ago
This girl is SO intelligent it's not even funny
crudhousefull 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
If I were to steal her ideas from this video and use it for my class presentation without giving her credit, would she be for or against it? *Note: This is a hypothetical, I'm not actually doing it*
Gamecubesupreme 1 month ago
@Gamecubesupreme For - because you would be advancing her own agenda I suppose, or making more people aware of it. People who have a great idea, and are passionate, truly, about it, want many others to see it, and probably talk their friends ears off with it. It is very hard to contain the kind of enthusiasm a real fire of inspiration and creativity gives you. If they start talking about it with each other - it just feeds your inspiration.
dannystaple1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
This is a "breezy" video. =p
erryfleming11k 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your video went viral on Korea, South
guygallagher410 1 month ago
Screw Apple & Google & Microsoft patents!!!
audiowiz 2 months ago
FUCK RIAA!
IWantSoundKnowledge 2 months ago
One more point. None of this is directly applicable to any digital arts field, movies etc. because in these field it is often not the idea being stolen (like in fashion) but the actual product being redistributed "as is" by people who don't want to pay for it to others who also do not want to pay. So what you get is not more new creation based on the original but less, as there is no incentive for creatives to create.
Microbius88 3 months ago
@Microbius88 Are you saying that a designer can't simply copy someone else's design completely without altering it at all? That's basically the same thing.
xgreciandelightx 2 months ago
@xgreciandelightx not really. The product is the final garment not only the design. With movies etc. the digital copy is the actual product.
If you mean that a designer could legally just copy another designer's design as is, no they couldn't as any original design would be protected by copyright law. Contrary to what the woman in the video seems to think.
Microbius88 2 months ago
Also she shows some examples of cuffs collars lapels etc. that have not been protected as designs, as if copyrighting the design would stifle creativity by stopping people using the typical shirt collar etc.
Just think about how many different amazing designs there could be if IP law forced designers to think outside even these basic boxes. We wouldn't have suit designs that basically haven't changed in decades. Maybe design stop working by just rehashing the same stuff over again 20 yrs later.
Microbius88 3 months ago
@Microbius88 If people thought they could profit more by creating a new type of collar, then they would. You're making it sound like a new collar would be so successful that it would be more profitable than conventional collars. If that is the case, then there is still motivation to do that without IP law. Clearly if someone came up with a better idea, then they'd come out with that idea and compete with the other collars to try and make some money on it before anyone else did.
xgreciandelightx 2 months ago
The only thing IP law would be able to motivate would be for an unconventional collar that were unprofitable with respect to conventional collars. If those were copyrighted, though, then a designer would be forced to come up with something else. You're right there. That does not mean, however, that the unconventional collar will be better or even profitable, though. A profitable unconventional collar is just as likely to come about without IP law as it would if there were IP law.
xgreciandelightx 2 months ago
@xgreciandelightx "If people thought they could profit more by creating a new type of collar, then they would."
Not now they know there is a tried and tested collar they can just rip off. Any new idea is going to take years of refinement to get to that level sophistication. And there's going to be a lot of false starts on the way.
Why invest in trying new things when someone else can take all the risks and you just rip off the successes?
cont...
Microbius88 2 months ago
@Microbius88 With no IP protection they can't "make some money on it before anyone else did". Big companies would be able to turn around more product and advertise their rip off version to more people than any new innovator possibly could.
Microbius88 2 months ago
Interesting, shame a lot of the facts are incorrect. Fashion designs are often protected by copyright law as works of applied art, often companies also use the Hague System for the international registration of industrial designs to protect work further. Fashion designs aren't usually individually registered in practice not 'cos they can't be due to the utilitarian nature of the fashion, but 'cos each trend is so transient it isn't worth the time and effort of registering it.
Microbius88 3 months ago
I. Love. This. SO MUCH!
ElleAri94 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so much information, love it
juliacotic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
clothing industry has become a way to change the environment .. great designers, are trying lately more and more, to use recycled materials..and this is grate
andreeaweed 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The key point to take from this video, is that art, music, movies, book, etc are NOT physically instantiated objects, but ideas, aka. information aka just a structural property. Hence is is physically nonsense to act like you could “own” or control them. And numbers show that that would harm yourself anyway, while not doing it wouldn’t harm you at all. How’s that for a deal? :)
Evi1M4chine 4 months ago
Comment removed
Evi1M4chine 4 months ago
Why are people laughing so much in the second half? "Fireworks". Is that funny? It's food for thought, not funny. Kind of gives me the feeling that the audience is hand-picked.
TineIskaffe 4 months ago
@TineIskaffe i guess it was funny because people thought copyright protection on fireworks displays would be ludicrous
waswat 4 months ago
I think that graph is dishonest. It suggests to me that physical objects cannot be replicated illegally and enjoyed electronically, and not that copyright has anything to do with the success of sales of their sales. Of course it would have something to do with it, but largely I would think it due their physicality.
User082345 5 months ago
Here are a few great resources (two books one documentary) on the subject of interest:
The Pirates Dilemma by Matt Mason
As Common As Air by Lewis Hyde
RiP: A Remix Manifesto directed by Brett Gaylor
tarayvonnegray 6 months ago
steve jobs and every Apple fanboy out there ought to watch this video.
rnugenato 6 months ago 13
I agree that copyright laws need to be changed but for such industries like music, movies, and books, it shouldnt be abolished. Fashion is a utilitarian product. It must be made and there things other than creativity that seperate two piecs of work, for example quality. People need it and at the end of the day it must exist physically. That is not the case with music, movies, books. As soon as a song is created no matter how complex or creativity it can be copied and sold w/o artist credit.
TheCoolBand1 7 months ago
Well actual FLOSS functions because of Copyright protection, and would not function if it did not exist. The GPL and the BSD licenses would not work if there were no Copyrighter protection.
but remember : Sharing is caring.
GegoXaren 8 months ago
48 people work for the patent office
swu880 8 months ago
I thought patterns were copyrighted? I mean can I replicate the famous Burbery pattern without getting into troubles.
PhantomAct 9 months ago
Nice video.
kevinz1985 9 months ago
I am an expert in information physics, and I have proven in multiple ways, that information can not be owned. Ever. Simply said: If you prove it exists (passing it on is *mandatory* to do that), you can not keep control. If you keep control over it, you can not prove it exists.
You can try to punish people when you can prove they passed it on. But for all but a minute fraction you can never prove who passed it on to who. As that literally requires blocking DRM between your brain and your body.
Evi1M4chine 9 months ago 4
As neat as this was, it equivocates two very different things. In many ways, this video is dishonest to the real arguments surrounding Intellectual Property. Copyright, with consumer goods, can largely protect the consumer as well as the creator.
ssanders6 11 months ago
For more in depth arguments look up Stephen Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property.
kingcherub 11 months ago
Bravo Bravo!
Wonderful Presentation
ChelseaxXxForever 11 months ago
nice
1337saklart 1 year ago
I might be wrong but I think open source software has indeed copyright protection, it's the license that differs greatly.
vlcgo 1 year ago
is it actually so easy.. a lot of bands work for a year or 2 and come up with 9 songs that represents their style... with fashion, it might be different.. there are hundreds of designs which people can buy; there is really one design for everyone... but with music, its also a question of quality.. the bands want all their songs to be good...
furthermore, people need clothes to cover their naked bodies, people may not need music to survive...
saurabhbasu86new 1 year ago
It is amazing to me how the lecturer blissfully ignores the fact that the entire fashion industry relies on IP in the form of trademark protection in order to grow brand name and market share.
dnarby 1 year ago 2
great fashion
DeSamuelOfficial 1 year ago
suspected that for some time now.
down with the copyright laws!
menkaur 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Russian women for dating gettop5.info
Fleming6302 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey guys join to have a fun mworld5.info
rashika172 1 year ago
She completely misses the most obvious point: Fashion, furniture, auto-mobiles etc have copy-protection built in! You can't put a Prada shoe on a photocopier and produce a new identical Prada shoe. You can't take a picture of a sports car and have a laser printer print you a new car.
Legal copy-protection in other creative industries is to deal with the fact you can make perfect identical copies of CDs, DVDs, (PDF) books etc at no (or close to no) cost.
Zoomatik 1 year ago
@Zoomatik:
I'd disagree. The reason a Prada shoe is difficult to copy is because of the composite nature of the final product. The designs, however, can be copied. Flexible IP laws contribute to the development of future IP: if designers can freely use existing tools (i.e. Prada designs, or stitching patterns) they have an advantage of those who cannot. "Locking-in" or "Closeting" IP has a retardant effect on economic development, which is what the video poster wants to show via comparison.
BrobdingnagianPants 1 year ago
But fashion is gay.....
Aracuru 1 year ago
You can't copyright clothing...but you can copyright SEEDS.
Aracuru 1 year ago
Copyright is utterly broken, as evidenced by the fact that fashion innovation flourishes while "protected" art forms struggle to maintain their place in new spaces. And the supporters of copyright as it stands sure as hell don't have an interest in your right to remix, revisualize, reinvent, collaborate, borrow, be inspired by, improve upon, artistically respond to, or otherwise share in the participatory culture of art that SHOULD belong to all.
amouramarie 1 year ago
Cars and furnitute ARE protected by industrial designs.
Games ARE protected by patents (in USA at least)
japoniano 1 year ago
I think this analogy is unacceptable, music is different from cloths we where. And if we are to compare : in music you can use my style of rhythm or groove, drums etc but you can't use me lyrics. you can even use my melody line but not my lyrics. so I'll say my lyric is = to the label on a bag or a shirt.
deepjunejones 1 year ago
@deepjunejones
...and why not? If I put your lyrics to a radically different music style/tempo/medium, is it not a different product? If said product does not compete directly with yours, why would you protest? Is there a fundamental difference between a drum line or a line of words?
Protection of brand names and trademarks ensures that other producers cannot pass of their product as yours. That's it.
BrobdingnagianPants 1 year ago
The simple physical fact is, that an idea/information/data is not a physical object. Hence it can not be owned at all. Search for what defines ownership. It does not fulfill the definition at all. You can not control it, it can not be stolen (since you still would have a copy), and most important of all: Why would you get money a second time, for what is just a copy of the result of the service that was already paid for the first time.
Because all that is salable, is the *service*!
Evi1M4chine 1 year ago
take that RIAA and MPAA
freedom +1
greedy-a-holes 0
labobo 1 year ago 15
Digital property rights and copyright laws have become appallingly unrealistic. We have an environmental Horror Show in the Gulf and the government is more concerned with chasing down and passing fascist laws to make it easier to prosecute teenagers that listen to some songs on their iPod.
Corporations are taking over government, and thanks to their being no limit to the amount of "donations" they can give to a presidential campaign, it's very simple. How can you call this a democracy?
heedthevil 1 year ago
Johanna BlaKLey, not BlaKELy. So it is impossible to find talk on ted.com
oceanreborn 1 year ago
She was making a lot of good points until she pointed out that food sells more than film. No shit!
mondaycurse 1 year ago
While Blakely makes interesting points, she is completely discrediting the fact that fast-fashion is detrimental to the environment and is a waste of dying resources like cotton and energy. Fast-fashion brands like H&M are notorious for punching holes into garments that can't sell b/c these poorly constructed garments themselves are no longer trendy or in fashion. This is an issue that seriously needs to be considered not only by fast-fashion companies but the fashion industry as a whole.
kawaiiamandachan 1 year ago
Opensource is propected by copyright, but it is explicitly allowed to copy and modify. It also sometimes demands that the knock-off are shared as well.
What about design protection? I thought fashion & automobile industry relies on them.
Get rid of software patents and we will be sorted in the digital era ;-)
dmitrijledkov 1 year ago
freakin best argument made at ted yet!!!
reivilo 1 year ago
pramathmalik1 1 year ago
Very good points, and copyright statutes (they are not laws) don't even need to be abolished, just don't consent to them lawfully. If you do feel the need of a copy agreement, just sell your products with that agreement.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
copying is the highest form of flattery
bubba1234e 1 year ago
didn't realize there was ZERO copyright for designs... I thought I was just a shady thing we all knew about but pretended didn't exist. Logos are the thing you can't copy legally... everything else is fair game.
ConsolidatedFilms 1 year ago
Comment removed
smouieblog 1 year ago
This video does not present a resonable analysis with regards to IP protection. Copywright is not the only means to protection intellectual property. There's also patent and trademark -- not to mention various licensing arrangements.
smouieblog 1 year ago
its so strange every time i have a delema there is a hint that comes from somewhere to think about it. I was just wondering how i would deal with copyright if i had my own country and that it really a burden on society most of the time. Still dont have final solution but this video definitely helps me to shape the idea in my head.
princeofexcess 1 year ago
she's good,
anyone know what typeface she
used in her presentation??
ameera14 1 year ago
The difference with the book, music, and movie industries is the fact that anyone can copy their works easily. In order to copy an outfit, you need to have the materials, the eye to see how to copy, and the ability to make it. Not everyone can do it. However, anyone with the internet can copy books, music and movies. That, is why their industries are dieing, not because they have copyright laws. Correlation does not equal causation.
me259259 1 year ago
This was excellent! As a growing fashion designer myself, I've been thinking a lot about how I'll protect my ideas. There is so much good stuff here - that both consumers and creators want an identity, a BRAND that they can adhere to. I was sort of boycotting Forever 21 for a while for their "plagiarism", but now I think I'll simply not shop there because of the crappy quality. xD
kagitsune 1 year ago 2
As a musician myself, I am all for people mixing up my music and putting their own brand on it- it would also mean I could take the best elements from other sources and mix them with my own to make great sounds. I think that the model of intellectual property being something that can be 'owned' is too much of a grey area for corporations.
Composer1992 1 year ago 41
@Composer1992 spot on :) am a graffiti artist / painter and the colab work with others in the field will always spawn new, more complex and radical work than what one can do alone in a basement
nublex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Composer1992 I think this analogy is unacceptable, music is different from cloths we where. And if we are to compare : in music you can use my style of rhythm or groove, drums etc but you can't use me lyrics. you can even use my melody line but not my lyrics. so I'll say my lyric is = to the label on a bag or a shirt.
deepjunejones 1 year ago
@Composer1992
It's fine if you want to give away your own IP, but I'd prefer you didn't make that decision for me, thanks.
dnarby 1 year ago
worth watching
sunshineinahoneyjar 1 year ago
Here's my one problem with this talk. The Low IP protection industries are the ones that people need more than High IP protection. I'm not sure if she is skewing this intentionally or not but I don't like the approach she's taking. If you added a need factor to it then you would probably find that they all are similar. Possibly low IP ones will make slightly more.
I agree otherwise like this talk and I like the concepts that she promotes.
madcol 1 year ago 3
IP law is people using the gun of government to their own advantage to increase their profits.
furyofbongos 1 year ago 23
Or not! You see fashion,they make a good profit every year,just because they have to inovate. I think those people want is their own profit,they don't want other people getting profit,no matter what cost.
winstable 1 year ago
@furyofbongos
You're kidding, right?
dnarby 1 year ago
@dnarby - Not, actually. I invite you to look up Stephan Kinsella, an ex-IP lawyer (very recently ex) for a non-intuitive but very compelling view of IP laws.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
the comparison to music, movies, and books is glaringly fallible. stealing a design is different than stealing the handbag itself. a free movie online, placed there by well-funded online pirates, is a stolen handbag, not a stolen idea. i'm sure the fashion industry would have a different point of view if stealing their idea or design meant stealing their actual product.
serpico33 1 year ago
@serpico33
I do not understand your analogy.
The main difference I see between theft of design and theft of a product is that in the first case there is no direct loss to the creator (they still have their original design) and in the second case there is. Clearly this isn't what you are thinking of.
A digitized movie is a set of instructions that allow a combination of hardware and software to decode and display audio and images. So sneaking in to a cinema fits your analogy much better.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz
if you download a movie instead of going to a cinema, you're taking money away from the creators of the content. multiply that by millions of downloads and the financial damage is tremendous. it's suspected that Iron Man 2 lost anywhere between 20 & 40 million dollars in opening weekend worldwide box office due to illegal downloads. the fashion industry never suffers this kind of loss unless someone burns down the Prada factory.
serpico33 1 year ago
@serpico33
Your original argument was about different KINDS of theft. Let's forget about that then and consider relative financial impact.
Indeed, as was said in the video, cheap knock-offs and high fashion have different consumer bases. Retail fashion is another story though since it targets the upper middle-class and hence DOES "steal" income from high fashion.
If your figures assume that some unemployed pirate could have afforded 50$ to take his family to the cinema, they are useless.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz
i'm not saying the pirate can afford to go to the movies. i'm saying the people who watch the stolen film online are foregoing the theater experience in favor of a free download which they should not have access to without compensating the people who make the content. in the same way, you wouldn't want someone using a Zac Posen bag without paying for it.
serpico33 1 year ago
@serpico33
To recap, you are claiming that if Joe pirates a movie that he would not have seen otherwise (and hence by doing so does not influence the producer's revenue in any way), then his (victimless) actions are immoral. (it's not clear if this is because it's "unfair" towards those who pay or you simply believe producers should have full control.). Correct?
However you see no problem if TopShop makes a (100% legal) copy of a Zac Posen bag (minus the logo) and sells it on the high street?
Paulginz 1 year ago
@serpico33
Consider this moral dilemma:
IG Farben spends a large sum of money developing a miracle drug which cures everything (Cancer, AIDS, old age...). Production costs are ~0.
However, they determine that due to the unequal distribution of wealth in the world, the best strategy to maximise profit is to sell only 10 doses a year for 10 billion $ each.
Bill Gates buys a dose, reverse-engineers the formula, and gives away free drugs ridding the world of disease for ever. Is this immoral?
Paulginz 1 year ago
@serpico33
There is a solution to the dilemma which is to say all nations of the world should set up a progressive tax and pitch in to offer 1 trillion +1 dollars a year to the drug company in exchange for the right to produce and distribute the drug. That way everyone wins.
In a sense, this is the solution that has been applied multiple times before with taxes on recordable media (cassettes, VHS, CDs...) called private copying levys.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz
but the unspoken problem is that google and other search engines become facilitators of theft by providing this stolen content. i'm sure as soon as google, like comcast, starts generating its own content, they'll be less inclined to provide it for free.
serpico33 1 year ago
@serpico33
Google is a classical example of why practice overrides theory in this discussion. Search engines do not have the manpower to screen every web page for illegal content and they are a vital component of the web. The same applies to the hosting of user generated content.
IMHO, an uncensored internet (not just the web), provides a protection against authoritarianism and disinformation which is humanly, economically and morally more important than Hollywood.
Paulginz 1 year ago
I really love this; it's very pertinent to me.
elPacaManca 1 year ago
Really makes you think...
DdlyHeadshot 1 year ago
Another sign that the fashion industry is a lot healthier than the music: if you think about the big fashion designers, they are also the tycoons of the industry. The fashion designers own their industry. If you think about the big labels in the music industry, they are not led by artists. The artists do not own their industry...
gcarcassi 1 year ago 6
Wow, I'm a huge jazz fan (don't read that aloud too fast) and love Charlie Parker, didn't see that one coming, interesting talk :)
junka22 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DUUDE i bet you can't wait for the world cup? This should get you hyped
youtube.com/watch?v=5Vy4QpaVLY4
Some of the best football in the world
Usernameandpass 1 year ago
Excellent talk! Intellectual Property indeed is not necessary to encourage creativity.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
Hard physical fact is: You can not own ideas. It is physically completely impossible. Thinking you can, is like thinking gravity would go away if you stopped believing in it.
Because an idea can not be stolen. Because you can not take it away from someone(’s brain). Also, and idea that you don’t pass on, can not be proven to exist. At all. But if you pass it on, you by definition gave up control. And that’s also something required for it to be ownable.
In fact, information is not a good.
Evi1M4chine 1 year ago
@Evi1M4chine Re: You can not own ideas...(not passed on might as well not exist)
Interesting concept. So how do you go about encouraging investment (when an idea takes funds, time and effort to test)
neoaeonian 1 year ago
I wish there wasn't as much copyright police on youtube, if I'm doing a video with a song as background music, I'm not making any money out of it! Why should my video have its music removed?
And remember it's not illegal download that kills the industry, it's the prices.
jeanselina 1 year ago
This will work anywhere that creating the first of a new object is relatively cheap and creating copies of it are relatively expensive. Movies are very expensive to make currently but are very cheap to copy. While the look of a piece of clothing or a car is relatively cheap to create but has high production costs. Medicine is another example of something that is hard to invent or create the first copy of , but is easy to reproduce.
michalchik 1 year ago
i thought this going to be about a fashion free culture...
shickboy 1 year ago
@shickboy same here, fair enough, it was about the free culture in fashion.
BaileysBeads 1 year ago
so many bourgeois smugs in the audience blinking while laughing at the same time
mtksbctk 1 year ago
What the fuck are you talking about? Ever heard of cover bands? Have you not yet realized the thousand of screamo fucks trying to knock of a bigger bands sound? You can't copyright a scale, time signatures or a note. So WTF! are you talking about? We create and fabricate just like designers. We study other musicians art to further progress ours. We do this with a law saying you can't sell or claim another persons "song" as your own. Why don't you take more lessons from musicians?
AcusticDave 1 year ago
Hmm, my comment was removed or something glitched.
Pattern copyright is very, very common.
A nice speech but if based on an outright lie...what's the point?
'As we all know, grass is black'
vurtuality 1 year ago
@vurtuality Style patents are also common, but like pattern copyrights they are virtually worthless and unenforceable. Taking a protected piece of material and tweaking it is trivial.
Other idea that are more interesting are subscriptions. If you like what an artist has done pay her/him to do more. When enough people pledge to buy to make it worthwhile to the artists, the artist produces or releases what they have created.
michalchik 1 year ago
Comment removed
vurtuality 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERES AN IPAD GIVEAWAY ON MY CHANNEL
bestelectronicreview 1 year ago
Preach it sister!
davidedwardclark 1 year ago
Abolish copyright!
infzy 1 year ago
Comment removed
AcusticDave 1 year ago 2
Do you think that Tom Ford guy is gay? Could it be?
Joeey 1 year ago
In sum, Microsoft Corporation is big thief.
Joeey 1 year ago
"Without ownership there is no incentive to innovate" ?
That's a very primitive philosophy.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
I'm in great support of less IP and greater open-source its a catalyst for innovation and advancement and greater economic equality.. that is freedom but the ego appears to feed the need of people wanting praise and credit for their creations... in spite of the positive implications that said idea may rear in others.. to close this practice will actively support innovation unhindered innovation!
Th3Wab3 1 year ago
Can i have my 16:07 minutes back please? fuck you and fashion..
jefflukka 1 year ago
@ksuwildkat : You say same with software, but that is untrue. With the current software patents, imitating is a risky business.
ekmatteau 1 year ago
that's a great Powerpoint, too
mcsenget 1 year ago
down with IP!
zaskoda 1 year ago
the gross sales chart is very misleading, because it doesn't reflect whether it was based on IP laws alone. the speaker admitted it's the more utility, the less protection, so the sales of overall food vs music can probably be explained by utility alone, and irrelevant to regulations.
in fact, if all food and all music were free, you'd probably still see less music utilized vs food.
funwjoshnjenn 1 year ago
how is being forced to up your game and keep up with copiers a good thing for innovators? how is making more work necessary an incentive for innovation?
funwjoshnjenn 1 year ago
Sporks, daxx2k, sporks
SzymonStas 1 year ago
down with IP!
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 2
This is because Fashion is stupid like a wedding dress made of plastic spoons
daxx2k 1 year ago
@daxx2k Those are god damn sporks.
phreaksterman 1 year ago
@daxx2k fashion is, when you wear, what others tell you to wear.
If you don't care about fashion-trends, the whole industry looses its usability.
But that's kind of self-inflicted by the industry... when they started to think of people as walls that need to be decorated instead of people who need clothes for their everyday-life, designer-fashion lost it's functionality.
applications without function are useless. "looking good" is not a function.
liquidminds 1 year ago
@liquidminds I don't know but still here in US people are still wearing blue jeans and tshirt like 50 years ago...
daxx2k 1 year ago
I was surprised about the possibility that such a, in my view, luxurious field such as fashion can teach other fields about copyrights. not that it justifies the modern fashion world, but certainly an interesting analogy.
lilchimy 1 year ago 26
Lies, damn lies and statistics. You can live without pictures, movies and books but everyone has to eat and wear clothing. My copyright on my pictures doesnt stop someone from taking a "knock off" picture. It does prevent them from selling my picture as theirs. I imitate other photographers all the time - just like designers. But I cant resell their image as my own. Same with software, same with books.
ksuwildkat 1 year ago 3
@ksuwildkat "It does prevent them from selling my picture as theirs."
This is false. You are confusing trademarks with copyright. It is lying, fraud, etc. and a violation of trademark law to claim or represent something as having been created by someone who is was not. Trademark law stops them from selling your picture as their own. Copyright law however goes one step further and stops them from selling your picture while correctly attributing it to you.
PMix32 1 year ago
@ksuwildkat yes but if my circuit board is mapped the same as yours or very similar to yours i can get sued or i have to pay you a fee
StylinRed 1 year ago
Damn she is hot.
prashantpawar 1 year ago
@prashantpawar her boyfriend is a lawyer. Welcome to the USA, where lawyers, bankers, and insurance take all your money and women too. Keep a steady stream of fresh-blood, immigrants, to do the work, believe in the marketed "dream" and basically get played and used.
Joeey 1 year ago
@Joeey Funny thing I am an immigrant and I came here to steal your women.
prashantpawar 1 year ago 2
Here's the thing about conforming to a groups standards: the individual doesn't decide if they are part of a group; it's the group that chooses if that individual is in or out. This may sound like a chicken-egg thing, but it's true. By appealing to a group's standards by, oh, say, dressing a particular way, you are essentially putting in your application to join said group.
sjc418 1 year ago
conform conform conform conform ......
ShalloeThought 1 year ago
As stated previously, the fashion industry relies completely on intellectual property, namely trademarks. Pretty much, the fashion (computer) industry has to pay a lot of money to their designers (developers), money which they raise by preventing people from freely copying their brand (software functionality) by the use of trademarks (copyrights).
Many here seem to think that because the fashion industry uses TM instead of C, the computer industry could thrive without C as well. But no.
dingoperson 1 year ago
@dingoperson actually the computer industry do thrive without copyright. If it was not or the lack of copyright enforcement in the 1980's, 1990's the fact is the computer industry would not be where they are today.
DOS, Windows (Both NT and 3.1), Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, Media Player to name a few are knock offs of other products. With strong copyright protection and strong patent protection these products would not have existed or alternatively have been 3 times the price.
jacobuserasmus 1 year ago
Fashion is so vane in nature. I can't understand how people can make such a big thing from such a minuscule thing. I wear what feels and looks good on me, I never look how others dress or what fashion "trend" there is and I feel great!
Fashion is just another thing you don't actually need, that makes you buy stuff you could be happy without.
Tnat1on 1 year ago
@Tnat1on People care about fashion for a number of different, legitimate reasons. Indie kids dress indie, preppy kids dress preppy, business men dress business-like. They do it either to look good or to fit in with the people around them. The way you dress can also reflect your social status, your religious views, the amount of sleep you got last night, etc. Fashion is not vane, it's just a part of culture (a very significant part)
flagbearer223 1 year ago 3
@Tnat1on actually fashion influence exactly what you wear. All the clothes you buy in the store are influenced by high fashion. As she have said in the talk what you wear in the street influences what you see on the walk.
jacobuserasmus 1 year ago
And just how is the producer of a video that cost millions of dollars to make going to ever afford to make another one, if everyone can simply download it for free, without commercials? Yes, they could sell access to behind the scenes views, payed viewer participation in the creative process, etc.. But those sorts of monetization are a tiny fraction of the gross that a multi million dollar production needs. The bottom line for many non-performance artists, is that free means extinction.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Thats just the overrated crap mass-produced by hollywood that's "menaced" real art doesnt need to be pushed, people will encourage it.
SpEcImEn128 1 year ago 2
@SpEcImEn128 The people will encourage it by downloading it for free? Just how is that supposed to encourage it? And while you may be happy to see all television and movie production other than government financed simply disappear, I and a 'huge' proportion of the world most emphatically would not.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper yet the movie industry copy freely. Walt Disney makes money of stories that do not have copyright so why should they have the protection.
The other more interesting thing I would like you to look at is how much of this high cost of production is directly related to copyright protection or patents.
jacobuserasmus 1 year ago
@GrudgyDiablo
I think you missed the quotes. remeoneverdies said open source does not equal free. I was correcting him. So you and I both agree.
spuriousthought 1 year ago
That graph that shows the size of the different industries along with the implication that the size is largely due to the lack of copyright is a beautiful example of how to lie with numbers and charts. That's one for the textbooks for sure.
fungusamungus 1 year ago 2
I work for the fashion industry and she is totally wrong about copyrights.
They do exist and they are enforced. Not just the logo, designs are actually copyrighted.
Burberry is threatening other companies which make carmel tartan, because it looks similar to burberry tartan. Not the logo.
One of my customers sues other companies, which manufacture copies of their tablecloth designs.
The basic idea of this lady is interesting, but the premise is wrong.
dpeterc 1 year ago
beautifully put !
fatkasuvayu 1 year ago
She's actually the director of a thinktank at USC that studies the convergence of society, entertainment, and commerce. One would think that she probably has some expertise on economic issues and IP law. I can't help but think these comments that "she doesn't know what shes talking about" are due to gender bias.
hollyball88 1 year ago
Here's the thing. The digital universe is a universe of abundance. And all the copyright people want to do is put artificial scarcity into it to maintain their outdated business models.
hurkle 1 year ago 41
@hurkle True, artificial scarcity is what owners of intellectual property need to profit, but I think you're wrong to dismiss them as having "outdated business models." Scarcity is value - infinite supply means no value. If we value the work of artists, we should be willing to pay for it. If we don't value the work of artists, then what do we value? Advertisers? Corporations?
tylerwilde 1 year ago
@tylerwilde What we value ARE the artists: so we pay them directly. A couple bucks from paypal is more than they'll get from several sales of their CD. The middlemen (RIAA/MPAA) are being disintermediated, but they are such powerful industries that their desire to perpetuate their business models is generating ill-thought-out legislation that will affect the future negatively. Disney is the cause of the current copyright term (life + 70-some years) - again, through legislation. Sigh.
hurkle 1 year ago 2
@hurkle Would agree that there's plenty of ill-thought-out legislation, and I won't defend the RIAA/MPAA, but I think that the "open culture" movement is going too far, to the point of blurring the lines between individual works and derivatives. And while we are paying some artists directly, the model hasn't seen enough precedents to be proven viable for all creatives. People will pirate even if asked for just a small amount from the creator (See: Humble Indie Bundle)
tylerwilde 1 year ago
@hurkle I think there are a lot of interesting new models to explore, but what I despise is the idea that authorship isn't important, and that everything should be blurred together, remixed, and stripped of individuality to create One Book of the Internet. It's becoming a religious belief that all information should be free, but I disagree - information has value, information does not want anything - to be free or otherwise. If I write a book, the fact that I wrote it is massively important.
tylerwilde 1 year ago
@tylerwilde You bring up a good point, but please elaborate... why is it massively important? The money? The recognition? If it's the former, then the challenge is to find alternative revenue streams that spin off from the book (the tour, speaking engagements, etc). If the latter is important, then perhaps a culture of acknowledgement should be adopted.
Perhaps the recognition could lead to alternative revenue streams as well?
Kotesu 1 year ago
@hurkle
"The digital universe is a universe of abundance. And all the copyright people want to do is put artificial scarcity into it to maintain their outdated business models. "
Very well put.
UrsoDaCortesia 1 year ago
@hurkle the digital universe is abundant, but lazy people decide not to reference their sources and often plagiarize and claim the work as their own to create money. Copyright isn't about scarcity. It's about getting credit/reward for one's own work. Meanwhile, bloggers copy/paste other people's work so that they get paid from web traffic. Is it fair for someone else to get paid for the work you've done without at least some credit at the end of the quote?
Cradle2Venus 1 year ago
@Cradle2Venus
If credit is the issue, then the creative commons license standard is enough, and classical copyright is unnecessary.
If what's bothering you is that other people are making money off your work; if you would be getting significantly more income/traffic if the plagiarist didn't exist. In this case the problem is clearly that the plagiarist is decreasing the scarcity value of your content, and probably presenting it in a more accessible form. Otherwise, you haven't been harmed.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz the issue is not about being harmed or not. It is about giving credit where credit is due. Consider it like this: Let's say each person in a neighborhood does their own landscaping in their front yards. There is no "harm" if someone decides to distribute small lawn ad signs saying, "Landscaping by ACME Landscaping". It would be false but those who respond to the ad are not aware of that. Plagiarism is either mental lethargy or dishonesty. "oops can't find my source" or "mine now".
Cradle2Venus 1 year ago
@Cradle2Venus
I thought we were comparing piracy of hollywood movies with the situation in the fashion industry.
When someone puts out a torrent of a hollywood production signed "l33thaxor release", they aren't implying that the film was directed by l33thaxor, and I doubt that anyone misconstrues them as saying so. Also the movie contains credits.
The same applies to a Nikhe shoe.
The problem is that clothes don't come with a reference list, even if the plagiarist is well-intentioned.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@romeoneverdies "ppl misunderstand the open-source. open source doesn't = free. it means source is viewable."
Actually it does mean free. With just about any open source application, I can install it and use it. I can download the source code, modify it and publish the resulting binaries, as long as I make the source code modifications available to everyone else -- for free.
spuriousthought 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This article is irrelevant the fashion industry isn't the real world. If prada release a piece of plastic as a dress, everyone would buy it, not because its innovative. Can't believe anyone sat through this....
thomasalwyndavisj 1 year ago
@thomasalwyndavisj If Microsoft releases a new OS with minor changes to the GUI, People will buy it.
If Apple expands the size of the iPhone and turns it into a dumbed down tablet PC. People will buy it.
Amazing....people will buy things for irrational reasons...
defakto2227 1 year ago
the purpose of the talk is this its not about laws and copyright its the effect of those on industry . because you cannot copy you cannot create from and thats her argument . when you copy protect something you basically prevent creation from it
that