 Tom Scott. That's the name of the guy in the video the other day. I couldn't remember his name on YouTube. The British guy with blonde hair. I was talking about him in this video about the world's shortest river and how definition of river can be different depending on who you ask. But I just watched a video of his on copyright laws, which was a great video. It was very informative. He talked for factual stuff and basically how screwed up the copyright laws are. I figured I talked about it since I talked about free and open source software. Obviously copyrights are an important aspect there. I am not against copyrights. I think copyrights are extremely important. I love licenses like the GPL and without a copyright I couldn't release my software under the GPL because to license something you have to have a copyright on it. And you know for the last 30 or 40 years or some years you draw something. I draw a smiley face on a piece of paper. I have a copyright on it immediately and you can't make copies of that. And that is important. Again I write a piece of software. I don't have to go through legal means and paying fees and stuff to get a copyright on it so that I can release it under the GPL. If I don't have a license then someone can take that and close the source and do something else with it. So copyrights are very important, but our copyright laws are very very screwed up. And there are a lot of areas that I don't have answers for. There are some aspects of it that there aren't good answers. But I don't think anybody should get in trouble for watching a movie or listening to a song or looking at a picture. You know I live in America we're supposed to have freedom of speech. I know some people might say that we don't truly have freedom of speech. That's a debatable thing. But to say we have freedom of speech but I can get in trouble for listening to something. I can say whatever I want as long as it's not like a clear and present danger. But I can't listen to a song because it has a copyright and I have to pay to listen to it. That's ridiculous. And you know long story short you know there are different licenses out there. And as I said I like the GPL license for software over most other licenses. And the GPL was not designed for art. Although you can apply it to art. It's not really designed for art. But I think there should be licenses that are very similar. And the Crane of Commons is a good example. And there's different aspects in there. And I like some of the Crane of Commons licenses better than others. And some are GPL compliant and others aren't. Or compatible compliant. I don't know I guess compatible would be a better word there. But I personally don't think that. Okay so let me go back. There was a video I did a while ago talking about you know a GPL license which is a distribution license as opposed to a how do you how do people say that the ELUA you know an end user license agreement. So you get a copy of Windows or you know some proprietary software and before you use it you have to click I agree to this big long contract basically. That's different than a GPL. Because that is saying how you can use that software and how you can't use that software. What you can do with it and can't and you're agreeing to it. And it is illegal. I've heard people say oh you know you click yes that doesn't really mean anything. No you're legally agreeing that. And really even if you don't agree to it you're still legally bound by it. Because if I come and install software on your computer and I click yes and then use someone else comes along and uses it. They saw to apply to those conform to those agreements even though they didn't click the button which is very weird. Why is it so important I click the button. You know I guess it's just legal legal stuff saying well they should have known there there was the it was in there. A GPL license and a BSD license and MIT license and an Apache license aren't end user license agreements. My camera just fell off the tripod. But we're not going to stop. We're going to keep going. They are not end user license agreements. What is going on. Okay okay my little holder there is falling apart. They are not end user license agreements. They are distribution license. They say the GPL you can do whatever you want whatever you want with that software. What it's talking about is how you distribute it. Distribute it. So here's a question. Someone creates a piece of software like the Linux kernel under a GPL license. I take that and I make modifications to it. Do I have to share those modifications with the world? If you said yes you are wrong. I do not. I do if I distribute it. If I'm giving a copy of that to someone even if it's binary copies I have to also give them the source code and the changes I made. But if I don't give it to somebody I don't have to and I'm not a lawyer but I don't have to give them the changes I make. I can make my own personal changes keep them in my house. I can man we're going to try to keep going the little rubber grip on my camera tripod just slipped off and that's why the camera is slipping out. Anyway I was on an emotional rant and now I had to stop. So I was saying I can take the Linux kernel I can make changes of it as much as I want and I do not have to share that unless I'm giving you a copy it's about distribution and I think copyrights really should focus more on that rather than use because I should be able to listen to whatever I want. Now if I'm sharing that with somebody I probably have to go buy some guidelines but even though the GPL was not designed for art it was designed for software and as I said you can use it on arts it's kind of a gray area there I think to have a license similar to that for art would be very beneficial. So first of all let's let's stop right there and talk about artists making money. Something Tom Scott said in his video was just a question you know and he was trying to to at least for the first you know two-thirds of that video talk about facts these are the laws not that he agrees with them or whatever but he points out he goes he goes you know you're taking a picture taking a picture and uploading it to your website without permission that that is against the law if you don't have permission to do that and it's violating copyright laws and he said you know you might feel like it's fair you say I'm just putting it up here I'm not making money off it I'm just posting it and he says you know go to a photographer friend of yours and ask them how much they spend on equipment how much they spend you know taking the pictures and how hard it is and all that stuff and I wrote a comment on there none of that matters none of that matters most of you and and some of you maybe artists or some other field that's similar to this but most of us make money in two of main ways most of us make our money in one way we get a job somewhere we do our work and we get paid for that work someone hired us to do that work and we get paid for it or we create something you know some something physical and we sell that and then sometimes it's a little bit of both you're getting paid for making something and then they're selling that product why can't art be the same way so we see a lot of people especially artists obviously and they've worked out the copyright laws and their benefit over this theory that if I don't have a copyright and I can't charge people for for using this music and playing this song well then that I can't make money my question is who hired you who hired you to write that song who hired you to take that picture who hired you to make that video listen I don't do it much anymore but I used to do wedding videos there's always a side thing for me but I do a couple a year and you know what when I first started out I didn't know anything about copyright laws but yeah I'd be like oh yeah you know this is my my my work and you gotta charge and you know I gotta make copies but I only did that for a little bit back in high school I was in JROTC junior ROTC and the last two years I was there and then I actually went back to two years after that I did a CD yearbook for that class I go on the trips with them I take pictures and videos and I put them on a CD and I am guilty of being young and stupid and at least one of those years I had a key that was written on this label of the CD and you need that key was stupid because I I made like three different keys and then I you know so not everyone had the same key but a lot of the keys worked on different ones and it was stupid first of all DRM like that never worked especially the one I did because basically the way this worked was I had an application that displayed the images and basically I had folders of different categories and I just removed the extension they were all jpegs but they didn't have the jpeg extensions jpeg extension so on a windows machine if you looked at those folders they just showed up as miscellaneous files but if you just added .jpeg uh they would they be images so so the the the key would just basically allow you to access the next menu in the software but anyone who copied it to their hard drive renamed the files could view the files it was stupid and it was just stupid that I even tried doing that and most of the time you look at stuff like that companies spend so much time and money trying to put DRM in place and 99.9 percent of the time it doesn't work you know it might slow people down but it also encourages some people a lot of people who go around breaking DRM do it because it's a challenge so it's completely pointless but towards the end of doing that and most of my wedding videos I go I film the wedding I say I film the wedding you will get a copy on DVD if you want me to make extra copies and label them and put them in nice packages and stuff like that I do it for 20 bucks a copy but I would tell people feel free to make as many copies you want and even towards the end I would upload the videos to YouTube for them and be like here you know share it download it why wouldn't I want people to share my work that's just going to get me more business the thing is I already made you know my 800 thousand dollars which is very low for wedding videos most time I was doing it for for friends or friends and friends so so I would do it for I think most weddings I did I did for 800 to a thousand dollars for six hours worth of work and I had down most of my video editing I had scripted out and I could usually edit a wedding video you know that was anywhere from a half an hour to an hour depending on how much happened at the wedding I'd be able to do that in 24 hours and turn around and spit it out to people you know even before that probably taking me a week I've talked to people who who takes over a year to get their wedding videos which is ridiculous thing is I had it down I knew what I was doing I would charge you you want me for six hours it's 800 dollars you want me for eight eight hours it's going to be 1200 dollars or whatever I get paid for doing my work if you want to make copies of it why do I care why would I care I got paid for doing my work and all photographers musicians can be like this I wrote a song did someone pay you to write that song no then you can't complain when people don't pay for doing it you can make money by doing live performances I go to work I go to work and I work 24 hour shifts you you know you whatever you do you work at a grocery store you go to work and you get paid you don't go to work you don't get paid musicians should be the same way well what about artists with the painting of their their their paintings no one hired you to to paint that but you can also sell the painting you made if someone makes a copy it's not the original painting copies of paintings don't make the money that the originals do yeah you could make money off copies but what do you care no one hired you do it you can't complain I usually use the analogy that I came up with and people will criticize this analogy but I think it's a good analogy you know you leave your house you come back someone mowed your lawn while you're gone you didn't hire them but now they're sending you a bill saying I mowed your lawn you're enjoying a mowed lawn because of me you have to pay me that's basically what artists are doing when they when they do that I wrote a song you're enjoying that song you have to pay me I painted this picture I took this photo you're looking at that you have to pay me you know and people will criticize my my my analogy there because it'll be like oh well that's trespassing maybe trespassing well that's a whole another issue but let's just say I mowed I mowed the lawn at public park and now I'm sending people bills for walking through the park well you're enjoying the park I mowed the lawn you should pay me money no if you're an artist you want to make money keep making art find people who like your work if I like a musician I hear their songs and I'm like man I want more music from that guy you know I'll send him you know if he says I'm working on a new album but to do this I need you know to be paid for my time you know I need to raise so much money I'll send him you know depending on how much I like they were from five twenty five dollars you know depending on how much I like the the artists how much I want to hear their music am I getting a cd or am I getting digital download but you can make money like that and the thing is people say oh it's too hard doing you know this this fundraising it's like well it's actually doing work I think it's ridiculous that an artist can spend you know a couple of weeks writing some songs and then expect to get paid for the next 100 years because again you know Tom Scott talks about this and I I know this I'm not a professional on copyrights but I know a lot about them you know you you create something and it's your life plus 70 years and that's not even getting into trademarks because again you you you try to make a Superman cartoon or draw a picture of Superman you know and now you're getting into fair use stuff under certain cases and and fair use is just complete you know BS pardon me but it's BS because because it's all it's all you know a matter of opinion and it may work this time it may not work that time different people argue over what fair use is it's like that should never be your argument and you know when you're going out to decide to do something but but you know basically when it comes down to the whole fair use thing is basically are you making money off it like you could you can can I walk down the street singing a Beatles song yeah I could walk down the street but I record myself doing it and put it up online oh now now I can get sued but either way I'm doing the same thing so uh so going back to the the GPL license it being a distribution license I think it should be the same thing I should be able to to listen to whatever I want look at whatever pictures I want you know but maybe distributing it just distributing it would be the issue you know and uh and in Tom Scott's video he talks about how people are very flip flop it's like if if an individual user uses like a clip from a Marvel movie that's okay but if Marvel was to do it the other way around they would you would throw a fit no I I I think either way so so let's say let's talk about the GPL license versus other licenses like the BSD now this is going to be very controversial long about the sale though this whole video probably is I much prefer the GPL license I think it is a three-year license I think it has less restrictions than the the BSD license and that's where people are going to freak out no the BSD is less less restrictive okay well people say when they mean that uh what people mean when they say that is one of two things either they have no clip of the talking about them they just heard people say that and they don't really understand it but really what it is the the main difference between a GPL license and and there are different BSD license uh but uh one of the BSD license at least um and a lot of these other open source licenses versus free licenses is uh the allow the allowance to to re-license so I create something under a BSD license I put the software under that license someone can take that and then make some changes and compile up and say okay now I'm not sharing the changes that is restriction but people will say that's freeing because you're not restricting people from restricting the software which does not make any sense so and why anybody would release any of their software under a BSD license or some sort of license that allows re-licensing like that uh is beyond me uh it's either because they're planning on screwing you over later by closing it up or they just don't understand it and they think that it's giving them more freedom because they heard that but basically it's just allowing someone else to take what you've created and take it away from you basically because now they've made changes to it and and you don't have access to that going back to the gpl license I create something in gpl license people to make changes but now unless they're keeping it from themselves if it's out in the world at all they are required by law to share those changes and if you do the same thing with your art think about how great that would be marvel's making a big movie you know they want to use your song they can either pay you for a license to use it or the video they use it in the movie they use it they have to release under the same license which is completely free to imagine if all the assets for marvel movies were made public for you to use but then again you know another movie you know company wants to use some of those assets well it's under that license they have to make all of their video free and open meaning that all their assets all their sound clips all the music they use would have to be free and open and this doesn't have anything this doesn't stop people from paying for the stuff I mean why would it because because again do you want to see another adventures movie you're either going to pay for it or you're going to download it for free why does it matter whether it's it's it's free it's it's open or not they say hey we want to make an adventures movie we need a budget you know of one billion dollars whatever it costs to make movies nowadays or at least they claim they make which also adds into it it's like they say the movie costs this much well it probably costs half of that if you could use the assets and sounds and music from other projects without paying for them but that pays back because now all those assets use those people can use what you create and we just get my piles and piles and piles of media that everyone can use and we can all create great things i mean think about how you're creating a video maybe you're making a movie right now and you want to use a song and of course the main one of the main points of tom scott's video uh was how people complain about the the youtube uh content id and and how their copyright things are broke and how really it's not and i i've always kind of agreed with with basically what he said it's like youtube has arranged something so that we can post stuff that has copyrighted material and we the chances of us getting sued are very very low because they can go to youtube and go like hey just give us money or put up an ad and we get the money from that and you may not like that but it's better than them coming and suing you it's a balance there um again what youtube is doing is not great but it's working around a broke system which is basically what tom scott's video is about um but think about the all these you can watch some of these videos on youtube that that are almost as good as big budget movies at least in my opinion um and just think about how much better they could be you know you know some guy on youtube is making these videos and and he does making this great deal but then like the the the models he's using for the 3d stuff just don't look quite right well imagine if you had a bigger selection to choose from his video would look better but then everything he creates someone else can use parts of and of course my big thing is credit you know and when you come to like the um the uh the creative commons license there's different options uh my my videos this video is under creative commons share share like meaning you're allowed to share it but you have to allow people to share uh and and make changes to to what you're making um but attribution attribution is a big thing to me um to me that should even be you know um part of the license that should just be required by law i should be able to use whatever i want my video but i have to give attribution um because if not uh to me that would fall my personal opinion would fall under false advertising if i made a video and i used the song that that i didn't create and i don't credit somebody i'm basically stating in so many words that i created this i wrote this song and i didn't and if i didn't create that i think that should fall under false advertising you know and and think of like millie vanilli it's like they lied about them singing you know some of the younger guys probably don't know millie vanilli is but back early 90s late 80s uh somewhere around there early early 90s i think it was could have been late 80s i was young anyway uh blame it on the rain was their big song they had a couple big songs turns out these two guys weren't singing the song and that happens a lot in the music industry the music videos aren't the people who actually sing the songs at least it happened back then um and the truth is if you're saying these people are singing and they're not i think that's false advertising you can have them sing but in the credits say singer voice this but then visually performed by so-and-so if you want however but you need to word it like that and to me if you don't do that that's false advertising or the very least misleading advertising right so again these are topics that a lot of people are going to have opinions on but i have found whether you agree with me or disagree with me most people uh who argue about copyrights especially people who argue for copyrights do not know anything about copyrights and they just have it in their mind that maybe someday i'll create something i'll become a billionaire or a millionaire and uh one uh that that's just a greedy way to think that and that's a whole another video like people will come up to me and say hey you should make it i have an idea for an app we can make millions yeah you think it's going to be that easy very rarely do you make that type of money without a lot of work um i'll give you an example i have a buddy of mine i won't say his name but he's a very good friend of mine i don't see him very much he lives in another country now and his side job is a magician he's written a few magic books and last time he was in the in the states which was a while ago um he was having me copy some dhs tapes he had to dvd and while we were doing it he was complaining about how uh the books he wrote he found them online that people were pirating them and i hate that term pirating um they were they were pirating and making copies and he's anyone who copies my book and shares with other people should be thrown in jail and here i am copying videos to dvd for him and that's that's kind of i don't know the current state of law on that that's something that's gone kind of back and forth i think current law says if you're making copies for yourself uh to a new type of media or for backup copies that's allowed so the fact that he had these vhs and we're copying dvd because vhs is kind of going out um that's kind of out that's that's been a gray area in the past meanwhile his kids were in the living room watching a cartoon that i downloaded off the internet and i point out to him that they were doing that and oh oh that's okay once something's on tv that that's okay because it's already been aired and they've made their money well no i i downloaded it from the internet and the commercials are cut out so the people who paid them to post those commercials i mean if that's your argument that's a poor argument uh no that's still again you know you can't say oh i think copyright laws are great the way they are except for all the things i do and then his wife uh was sharing cookbook recipes with my wife now you have a food recipe and again i'm not a lawyer but in general you can't copyright a food recipe that is you know three cups flour two cups water two eggs but copyright but when you have a cookbook that they usually have writings and you know this is that and that and this and i used to make this in the summer and then you can't copy that and even if i just printed up a page in my book that just had the list of ingredients and and what to cook it at you can't copy that because again in tom scott's video it makes a great point there are songs like uh canon indeed best name that song right that plays at all the weddings um that song is at a copyright but if you perform it now you have a copyright on that performance which is just stupid i would think you're using this for free what you create with it should be free as well i think it's kind of greedy for you to say well well i took that and i replayed it okay anyway so my buddy's over we're making copies of vhs tapes to dvd which is is legal at least it is now i think again that's a law that's changed in the past um watching show cartoons that we downloaded off the internet and photocopying pages from a cookbook but according to him all three of those are okay well that's that that doesn't count but if someone copies the magic book he wrote they should be thrown in jail according to his words now this guy's very very good friend of mine but screw you buddy you are just being greedy and you know what i think people who think like that should be thrown in jail or at least smacked in the face and and again that guy's a really good friend of mine but i don't care how good a friend you are if you're being an idiot you just serve to be smacked in the face oh little violent on tv or youtube or whatever this is anyway um i've talked for a while this is a passionate topic i try not to talk too much about it i try to to encourage open source software and media through my videos by showing people how it works showing people how to create the stuff and sharing the stuff i create and i would hope you would too so again kind of a long video uh i do recommend checking out tom scott just go just search tom scott um youtube copyright would probably what would be the video comes up it's probably as long as my video it's close to a half an hour long and his is much more informative mine is mostly opinions where his was mostly uh fact um but lots of good examples so uh if you've watched this video this long this is very long for one of my videos i do appreciate you sticking around oh my air conditioner turned off to be quieter now um anyway thanks for watching filmsbychrist.com that's chris the k check it out and as always i hope that you have a great day and i apologize i was trying to make a point to look at the camera rather than the screen uh because i noticed in my last two videos it looked kind of weird that i was looking at the screen but i think it was because i was closer see like this i'm not looking at you it's like i'm looking outside we're here if i look at the camera i'm looking at you hopefully if i'm further back it's less obvious i i apologize if that's weird try to stay further back okay have a great day