Why We Should Get Rid Of Intellectual Property
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 11. 2022
- You've probably heard the term "intellectual property" before. If not, it basically means you can lay claim to an idea and prevent anyone else from using it, building upon it, or even creating something similar. Why do we have these laws, and how deep does the problem go?
How Intellectual Property Stifles Innovation - Second Thought
SUBSCRIBE HERE: bit.ly/2nFsvTS
New video every Friday!
Citations and Further Reading:
Insulin costs less than $10 to produce
www.wusa9.com/article/news/ve...
1 in 5 Americans ration their insulin
www.nbcnews.com/health/health...
Insulin prices increase by 15-17% every year
www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...
Insulin used to cost $20, now it costs $300
www.wusa9.com/article/news/ve...
Monthly insulin costs exceed $1000
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...
90% of the insulin market is controlled by 3 companies
www.wusa9.com/article/news/ve...
3 companies keep insulin out of the public domain
www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950...
COVID vaccine manufacturers hire 100 lobbyists to protect their monopoly
theintercept.com/2021/04/23/c...
WTO waiver delays
www.oxfam.org/en/press-releas...
www.msf.org/lack-real-ip-waiv...
Oxfam, 1 death in a rich country, four in a poor country from COVID
oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2...
COVID vaccine manufacturers benefitted from IP waivers
theintercept.com/2022/08/23/c...
America was built on IP theft
www.history.com/news/industri...
The US complains about IP theft today
www.ft.com/content/1d13ab71-b...
TRIPS benefits the Global North
books.google.com/books?id=oK1...
IP more profitable than traditional business
dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2333844
Four Futures by Peter Frase
books.google.com/books?id=ZFd...
Tech companies file thousands of patents a year and weaponize them
www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/n...
www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/te...
Collective funds idea
/ how_would_intellectual...
Crowdfunding idea
• Why Creators Shouldn't...
Fraud prevention patent office idea
• AskProfWolff: Patents ...
Socialism and intellectual property
www.socialist.net/copyright-k...
jacobin.com/2013/09/locked-out
jacobin.com/2013/09/degenderi...
jacobin.com/2013/09/property-...
Follow and Support Second Thought!
Twitter: / _secondthought
Patreon: / secondthought
BuyMeACoffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/secondth...
CashApp: $JTChapman
Watch More Second Thought:
Latest Uploads: • Playlist
Spaaaaaace!: • Playlist
What If...: • Playlist
Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Secon...
About Second Thought:
Second Thought is a channel devoted to education and analysis of current events from a Leftist perspective. Welcome!
Business Email: secondthoughtchannel@gmail.com
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
Medical intellectual property should be illegal
It all should.
It's a crime against humanity
Interlectual Property doesnt need to be illegal,because its not actually a thing.It only exists because of the goverment,so all we need to do is getting the goverment to stop doing this crap!
Or anything having to do directly with people's well being.
@@bigbillhaywood1415 exactly. It all should. To everyone else, how many battery advancements have the oil companies prevented from coming out by patenting them? How much money has been exploited out of people by middle men simply because they were rich enough to purchase intellectual property in the arts, sciences, medicine, energy, and basically every sector of society?
The insulin cost is probably why sepsis is more common in the US than it should be. That and the fact that people are just afraid of going to the hospital because of the cost of medical care
I've recently learned it's as expensive as advertised. But the treatment is that of a field hospital unless your insured. I could afford the 500 payment if I really think they did a good job. But I'll file bankruptcy before that shit holes takes a penny from me
The US is the only developed country where upon injury, instead of requesting an ambulance, people scream to NOT call the ambulance.
Not to mention the rapidly declining quality of healthcare due to the tying of college / med school government funds to graduation rates. This has led the med schools to dumb things downs for more federal funding
@@betawolfhd
The most ironic fact is that you need money to file for bankruptcy. As strange as it sounds, you can be too broke/poor to file for bankruptcy.
@@jf2176 Don't talk about nations as if they are made up of clones.
As a type 1 diabetic I'm in a permanent state of being grateful I wasn't born in the US.
Every so often here (in Australia) it comes out that there are some politicians who think we should have an American style healthcare system and my blood runs cold.
Yep, the provincial government here in Alberta (Canada) wants to bring in American style healthy, and just the thought of it is horrifying.
The American style could work. It just has a lot of issues as a result of lack of true free market competition along with Healthcare Monopolies. The UK, Australia and Canada. All countries that supposedly have far greater healthcare systems. Are all dealing with issues as a result of their Socialized system. Main one being people dying due to not being able to get healthcare on time as a result of an overburdened system.
@@scaryblackrifle1481 What even are you even talking about...
People die is the argument?
...far more people are dead and dying because of American's forprofit system, lmao, what's your argument?
That you have more money? Funding? Fancier medicine and hospitals?
Maybe Because no one can use them, except the rich...
but That's not an argument for the fact that even if you gotta wait, you're guaranteed care alteast!
Unlike the US which turns you down from any or all care because of money, or worse... you know...race or gender.
@@RSAgility Can you not read properly? I stated that the U.S system could work well if certain solutions were implemented. Such as price Transparency aswell as true free market competition as opposed to the monopolies we have.
@@scaryblackrifle1481 You're just lying
As someone who spends 8 hours a day designing new scientific instruments, I would absolutely love to see the end of IP. I want to just make stuff without the fear of investors and lawyers deciding to suddenly ruin my life.
Not to sound all capitalist and gross, but who exactly is going to pay you to sit around all day designing new scientific instruments if no one can make money selling them? The governement, I guess. But then who decides which instruments get designed?
The last 5 whole minutes if this CZcams video answer your question on compensating labour without IP
@@taskerwanlin4102Interestingly these "benefits" of exploiting healthcare and scientific progress doesn't go in pockets of those who work on bring healthcare and scientific progress. Engineers, doctors and novators don't get a lot from the big pie of profit that their labour creates. Monopoly companies defend their right to exploit this system because it is extremely benefitial to them.
@@jimbarino2 The professionals that use them would decide. If resources were scarce, they could be distributed democratically. But they're not scarce. We just generate an exorbitant amount of waste to perpetuate the economy, and we don't distribute to those who need it because it's not profitable enough. Instead of asking "who's going to pay for it", ask yourself, "Why are we withholding it?" And if you have any response to that question, other than "we shouldn't," I want you to take a long, deep look inside to see why you think that way.
hell, even the "pirate but please donate" system won't be so absurd and crippling.
"Don't worry, this IP stuff will protect the little guy"
- big guy stifling competition by owning literally ALL THE IP
When the people running megacorporations have a victim complex so they always think they are the small guy no matter what
I'd believe that if big companies and billionaires were ineligible to "own" IP.
Its supposed to be a tool of anti trust and against stagnant monopolies. Like so much else it has been hijacked and twisted to serve monopoly and investment banking. The answer is reform, not regression to the middle ages, secrecy, and compartmentalization of knowledge. Which is what happens without a system to publish, protect, and reward innovation and knowledge.
There are emulators, open source systems and the pirate bay for that. Not to worried about digital goods more when it comes to hardware though you can basically run anything with a cheap computer since the price of computers half every 2 years or so.
Hubris sees that everyone is the underdog looking to come out on top
Love this. The most common reason given by corporations to keep IP is to offset the cost of research that went into developing a certain drug. But the research in industry is HEAVILY reliant on the research in academic institutions like universities, which are funded by public money. So not only do companies not own the entirety of their innovations, but they insult the general public further by charging exorbitant prices for the drugs that their taxes helped develop in part.
Companies steal the labor of the public and sell it back for profit.
Yeah kinda surprised he didn't bring that up, especially talking about insulin in specific.
While true, I should add that big pharma companies pay good money to academic institutions for the rights to such NCE (new chemical entities), as well as to perform their clinical trials on their patients. This money helps fund those institutions too, not just tax money.
Sure, some information is just published and free to use, but don't assume a university or hospital that does R&D doesn't patent its methods or new compounds.
Usually an institute has two options: either you sell the IP to a larger company to continue its development, or 2. you start a start-up company as an institution offshoot to commercialise the idea.
@@Tinky1rs I agree that pharma companies do licence NCEs or other techniques patented by the academic institutions before commercializing them. But I would argue that the income that the academic institutions get from the licencing fees is far less than the funding they receive from public institutions like NIH or NSF. Furthermore, there also have been instances where companies slightly modify the existing university patent to avoid infringement and circumvent licencing fees. In such cases universities are put into further dilemma of whether to spend money on suing the companies l; the money that could be invested into education and research infrastructure.
I wonder if the prices are high because of the government’s involvement…
Wow as an artist I’ve always seen IP as one of our holy grails(and we still get our art stolen and copied) this was honestly very eye opening
Yes, I agree. I think the solutions presented would still be challenging to unknown artists, there’s maybe not a way around that, but the current system is oppressive and stifles their creativity.
Pieces of art should be protected because it’s not a matter of public health and it is a unique contribution of the individual, technique can’t be patented for art so why is it for medicine. If we lost art we would lose culture and lack of incentive could lead to this and the soul would become a distant memory without representation present in society. By medicine being patented people are losing their lives and some cultures would mourn an older person more because they’re a font of knowledge and culture.
Me, a musician: sure ok, I'll try to keep an open mind and watch this one... 😂
@@CMDR_Lani
I release my music for free. Gotta start somewhere ig
In a world of infinite resources (the digital world) capitalism is not compatible with freedom (just like communism is not compatible with freedom in a world of finite resources) so I try to look for things that are not infinite and offer that to others. In your case artwork is infinite, if you want to "protect" it you would have to actively restrict things that are allowed by default (reposting, downloading, etc.), your services are, however, finite and protected by default (people cant, copy or download them) so those are more than fair to exchange for other kind of value (eg. money). I think most value can be created for all parties if you accentuate that fact and stop chasing fictional restrictions. For example, do commissions or create physical collectable artwork.
As a diabetic, I'm grateful for you covering insulin. Honest it made my day when Eli Lilly's stock got tanked from that tweet. Any other diabetics in this comment section, hit me up I'm starting to organize diabetics for insulin and want to raise awareness about the Open Insulin Foundation, we gotta get them the funds to finish their critical work.
Engineer here, one of those who would benefit from patents, a form of IP. I always thought this through my entire career! That IP was a huge hindrance to technological progression.
IP prevents cooperative design among engineers, and hampers humanity.
And destroys your own progress
As an engineer working for a company, if I create some patent I get about the equivalent of one months salary at most as a bonus, and then the company owns it and gets the possible profit from it. If I change companies it will stay there and I lose access to it.
How is it socialist if individual engineers who innovate get to keep the patent, isn't that more capitalism, anyway never mind
Anyone who's in tech knows all the innovation is in open source. Being able to share info freely and collaborate is how technological progress is made. Our entire web infrastructure is built with this open collaborative philosophy. Capitalism actively opposed that. It's amazing we've come so far despite capitalism, and it's mostly thanks to dedicated individual developers to the free information movement. Not to corporations.
(Some might say companies fund open source, but they wouldn't if not for the unusual leverage software engineers have as workers, and them preferring that system and the sheer undeniable advantage of working collaboratively.
The CEO of Microsoft, Steve Balmer, once called open source "communism". He was right then, and it was an enemy of vendor lock in and capitalist rent seeking.
Of course now they try hard to walk that back. There's no denying it, so they say "it's not really communism" now. Don't want anyone realizing communist ideals serve them better than capitalist ones.
Here in México they practically give insuline away at public hospitals if you need it. The only downside is a 10 to 20 minutes line.
I remember one American insurance company somewhere in southern US putting their clients on a plane and sending them to Mexico to buy the needed medication there, because that ended up cheaper than buying same medicine in country with insane profit margins.
Waiting in line is nothing compared to all stress of getting into immense medical debt.
@@garr_inc That would be in the State of Utah.
@@drasco61084 Plus people in the US fear going to a doctor visit due to the cost. Henceforth worsed than 20 min long lines.
@@hectorvega621 Thank you very much. I will forget that soon, because for me living in Russia there is little need for me to remember most of the states. I only know general locations of Philadelphia, Texas, New York, Oregon and Washington DC.
Thank you for this! As a nurse in Europe it's baffling to me how insulin in the US can be that expensive. And it's not as if those pharma giants don't make enormous profits over here.
Insulin is also usually fully covered so that it actually is free in a lot of healthcare packages in europe so it is totally ridiculous. If they did this to us I would assume people would go for the head of the politicians who would allow something this inhumane.
Of course nothing is perfect but my family has had a lot of health problem (mostly me and my sister) and It just makes u appreciate it more. Unfortunately my medication isn't insured maybe because its new or i dont know. So I have to pay €380 out of pocket every year (own risk) it's kinda unfortunate but it's the medicine that working the best on me right now so I don't kind paying like 100-150 extra per year though it doesn't impact me in any way and I'm getting plenty of care.
@@LucinaMeow I can only imagine the French doing a second French Revolution if that ever came to happen
@@LucinaMeow Yeah in the US you would be broke and in a pile of debt.
@@joshuepico75 the French would 100% do that
@@melloncollic most likely good thing I don't live there 😂
This topic is of huge importance and often overlooked when it comes to discussing why it's not only about who holds means of production but even more about who's allowed to even think about trying to hold it. All they'll say 'if you don't like capitalism then do it all yourself, innovate, create etc', but that's exactly where the problem is: patent owners won't allow you to do so. People don't even comprehend the scale of actual slavery happening under capitalism and its means to assert itself as 'indispensable'.
And the gov makes sure ur not allowed to comprehend it by making everyone stupid and gatekeeping education lol
Сделать что то с НУЛЯ одному индивидуму при капитализме ШАНСОВ 0.00001%🤣
Society isn’t just divided, it’s fractured in a complex and random way
What does capitalism have to do with that??? Patents and intellectual property are literally government market regulations which is the opposite of capitalism.
@@vicaf1617 the us gov actively defends capitalism bro. You can have regulations that help the rich get richer
They don't kick away the ladder - they pull it up. Kicking it down means someone can lift it back up, and they can't let that happen. They'd rather pull the ladder up, break it into sections, and use those to build their own fence around the upper perimeter of their ivory towers.
Piracy is basically digging underground and through the foundation to get in - it works, but it is not effective beyond small-scale quasi-immediacy. What we need is the equivalent of just dynamiting the entirety of the ivory towers - it gets rid of those eyesore and gives us access to reclaimed land as well as resources to repurpose.
The wealth disparity in today's USA is greater than that between a 10th century serf and a king.
And that disparity motivated A LOT of peasant rebellions.
The secret is community. A common goal and shared understanding of that goal.
Those serfs had their smaller, tight-knit communities.
Today, we have unions.
Unions exist to make sure workers follow the same game plan during the war against the owners.
In the US, the workers lost their fight. So sooner or later, they will have to fight it again.
So UNIONIZE!
@@jarrellfamily1422 all revolution does is bring in another illegitimate authority by imposing illegitimate authority.
@@yvindblff5628 "the secret is community"?
Are you trying to say that communities don't exist now?
@@jarrellfamily1422 once again, all that would be is overthrowing an illegitimate authority with illegitimate authority to get another illegitimate authority. Say hello to the new boss, the same as the old boss.
The monetary-market system proves to be more and more absurd every day. The IP issue for profit is yet another example.
Want innovation that helps people? Open source! Without a profit/monetary system open sourcing would be more than good enough to develop things we actually need to improve society.
Fight intellectual property law. Commit piracy. 🏴☠️
Piracy is Robin Hood
Raise the sails!
in our country piracy is the default LOL
Fuck that. Cut out the middleman and just slaughter the super wealthy and set those IPs free.
@@Raso719 Killing individual people while the system remains intact will lead to very limited success. And it will be temporary.
A couple of years ago I read a heartbreaking story about a guy who was about to get married and had to make a choice between getting his insulin or paying for a suit for the wedding. He got a suit and black market insulin and died shortly after due to complications related to the insulin he took. No one should have to make such choices. *Also* I just got the book mentioned here, Four Futures
Jesus
I think US Americans with medical problems should be accepted as refugees to other countries because this just sounds like a straight up dictatorship but by corporations! And I think the countries who accept US American asylum should also not recognise the medical debts the Americans have, because healthcare is a human right and those debts were created via violating those rights! Idk which country would accept that, but I think socialist US enemies like Vietnam or Cuba could have this as an amazing opportunity to show up their ideological superiority.
Nobody is forgotten. Nothing is forgiven.
A patent office solely to keep track of inventors is an excellent idea. I have often wondered about the fact that we know so many inventors from ye olden days, but hardly any name of any actual person comes to mind when thinking about modern technology. Just today I tried to find out who invented the .webp image format. The answer: Google did. I strongly doubt that an abstract entity is capable of inventing anything.
Yup. Programmer here, the only place my name ever ends up is on my personal side-projects.
It also solves the issue of credit. However we get into the issue of, who really did it first. I can overhear a comrade then run to the office claiming it as my idea, therefore getting credit
Holy nuts I had the same ideas about changing how research gets funded. Those that ARENT selected by the public should be made available to individuals to invest in for research that is valuable but doesn’t immediately produce a sellable product. I really really like the idea that all info is open to the public
Research should simply be funded by the public instead of private companies, or single individuals.
@@projectpitchfork860 #corporationlivesmatter? This is not designed to disparage any movement nor group. Just a funny expression of the legal concept of corps being considered people
All patents are required by law to be publically available. It is the research papers that are behind paywalls which caused me a lot of during my thesis.
“IP abolitionist” is the sickest title I’ve ever seen someone use
@@saturationstation1446 Love that! A humanity and human experience centric politick.
@@saturationstation1446 respect existence or expect resistance 😡
@@You.are.correct.however that's a badass phrase, I love it!!!
You should make a video on how scientific journals act as gate keepers of scientific knowledge and how this prevents scientifically inclined people from getting into a market by stifling innovation. I'm looking to build some things that use sub ambient thermal radiation paint for a project and just getting the one paper I wanted was tricky. It was also only possible because I was an alumni of the university. I was given a temporary pass to use at the university library its self. But papers can easily cost more then a persons hourly wage and doesn't go back to fund the science either. To me if your going to profit from something you should at least invest back into it. Else you reduce the amount of science inspired people and slowly reduce the potential pool of innovation your publication draws on to make said money.
Not sure if you tried this, but generally if you email the corresponding author for a paper directly, they will often send you a copy of it for free. It's not a guarantee, and I haven't tried it myself (my uni gives me enough access to papers), but it's something I've heard can be more successful than you think
Sci-hub is your friend.
I feel you, nothing like seeing a title and abstract and being like “omg perfect this is a paper on exactly the topic I was looking for…. aaaand there’s the paywall.”
@@ianthorvaldson5120 it SHOULD be a guarantee, and even it SHOULDN'T NEED PERMISSION, that's the point. you suggested something that's completely missing the point lmao
I am coming from years as a staunch ancap business owner. You do a fantastic job of presenting points in a logical way that doesn't make me feel like a prick just for believing a certain way or having believed that way in the past. You have moved a pretty solid rock a pretty good distance. I was daring you to change my mind on this one and maybe I am just not as stubborn as I used to be. Good job.
Saw Adam Neely's video on this last week where he also argues and show how destructive it is for the musical art. And I fully agree. Intellectual property is pure gatekeeping.
How?
I'm legitimately asking.
I would imagine that taking a popular owned song, say... I don't know... Jailhouse Rock by Elvis, changing a few words and selling it as your own isn't appropriate.
@@bryanv1681 why not? you think art is sacred? Explain how debt to property makes any sense. The goal of any economy should be a free market. The freest market is banishing of IP to end economic rent.
@@bryanv1681if the "appropriateness" of acknowledging the concept of _someone being able to own a series of notes_ is the primary way you look at the idea of intellectual property, there is nothing anyone can write in a CZcams comment section that will sufficiently explain the insanity of it. Not in a way that can potentially change your mind about it, anyway.
Nothing about capitalism is "appropriate".
Just go to Adam Neely's channel & watch the extensive & thorough video.
In a capitalistic society, saying that IP should be done away with is ridiculous, because independent artists already have the problem with everybody ripping off their stuff Corporations have been stealing the IP of small time artists for centuries and only because we have the concept of IP have some of those artists been able to at least get something back.
You need to eliminate some other things before you can eliminate IP, because as long as people are making money off art, then artists need to be able to protect the stuff they create so they are the ones profiting from it.
@@NelsonStJames I didn't say it should be done away with. I'm saying it's destructive to the art. And whether we're in a capitalistic world or not doesn't have anything to do with that argument because I didn't say anything about practicality. It's like saying we shouldn't talk about how much the animal industry is affecting climate change because "what about everyone making a living of the animal industry?".
But I do think we should abolish IP, and I'll explain:
@bryanv1681 Thanks for asking! I think we need to consider what IP is within music: It's the act of claiming ownership of ideas and production and demanding rent on those ideas or production. The notion of owning "ideas" is dangerous, because innovation doesn't work in a vacuum. It happens by building on and repurposing existing ideas. Imagine scientists claiming IP on their scientific results. We'd be stuck in 20th early century in terms of technological and societal evolution, and the incentives for the scientists wouldn't be to truly innovate and share ideas, but rather to do the bare minimum new discovery and immediately claim ownership of that so that they can profit from everything built on that. But science did discover some interesting meta-idea. How do we acknowledge and give recognition to the great ideas? That's where the citation system comes in. It's not perfect (capitalism has a tendency to corrupt anything), but it is a system that's working out surprisingly well. In today's society with its current AI, it wouldn't be impossible to automate a system for analysing music and pointing out similarities to previous work. Just because you wrote a song doesn't make it great, but whatever built on it should acknowledge that as a source. Someone using your original ideas and changing them a bit and being a better performer would be someone who contributed positively to the art, but it would be disingenuous to not acknowledge where the ideas came from.
@NelsonStJames So how would small artists still make a living in such a system? Honestly, my opinion is that I don't think they should make money directly from other people performing work that's built on their work, but I do think that if there's clear citations that some of that audience will be directed to the cited source. And that's much better and IMO fairer system than today, where it's either that you don't have IP on something and if someone uses your ideas then they get both the money and recognition, or they popularise an idea and they either have to pay fines due to IP and they'll be ridiculed for it while someone else can claim how their idea was taken from them and get paid for it when in reality no real damage has been done to them.
Just recently found the channel and I'm consistently blown away by the quality and depth of those videos. You are amazing, keep saying the things the rich don't want said! I honestly believe that with people like you, we will get to a more just, equal and healthy society, even if it's still very far. I am totally going to support you on Patreon once I'm able.
Thanks so much! I’m so glad you enjoy the videos
You should check out his podcast with Hakim and Yugopnik called the Deprogram
@@mitzelperc3049 I will! Thank you!
@Second Thought how is the IP being held by ransom. When the countries like India never had it .
@Second Thought 3:45 why do you think Indains are entitled to Americans labor.
I was actually really impressed by the university’s policy that gives each student IP over any projects about the undertake. It sucks to see that IP can be used like this, I never really thought about that this way. thank you for opening our eyes second thought :)
Also, the developers of insulin absolutely HATED each other, but they came together to make sure anyone who needed it, could get it.
American diabetic here, insulin is on my list of intense fears for the future. Honestly its unhealthy how much i stress over it and im only 20
My brother and sister both have diabetes and the prices are horrible for them, especially my sister who’s income largely relies on tips
Here in Mexico it's pretty easy to get insulin
@@rkbelmont1138 in Tijuana is a revolver door of Americans coming for one day or less just to buy stuff like insulin and viagra lol
@@ericktellez7632 And alcohol. Because kids can legally do so in Mexico at 18 while in USA they have to wait to hit 21.
@@rkbelmont1138 at least they can have gun at age 18, because FREEEEDOMMM
There's reasons why Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) in the IT world had their own "fanatical followers" and this type of movement can be duplicate in other sector. They had many type of licenses already, but the general idea still the applied : the code can be view and use by anyone, into any products they might interested in. But always gives back something to the community
Honestly it's a tragedy there are so many holy wars within the community. Seriously, pull your heads outta your arses about the whole Linux vs GNU/Linux thing and work together to create good software. And please, try to get some companies interested in paying FOSS devs.
just the name "intellectual property" sounds like the most inhumane idea possible
I feel like it's a contradiction: why does "intellectual" go with "properties"? The "properties" part are slowly but surely erasing the "intellectual" part, and I think abolishing IP is abolishing the "properties" so the "intellectual" can thrive.
This is absolutely true in tech. All the software we use is built using free open source software. Facebook, CZcams, Google, etc. they all use open source software. And then they turn around & profit from it without compensating the devs.
It’s absolutely infuriating that you could code an amazing piece of software in your free time and put it out into the world. And then, a multi billion dollar corporation will use it and profit millions or potentially billions of dollars from your work. I can only imagine how wonderful tech and the Internet would be if it weren’t for capitalism.
@@RoyaltyInTraining. IKR! If there was even a little bit of money to fund these things, we'd live in a drastically better world.
I've seen it first-hand with the crypto industry. There actually are smart people entering the industry. But it's because there's a payday in crypto. I can only imagine how much better the world would be if these folks had been able to dedicate their time & energy to actually helping people instead of "decentralizing the internet."
Not to mention how there's always the risk that your library will somehow end up patented by a major company despite your best efforts to try to avoid that from happening
@@middleagebrotips3454 ?? oh i need to know more please!
Aren’t you making an argument for IP law here?
@@richardking8109 No, the problem with tech is that it's _only_ big corps that benefit from IP laws. The people it is supposed to protect, the little guys, get left in the dust. As always under capitalism.
Step 1- Steal from colonies in terms of resources and labour. Get rich
Step 2- Use this wealth and attract the best talent from these ex-colonies.
Step 3- Use this talent to innovate and sell these innovations at insane costs to the ex-colonies
Step 4- Go looking for indigenous knowledge in these same countries and try to patent that
You're right on the money👍
I feel this as an Indian
@@anmolt3840051 Yes, but i think extreme corruption had a role to play in India too. We didn't continue to build good education and research institutions to retain the STEM talent
That's life in global south
This is what I realised as a university student back in 2015. A friend and I had won lab space over the previous summer to participate in an innovation competition. We redesigned the internal mechanism of a micro pipette so it has a latch on the side for release (to fill up the pipette). It was inspired on a BIC pen mechanism and we argued that it halved the number of thumb movements required for pipetting, thus decreasing the risk of RSI among lab technicians and researchers. Several prototypes later, we came second in the competition and were encouraged to pursue commercialisation. As students, the IP would belong to us, not the university, because students are not employees. Looking into the prospect of somehow protecting our IP however, it became clear that patents are expensive, and that defending IP against a corporation that can pay for many good lawyers is even more costly in both time and money. Prior to then I had also thought IP was a simple and fair way of preventing others from passing off your work as theirs. Then I realised it was about who can profit and who has the most money - and that financial might makes right. It was eye opening.
Eventually it came to nothing- pipette companies weren’t biting (even for free). They wanted more advanced prototypes- and we were biochemists, not engineers. We got an aerospace student to help with further design, but in the end all of us had degrees to study for and personal stuff going on.
What still surprises me is how many people were enthusiastic for our invention on campus-even though we didn’t think it was that special. I guess we “sold” it well to them
That makes AI art even scarier. Imagine being beaten to your own ideas to the point that you don't even bother creating anymore because by the time you made something according to your vision, you'd already be outpaced or something else too similar will have been generated in a few seconds. Imagine companies generating this art with their own AI programs and slapping the hands of human artists (from whom they took work to feed the beast) for "copying" their "ideas."
Well, to be fair, no one (imo) should stop creating: someone has probably had the same thought as you have...
AI art would be great **if** IP didn't exist. What irks me is the complaint that AI art is bad because it takes other artists' work as input and therefore violates copyright ... which is exactly the opposite of the point :'D
@@thelemmallama no...ai art would be great when the labor contributed by the artists are compensated
@@kushastea3961 If someone wants to add a piece of art to a database from which to generate AI art, then either:
- they commission an artist to make a piece of art for the database. Labour compensated.
- the artist already made the piece of art because someone else has already compensated them enough to make it worth their while to put their labour into it. Labour compensated.
- the artist already made the piece of art because they decided it was worth their while to make the art even when they were not compensated. I get why you'd have an issue with this case, since the decision that it's worth their while even if they didn't receive upfront compensation might be based on the assumption that they hold IP rights and get compensated whenever others use their IP. However, one could similarly argue that people only decided it was worth their while to build farms under the assumption that the farm will become their private property with which they could do whatever they like, including pass it down to their descendants for them to do whatever they like. So I guess it depends on whether you accept this defense of private property :]
___
Window4503's concern was that they're afraid that the AI will implement your ideas faster than you can as a human, and then turn around and accuse *you* of copying *them* just because they had it implemented first. This would be impossible if IP were no longer a thing.
@@thelemmallama i see. under normal circumstances ai won't be able to own ip since their database is literally stolen, but corporations aren't known for their ethics.
When I worked at a big tech corp. we were strongly encouraged, basically required, to create patentable ideas. They were for lawsuit defense only, not for innovation.
This is a rarely discussed but critical subject.
Regarding alternative approaches to IP, one I like is the Sapling Model, that basically guarantees protection while an innovation is growing but as soon as it matures, all IP becomes public domain.
But what determines whether something intellectual is "growing" or "mature" ? Can any such criterium exist objectively?
If socialists run industry, we would still be dying of Aids like the 80s. The idea that we could move AIDS from a killer disease in the 1980's, to 28 drugs a day in 1996 to 3 drugs in 2004 and 1 drug in 2022 without a profit motive is something I'm not gonna buy entirely
@@Apollorion
It would make the most sense to consider an innovation "matured" when it's been proven to work for it's intended purpose
@@j.c.2240 That requires predefined scope of work, though. In many areas, that's actually quite difficult to figure out.
@@traveller23e
Good point. Do you have any ideas to share?
Interesting. At the very least, necessities like lifesaving medicine should be accessible to everyone who needs it. On the creative end, I'm a musician myself. I wouldn't want someone passing my work off as their own, but I'm all for actual fair use. Using art to teach, reinterpret, or to provide commentary on, go for it. As long as someone isn't just reuploading my original recordings uninterrupted, then they can do what they want with my music.
Like I mentioned towards the end of the video, we could still have something equivalent to a patent office (for lack of a better term) that keeps track of things people produce for the sake of protecting reputations. So you couldn’t slap your name on something you didn’t produce, or conversely someone couldn’t fraudulently put your name on something to try to discredit you.
@@SecondThought Precisely.
@Second Thought you can buy the cheaper insulin. You don't have to buy the most updated version of insulin. Please stop spreading misinformation.
@@gnomechump-stiny7128 lmaao🤣🤣🤣🤣Good luck trying to bring logical arguments here
Say you wrote a song.
A company comes along and starts selling physical and digital copies of your song as well as print music. They also create merchandise based on the ideas within your song and sell those too. They don't try to pass it off as theirs, they just sell it.
In the completely IP free world, you get no compensation/reward for this.
This describes all my problems with copyright so well. It's absurd how companies are able to get away with this, and the extents they'll go to in order to uphold this system. It's also absurd how the system has changed so little over the past century, especially regarding software and digital media. In the software realm people are able to be as vague as they want because the system still has yet to catch up.
I saw this thing once called bionic reading, some system supposedly meant to help neurodivergent people and people with reading issues read things faster (I say supposedly because I have yet to see any studies on if it actually works lol). It's so absurd because they hold the patent not just for their system, but from what I recall reading in the patent they hold the rights to any method of highlighting different parts of a word. As a result you have to pay an exorbitant price to use an API for their text. That's right, you can only bold the beginning of a word using *their* servers (their servers are pretty shit by the way, it takes forever to load their site's page). Their website is absolutely worth a chuckle to be honest, it's so self-aggrandizing it's hilarious, they even openly boast about all their patents at the bottom of their site.
Even among creative pursuits like writing, film, and video games, people already choose to ignore intellectual property to make derivative works like fan art and fan fiction. The quality can be bad in some cases, but unbelievably good in others to the point that they can rival the original. And unlike with necessary goods where you basically pick one and forget the rest, there is no limit to the number of works you can enjoy other than time. Derivative works don't (usually) compete with their originals, unlike with other intellectual property.
Hip Hop scene in 90s and before saw so much innovation by using other "IP's". The people love it. The artists love it. But the people "owning" the IP don't like it because it's theirs. Not because it stifles their innovation.
I don't get how 100 year old recipes for insulin are still IP. We definitely getting played and pimped and NO politician will ever talk about this even though it is in the interest of the people to see this adressed. What does this mean? USA is no democracy. Don't think there is any one democracy in the world. You just have countries that are tyrants in exercising control. And then you have more sophisticated countries that manufacture consent internally as much as possible before they resort to tyrannical violence.
The illusion of democracy and representation is the biggest lie that makes such pimpage of the population possible.
But let's assume I was the original creator - I want MY NAME associated with MY WORK - even if I get no money for it.
@@MCDreng your right. But IP doesn't help with that.
This is another one I've known and talked about for decades. You always do a great job! I've always liked the idea I heard from Heinlein, basic life credits with bonuses for "extras". Kinda surprised you didn't bring up that insulin was developed by a university so these big companies spent approximately $0 on initial development, $1 dollar on IP, and then made billions from it thus doubly messing the public as they pay for the university that made it and exorbitantly to the companies that own it and will eternally own it if they have their way.
Second Thought and Hakim on the same day? AND it's friday? absolute bliss
USA: "Abolishing IP would be the destruction of the system!"
China: *Blatantly disregards IP and leapfrogs into the 21st century as a techno hub*
China has more violent IP protections than the US, they simply aren't enforced when the Chinese government wants to steal and abuse an idea. Private businesses are strictly not allowed to do so, as that would drive away foreign money & resources, which China desperately needs to grow - like it or not. The relationship is reciprocal. In short, if the CCP wants to steal your original invention to make more bombs, they will do it. If a private Chinese citizen wants to replicate a foreign factory without approval, they will be put in prison for life. This dynamic has recurred over and over and over.
China itself registers between 300k and 400k patents a year for domestic filers now, and this number is only growing. Most of these patents are for petty things that aren't useful now, with anticipation they will be useful in the future. A vast majority are owned by state-run companies, not individuals. The US by contrast mainly has private citizens patenting things that are useful currently and need to enter production.
Lionizing China vs US doesn't make you a rebel, it just means you prefer a far more abusive breed of authoritarian (but this channel sees "downtrodden developing countries" and shuts the brain off, who cares about the people they oppress anyway?).
You can see some of these numbers on the WIPO website.
by stealing the very first thing that can be made by ip, yes
@@alaric_3015 ??
USA : How dares China steal "intellectual property" (something as legitimate as NFTs)? 😭
Also USA : Has most of its territory as stolen land from Native Americans
Even Russia/Soviet Union when it comes to their military weapons. Consider the AK-47 for example, with dozens of different copies and derivatives making it the most common assault rifle with around 100 million of them scattered worldwide.
It's scary that artists against AI generated images think an expansion of copyright laws will help them at all. Some have even gone as far as to say "music IP has it good, they're so protective!" NO it is not, or at least it isn't for independent creators, it will only help the likes of Disney. Don't they know musicians can't even sample or remix without facing legal troubles? And that's before even getting to the lives lost to IP laws explained in this video.
To be honest,anyone who thinks that should be stripped off all rights for using public domain works and banned pernamently from arts.
And what about those of us who want to make fanfics about anything and incorporate popular songs into the fanfics for emotional effects? Can’t use this song without being struck by copyright BS. But nowadays copyright itself is BS!
First The Deprogram, then Hakim, then Our Changing Climate, and now JT, well now I know how I will start my weekend with
CZcams wants profit even if they push leftist channels
Adam Neely recently made a video about copyright in music, his suggestion was to allow anyone to interpret someone's music in whatever way they wanted as long as credit is given, increasing the reputation of both parties.
My favourite part of this channel is the writing. Extremely well done and at a very consistent pace
I have an idea called Force licensing you can't stop someone from using your patent or intellectual property to make something but they do have to compensate you for whatever profits they make like 20% of whatever revenue they get they have to give you and the original owner can stop you from making things if your products do not meet certain quality standards
I would personally recommend most of non commercial uses as fair use.
Here in Vietnam,some uses of intellectual property may not required permission from the owners,but will require to compensate.
This is a thought that has been rattling in my brain for a while.
Im so glad you're covering it! Pre-liked before viewing!
Welcome, one and all, to this comment section! Please comment AFTER fully enjoying the quality content of this video!
The biggest hurdle is getting them to watch.
Keep making videos brother!! The amount of people you're educating and lives you're changing can't be fully measured!!🙌🏽❤️ Let's keep fighting the good fight so we can have a more loving, egalitarian society for, hopefully us, but certainly our children and grandchildren.😊
you are my favorite youtuber. your actually talking about real issues which people ignore in all your videos.
Ahh, time for my weekly reality shattering Second Thought video *chef's kiss*
We should really use other terms like "exclusive license" rather than "intellectual property".
I never really gave much thought about how intellectual property is more harmful that just limiting artistic expression. But this did open my eyes to the way it limits humanity as a whole
Both you and Hakim posted at nearly the same time!
*A blessing from the lord*
As an artist i don't really much care if someone tries to use or own my work. Without the need to sell my work i'm more free to materialize my ideas and seeing people enjoy or praise it is already a reward for me.
I have to say one of the things I like about your videos, besides the engaging presentation, is the effort in sourcing. If a specific bit in particular catches one's eye, there's most likely a jumping off point in the video description. Kudos and cheers!
Lovely and right to the point. Thanks for this and I am thankful also for all the long course and efforts it takes throughout the years to come to this point thinking.
I'm glad we're having second thoughts about all these things.
I'm a songwriter, musician, and I occasionally write a short story. I thank you for addressing that aspect in your video. However, copyrights and enforcement are tricky in music, lyrics, and the arts in general. Awhile back, 'Hootie and the Blowfish' lifted a half verse from Dylan's 'Tangled Up in Blue'. It was blatantly obvious and would have been a slam dunk in court. However, Dylan declined to take it to court. He just let it go. Of course, he didn't need the money, and IMO he just enhanced his reputation with his inaction.
But most of us have nowhere near Dylan's reputation or money. If I ever got a recording contract for my work I could not afford to go down that path. But I would walk away if a half dozen producers wanted to change 1 or 2 words of my lyrics and claim a writer credit. Rick Beato recently mentioned a pop song that had 9 writer credits, and 8 were very minor changes from producers. Seriously?!?!?!?
At any rate, I understand the BS with medical "patents" and pop music "copyrights". Those people should be horsewhipped. But I think a grant system would just bring the 1 and 2 word lyric changers to the trough. I would love to hear more details, especially the safeguard details.
YEAH LESS GO YOU UPLOADED JUST AFTER HAKIM DID THIS THE BEST DAY EVER
Hope you enjoy both 😁
Very interesting video. I've seen so many takes that only know about the problems without the intent that I was worried about this video, but the last bit showed some good understanding. Thanks for the video. Keep up the good work.
I may be misunderstanding this proposal regarding the arts, but as an actor, artist, and a writer of fiction, I'm not getting how I would be compensated if, say, I write a book that's wildly successful. I totally understand and agree with there being no IP allowed for invention like medicines or if somebody invents an anti-gravity device, or what have you. If somebody paints something comparable to Van Gough's "Starry Night", does that mean it could be reproduced millions of times, on tee- shirts and greeting cards, but the artist would see no benefit from it? That doesn't seem very fair! It seems to me we'd have to protect some classes of IP, even while insulin should be sold at cost.
Yeah, it also feels slimy as hell Art should be personal and intimate just like your labor. Like I am no creative but hell... way to devalue art and demoralise artists. This stance on ip made me really rethink my positions.
@@AnhedonxiaJust because you'd technically be able to copy people's stuff doesn't mean it'd be socially acceptable. If you posted other people's art, and claimed it as your own, and were caught, your reputation would be trashed, just the same as it is now. The benefits for the art world would be great, as we would no longer be held down by companies abusing copyright law.
@@godlyvex5543 if that's the case then I'm in. Plagiarism is never ok.
Greed will always stave human progress
greed always comes at certain price
Its funny considering its a learned behavior by the capitalist system which highly rewards it
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 Yeah its the avg conservative government does stuff? Socialism
I've never said this to any channel, but this channel has to get more popular and there has to be more of such channels. I really appreciate your work as in a world full of lies it is extremely important to have people that unveil truth. The capitalists like to show the productive side of capitalism. But behind it there is a real cancer growing continuously to the heart of the society just because no one tried to control it in the first place and whoever tries now gets completely annihilated by waves of hatred by public and social media. In the sea of deception there have to be people telling the truth and it's extremely important and I don't even live in the west I'm just a quiet observer of western capitalism.
I’m glad that I checked if any new Second Thought videos came out. Despite watching nearly all of this channel’s videos, and constantly leaving a like, this video was not in my CZcams recommended.
All of this is fantastically well said and clearly put together. It does make me feel a little discouraged when I think about the sheer scale of this system and the money backing it, though.
We outnumber them.
I really appreciate your content, and it never fails to depress me.
Thanks?
May I ask how do you manage not to be overwhelmed by all of this? Or how do any of you for that matter? Looking for some honest answers cause I always feel like we are absolutely fucked and don't like that feeling.
Piracy is a great temporary solution to digital IP, but physical items are far more difficult to deal with.
You're doing a great service, its always great to hear you pivot to possible alternative to this current economic hellscape
Great content as always 👍👍 thanks a lot for this video..
I generally don't fully agree to all the things in your videos, but this is the first one that I completely agree with and even would like to see the solution be implemented someday. As a music producer hobbyist I don't like the fact that basically the only way that I could make money from my music is by somehow getting popular enough to get my music accepted by record labels, and the solution intellectual property that you gave would almost fully solve that.
I was a contractor at Google and at the time they purchased Motorola for 12.5bn, launched a Moto G which was a cheap nexus that had pretty much stock android but really wanted the patents as Motorola were big historical players in mobile technology and who’s patents can be used exactly for the reason you mention in the videos. They took these patents under Google, now Alphabet’s wing and sold effectively the hardware and the rest to Lenovo for just under 3bn (Google weren’t interested in the hardware game, they would have their nexus range to show other hardware manufacturers the possibilities of Android). That’s how valuable it was 8 years ago to them. The monopolisation that goes on within Google has been astounding since it’s inception and has stopped the growth of many independent innovators.
Great video! Loved all the valuable information.
This is a great topic to cover. I'm an Industrial Designer and I've done a lot of work in tool design where I've seen some pretty toxic use of IP.
For example: Sawstop table saws are highly desired by woodworkers because they have a safety mechanism that instantly stops the blade if it contacts skin, saving many fingers hands etc. They are also hundreds of dollars more expensive than saws made by other brands because Sawstop owns the and other tool manufacturers have not been able to replicate it or buy the rights to the tech without getting sued (Bosch had a version for a while and was forced to discontinue it). Unsurprisingly profits > users severed fingers.
Here, in Russia, IP is a large problem sadly. I am a poor student, who lives montly on around 15-17 thousand rubles (which is equivalent to around 250-280 dollars). It is a very small amount, and I spend most of it on food, having only around 500-1000 left for whatever i want to spend on. The real issue for me is that I am a student, so I crave knowledge, and, naturally, that knowledge comes inside books. However, each book costs around 1000-1500 rubles, which is a lot. Even though parents support me and give me all these money for doing nothing, I still can't afford buying books, while a bottle of vodka would cost me 200-300 rubles. It's easy to see the problem here. In soviet union (and I do not worship soviet union, but I am just making a comparison) universities gave students scholarship pension, whatever it's called in english.
It was around 30-50 rubles. Right now it is around 1000-2000 rubles. I am reading an old tome of "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy right now, the book was printed in 1972. It costed buyer 1.72 rub. So a student, using just his scholarship, could buy something of around 15-25 of these a month, having a healthy amount of books. Today I wouldn't be able afford the same book printed today even if I spend all of my scholarship on it. I googled it. It is crazy to think that capitalists claim that capitalism makes consumer goods cheaper, because development and science under capitalism goes *vroom* and makes everything cheap, and affordable and people live good lives under capitalism. I, however, can't afford to buy books anymore without asking my parents' permission to spend a lot of money on a book, because that's always a serious hit to my monthly budget. I wish my children would live in society where they wouldn't have to save money for half a year just to buy a book they always wanted to read.
I know this video is more about macroeconomical problems, less down to earth, about certain products making thousands of dollars via costing a single dollar to manufacture, sold for hundreds, but I just wanteed to share a bit of an insight of how this issue affects me personally (and many other people around me too.).
I also want to point out that my greatest asset is that I own almost 30 books by age of 21. It's impressive how much money I managed to save, considering their cost, but also sad to be honest.
if you don't mind reading from a screen, then libgen is your friend. Also, I know libraries are basically more and more fucked, but how fucked are they where you live?
@@toomuchadam875 I have a library (it's not large and generally only has scientific books) in my university that I like to visit when I need to study, but long-term, it's not good, since libraries don't lend books because people just steal them and sell for profit, since they are that expensive and people don't live good lives.
I plan on buying an e-book, but I don't mind not having it for now, since my family's library has hundreds of quality books on different topics since in USSR they were dirt cheap and every family usually has massive collection of books. Just saying that this is a problem for anyone who doesn't have a house library and wants to read a paper book.
You’d think IP would be more like “you get credit for your ideas”
TJ, every time I litsen to you, I get convinced that you are not only a genius, but exceptional -your way of setting out you ideas and communicating is unique. I rate you very highly bro.
Found out about this Channel a month ago and I love it
haven't even watched the video, but I suspect this is a good one. Working as a software developer has only strengthened the resentment for IP I developed as a kid trying to play games, watch movies or listen to music.
All the talk around insulin is great, but just wait till you get deeper. Every finger poke blood sugar test (the most accurate test) is $1-$2 per test, which can need to happen multiple times daily. A continuous-monitoring device costs ~$300-400 every 10 days. Insulin pumps cost $5000 and are supposed to last 4-5 years, and the supplies for those cost $150 a month
Excellent video as usual JP!!!
I mean, instead of having all of these complicated ways of compensating artists, an easier solution will just be to eliminate money and profit motives altogether, and have people create for the benefit of society will all their basic needs met either way.
I think instead of something just being in the public domain, the recreation, for a lack of a better term, needs credit from the original creator. As an artist, I don't really care about the money my OCs could make (because it's probably zero...) but I definitely care about someone knowing that I was the original. I don't know how deep the "original creator" should go. like, should it be the thing yoy directly got inspiration from or should it also be the inspiration creator's inspiration. or should it only be the original, original. I think every intellectual evolvement should be credited in your creation but that could be very daunting for a new creator to credit 5+ people, and just annoying for veterans to be like "Ugh I have to credit 7 different creators. Time to look it up"
could be like citing sources in a scientific paper
I read a really interesting passage from The English Civil War by Diane Purkiss about how the democratisation of knowledge starting with things like cookbooks fuelled anti-monarchism during the war: “It might seem odd to describe cookbooks as a product of political liberation, but Hannah Wolley’s works were to open a new way of learning to those not born to the trade. Monarchy makes sense in a world where younger servants learn from older servants in a strict hierarchy. Once print made it possible to learn outside that hierarchy, the existence of privileged knowledge, and even privilege itself, could be called into question.” (page 348). The books about the war of the 1640s and this is just a small bit (but the books really good if that’s what you’re interested in like me) but thought it add to how IPs can be used to silence new ideas and uphold the status quo. Lovely book and great video!
Good points made. I think your closing statements were very well said. Innovation doesn't necessarily need monetary compensation, however. Necessity is the mother of invention and so is just the joy of creation. I like the idea of collaborative commons and IP library just to ensure, like you said, that people's music or art or book creations aren't passed off incorrectly without proper credit. But the open-sourcing of information is one of the best things society could do for fast-tracking meaningful research and development of important technologies.
Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Films has talked about the idea of imagining an open-sourced University project, including all major Universities around the world, to figure out the right combination of renewables to go 100% clean, renewable energy in whatever region needs power. That could be done in under a year and the upgrades to the cities also done in 1 or 2 years, at least in large part, because the converging of minds on an important issue like this without getting caught up on monetary costs or profit-concerns would be actually very stimulating to creative development.
This open-sourcing would have tremendous benefits in all sorts of ways: to local food production, sustainable clothing, housing, of course medicines and educational practices.
Maybe an idea for a future video? The benefits of open-sourcing!
Minor correction: Some of the most commonly used insulins, including Lantus and Humalog, have had authorized generics available for a few years and true generics for about a year. Still too expensive.
I was saddened he ignored the fact that intellectual property expires. The first insulin patent was 1923, why are Americans still buying protected insulin?
@@superskrub4209 I thinks its because they renew them, by very slightly changing the formula, then patenting that new design. it's still close enough to the original that they can claim its ip theft when someone fabricates the original
@@madladthad2403 this
@@superskrub4209 Insulin itsself may not be patented, but the means of manufacturing it are. Also, not all insulins are alike. Often a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals or medical products will deliberately have their old products de-certified by regulators before the patent runs out, arguing that their new products are far superior and safer and render the old ones dangerously obsolete. That way when the patent does expire, it's still impossible for anyone to manufacture or import a competing product.
@@vylbird8014 I think the same thing happens w/ manufacturers of refigerants.
As much as I dislike socialism you have a point . IP laws is literally just a tool to create monopolies.
you are brainwashed to dislike socialism.
@@Stafusit’s funny because IP laws are socialism at work.
Second Thought and Hakim uploading on the same day!! 🙌 Now where's that slav at...
Another great video! Keep them coming!
This reminds me of the Getty images 1 billion demand. They used 18,750 images from an artist that that artist gave awya to the public domain, only for getty images to comercialize those images and then sued the artist for using those images on their website. SPOILERS: Getty images won the suit. :D
More like D:
I ABSOLUTELY hate any copyright or intellectual property laws, and also how difficult it is somehow to explain this to even the liberals that say they're socialist. Somehow it doesn't seem to go into their little brains that any story of small creators' art being "stolen" by a large company is irrelevant to the incredible amount that large companies profit off of, and small creators get fucked over by copyright laws.
Food for thought...
I definitely want credit for what I create. And I would like to be able to live comfortably and be able to have and maintain a healthy well-being.
A note: creativity comes with inspiration, and that isn't something that can always be opened up to flow like turning a valve for tap water.
I'm beginning to see the strategy being worked on me.
Great points on an under-covered subject!
There's an interesting trope in some sci-fi about an extreme form of IP protection. Basically, all components are protected by and stored as liscenced blueprints. The only way to use then is by effectively paying to unlock them, and even then only for a limited number of uses and they can only be used in certified constructor machines. Assuming that most of their tech is beyond a human's ability to produce.
So what happens when all your production is utterly dependant on this, and a section gets cut off from the liscencing servers?
All hell breaks loose for completely arbitrary reasons. You have the designs, the constructors, the materials, but you aren't allowed to use them.
Copyright takes ordinary people and turns them into monsters. Copyright was born of greed and it should die that way.
Thank you for doing another episode about insulin prices! As the mother of a Type 1 diabetic I fear for the day he will no longer be on my insurance or eligible for Medicaid.
Very informative and thought provoking.
I've worked a career filled with tech startups and spent many months working on acquiring patents. In all of them the reason for getting the patents was not to protect our ideas, we got patents to "add value" to the company as you look more corporate and attractive to investors if you own a cache of patents. We also worked to get patents as a defensive move in case a competitor tried to use a junk patent against us we'd be ready to counter with one of our own. None of those are the reasons patents were created. Worse was when business methods patents were allowed, we almost started a patent division when that happened. I've spent hundreds if not thousands of hours working with patent lawyers going over every aspect of our products and development looking for things that were patentable. Other than padding my resume it was a huge waste of time that would have been better spent having me work on the product or manage the company.
Your title should be "...Patents" Intellectual Property is an overly broad term/subject that also covers concepts which aren't law like trade secrets and contracts. Trademarks and copyrights are IP with huge unique problems.
Unique problems? Is just trying to maintain property of fucking info! How in the goddamn FUCK do you realistically want to protect information? That shit can simply be copied and redistributed for free by anyone!
I'm going to try to condense this, but its going to be a long read. I'm a musician, and creator overall, so I'm tackling most of this from that perspective. First off, we need to shift IP concerns completely away from the art community all together. Copywrite laws are the protections we need. So even though they fall together, IP has to be sectioned for each industry and branch, and completely separated from the arts.
Going from there, I was as close to a traditionally successful musician you could feasibly be. Toured, signed, released an album, etc. Things didn't work out, that's not important. Here's what is: labels operate exactly how they did when they first existed in the 1900's. To quickly break it down, labels are banks for artists. They fund your recording, and you take on debt for recording, mixing, merch, etc. All of it. Now if you go indie, and for the sake of simplicity, I mean completely self recorded and distributed, YOU the creator keep all intellectual property of your work. Labels own your songs, lyrics, etc. Should you choose to work with one. Back in the day, it was THE only way to play. Today, the accessibility and creative control make going indie the potentially much better route. So now the point of everything.
I was unwilling to compromise my IP control over my work to stay with a label. I had people try to buy my songs, take my name off, and make X artist famous/even more famous off of my work. Fuck that. I would rather die with my work never being heard then someone else earn money from my creative abilities. When I do release my work independently, I will never have to worry in my life time about a single penny being made from someone sampling or covering my work without legal precedence or royalties, with MY say so.
Of course obviously someone can do it anyway, but the law is on my side. But when I die I have a finite number of years my estate keeps the rights to my songs. When they enter public domain, anyone can cover them. That shit still doesn't sit right with me, even if I'll be dead. Because I want my music to be heard. I'll release how to play it, and anyone can enjoy the music how they want. That's my actual dream and goal. But no one should ever be able to play my music and earn off of what I made.
So this unfortunate mentality IS the problem with IP in general. Which is why we need to section it off from the art community all together. Because technology or medical things that benefit mankind should be shared. And my music should be shared just as much. But the difference in one man making a song and one man making a product that helps millions is the reason to keep doing it. I can tour, or I can be a one hit wonder and live out my days never needing to work or make another song. After someone creates one amazing product, they'd have to keep working making other amazing things just to eat, under this supposed socialist idea. This is why you can't make IP work for industry and artistry.
So I really think IP's need to be overhauled, and the first thing is to remove art completely and create completely independent laws which will see that an artists wishes are respected ad infinitum. So that we may enjoy their music, and they enjoy their creativity. But the drive to create cannot be tarnished by capitalism. I would love to tour and play my songs barely earning enough to eat and drink, if I had the chance. But I have to work and save for years to even record my music because my IP is that important. Those are the flaws, and I sincerely hope this makes sense given the confines of a CZcams comment.
Good points
Being some sort of wannabe author, I broadly agree, and would have creative works fall under "rights of authorship" (I made a bigger reply about this somewhere) where credit, consent to use, and right to edit and depublish, would remain inalienable, though monopolistic economic exploitation (i.e. a monopoly on producing copies) wouldn't necessarily have to be part of that.
@@ryuuakiyama3958 Absolutely agree with this. Creators should have inalienable rights, but at the same time be open to permissions based systems / consent to use, etc.
Like the OP, I would rather die with no one hearing/reading/seeing my work than be forcibly stripped of it. Regardless of the involvement of money.
@@JustSomeDinosaurPerson Yes, and it is valid for creators or groups to create works that are "free to use" if they choose, but that's an important "if". I think a permission or consent-based system could very easily accommodate the multiplicity of relationships creators can have with their work. Abolishing all such things would be like forcing a kid to share a special toy they worked hard to make, which is not only wrong, but pointless when there are so many willing to collaborate and share out there.
@@ryuuakiyama3958 Absolutely agree. It is so refreshing to hear likemindedness there. I am hoping that the in the future the world of creative works can have some sort of Public free to use domain where creators willfully choose to opt-in, a limited consent to use domain where consent/permission from the creator is required, and then a personal domain where stuff falls under by default.
There would still be plenty of challenges in a system like that and it would need a lot of tweaks (like where would large scale media projects fall? That would have to be explored thoroughly). But I think it would be good groundwork to go from and like you said, most people would be interested in the stuff that is immediately available to share and collaborate on (the public free to use domain).
Thank you (and OP) for your respective thoughts. They were a huge relief.
another day another banger. I had an economics professor in college (Dean Baker from CEPR) whose entire schtick was abolishing IP laws. You should check out some of his writings on the topic
Best CZcams channel out rn Hakim too thank you for your work comrade, from an Iraqi Detroiter .
This isn’t really related to the angle that the video is coming at, but when I think about IPs I think about translation. People want to share a webnovel from another country so they translate it into English to be shared, but once the novel gets really popular here (due to fans translating it in the first place!) it gets licensed for an official translation, and now the fan translations have to be taken down because otherwise they’re violating copyright. The problem with this is that sometimes official translations are terrible and blatant money grabs, and even if they’re good there’s no such thing as a perfect translation. It really takes away your right to make choices.
Oh, I think it's of course still related to IP on this video generally though with just different angle.