Intellectual Property (IP) laws are crucial in fostering innovation, fostering technological progress, and stimulating economic growth. They shape the legal environment, provide guidance to creators and businesses, and incentivize innovation. An effective IP policy begins with four principles: protecting individuals’ and businesses’ rights in their creative works or inventions, opposing forced transfer of ideas, and ensuring that creators can benefit financially from their work.
IP laws are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they enable creators to reap the full value of their creativity without fearing appropriation. On the other hand, IP laws promote the sharing of knowledge and ideas, which is essential for innovation as it allows new ideas to be built upon and improved upon. IP rights also provide creators and inventors with the confidence to invest in their ideas, knowing they can control and profit from their work.
However, too strong and broad rights may stifle follow-on creativity and innovation, deterring research and development. Copyright acts as an incentive to continue creating new work by compensating and rewarding creators’ effort and creativity. By striking the right balance, the patent system fosters innovation and creativity by getting the word out about the latest inventions and gadgets.
In today’s innovation-driven economy, IPR plays a crucial role in fostering creativity and economic growth. By establishing clear rules and regulations, governments aim to strike a balance between protecting creators’ rights and promoting innovation.
📹 Intellectual Property Law | Protecting Creativity and Innovation
Intellectual property law is the cornerstone of safeguarding human creativity, innovation, and originality in a rapidly evolving world.
What are the creative rights of intellectual property?
Intellectual property rights (IP) are essential in the creative industry, encompassing various types such as copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Copyrights grant creators exclusive rights to use, distribute, and display their work, such as designs, advertisements, and marketing strategies. Trademarks protect logos, brand names, and slogans, while patents can be used for new products or technologies. Trade secrets include sensitive information like client lists, supplier contracts, and proprietary algorithms.
Agencies must have policies in place to protect these sensitive information. Client-agency agreements are crucial in navigating IP rights, as they outline the scope of work, set ownership, licensing, and usage rights, and dictate the commercial and legal relationship between the client and the agency.
How does intellectual property law affect creativity and innovation?
IP law is a crucial tool in promoting innovation and creativity by providing legal protection for creative works, including copyrights for literary, artistic, and musical works, trademarks for brand names and logos, and patents for inventions. This exclusive right to profit from creators and inventors incentivizes them to continue creating and innovating. IP law also promotes the sharing of knowledge and ideas, allowing others to use, build upon, or adapt creative works provided they obtain proper permissions and credit to the original creators.
This sharing of knowledge and ideas is essential for innovation, as it allows new ideas to be built upon and improved upon, leading to even more innovation and creativity. IP law also helps businesses compete in the global marketplace by protecting their intellectual property, both domestically and internationally. By registering copyrights, trademarks, and patents, businesses can ensure their creative works are protected from unauthorized use, providing them with a competitive edge and enabling them to invest in further innovation and creativity.
How does intellectual property encourage innovation?
Intellectual property laws are crucial in promoting and protecting innovation by granting legal rights to creators, inventors, and businesses to their inventions, brands, works of authorship, and trade secrets. This protection enhances a business’s valuation and attractiveness to investors, providing a competitive edge in the global market. A comprehensive strategy to identify, protect, monetize, and enforce intellectual property rights is key to enjoying the benefits afforded by intellectual property laws. The ideal intellectual property protection strategy includes a combination of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret protection.
What is creativity in intellectual property?
Creative Intellectual Property Rights refer to the Intellectual Property Rights owned by the Consultant or Material Consultants before the creation of the Detailed Design, used for the creation, and resulting in the Detailed Design being in good standing. Joint Intellectual Property Rights refer to work under the Subcontract, including patents, trademarks, trade names, copyrights, and other proprietary intellectual property rights. Licensed Intellectual Property Rights refer to all Intellectual Property Rights owned by a third party and licensed or sublicensed to the Company or its subsidiaries.
What are the rights of creativity?
Copyrights safeguard creative works, including writing, drawing, artistic works, computer code, and software, by granting creators exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display, perform, and alter their work. Individual copyrights last 70 years after the creator’s death, while organizations like universities or journals have protections lasting 95 to 120 years. Copyrights protect the expression, presentation, or arrangement of a creator’s ideas, but not the ideas themselves. While methods of expression are protected, the shared idea is not. This ensures that creators retain the rights to reproduce, distribute, display, perform, and alter their work.
What is the role of IPR in creative world?
Intellectual property rights allow creators to monetize their work, promoting financial independence and fostering creativity. This encourages individuals to invest in their work, benefiting society as a whole. Intellectual property protection also boosts economic growth and competitiveness by incentivizing investment, attracting talent, and promoting technological advancements. It creates a conducive environment for businesses to thrive, encouraging collaboration between industries and academia.
Businesses that are protected by intellectual property are more likely to invest in research and development, leading to the creation of new products, services, and technologies, driving economic growth, job creation, and improving living standards.
What drives innovation and creativity?
Creativity, a pivotal element of idea generation, encompasses original thought and knowledge, thereby facilitating the advent of prospective solutions. Innovation, in contrast, represents the conduit through which these ideas are transformed into concrete outcomes.
What is intellectual property and how it serve innovative and creative entrepreneurs?
Intellectual Property (IP) systems are crucial for new ventures to convert their innovation potential into market value and competitiveness. IP rights protect technology, brand name, design, and creativity behind a concept. Professor Emerita Ruth Soetendorp, an IP educator and researcher, has worked with various organizations, including EPO, OHIM, WIPO, the EC, GWIIN, and TEQUIP. She has worked with clients such as the Museum of Brands, Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, University of the Arts London, and Epigeum Ltd @ Imperial College. Soetendorp is committed to increasing IP learning among IP creators, managers, advisers, student lawyers, and attorneys.
What encourages creativity and innovation?
Collaboration is a vital aspect of innovation, and it’s essential to encourage employees to work together and share ideas. Group brainstorming sessions can be a powerful tool for generating new ideas and stimulating creativity. It’s crucial to value everyone’s input and ensure everyone feels included. Open communication and opportunities for all employees to contribute ideas foster a sense of teamwork and collaboration. This can lead to better problem-solving and more innovative ideas.
Moreover, collaboration between employees from different departments and skill sets can bring diverse perspectives to the table, leading to better problem-solving and more creative ideas. It’s essential to encourage employees to share their expertise and knowledge, and to learn from each other’s experiences. Overall, collaboration fosters a sense of teamwork and innovation, fostering a more productive and innovative environment.
How does intellectual property protect creative ideas?
Intellectual property (IP) refers to any original creation of the human intellect, such as artistic, literary, technical, or scientific. IP rights (IPR) are legal rights given to inventors or creators to protect their invention or creation for a certain period of time. These rights confer an exclusive right to the inventor or their assignee to fully utilize their invention or creation for a given period. IP plays a vital role in the modern economy, as it ensures the intellectual labor associated with innovation is given due importance so that public good emanates from it.
The stakes of technology developers have become very high, and the need to protect knowledge from unlawful use has become expedient to ensure recovery of R&D costs and adequate profits for continuous investments in R&D. IPR is a strong tool to protect investments, time, money, and effort invested by the inventor/creator of an IP, thus aiding the economic development of a country by promoting healthy competition and encouraging industrial development and economic growth.
The laws and administrative procedures relating to IPR have their roots in Europe, with the trend of granting patents starting in the fourteenth century. Venice is considered the cradle of the IP system, as most legal thinking in this area was done there for the first time in the world. The patent act in India is over 150 years old, with the inaugural 1856 Act providing a 14-year patent term.
What blocks creativity and innovation?
Creative block is caused by various factors such as fear of failure, perfectionism, burnout, and a lack of routine. Fear of failure can hinder creativity, perfectionism can lead to procrastination, burnout can result from prolonged creative efforts without adequate rest, and a lack of routine makes it difficult to sustain creativity consistently. To overcome creative block, establish a structured routine, set aside specific times for creative work, and treat creative time as non-negotiable.
Embrace imperfection, as perfectionism can paralyze the creative process. By accepting that your first attempts may not be perfect, you can free yourself from the pressure to produce flawless work and allow for experimentation and growth.
📹 Introduction to IP: Crash Course Intellectual Property #1
This week, Stan Muller launches the Crash Course Intellectual Property mini-series. So, what is intellectual property, and why are …
This was probably on nobody’s list of crash courses we really really need but it’s quite important in my opinion. It’s one of those topics everyone just talks out of their neck about and keeps spreading the same memes over and over again. Perhaps we’ll now be given the tools to have this discussion in a informed way.
Don’t get me wrong, I love crash course…but this article didn’t talk about the downsides to the IP laws as they currently exist see Samsung V Apple, Apple V Google, etc, etc. All over smart phones alone, imagine if someone had patented the internet. I’m with Elon Musk on this, open your patents and continue to innovate or you will be left behind. Innovation pushes borders, IPs are walls to progress.
There are aspects of intellectual property laws that are just plain bunk. Thanks to bribes from industry giants such as Disney and Sony, copyright protection last for the life of the artist + 70 years. I’m sorry. but Copyrights were meant to be for a limited time and were meant to inspire additional creative growth. i’m a photographer, so i’m all for copyright laws, but honestly.. the current laws are ridiculous. There needs to be something of a better balance between what’s good for the creator/artist and the growth of society and culture by works in the public domain.
Nonphysical property: well there is no such thing. Considering that all data is stored, used, or manipulated in some physical form. Be it a hard drive or groups of neurons in a person’s brain, ideas are real physical property. It is hard to imagine that just because someone had a similar grouping of neurons first that they now own a piece of your brain. In the same way it is quite plausible that just because someone arranged bits & bytes in a particular order for a piece of software or a sound file that they now own a piece of your hard drive. And if it is true that they do not own your brain or your hard drive or in fact your singing voice or artistic pen strokes then it is nothing less than assault under monopolistic intent should they extort money or use force or threats of force to impede on your voluntary and peaceful interaction with other people. That is why IP is illegitimate. It is poorly disguised form of government mandated monopoly.
Here’s your intro bubbles 🙂 Isaac Newton invented the doggy door. We don’t know who invented the fire patent because its patent was destroyed in a fire. Sliced bread was patented in 1932. The “liquid filled die agitator containing a die having raised indicia on the facets thereof” has all the answers. iRobot® was founded in 1990 by MIT robotocists Coling Angle, Helen Greiner, and Rodney brooks. Play-Doh® was invented to clean wallpaper. Fees for getting a patent filed and examined can easily exceed $10,000. Abraham lincoln was the only President to be awarded a patent. Einsten worked at Swiss patent office as an assistant examiner, evaluating patent applications. Halliburton Company tried patenting patent trolling. The copyright symbol © was introduced in the United States Copyright Act of 1909. Stan’s hopes and dreams rest on how well his presentation goes…he’s a little nervous. Due dilligence often kills deals made on the show. Most new entrepreneurs are in their late 50s, so it’s never too late to start a business and follow your dreams! The Shark Tank has been produced in at least 27 different countries, most choosing to use Dragons’ Den as a title. This sculpture cost less than your students loan. Mongol is exceptionally chill between raids. Walking Sophie is a real drag. After his first million, Stan legally changed his name to “Sauce Boss”. The Sauce-O-Matic 9000 requires 30 full cranks to build enough sauce power.
I love crash course SO much. You all have made learning new things quite entertaining. I must admit that I have watched many of your articles repeatedly due to the simple and easy to follow structure. I particularly enjoy the recap of topics at the end of them. It makes it easy to recall which article a topic was covered if I ever wish to go back to one. Thank you. Like seriously. Thank you.
I am sorry, but the Plato/Socrates quote is pretty misplaced here. It is introduced with: “(…) This tension is nothing new. Technology, especially in the context of copyright law, has always presented challenges”. The following quote from the dialogue ‘Phaedrus’, however, is rather an appraisal of learning through subjective experience, as opposed to a disapproval of learning through reading books, which are essentially other people’s experience objectified onto paper, that could never replace that real, subjective experience. This is a critical attitude towards technology, but it has almost nothing to do with copyright or intellectual property. Please, do not force in Plato quotes for no good reason.
Surely that’s a great way to introduce yourself, offending all GNU/Linux users by saying they are ‘weirdos’ that think that ‘you don’t have a copyright on your OS’. Actually, in practice GNU/Linux users generally know more about the copyright and patents stuff than other OS’s users, because it is so important to know thy enemy – and copyright and patents are enemies of all of us. Copyleft is the notion of using copyright law in reverse, to ensure freedoms and not restrictions. GNU and Linux both use copyleft, so there’s no base for that ludicrous accusation Stan made. I am completely shocked by the disregard and sarcasm carried by this show. It is the first time I see it so aggressively used to try and impose a point of view rather than educating. Stan’s efforts to frame the context before presenting the content were manipulative and dishonest. Intellectual Property is a weasel word. It says beforehand that intangible, non-scarce stuff belongs to someone. This is a concept to debate, not to use without consensus. gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty
My uncle was the first one to be charged by intelectual law he invented a way to make clean water using cat liter but he didnt alone in his university and when they found out they said it was theres even tho they had nothing to do with it but he got charged as he didnt want to give up the patent mad respect.
CrashCourse I’m not sure what was meant by the “Linux nuts don’t enforce their OS copyright.” Please don’t tell me you started a series about IP law without knowing what GPL, open source, or the copy-left are. The copyright holders of GNU/Linux software do enforce their copyright. It is, namely, to prevent people from taking away others rights to the software. If you take GPL software and modify / improve it, you cannot release it under proprietary terms.
CrashCourse You say that the linux folks out there don’t enforce their copyright, but that isn’t entirelly true. There are multiple disputes going on at this very moment against companies that have violated the terms of the GPL, The conservancy vs. VMWare looking like it’s going to court now. Only the people who’ve chosen the WTFPL (yes, that’s an actual license) don’t enforce their copyright. Even the BSD license has some reservations on naming the original authors and trademarks associated with the project.
This article wouldn’t exist if there weren’t enough people who reject the notion of enforcing intellectual property rights on their work. Without them, a large part of the software stack that YouTube is based on wouldn’t exist, and using another one would be so costly that YouTube could never have entered the market in the first place. So yeah, there may formally be a copyright on Linux, Apache, nginx, and the whole rest, but only because copyright law implicitly covers just about everything. Rejecting its enforcement, even codifying that rejection into Open Source licenses, is what drives the IT industry these days.
My issue with IP is not that people are trying to control money etc, it’s that it’s the authors life plus so many years. I think that the authors lifetime should be enough. It is afterall somebodys livelihood. But after that it’s big businesses gaining money of someone else labour. If I wrote a book, I would want part of the revenue because, let’s face it – so many of us are broke! Yes the people who help the book thrive deserve some of the cut, like the printers and the publishers, but after the author is dead then the book should just cost what it costs to make, not so much more, and it should be free for download or to record it.
I started loosing hope in crash course when the “politics” series started coming out, but intellectual property? seriously? I thought this was all about science, not about some silly figments of our ridiculously outdated socio-econonomic system. You simply cannot hold ownership of an idea, as the knowledge which it took to produce this idea is NOT made by you, or any particulate person for that matter. It is rather made by countless people who came before you, and so on. When you are inventing something, you are just using others people findings and rearranging them. Claiming ownership of an idea is just as silly, as is using it for survival, preventing others from benefiting from it in the process.
Intellectual property is bogus. Property rights are derived from our self ownership (which has it’s own philosophical reasoning). You cannot believe in individual property rights and intellectual property at the same time. Intellectual property espouses that if someone has an idea first, then they own that idea and all of it’s effects and productions. It means if you have the same idea of any sort in your own mind, that the “original” person who thought it now owns a piece of your person. It means that if you open your mouth to sing, someone else owns the sounds coming from your labor. Well, this is very clearly not true. Just because you listen to a song does not mean that the performer owns a piece of your person. And just because you sing a song does not mean the original performer now owns your labor. And in the same way if you copy digital bits in the same order as that in a sound file on another computer, that person does not own part of your hard drive. IP is just another government farce–a mafia style monopoly. It flies in the face of the non-aggression principle. It is hardly different than the first apple farmer preventing a second apple farm from opening on the other side of the country–just because the apples look nearly identical.
I can see from your attempt to delve into supply and demand that you know nothing of economics. Ideas are a non scarce good, they are infinitely reproducible and have infinite supply once known by someone who is willing to give it away and therefore zero price (not value, value is subjective and varies from person to person). The medium of transmission of information is what is scarce and the price for use of such transmission is what has been declining. The price of ideas that are not being kept secret has always been and will always be zero.
Dear Crash Course, does this article fit well with your standards? If so, then there’s a problem you must address. “Linux weirdos”? “Copyright not enforced”? Never mind the extremely distasteful insult, Free Software does have copyrights and they’ve been frequently enforced. You’re giving purposeful misinformation that the enemies of the sharing society propel. Are you factually correct or sock puppets? Since this is an YouTube comment, I’ll reserve more arguments for later.
As a Kopimist, it is my religious belief that information is sacred, and sharing it is a sacrament. Information doesn’t want to be free, it doesn’t have intent (in most circumstances). Information is mana, dew from the gods to sate your spiritual hunger. Share it as your old gods would have your share food. If someone is hungry, can I not feed them? I’ll continue to watch, as I love Crash Course, but my beliefs prevent me from respecting the authority you speak of.
Hey, Linux kernel developer here. The Linux kernel copyright most definitely is enforced; if you distribute the kernel (or a derived work) without following the rules of the GPLv2, the Software Freedom Conservancy will sue the pants off you. As is currently happening to VMWare. Copyleft is more complicated than just “we don’t enforce it”. If you can’t even get that right, I’m somewhat doubtful this series will be particularly accurate or informative. (And to those trying to work out what the law should be: what are the Schelling points? Those determined the legal frameworks arrived at by common law for the kinds of property that have been important for rather longer, and thus — assuming the validity of Judge Posner’s theory that the common law is economically efficient — should also determine the best legal system for intellectual property. Are there any conceptual boundaries where the cost of enforcement rises sharply? Those are the only places where the boundaries of property rights can stably remain.)
I already sense the fail. The point of copyright was to incentivize people to continue producing work and ideas… by telling them that any profit that comes off of it that they could not tap into but woul have otherwise is their legally. When you enter the digital age where we essentially have infinite copying ability and distribution such basis of copyright becomes a double edged sword of sorts. That is to say, you either provide a way for people to get it in the way they want, are working towards that end, or you have no ability to cry foul play because you could tap into that and didn’t, which means you are giving up your rights in that area. This also supports piracy as well as if I’m unwilling to pay a dollar for content that is infinitely replicatable then I am clearly not in your market and again you lose the rights over any copy i get. I know this is not what “the law” says, but that is largely because “the law” has gone far astray from the point of having copyright to begin with and such is illegitimate as it has not met the test and further the concept that “piracy” is theft has been thoroughly debunked by simple fact that things that are pirated more tend also to make more money so it shows no lose in profit, thus no theft.
I really don’t get the purpose of these regulations. Shouldn’t the only use be to verify who made what so no one can claim they made something that someone else made? You should be able to use whatever you want in this world to make new and improved things, and if people like it more than the original then they should be able to profit off it and get notoriety, it’s not like the one who did the foundation work isn’t getting proper credit for exactly what they did to begin with. As far as I’m concerned, everything is a collection of previous works and ideas.
To John and Hank, my first reaction is: seriously? While it’s clear that every presenter includes his own bias, and I might be passing premature judgement, this sounds just plain propaganda from particular interests. Someone applying of the concept of supply and demand to digital objects makes me doubt his competence (e.g.: DRM is fundamentally illogical, yet many people who grew up before the internet still keep the delusion that it might work)… and claims like “Linux groups don’t enforce their copyright” make him look ignorant (the GPL is constantly enforced, and absolutely requires copyright, which is a good thing). You certainly wouldn’t employ incompetent and ignorant people, which is why I do feel … betrayed (sounds a bit too strong though) by one of my favourite websites publishing a article that appears misguided at best and shamelessly indoctrinating at worst. To Stan: please correct the erroneous assumption that “Intellectual Property” (or a better term: digital and/or imagined objects) behaves in any way similar to actual property, and as such that the concepts and laws should be transferred. That’s all I ask, and then I might enjoy your coming articles. Side note: I make a living off of writing and publishing software and software manuals. I’m absolutely in favour of the idea of copyright and trademarks (patents in software: not so much, it doesn’t comply to its fundamental nature), but this article strongly feels like just another “MBA types not understanding what they’re talking about, but hey lets monetise it somehow”.
Respecting “Intellecual property differs somewhat from real property, such as cars”… at 8:07: OK, I’m going to be Mr. Nitpicky Law Guy here: Cars are not “real property.” “Real property” is real estate: land and buildings. Cars are moveable property, also called chattel property. You should’ve used “tangible property” there. I know, this is a minor point, but “intellectual property” is a legal concept, and if you’re talking about about legal concepts you should use correct legal language, especially where the actual legal terminology is fairly comprehensible to non-lawyers.
Great first article! IP is, of course, a topic that’s a mile deep, but this was a great overview and introduction of many of the concepts. Though I am a little surprised you didn’t use Isaac Newton’s “shoulders of giants” quote. Perhaps because my IP professor started every semester with it…anyway, can’t wait to see what’s next! Keep up the great work!
Fantastic start, Stan. It’s great to see you and the Crash Course team talking about both the problems and merits of IP, because afterall the truth resists simplicity. I’m very excited to see how the series plays out. Particularly, I’m interested to see what you and the crash course team might suggest to help “fix” the current arguably broken state of IP law in north america.
Life +70 is ridiculous. Period. It’s all about publishing houses, and has nothing to do with protecting author’s rights. Even if the artist is alive, 10-20, max 50 years should be the limitation before things go into Public domain. Also, copyright and digital media is completely unfair to developing countries, because 1)access to media is limited (Netflix, Vimeo, Spotify, Amazon, for example are usually technically region-blocked unless you use a VPN; still worse, Paypal is unavailable to creators) 2)If developing countries have access (Itunes for example), the prices are usually HIGHER than they are in the US, in countries where wages are as much as 10 or 100 times lower. 3)The regional DVD system is completely completely outdated in a digital, internet world, with many companies just not even bothering to release their work in in certain regions. 4)Unstable internet means that like, if I want to show this article in my class, I have to download it, and every time that Youtube updates their security, I have find a new way to download, just to share a simple article with my class. All of this in addition to the fact that access to digital media, like access to SMS services or cell phone coverage, is usually hyper-inflated in price to begin with. While I understand that an Avengers movie costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make, a digital, DRM-free copy of a movie shouldn’t cost more than $10, an album, shouldn’t cost more than $5, a book, probably no more than $7 or $20 in the case of a textbook maybe.
The biggest problem with copyright is the length. In an era when technology and trends have increased cultural churn, the power of rightsholders has increased to a point where theirs is the only voice that matters to Congress. ¶ If 14 years plus a 14 year extension was good enough in 1790 when news traveled at the speed of horseback and when people expected to live roughly as their parents did, we don’t need author’s life plus 70 years today. Five years from first date of publication with no option to renew is sufficient. The purpose of copyright law is twofold – to ensure the creation of new works by benefiting their creators by granting them a brief monopoly, and to benefit the public domain by ensuring a constant flow of new content into the public domain. Today, rightsholders (and really, just several powerful rightsholders’ lobbying groups) control the process, ensuring that the second purpose is not served. Don’t denigrate the people who disagree with the place copyright law is today by characterizing them as “weirdos”, morally bankrupt, or logically compromised. We’re used to those characterizations in the media because that’s the only narrative most of the media seems to understand. Be better than that.
If you do a longer series of this please Cover the global politics of IP Multilateral agreements – TRIPS (controversies 1999 s.africa health) Plurilateral – NAFTA/ACTA – TPP/T-TIP Unilateral – SOPA/PIPA The backlash against TRIPS, SOPA/PIPA -> ACTA Susan Sell covers all of this stuff incredibly well. Benkler’s free book “The Wealth of Networks” also presents important arguments and James Boyle’s free book “The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind” is great too. I completely agree with you the interesting route is balancing concerns for rewarding people who create valuable ideas for society and creating a system that isn’t abused. I think however it is actually incredibly important to find arguments that succeed in justifying IP not broadly but specifically, for each industry you want to introduce IP into. For each country also. The world is held to ransom by the IP maximalist lobby currently and they aren’t going to give up. The links between Big Pharma, Motion Picture Association of America, Microsoft, the Recording Industry and the USTR as well documented. IP policy is not decided democratically. Our IP system as well does grant ownership of ideas. The platitude that IP only covers expressions of ideas isn’t true. Music copyright is a perfect example of downstream ideas being protected. Sampling as a more specific example. Please also cover different conceptions of authorship and maybe Michael Servan two essays on authorship in letters and Foucault’s famous essay on authorship.
There is always a disconnect between property rights in physical things and intellectual property. They aren’t even related. Instead, those who advocate IP refuse to put them together in a philosophical context and compare them. The whole point of property rights is that it is applied to scarce physical resources that are subject to conflict in nature. Knowledge, on the other hand, isn’t scarce. It can be copied again and again without someone gaining at the expense of someone else. I don’t see “stealing” an idea or thought as a crime because nothing has been stolen.
I really hope you guys are going to address both sides here, because this opening article kind of worried me. Sure, we all know piracy is wrong. But at the same time that doesn’t mean there aren’t legions of corporations wielding the DMCA like a claw hammer to smash free speech they don’t like (look at all the takedowns thrown at Jim Sterling’s Jimquisition) or that DRM on software rarely stops piracy and just infringes on the rights of the paying users. A prime example of this was Ubisoft’s downright draconian DRM system for Assassin’s Creed 2, which stopped pirates from spreading the game for all of 3 days. And more amusingly, once the pirates cracked it’s DRM, it gave them the keys to the kingdom for the next 5 releases by Ubisoft. Or what about patent or trademark trolls like Tim Langdell?
So as confusing as it sounds, I am creating training COURSES (multiple articles) that are on one of my websites where those who want to learn the subject pays my business, i.e. me a fee to view the article(s) on the course as an On-Demand. Therefore, do I copyright this, can I copyright it, do I set up a trademark, what?
If patent can’t protect the technological idea for too long (several years max I think) because it would slow down progress, then isn’t all the 70 years after death of the artist in case of copyright harming culture? Also (at least in my country, don’t know about USA), you have to pay huge money to get a patent, while copyright is automatically given for free – interesting. Why so vastly different approaches to actually quite similar situations? I believe that some form of IP is necessary to promote creativity and spending money for R&D. That being said, I think that American model of IP is very bad. I mean patents for double click, lawsuits for rounded corners in a smartphone, patent trolls or (already mentioned) protection by copyright for 70 years after death of the artist. Something clearly went very wrong. Progress and culture are suffering while few people stuff their pockets with money.
Aw I misread as Philosophy too. I got really excited. Yeah Crash Course is the perfect place to discuss and explore the history of Philosophy and visualize the concepts of our great thinkers. Good new series though, would love to see you guys explore things such as parody. That’s always been a fine line and has sparked many debates between colleagues. Also, this series made me think of the possibility of a US Law series. Not sure the how you’d structure it, but I’m sure there’s plenty of possibilities.
Copyright is meant to stimulate the creation of intellectual property, which is a really good reason to make the duration around 5 years (for digital/media content, maybe extended 2 years for each “sequel” or “new version” to a maximum of around 25 years or maybe to the end of life) or around 25 years (for “inventions”) (as a maximum of course, open source software licences and stuff like that should still exist). Why? Simple: a huge majority of the “fans” would buy the product as soon as it comes out, mean the author won’t lose much, and if he or she doesn’t want to put out a sequel in 2 years, he or she likely never would (so opening it up for new people to create). For the “inventions” it’s far more complicated but 25 years is a decent percentage of a lifetime (for which the inventor can benefit over) but isn’t too long (kills competition).
This the first episode of any crashcouse article which I think is clearly subjective, and I totally don’t see the connection with what I thought cc stood for (educating this world). Imagine where you (and me) would stand without the books you’ve read, films you’ve seen, etc. Young people don’t go to library’s anymore, and these laws you think so high of, imply free/state-financed, objective, on-line library’s are impossible. This increases inequality, while for the first time in history there is a way to educate people at an extremely low cost. I ordered a credit card just to support cc, I must say, I’m crying a little inside. But its like you said at the end, you better know the truth, even if you don’t like it.
Surely that’s a great way to introduce itself, offending all GNU/Linux users by saying they are ‘weirdos’ that think that ‘you don’t have a copyright on your OS’. Actually, in practice GNU/Linux users generally know more about the copyright and patents stuff than other OS’s users, because it is so important to know thy enemy – and copyright and patents are enemies of all of us. Copyleft is the notion of using copyright law in reverse, to ensure freedoms and not restrictions. GNU and Linux both use copyleft, so there’s no base for that ludicrous accusation Stan made. I am completely shocked by the disregard and sarcasm carried by this show. It is the first time I see it so aggressively used to try and impose a point of view rather than educating. Stan’s efforts to frame the context before presenting the content were manipulative and dishonest. Intellectual Property is a weasel word. It says beforehand that an intangible, non-scarce stuff belongs to someone. This is a concept to debate, not to use without consensus.
Linux indeed does enforce it’s copyright. Linux is licensed under the GNU Public License version 2. Do reduce a complicated license down to it’s basics, the GPLv2 requires that if you distribute a modified copy of the software, you must at least make an offer to also provide the source code for the software, including any modifications that you made. This requirement to resubmit changes is referred to as a copyleft. Most copyright enforcement on the GPL never reaches court, but certainly has in the past. Other projects use more permissive licenses, like the BSD licence which do not requirements for sharing back your modifications, but still offer liability disclaimers in the license and have a few basic requirements like retaining the copyright notification.
“Patent laws carved out a limited experimental use exception… the law wants to incourage individual tinkering.” Tell that to Sony. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America,_Inc._v._Hotz With VERY rare exceptions, the law wants whatever the person with the most money says it wants.
I’m extremely fascinated by the implications of information technology. It makes it possible to share, dublicate, store etc. information basically for free. How amazing is that! If I write an extremely smart and usefull program for instance, everything I have to do is to say “free to use for everything forever” ONCE and it will serve every person forever! It’s like a little update for every person in existence, “user X added widget Y to your toolset, use it whenever you need it!”
I pay for the information when I can do it. I listen to music using Spotify premium, use Audible for audiobooks, legally buy all software I need, but the only way to watch some movie series, for example Game of Thrones, is to download it from torrents. Other option would be to wait for a few years to buy DVD with a poor article quality and a crappy translation that I don’t even need. And I don’t even have a TV or DVD player anymore, I want them on my iPad or, at least, PC. It should be legal to download the information that you cannot access otherwise.
Not exactly happy that crash course script writers decided to term the only technological subgroup that is socially forward thinking (linux users) as “weirdos”. Also it’s not the the linux/gnu copyright’s aren’t enforced it’s that they are legally termed and changed through contract law in order to allow for better creative/technological development of those constituents and users that the other platforms say “no” to as you’d pointed out before(and linux is not the only platform that works in this way). Instead of downplaying these reasons with a slanderous statement towards those that work very hard in order to change the current obsession with profit from platforms and stagnation of creative and technological fields(at least from out perspective) it might have been good to actually address these reasons in a sensible way. Lest we start calling the other platformholders money grubbing selfish weirdos? that wouldn’t be in the right of us to say either despite the thoughts on the subject, would it? The condonment of such action is abhorred and shocking to me from an institution I though I had respect for (crash course). The current totality of the modern copyright debauchle and the views of those parties actually trying to change it for the better (pirate party), in my opinion should be mentioned with just as much fervour/understanding as the view that corporations should be able to make money from dead peoples works(see: everything is a remix, torrentfreak newsfeed, pirateparty and other sociological works pertaining to the subject).
(I haven’t watched it yet, I’m just going by the title, don’t hate) Intellectual Property… No… No please… So my school is in the middle of the whole smarter balanced testing thing… We had the classroom activity for english today… My teacher (who happens to be really awesome and chill and an amazing teacher) was forced to read this stupid little script thing about intellectual property. For 50 freakin minutes. She had to give us the definition of intellectual property about 15 times and repeat everything else about 5 times. I hate these new tests. There’s nothing smarter about them, there’s just a lot more questions and stress, on the students and the teachers. Anyway just a rant set off by the words intellectual property
This article, perhaps more so than any of the Crash Course and Sci Show articles should also come with a big disclaimer about things being jurisdiction-specific. Not all countries even have copyright law, very few have “fair use” (it arguably breaks the Berne Convention), publicity rights and trade secrets don’t necessarily count as property in some places, and not all places have the same philosophical purposes behind the relevant laws. That said, the world would probably be a far better place if more people understood these areas of law, even if they learnt about how another place handled them. So onwards!
1:20 Information valuable? Since when? Knowledge is power, but knowing that there was an earthquake in Japan with 17 deaths is absolutely irrelevant to me living in Europe. Most of information is not important. You hear a bird singing beautifully, yet you will not remember it a minute later. Humans underestimate how overly selective they are.
Okay, I have a question regarding Intellectual Property. I ask because I have an idea for a system of measurements that, as far as I know, does not exist yet. Since I am starting to place stock in the utility of the idea I am wondering if it is possible for a measurement system to be considered Intellectual Property, since, if it is, I would want to try to make it my IP so as to prevent patent farms from trying to claim ownership of the idea for purposes of extortion (which, for an idea that I might hope to catch on in one particular field, would be bad since it would make use of the system a liability)? If it can be considered intellectual property, under what type could an abstract system be classified?
It seems unproductive to begin talking about intellectual property before rigorously establishing “property” on its own. Would it not be helpful to determine what one could own before delving into I.P.? Ask yourself the following and attempt to prove it: Can one own one’s body? dwelling/home? actions or labor? What determines ownership of a thing? is it the first-occupier or first-user, etc? Is the creation of a thing (or rather the particular arrangement of its matter) sufficient for ownership? Does mixing one’s labor with a scarce resource necessitate ownership, partial or otherwise? I hope this series will not put the cart before the horse.
I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a justification, an explanation, or a definition. The Laws require so many exceptions because they’re bad laws. Trying to dress it up as “…trying to increase our stock of knowledge” seems rather disingenuous, it’s incentivising creating laws and enforcing them. That being said, I’m all for giving recognition to the creators; but even that doesn’t necessarily increase our knowledge.
My personal all time favorite patent (is it sad I have one of those) is US6719606. It’s a patent for a “Soft sculpture shellfish animal toy and accessories” and its main claim is for “A sculptured shellfish animal toy, the animal comprising a body, a head on the body, a pair of hands extending to either side of the body, a pair of feet extending to either side of the body below the hands, the head including a pair of eyes spaced apart and peering forward, a jagged mouth providing a humorous visage, and a hollow simulated pearl as an accessory to the animal, said hollow pearl being substantially smaller than the animal but of sufficient size to contain additional accessory items.”
Question: I live in Europe, and I think I remember one of my lecturers at uni telling me (this was a good few years ago though) that IP laws change according to the country you’re in. To what extent is that true today? I’m pretty sure that, for instance, the book copyright law lasting 70 years after the author dies is international. But are the other changes just minor details, or are they big? I’m guessing you guys won’t have time to go into detail about laws that don’t affect the US.
There is nothing intellectual about “Intellectual” property bigotry – the idea that you can own an idea (through law and legal coercion and legal threats of coercion). Frankly, I find it quite delusional the idea that you can own an idea or an abstraction, atleast to the point of pointing guns at people or having others do it for you ie law enforcement. Add the fact that you can own the abstraction for 70 years after you have died, which makes it that much more insane. I know, “its not the abstraction that you own, its the physical object that your abstraction has been infused with that you own”, right. Still, the principle is that: even after you gain (legitimate) ownership over it (lets say a book), the writer still owns it to the point to where he/she can tell you what you can and can’t do with it (if he/she is alive to do so that is…) But the reality is, that by the principle of self ownership, once you have gained legitimate ownership over something through voluntary exchange, you own it. You can do what you want with it. (not in “legal” law ofcoarse, but in moral law) Sorry, I know that this is not a philosophy show… but that’s all that I have to say about intellectual propertarian bigotry, anyways. ©This comment is copyrighted by me 😉
Yea, some of this strikes me as painting a bit too rosy of a picture. Yes, intellectual property is lifetime +70 years now but it will just keep expanding like it has. Anything that isn’t public domain now will likely never become public domain, as the law always seems to expand as Mickey Mouse comes close to the deadline and armies of Disney lobbyists fill congressmen’s coffers. Also all of these copyright laws are really outdated and based on models of copyright infringement that we don’t see much of anymore. The person at home who downloads game of thrones could face the same penalty as someone who set up a factory for copying and selling the bootleg DVD’s We can’t brush this aspect aside. Intrinsically IP laws are tied to anyone with enough money to hire an army of lobbyists agenda
A quick note: Copying John Green’s format down to the individual jokes and sentence enunciation is a mistake. I would strongly suggest trying to find an identity of your own. That said, interesting topic for a Crash Course. If you can keep it from getting bogged down in technicalities and obscure terminology, this should be very, very interesting to say nothing of relevant. Thank you for doing this.
I’m delighted that this is a topic Crash Course is tackling. One missed opportunity in this article, though I understand that there are time and attention-span constraints involved, was talking about how the “science and useful arts” clause means the exact opposite of what you’d think it means. Looking at it in terms of today’s language, that looks like “science” pertains to patents and “arts” to copyrights, but it’s actually the reverse. “Science” in that clause is the general project of knowledge and education and culture, composed of writings that need copyright protection; “useful arts” are ways of doing things and solutions to actual problems, comprising inventions and discoveries that need patent protection. Just a fun quirk of linguistic drift.
Hmm, I don’t know what to say. I’m sure this has already been partially produced, and already completely written. And based on this into I’m disappointed, confused, and frightened. This is an overly biased start to a complicated subject, any you have a young audience. An impressionable audience. I hope they aren’t so sheepish to not look into this subject themselves, and get a little more grounded point of view. I’m kind of ashamed that this was published. Definitely gonna have to rethink my pledges for this website.
I’m one of those Linux weirdos, and it’s false and misleading to say that we don’t enforce our intellectual property rights. The key difference with GNU/Linux and projects under the same family of licenses is that the license terms by which the IP is offered are so generous that legal action to enforce the terms is rarely necessary.
While others are busy wasting their time and joking around in the comments, I am going to give you actual feedback Mr. Muller. Please learn to read effectively from the teleprompter. It feels like a robot is reading. You are so fast that even a native English speaker will have to watch it twice to properly understand what the heck are you even saying.
Seeing many anti-IP posts here. I ask you people – what then, shall incentivise the production of new goods, medicines, works of art etc. in modern society? If the inventor has no guarantee of value then why use his/her time and energy in something that could be socially beneficial, when he could be using his time to make money? IP law enables & incites innovation, without which we wouldn’t have a lot of what we have today
It’s actually becoming less relevant because its so easy to steal stuff of the intellectual sort nowadays. 1) Everyone can write, which they couldn’t back in the day, so you can copy stuff 2) people are more knowledgeable about how computers actually function 3) there is an incalculable mass of people ready to steal stuff. Unfortunately, this will eventually lead to intellectual property being created less over time because the incentive won’t be there.
A couple of points: The standard copyright behind most of the open source technologies in Linux, The GPL, isn’t “just not enforced” at all. That is demonstratively untrue. The GPL is and has been validated and enforced in the courts and is an enforceable copyright licence. Another point that since the Trade Secrets Act has and continues to be used to evade regulation and even thwart investigations into criminal negligence which has caused real financial and physical harm to individuals and communities. Can I suggest a little more research into the statements in the first episode, not everyone is ignorant of historical and current IP law and it’s application.
Let me just argue where the real value of Intellectual Property lies. It lies purely and solely on the arts. Not technology. Not knowledge. The arts, although one important thing about the arts is that it also influences the other two. In order to produce any of the gigantic artworks we have today such as film or articlegames, the people making them need a lot of capital. There is simply no other more effective way to create a market environment that nourishes artistic, intellectual progress other than through Intellectual Property. There is also the fact that it creates jobs but that’s a debatable economic point that goes against other economic principles such as the “free market” which theoretically, in the long term, is the more economically beneficial route. Granted, a lot of the things produced through IP’s can hardly be considered “art” or “progress” and are simply for redundant mass consumption, there are many markets in different countries that have successfully pushed us forward like the small section of the literary market in the U.S. and some niched markets in Japan. I think it’s really just these two countries that are doing anything major in the artistic side of things.
At 3:45 you claim that the copyrights on Linux are not enforced. That is patently wrong. While the license imposes no burdens on the end user, it does have some rather profound requirements for distributors and developers. You should probably make an episode or two on Free Software and the differences between that and Open Source and things that are merely free of charge.
Just as a slight aside to all the IP is good/bad bumfighting there are situations where its not so much the IP itself that’s the problem, its the asinine interpretations of that by lawyers. Take for example the game No One Lives Forever which was scheduled for a re-release but the project has been abandoned because….well at least three companies cannot decide if they own it or what proportion of the free money they will get from it. Protected IP has at times created an “if I cant get everything no-one gets anything” attitude which seriously needs to be addressed. kotaku.com/the-sad-story-behind-a-dead-pc-game-that-cant-come-back-1688358811
Our definitions of what intellectual property is are different which matters. A individual can copyright there own intellectual & physical property data. As for my property without payment is stealing which means that any internet provider or company providing a service on the internet or phone that I use have legal terms they have to o bid by regarding what is know as intellectual & physical property data. Email, twitter, face book, apps, games, you name it.
The problem isn’t merely that IP is perpetually at odds with ever changing technologies, but that it fundamentally relies on (what it needs to be) a strong definition of a particular epistemology… but is also constantly at odds with that same epistemological standard. Instead it becomes a fluid definition that only really serves as the means of a privileged elite to control a growing range of human activities by redefining them as IP or by the fact that technologies like 3d printers are poised to make the distinction between information and things almost meaningless. And as both its conflict with (and through and as) technology as well as its epistemological contradictions continue to mount, we’re going to come to a crisis point where either everything is essentially controlled IP which the general populace is allowed to use as a convenience (and thus is also a perpetual lever as the sudden enforcement would apply to anyone) or it is going to collapse entirely and will have to be replaced wholesale with a new concept that must be built up from its epistemological foundations up. And honestly, I just don’t think you can separate IP from the fundamental driving force behind its current shape… namely our current economic paradigm, and its inherent and growing conflicts and contradictions.
There are obviously good reasons to make this series more moderate than Stan from the past would have liked (like that everyone should know about this stuff so appealing more broadly is a good idea) but seriously, Stan from the past is just right. If you want to own your ideas you have no place in a just cooperative society. Also whether an idea is novel or not is totally subjective as we have seen with recent software patents from Apple that may have seemed novel to the patent offices (and likely to the general public) but to any software engineer are basic and obvious.
IP is fine… If they just get rid of every stupid thing about it. Like authors work being protected 70 years after death. IP law have too many things forced in by bribed politicians to only favor more corporate profits. We need IP but it must be resemble and written to do what it is meant to do, witch is give the inventor time to make a buck before someone is allowed to use it.
The idea of intellectual property is intrinsically inhibitive on the progress we make as a species to be better, more well with informed people. I would say that the only proper argument in favor of IP is protecting the rightful payments due unto the creator for his work. If we were to live say in a Star Trek eske future wherein currency is no longer the driving force for innovation then IP itself would disappear, perhaps in place of honors or proper acknowledgement rather than forfeiture of money in payment of goods or services rendered…
I think whether or not you agree with IP laws as they are currently, largely depends on whether you ascribe to a competitive paradigm or a cooperative one. Competitive people value the greatest benefit to themselves and therefore want information and ideas to be expensive and protected. If you instead believe strongly in cooperation, you want ideas to be shared more freely.
I had a roommate who used to torrent Game of Thrones episodes on our apartment building’s wifi. Our landlord sent our apartment a cease and desist letter, otherwise they would take away our apartment’s wifi. I was furious that we almost had out internet shut off, but I simultaneously thought it was hilarious that my roommate got busted for something people do all the time. Oh, intellectual property!
I know that you are happy that you have your own article, and I am happy for you. But please be original and act more like you would actually. Please do not become a parody of John Green. Its because so far every other person on crash course has their own style. I hope that you can make your own awesome style. Be proud.
3:00 balance the need to incentivise sharing of information and incentivise production of inventions(?) These two things are not really in opposition. The first doesn’t need an incentive. The second is based on the idea that nobody invents things without a profit in mind. This is a specious argument, made by lawyers (who never have ideas) in support of their business. Companies need to start paying inventors without involving lawyers (whose only function is to create conflict).
Am I the only person who thinks that intellectual property must be protected (to a certain extent) in order for a society to be, and continue to be, innovative? Sure, there are people who use IP to do undesirable things (as mentioned in this article), but that does not necessarily mean that the concept of intellectual property should be banished all together.
I like Crash Course and have watched many of the series on the website. This is the most biased and opinion-included series I have seen so far. I dont really care for it. I understand the idea that this is your website and you can use it to educate your side of an idea, but I feel that you have, in previous shows, showed an unbiased side of a subject.
My favourite thing about this so far is the blatant infringmenet of copyright that actually occurs in Crash Course articles. At the end of every article they credit Wikimedia Commons for images, but that is improper and there are almost no images on Wikimedia Commons that are copyright Wikimedia. Most are copyrighted by other entitites and available under licenses that REQUIRE that you credit these other entitites and not just Wikimedia Commons. I’ve tried contacting DFTBA about this previously to no avail. I may have to try to find their phone number to call them about it. For the record, I’m actually pretty anti-copyright, but given that the system is in place, and they are educating people on it, they ought to get it right at least. This comment is available under the CC-0 license.
I hope this series looks at the complete mystery of board game rules and how they are not copyrightable. To me, board games are a great example of copyright working properly. As I understand it, the art, printed instructions, and other symbols of a game are copyright, but the actual rules and mechanics of the game are NOT subject to copyright. If you feel really bold, you can then go into the copyright that Magic: The Gathering has on “tapping” a card.