Support my work on Patreon: http://ow.ly/3ymWFu
PayPal Donations Welcome. Click here: http://goo.gl/NSdOvK
EU study on piracy: http://ow.ly/KXDR101afnw
Tom Bell’s Mickey Mouse Curve: http://ow.ly/SJUU101afn0
Copyright Term Extension Act: http://ow.ly/70ix101afnl
Creative commons, royalty free videos and images used in this video presentation are sourced from https://pixabay.com/ These are public commons images.
Help Support My Channel. Buy Computing Forever Merchandise, Mugs, Hats, T-Shirts: http://ow.ly/3v3TWq
Subscribe to my Second Channel: http://ow.ly/XgZm100E1L6
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/ComputingForever
Google+ : LACK78: http://goo.gl/k4gWsg
Google+: Computing Forever: http://goo.gl/Q8gZpY
Ok,I'll throw you a counter point. Does becoming public domain degrade the value of an intellectual property? There are many songs in the public domain but many aren't really used much. How many old cartoon characters have fallen into the public domain but aren't used for anything,even though people still recognize them? So most are either old or not really popular. By extension,how many times have we seen great characters and stories mutilated by other people? How does one define canon when anyone can do anything with the character? It would be difficult to define Dracula's "canon" with all the "X meets Dracula" type of cheap cash ins. How does one stop others from using intellectual property they made in a public domain canon?
So clearly,simply allowing copyright to expire brings it's own problems. Personally,I think IP should last as long as the creator of said property is alive. Once they die,even if they signed the rights over to someone else,the main copyright expires. At which point the IP can be claimed if A) someone else currently held the copyright or B) some kind of heir to the estate is left the copyright. Otherwise,it's immediately public domain. Since the original creator of a work can no longer provide any oversight of it.
Once the creator dies,the IP can be optioned for a secondary copyright. Secondary copyright means that the holder can do what they want with it,but it expires after 50 years. No options. No extensions. So most of us won't live to see Star Wars become public domain. Or most pop culture either. But other,older properties will and at least it will mean an end to a lot of old IPs being held for ransom,like Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was.
Still,I can't help but wonder why no one digs up those old public domain characters and properties and do something with them.
if we don't start a campain to stop disny from getting micky mouse again in 2024 the corperations will keep growing we NEED a campain to take disny down ! B/C at this point nothing will ever enter public domain again !
That's the whole point of these supposed "copyright" laws. You're arguing about something that is a red herring in the first place. The copyright laws are doing EXACTLY! what they are designed to do. SHUT YOU UP!
The thing with gaming is that in most cases ANY coverage is good for their game (even negative). I still get copyright claims on a lot of games, but EVERY single one of them is done by the music copyright owners who happen to have their music in the game. It's super annoying, and unfair to the games with said music, since disabling the music takes a lot away from some games.
I haven't made new videos since 2014, with or without original content. Here's why. It's just no fun to make anything with the constant fear of someone claiming ownership over the tiniest of details in your video because "it costs them revenue". That's a serious limitation on how much one can contribute in terms of creativity.
Another reason that studios will want to defend and extend copyright is to ensure their ideologies are the only ones available to the public. For example, no matter how entertaining a story based on Star Trek/Star Wars might be, if it isn't in tune with the 'all men are wastes of space' brigade, it will never see the light of day.
Why shouldn't it listen and believe the entertianment industry after all it's trying to become it, what with hiring real actors and comedians who have already made a name for themselves in hollywood to edge out youtube creators for youtube red. I mean this doesn't surprise me they want to be the new hollywood which means playing ball when a big studios claims a video.
Blame Walt Disney company, after Walt passed away in December 1966, the Disney Company as well as other Movie and Music companies in America lobbied the American Government to bring in Copyright Laws and most of these companies these days are breaking Fair Use Laws.
And the Disney company made most of their money from animated films based on fairy tales that were originally created centuries ago.
I am somewhat sympathetic to copyright laws as I have made films that I would LIKE to make money off of. The idea of my years of work ending up on the internet for free (where I and my crew who made the films get no kickback) does bother me. It's like if someone paints some beautiful painting and wants to sell it. But you come in and take a high def photo of the painting instead and make it available. Yeah, the artist still has his but you DID basically rob him.
The way to solve the copyright problem is just to let them expire after 14 years like originally intended, the only problem is corporations are subverting the law, it's not so much a copyright problem as it is a lobbying problem.
DS9 competes with Star Trek Discovery. It is the same exact thing as the Star Wars sequel trilogy and the Star Trek reboot, where the old heroes were torn down to elevate the new ones.
I'm sure if Razorfist liked Star Trek discovery, CBS would endorse his DS9 videos. As is, he's making the comparison and STD is found wanting.
I've also never understood how hundreds of people can go to a public library, pull a book from the shelf, read it, return it, and the authors don't seem to give a damn, that out of the hundreds of people who've read their book, NO MONEY went to the author. Maybe I'm missing something?
Does anyone realise that the EU copyright articles were voted down by the *democratically* elected EU parliament. A considerable success but we won't mention it for fear of promoting the completely bureaucratic EU.
3:33 And they also prevent works from being conserved. Since some of them are still on rapidly degrading nitro celluloid and you aren't allowed to preserve these till long after it is way too late ... THANKS DISNEY AND YOUR FUCKING MOUSE (couldn't have they gone the way of a trademark? why did it had to be copyright?)
Anyhow anything than 15 years after publishing is a perversion ... and any prolonged period after death of the creator is necrophilia.
Just to remind you: The Hollywood industry was build (and build there) and grew on patent and copyright violations.
3:16 Why? I tell you why. Because there might be another cent (or even a fraction of a cent) to be able to squeezed out of the _"intellectual property"_ . Yes, they are this greedy ... that they get desperate...
Post your videos on DTUBE as well as on YouTube. Leave a link to the DTUBE video in the description and tell people to use the DTUBE link in your video. That way, you'll still get the exposure of YT, you'll earn STEEM tokens for views of you video at DTUBE and you'll encourage people to ABANDON YOUTUBE. The more money YT loses, the less they will be willing to just side with corporate psychopaths.
copyright should be limited to 10 years, maximum, that's it....and it should deal specifically with physical object. Most movies and games have a "presale" model for them to gain millions within the first week of sales....I don't see the problem with having no protection for "virtual" product, they have their week, model accordingly.
You can't copy and paste a car to your driveway.
Small business designs and creates a wildly successful product. They fail to copyright their works. Big corporation comes in and creates a *friendship* and the two collaborate on several special high profile projects. Suddenly small corp sees big corp release it's own product, a darn near exact copy and protests. Big corp with deep pockets and in-house lawyers, steals the products, legally makes the creator cease and desis and even legally forces them to apologize to the thief corp in a public fashion for having their intellectual and physical products stolen from them. This is a true story by the way.
I understand your position on fair use and I completely agree. However copyright laws are necessary.
In the case of the EU, they are going too far. The scary part is many are lobbying for and demonstrating for a 1984 state. I thought surely Britain was on the right track with Brexit until their government found a way to undo the voter. Why they aren't in the streets protesting I don't understand. The stiff upper lip will get you knocked flat on your ass.
I have to completely disagree with the car example. One can't right click an automobile, select copy and then paste that car to their garage. I get your point overall. The car is a poor example to make your point.
The funny thing out of all of this is that the Harry Potter franchise could get copyright claimed by another franchise called Mr. Blots Academy that is eerily similar to Harry potter but originally came out in the late 40s. The Polish government attempted to sue the harry poter franchise before.
Also P.S both franchises of Harry Potter and Mr. Blots Academy are about a kid that goes to a magical academy with an old magical teacher with a long beared and must defeat an evil villian who wants to destroy the academy.
I always thought Napster was good for business when I started using it back in 2000, before it got slammed. AFAICT it was a way for me to find new music and sample it, and later buy the CD if I liked it. To make matters worse (for the music industry, didn't affect the downloaders at all) the music industry started making CD's more expensive, and this imo drove down sales and just ramped up downloading... bottom line, the music industry panicked and then shot themselves in the foot. :l
What gets me is why YouTube allows countless copyrighted clips of movies and TV shows BY THEMSELVES in the first place? Soon after YouTube started in the last decade, these types of videos appeared on a regular basis until YouTube decided to delete any complete movies or TV shows that appeared, and good for them. But why are clips allowed? Fair Use?
It's not just the film and video game industry - copyright laws are ruining the music industry too.
Do you remember the famous suit against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, by the Gaye estate, in 2014 for the song "Blurred Lines"? Marvin Gaye has been dead for over 30 years - his family have already become incredibly rich from his music sales (which they themselves did not create). They had absolutely no right to sue them. Especially when considering how the original song which they claimed had been violated had no protectable elements that were stolen - it was the "feel" that was stolen apparently. There are so many more examples of this - the 21st century is the worst time ever to be a pop star. Ed Sheeran has been hit with two high profile lawsuits. Bruno Mars and Mark Ronson's "Uptown Funk" was gang-raped by so many disco guru copyright stakeholders that he practically makes no money from it anymore.
Copyright laws are a gravy-train for greedy, unscrupulous lawyers, big businesses, and rich old creators who are too lazy to write new material. They currently benefit nobody at the bottom, only those at the top. They are bullshit, and they need to be reformed.
It wouldn't matter what the law was or where, CBS/Paramount has had a "cut our nose off to spite our face" policy in place for the Star Trek properties since about 1972. It is clear they don't intend to change, look at the Axanar controversy which while not cut and dried was still handled more as if their name was Palpatine rather than Khan.
When the copyright expires CBS/Paramount will figure out a way to extend it, somehow. In that respect they are WAY out ahead of the comicsgate hubbub and Kennedy's Star Wars in dumping all over their greatest fans.
As an independent author of fantasy and sci-fi I have to admit that I do feel a little annoyed that I loose a certain amount of money to illegal downloads of my novels, only because what money I do receive from sales goes directly back into publishing more books, otherwise I've always had a very open opinion on sharing stories, ideas and worlds. I did, however, decide to independently publish because I wanted to keep my own identical rights - selling to a big business is a terrifying thing.
So there are pros and cons. It's a complicated world out there. ^_^
0:26 _"The copying of a car"_ is a broken analogy. However, what you've done there is annoying because I would agree with you that the name piracy is a bullshit name for it. If (and that is an "if") it is going to be illegal, then it would be called _"intellectual property infringement"_ (and not all Intellectual Property is called copyright). The word "piracy" is inappropriate. Yes, that DVD "PSA" used a shite analogy, but so did you. As Stefan Molyneux has said before, the first pill costs millions of dollars to make, and yet the second pill costs pennies. So your analogy doesn't work. However, what constitutes the reason for the first pill to be so costly is debateable.
A lot of IP Law and legislation stifles the little guy when only large companies can afford the cost to register trademarks (per country) and patents (an patents tend to only last 5 to 20 years). It could be argues that a patent can be used to protect open source if the author of it chooses to release the patent into the public domain after some years (so let's say 4 years). It proves the author was the origin and it can be said it authorises them to release it. Personally, considering private ownership can be eroded severly by monetary systems, I think sometimes _"Intellectual Authority"_ is a better term. The find the audit trail back to the origin of a discovery isa quest for the truth. To veto that with money is the failure to prevent the of the burning of the library of alexandra. A man who chases two rabbits catches none. Truth or something else. Pick one.
Technology has eroded the landscape and a great many of these bunch of copyright "laws" are not the way forward. The majority of changes to law have historically been clauses to existing laws. This massive bulk-buy creation of new laws is hamfisted. Some large companies (including car makers) have backed down over IP infringement when it is China doing it. An example is in the ADVChina video from 5th January 2016 with _"How Bad is Piracy in China?"_ as the title. The public uproar in China against Chevy's legal case was massive and they essentially had the power to severly reduce (if not entirely destoy) the sales of the original "copied" Chevy car. There is something that seems unfair about the way only the little guy (not massive China) gets taken to task. However, whether it is morally right or wrong, what that China incident can tell you is these large companies' legal actions can be slain. They can be slain, and people don't need an entire China in order to do so.
As an aside, your comparison to video games having their _Let's Play_ footage captured (not including cutscenes) is not the same as sampling a DVD movie. A lot of games have IP in the form of patents. Not all the patents extend to all countries. Some may only be USA and others only protected in UK. However, even if a game's patent is protected worldwide, there is sometimes a good chance you are not infringing on it because it may require the user to control something. An example is the arrow showing you where to drive in the _Simpsons Hit and Run_ game. Even though can see it, your video's viewers do not control it. If however you were to make a game close to it, then the most important parts of the game's IP might well be infringed upon, and then you'd probably get some sort of legal issue. My guess is the authors are prioritsing that.
In brief, your car analogy is terrible. Please copy a better analogy off somebody else (under fair use of course).
hehehe, running out of other peoples ideas mate, so hard when you cant nick other peoples work. i agree you have the perfect right to other peoples creativity.you might actually have to pay to create your own otherwise.
That which can be done to find the right balance is the following:
1) Make your own bloody game//film. Boycott and stop playing and viewing ANY AND EVERY copyrighted game and film. Stop being so goddamn obsessed and drugged out over these stupid games and shitty films.
2) Go outside and play with your friends. Get off the fucking computer and do something creative.
If I crib answers on a test from the top student in my class, without their knowledge or consent, then I'm considered to have stolen their work, even though they will still enjoy just as much benefit from having studied. They'll still get the 'A' they studied for, but having copied their work, _I'll_ get an 'A' that they studied for, too.
Leaving aside the value of education for its own sake, and how important it is for me to learn and not just copy, I'm not sure how this is morally okay.
Now, I'm fully on board with the idea of it being terrible that powerful interests routinely abuse, twist, mutilate, and manipulate copyright laws as they stand like nobody's business,, but I'm really confused how people can say with a straight face that only tangible objects can be stolen.
yeah, but i would CHUNK a bullet in my opponents skull on a whim!
this has been going on since before our time, and you had the FUCKIN nerve to attempt a prediction, that SJW's were losing....
shows what you're aware of...
use irc, or DIE!
You had it absolutely right re: copyright law: Originally 14, then 28, then allowed another renewal of 28, then 70 years after death of author, etc., etc. Yes; every time the Copyrights are about to FINALLY expire, the large companies lobby congress to change/extend the laws. e.g. the 1976 Act (taking place on 1/1/78), which removed the Published or Registered requirement. And for works before '78, they had to be renewed on the 28th year to get 95 years of protection, BUT, the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, made renewal automatic. Etc., etc., again. As it stands, works before 1978 may be protected until 2047, so far...
As for Article 13: It really has nothing to do with copyrights, and EVERYTHING to do with controlling the Internet and people's voices.
I always found it ironic that I purchase a DVD and then I have it suggesting that burned copies are bad....I already bought your movie...I'm not a thief, why would you suggest that I am one. People who burn movies, don't care.
What Raz0rFist should do is continue the series and upload it to BitChute. Each new episode, do a quick video for YouTube telling everyone it has been uploaded there. If Paramount or CBS try to go after him there filing false DMCA claims, where each splits the rights, they will get nowhere.
I think their not succeeding on taking down his content would get more attention brought to this than telling people about their smacking RazorFist around.
I feel as though about 50 years is right. After all if you can make something that remains interesting for 50 years you've done something worthwhile, and if you've done something worthwhile I think you should be able to benefit for it for most of your lifetime as well.
The first ever Copyright Act is called the Statute of Anne and came into force in 1709 and not 1790.
This is the same for the USA, they thought it was such an excellent idea they decided to keep it after achieving independence.
Please sort it out Dave, you are not the one who will be having to mark copyright essays, from students who’ll be watching your videos...
Anyway, the law you should be most interested in, is International Copyright Law’s 1886 Bern Convention. The USA under Reagan didn’t sign up to that till 1988. Incidentally the same year which the Uk Copyright law: The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 was brought in.
Consequently when Bram Stoker wrote Dracula, he was only protected in countries signed up to the Berne Convention. Dickens is an even better example, he couldn’t make a penny from US sales even whilst selling out tours of giant auditoriums for live readings! Twain lamented the fact that he, as a US writer, couldn’t get published due to the fact that US publishers were making more money from Uk authors whom they didn’t need to pay royalties to.
The problem is that there is not just one ‘Copyright’, most of the issues You tube et.al are scared of, are related to the Right of Paternity and individual Moral Rights. To cut a long story short, the US doesn’t have the same legal structure to deal with these rights, hence why your citing of US law from Ireland, carries little weight. Worth pointing out also, that the UK didn’t have any protection for parody works until 2014.
Anyway, top marks for everything else.
I agree, this type of abuse of the Copyright system is awful. So, if the issue is lack of funds to fight this BS then perhaps a bunch of YouTube creators who have been affected should band together and file a class action lawsuit agenst the offending company? I would like to be able to watch reviews of content like Star Trek and know that the creators of that content aren't having their compensation stolen by CBS or Paramount when what they are providing does not violate copyright.
Laws may be outdated but the real culprit here is the mechanism created by google to arbitrary take over other people's income and possibly control the narrative about the content in play. The mechanism in question seems to supersede the fair use laws. On what grounds, I don't know, but complexity and lack of transparency of claim dispute rights is clearly discriminating and put in place to discourage you from fighting for your rights. For you that may be a couple of bucks or even hundreds but multiply that by number of claimed content every day and you get sizable amount of money stolen in broad daylight on the basis of "...say so".
Paul McCartney campaigned and won copyright extension in the UK now it's 90years after death of the original holder...it used to be 70years... which seems more than enough considering IP on design/patent has 25years max.
Not workable, you'd see corporations killing creators to force their works into public domain. I'm 100% serious about that.It wouldn't be all of them, but it would happen and I think anyone with a sense of history knows it.
I would say that the proper counter-argument to "You wouldn't steal a car" is "The car belongs to the driver, not the auto manufacturer. And if said driver is my dad, and he lends me his car, then I don't have to steal it. But apparently, if my dad wants me to listen to a song he likes, that's 'stealing' now, because despite paying for it, he doesn't own it".
IT's not even about controlling media, because the videos are not demonetized, they are monetized by the copyright holder. Which means a media company can hit every video they can find for huge amounts of ad revenue. Figure even little viewed videos add up when you are acquiring monetization rights for hundreds of thousands of videos on a regular basis. They are given huge financial motivation to abuse the system. Even if they false flag a million videos, and they were all overturned (which they're not) there is no negative impact on the company, and they still get ad revenue for all those videos while the dispute is being settled, which is often the peak viewing time.
Probably. Though I think a class action suit against the platform, depending on who would take it up and how many would join it, is more likely to get traction and results than a single suit. And it has to be challenged legally, in the courts, for there to be any hope of it changing.
The PC community has grown a good deal in a really limited time frame and there isnt any reason to believe the game wont be equally as addicting for Xbox players. The site states its something PUBG Corp wants to add down the road, perhaps as soon as the game is finished, as shown by a Microsoft representative. More info about the 3 PUBG cosmetic packs are found over on Xbox Wire. The lot of different cheats weve encountered has far surpassed our expectations. Start out with our substantial range of PUBG ideas, which provides you with a whopping number of approaches to assist in improving your game. Just ensure you choose only the appropriate account for you! At times you will discover that you require a different video card to totally experience what the game offers.
The Honest to Goodness Truth on Pubg Warrior Pack
Nevertheless, its always tough to locate a trustworthy seller of a Black Desert account on account of the risk involved in these sorts of transactions. Bring on such a desert map! We guess because its about becoming the lone survivor, even if theres a lot of teamwork on the way.
The game will probably remain in early access for some moment. It continues to attract new players that are hoping to get that sweet, sweet chicken dinner. This usually means youre have to begin downloading the game at midnight, and after that begin playing once PUBG is installed. There isnt just one play through of Black Desert that ends up the same because its up to the player to determine the method by which they level. Because of this, players will need to use the Xbox Game Preview program to be able to play the game. Xbox One players might have to wait somewhat longer for the full-release edition. They will also be able to purchase some exclusive content in the form of special cosmetic packs.
Things You Should Know About Pubg Warrior Pack