Тёмный

"We Don't Need More Copyright" - Tom W. Bell on Intellectual Property 

ReasonTV
Подписаться 993 тыс.
Просмотров 9 тыс.
50% 1

"We don't need more copyright," says Chapman University law professor Tom W. Bell. "Probably we could dial it back and still enjoy this great wealth of culture that's been generated, that's already in our libraries."
Bell, a self-described "intellectual property skeptic," sat down with Reason TV to discuss his new book "Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good."
Contemporary copyright law is a statutory privilege that inevitably contradicts our constitutional rights to free expression. The prospect of litigation scares off artists who want to create new works that exist in legal grey areas, like mashups, tributes, or parodies.
Bell's solution rests on a much simpler idea: we should emphasize common law instead of copyright. Common law -- which is to say, the established precedents that govern ordinary property, contracts, and torts -- already form the foundation of the American legal system. It provides plenty of encouragement for artists and designers to create new works, without the statutory failures of the current system.
How might the arts fare in a world without copyright protection? To a large extent, we already know the answer. Perfumes, jokes, recipes, fashion, furniture, and automobile design have never enjoyed copyright protection. Yet there's no shortage of creativity in any of these fields. Artists still find ways to make money -- sometimes a great deal of it -- in the absence of special legal protection.
After meeting with policymakers on Capitol Hill, Bell is hopeful about the prospects for reforming the Copyright Act. Legislators are starting to accept what consumers have long understood about the digital age: modern copyright law hinders the very innovation it was designed to promote.
Runs about 8:30.
Produced by Ford Fischer and Todd Krainin. Cameras by Josh Swain and Fischer.
Go to reason.com/reasontv/2014/07/16... for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's RU-vid Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live."

Опубликовано:

 

25 июл 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 82   
@wetwingnut
@wetwingnut 10 лет назад
I'm an engineer and a year ago, in a discussion about patents on You Tube I asserted that patents were crucial to engineering and innovation. I got a lot of flack from my fellow libertarians (some of it pretty rude), but their arguments actually started me to think more about my position. Today I've concluded that patents do indeed do far more to stifle and discourage innovation than they do to support it. Furthermore, I've come to realize that patents are an unreasonable and unethical imposition on the freedom of men's minds. So, in case you were wondering, your comments and arguments can (and in my case did) change people's minds.
@ScarletWitchJakarta
@ScarletWitchJakarta 10 лет назад
Massive software piracy yet the software industry is doing great. No copyright in the fashion industry, yet the fashion industry is doing great. Copyright is a total scam.
@JaySee5
@JaySee5 10 лет назад
Intellectual property itself is a scam, not just copyright.
@freedom_aint_free
@freedom_aint_free 10 лет назад
Copyrights is a scam for sure, and it's completely hypocritical, just because in every patent that has ever existed, the person who filled for it, has used a lots of other peoples works and ideas for free; at the very least I would pointed out that the language itself that the patent application was written wasn't his author creation. And so are the graphics, mathematics, "prior art", etc.
@SelfEducationRadio
@SelfEducationRadio 10 лет назад
baianoise I agree. in a way, this can all be tied back to the illusion of free will. people feel they own their ideas, in the same way they feel they own their choices, but evidence contradicts this. as you brilliantly pointed out we don't even chose the language our thoughts occur in. all ideas, like choices are based on a long history of evolution and natural selection. Ideas and technology evolve over time as a derivative function of biological evolution. Natural selection of our genes transfers through to the natural selection of technology, communication and even ethics. at no point can we cut off one individual from this million year saga and attribute any development to that one individual.
@KizoneKaprow
@KizoneKaprow 10 лет назад
Spoken as someone who has never created anything of value in his life.
@gwydion75
@gwydion75 10 лет назад
*shrug* The marketplace is making room for music, video and software pricing and accessibility that makes piracy less and less viable/necessary. The real drag for the last 30+ years has been the protectionism of those industries first seeking legal shields and hassles to paying customers to protect their profit from piracy, instead of innovating better ways to provide more service/product to their customers. In the end, the market is and will continue to benefit from these innovations and fewer people will pirate, meanwhile the creators (we hope) will continue to have greater access to the dollars being spent on their products.
@TheAMGEntertainment
@TheAMGEntertainment 10 лет назад
The guy that invented the wheel didn't get a single paycheck for his idea
@roberthoffenheim7861
@roberthoffenheim7861 3 года назад
Neither did the taxpayer for funding the creation of the internet
@XCritonX
@XCritonX 10 лет назад
I can see possible benefits of artistic copyright lasting 5 to 7 years. After that, if you have not made a profit on your work you probably never will.
@yukip8312
@yukip8312 5 лет назад
Why isn't anyone commenting about this now? Look at what's happening in the EU. This needs more attention
@s70rk
@s70rk 5 лет назад
I like his optimism on future copyright legislation. "I hope they've learned from SOPA/PIPA, that they won't just be tightening screws in the future". Paraphrased. Look at the new EU articles 11 and 13. They've not tightened the screws, they've thrown away the screws and welded everything shut.
@jackmcslay
@jackmcslay 5 лет назад
Akira Toriyama started working less and less after creating Dragon Ball; Mojang has not created any game other than Minecraft; Marvel and DC have been rehashing the same characters for decades and they have MAYBE 1-2 new characters each decade that stand out; The Wright Brothers got rich by suing people to get royalties rather than working hard creating new aviation innovations; After the original Star Wars trilogy, Lucasfilm made the disappointing prequels and now disney is doing the even worse sequel trilogy; After Intel went hard on patents in the 90s they killed all their competitors except AMD; Tolkien's inheritors are certainly NOT working writing amazing pieces of literature; So when is it that IP laws have EVER created an incentive to innovate?
@AKlover
@AKlover 10 лет назад
I don't think there is a politician left in Washington who is qualified to write IP legislation Maybe Ron Paul and he alone could have but it would not have been left a clean bill.
@hbarudi
@hbarudi 5 лет назад
I agree, the copyright law right now puts too much power in the hands of companies and less in the hands of average citizens. A reform could reduce the time something in copyright for only a few years where it is new, then after that it becomes open to the public.
@Cheedillow
@Cheedillow 10 лет назад
Good video, Tom Bell has a very peculiar way of speaking, almost like some kind of Jim Carrey expression
@LOUDMOUTHTYRONE
@LOUDMOUTHTYRONE 10 лет назад
That's a first a "Jim Carrey expression". xD
@gwydion75
@gwydion75 10 лет назад
I'm pretty sure he is Jim Carrey.
@bojanmilankovic
@bojanmilankovic 10 лет назад
Yeah, you don't hear that accent a lot at all, and when you do you kind of need to stop for a second and think "Oh, yeah, I forgot that existed!" I like it.
@bwillan
@bwillan 10 лет назад
Patents on software / business methods and patent trolls also stifle innovation too and is a whole other can of worms.
@JM-el9tn
@JM-el9tn 10 лет назад
Stefan Kinsella has been making this argument for years. Johnny-come-lately
@ilovewinter4299
@ilovewinter4299 10 лет назад
I think that the original inventor should be protected for his lifetime but nothing more, and it should not protect corporations who get their inventions from individuals through force of law. Anything any one invents the person who invented it should get the rights to it, and have those rights so long as he or she lives, but no more. That would be what I see as fair law.
@mearcat74
@mearcat74 10 лет назад
Do as you wish, copy the good bits and delete the parts you feel are bad, lets evolve!!! Can the maker of the Violin sue Tchaikovsky for using his/her instrument~~ ? lets continue to EVOLVE!
@vcr210
@vcr210 2 года назад
Yeah. We need more mullets.
@somethingnevertaken
@somethingnevertaken 10 лет назад
In this video Chapman talks about how Copyright (a legal tool) could be replaced with richer contracts and property rights, and for a moment says DRM. This is not true. DRM is *NOT* a technical tool. All DRM has always been circumvented quite easily. It's a legal tool, not a technical one, to stop companies from legally being able to sell devices etc.
@stevemcgee99
@stevemcgee99 10 лет назад
Lawyer: surfs and listens to Blag Flag (my guess).
@tarrker
@tarrker 10 лет назад
Pretentious bullshit. The problem isn't the laws themselves. The problem is people with money wielding our laws like weapons. Probably the best example is that copyright infringement is now called piracy when it is not. It was perhaps a bit over zealous at first but it is just completely out of hand now and someone, somewhere is going to have to do something about it. We now have people with copyrighted music in the backgrounds of their home videos being threatened with legal action by automated corporate bots.
@MountainBlade100
@MountainBlade100 7 лет назад
Well that's kind of why the constitution... was made.
@KizoneKaprow
@KizoneKaprow 10 лет назад
"What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property. "An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. "It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it-but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature-an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed. "The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it-i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal." Ayn Rand “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130
@wetwingnut
@wetwingnut 10 лет назад
Rand has been wrong about a few things...
@DrMIS1
@DrMIS1 7 лет назад
You do know that Ayn Rand was a writer with ZERO background in economics don't you? Nothing she wrote has ANY validity in the real world. Where he concepts have been tried they have failed miserably. You might as well base your life on Moby Dick or The Lord of The Rings.
@wetwingnut
@wetwingnut 7 лет назад
#ArgumentFromAuthority = #NotAnArgument
@TreachMarkets
@TreachMarkets 10 лет назад
All that talk about how the copyright system sucks and common law rules and at the end he wants less copyright, not to abolish it. Why? No explanation.
@TheMrSeagull
@TheMrSeagull 10 лет назад
Intellectual property laws exist to protect the products of an individual's mind and effort, ensuring the individual is able to reap the rewards for their real innovation. Why would anyone invest time and effort into a product when a competitor could easily sell their product without any need to cover the costs associated with developing this and all future products? Why would a writer publish their work if anyone can sell and download copies without having to pay him a single dime? No one is entitled to anything another produces, it must be obtained on mutually consensual terms or not at all. These law encourage innovation because they protect this right. Taking someone else's work and selling it as your own is not innovation. Duplicating and distributing someone else's artwork is not innovation. Pirating software and music is not innovation. Innovation requires originality, whether it's a new concept, or a significant improvement to, or the creation of, an existing one. Rights are not subject to the criteria of "greater good", or in this case, "encouraging Innovation."
@MilwaukeeF40C
@MilwaukeeF40C 10 лет назад
"Rights are not subject to the criteria of "greater good", or in this case, "encouraging Innovation."" This sentence contradicts everything in your previous two paragraphs.
@jimlovesgina
@jimlovesgina 10 лет назад
Did you miss the part where industries with zero copyright protection still flourish and supply the consumer with more choices? Did you miss the part where he proposes a bottom up vs. a top down solution via the common law? I don't believe for a second that you even watched the video.
@operaguy1
@operaguy1 10 лет назад
Citing for agreement with MrSeagull. Added: The reason for the attachment of "greater good" or "encouraging innovation": fear of identifying the truth, that the proper justification of legal protection of intellectual property is to secure the control and wealth-potential of the innovation for the creator of it. Period. The thinker who blasts away the hypocrisy of both outright thieves and those wishing to justify through "greater good" is Ayn Rand.
@pyr666
@pyr666 10 лет назад
John Donohue IP protection is actually all unsubstantiated nonsense. while piracy has always existed, attempts to stop it have never been shown to increase sales or really *do* anything.
@operaguy1
@operaguy1 10 лет назад
***** Protection of all property rights, including intellectual property rights, is the foundation of political freedom, prosperity, modern civilization and life extension. But even these enormous benefits are secondary to this: they assure the rewards earned by the innovator.
@themessenger3216
@themessenger3216 3 года назад
An invention generally comes from an individual. It is a cold hard truth that there are people that are smarter than others and yet society seems to feel entitled to the human ingenuity of the few in much the same way that they don't want to pay taxes which is nothing more than society rent. It is also a cold hard truth that we cannot take our money with us. There is no legacy to humanity in that survival of the fittest logic. The only thing that has ever left a legacy to humanity is human ingenuity and intelligence is not a thing that can necessarily be bought. One cannot purchase an extra scoop of brain matter and stick it in their head and yet some tend to believe that their opinions hold more weight than others. These people are the science deniers. Thomas Edison and Westinghouse were two completely different creatures. Thomas Edison was motivated by greed even though he was certainly of high intelligence. Westinghouse on the other hand was far more concerned with how his inventions would benefit society at large. Insulin was invented in Toronto and the inventor sold the patent for 1 dollar. He wanted to leave a legacy to humanity. In the USA the drug companies have bought it up and are now selling insulin well over and above what many can no longer afford and yet they need it just to stay alive. I recently read a news article where a 26 year old was taken off of his parents health plan.. He was making in the area of 40,000 a year and was a diabetic. He had to choose between paying his rent or buying his insulin. He compromised. He had no choice in the matter because of the greed of others. He rationed his insulin and now rests 6 feet under. This is how reality works. It is not the American Dream that SOME of the framers had in mind. Pure capitalism is nothing more than a business model that has been passed down from the sub-cultures of slavery. It is often argued today that the titans of industry provide jobs to the people. The slave owners provided jobs as well...didn't they? Is copyright important? Why shouldn't someone be paid for their labors? Why should they work for "free" when its argued by more right leaning political ideology that nobody should have a free ride? Who are the truly "entitled" ones? If you 'think" about it the answers have been there all along.
@DrMIS1
@DrMIS1 7 лет назад
This guy is a total hack who is clueless as to how markets or economic systems in general work. While this is a valid argument for not indefinitely extending intellectual property protections, his ideas on polycentric law and libertarian principles are just unworkable in the real world.
@ShredCo
@ShredCo 10 лет назад
Boring.
Далее
Получилось у Миланы?😂
00:13
Просмотров 558 тыс.
Камень, ножницы, нейронка
00:33
Просмотров 1,3 млн
It seems Sonya's choice was obvious! 😅 #cat #cats
00:20
If You Think You SUCK at Guitar, Watch This.
4:37
Просмотров 1,6 млн
Tom Sachs' Studio Tour
5:42
Просмотров 94 тыс.
80 Year Olds Share Advice for Younger Self
12:22
Просмотров 1,4 млн
The Rise and Rule of Elon Musk
42:46
Просмотров 2,1 млн
Early Copyright History
7:05
Просмотров 43 тыс.
Jay Austin's Beautiful, Illegal Tiny House
10:32
Просмотров 3 млн
Too Much Copyright
8:57
Просмотров 58 тыс.
Получилось у Миланы?😂
00:13
Просмотров 558 тыс.