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 we teaching it? Well, intellectual property is about ideas and their ownership, and it's basically about the rights of creators to make money from their work. Intellectual property is so pervasive in today's world that we thought you ought to know a little bit about it. We're going to discuss the three major elements of IP: Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks.
ALSO, A DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Copyright Office, the Library of Congress, or the United States Government.
The information in this video is distributed on an "as-is" basis, without warranty. While precaution has been taken in the preparation of the video, the author shall not have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by any information contained in the work.
This video is intended for educational purposes only and is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Intellectual property law is notoriously fact-specific, and this video (or any other single resource) cannot substitute for expert guidance from qualified legal counsel. To obtain legal guidance relevant to your particular circumstances, you should consult a qualified lawyer properly licensed in your jurisdiction. You can contact your local bar association for assistance in finding such a lawyer in your area.
The Magic 8 Ball is a registered Trademark of Mattel
Citation 1: Brand, Stewart. Quote from a speech given at the first Hackers' Conference, 1984
Citation 2: Plato, Phaedrus. 390 BC p. 157
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Suzanne, Dustin & Owen Mets, Amy Fuller, Simon Francis Max Bild-Enkin, Ines Krueger, King of Conquerors Gareth Mok, Chris Ronderos, Gabriella Mayer, jeicorsair, Tokyo Coquette Boutique,
Konradical the nonradical
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids

[@CraftnMomma]

Stan isn't a figment of John's imagination!!! hooray!! lol

[@livedandletdie]

Charlotte Burnside John actually invented the dream reader 2000, it is much better than the dream reader 1000, for instance the dream reader 2000 actually renders dreams in Full HD, meaning that yes Stan is a figment of John's imagination.

[@RaitoYagami88]

Is Stan wearing John's clothes?

[@sofia.eris.bauhaus]

or is john wearing stan's skin?! probably.. not. B)

[@jeffreytoman5202]

Na he's not wearing a Ralph Lauren polo shirt

[@stevenwills4660]

Can we have a crash course philosophy.

[@guillaumeteulieres7377]

Steven Wills Yeah super Idea... !

[@zaKkyBoY121]

Steven Wills philosophy is dead science -stephen hawking

[@Allofusien]

Steven Wills I'm so happy others have already made this comment.

[@MulberryDays]

Phi Show? ;D

[@MulberryDays]

Hey you guys, I found a troll! Let's just watch it starve!

[@nunnayahbeeswax8500]

The nod to Chumbawamba, a band so dedicated to its own anarchist philosophy that it actively encouraged fans to shoplift their records from stores, did not go unnoticed. Well played, Crash Course.

[@fakjbf3129]

"Mongol is exceptionally chill in between raids" has to be one of the best blurbs of any of the title sequences so far

[@SeanLamb-I-Am]

As a professional photographer and as a Wikipedia administrator, I have to deal with IP and copyright questions directly on a daily basis. I'm very much looking forward to following your discussion of the issues involved. Thank you for working on this project!

[@ZarliWin]

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.

[@onlybrandan]

I'm headed to law school this fall and my plan is to concentrate in intellectual property law. It's something I've always been fascinated by so I'm glad this came out at such a perfect time!

[@TUCOtheratt]

Very well written and delivered information. I can't believe I actually paid attention to the whole thing.

[@Friemelkubus]

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.

[@AusSP]

Ian Cailliau We don't really "need" any Crash Courses. If you want a serious understanding, that's for universities to fulfill. Crash Course simply provides an overview that enlightens it's viewer in a brief but informative manner. In that sense, Intellectual Property is probably more useful than History or Biology. Both are very good to know, but IP impacts our regular lives, while biology, in practice, is best left to professionals. That said, biology and history are a good bit more intriguing than law. Just listen to how the Magic 8 Ball is changed to something so boring and pedestrian.

[@Friemelkubus]

AusSP I'm sorry but that's just not true. Every course has certain insights, certain intuitions that profoundly impact your perception, the way you judge situations and the way you structure information. You don't study Pythagoras just to learn about triangles. You study it in a sense to learn how to think mathematically and to learn how to think in abstract ways. It's the same with biology, once you know it you don't realise how much it matters till you meet someone who's blatantly ignorant about all matters biology. (student engineering & biochemistry)

[@AusSP]

***** People who are "doomed to repeat" such things as the Crusades because they didn't know of them are probably not the people learning about them from Crash Course. They're politicians and military leaders and other such specialists that take things far, far more seriously than Crash Course. When it comes to history, what's most important to me is the behavior of local political parties and how trustworthy they might be. Comprehension of the world and society has it's advantages, but our participation in society is not directly dependent upon knowledge of global history. Yes, knowledge of biology has been very important to doctors and scientists who spend who spend several years learning biology and poking cadavers, not watching KZbin videos. Copyright, on the other hand, is one of the big reasons people who make Crash Course actually get money. It might matter less in a communist society, but, no, this is not a communist society - it is one in which the producers of content like to have some say about how their effort is distributed and actually get some money for their hard work. Without IP, people producing digital goods would rarely make any money. As consumers, understanding why Piracy Is Bad is important, so that we don't cheat good, hardworking people, out of their well-earned money, and as a result, the things they need to live.

[@AusSP]

Ian Cailliau I think you're taking certain things too far. Pythagoras does not teach me how to apply maths to real life. Teaching how to apply Pythagoras to real life, however, might do so. You don't gain sudden, miraculous insights about the structure of the world by being taught tangentially related phenomena - or more likely, only very rarely. You gain them from other people that have had those insights, or been taught about them - that is, from sharing information. There is a reason people learn about Pythagoras, rather than re-inventing the wheel, or triangle as it were, every generation. The Biology episodes have indeed been teaching me that the body is amazingly complex - a miracle in and of itself, which makes it easier for me to understand how regions about a super-being that invented humans could become popular. I still have absolutely no idea how the body works, or have any way to apply that learning to anything in my daily life - and if I did, I'd still think it best to leave to people with doctorates. I might, at best, be able to understand a doctor telling me about some major treatment I hopefully will never have to go through, but the ability to apply that knowledge, even in a theoretical manner, is highly limited.

[@Friemelkubus]

AusSP Actually I have learned a lot by studying a lot of different subjects. I also learn a lot faster due to this. For example : I apply thermodynamics to economics and it makes learning a lot easier. As for applying to real life, I do it. On a daily basis. You just need to be conceptual in your study of the subject and not just follow a mechanistic approach where you learn what to do. It takes more effort but it is worth it. But I see you don't get what I mean with application. I'm not saying that now you've studied biology you should diagnose yourself. I'm saying that once you've studied biology and taken it seriously you're less inclined to follow some strands of quackery because what you've seen constrains what is possible. It focusses your attention and computation power on certain aspects and not others. It's like in chess where being a master is more about knowing where to look then raw calculation power.

[@IXPrometheusXI]

I thought this said "crash course philosophy" and I almost screamed. I want that so bad. Please CC phil? Pretty please?

[@Jobbazz]

Same I was so excited, but I also found this quite interesting ;P

[@BeCurieUs]

Taylor Bennett Huh, my friend is an awesome philosopher guy, if Sci Show has any interest, let me know!

[@rosagibson6570]

Taylor Bennett They might have to turn comments off though or have a disclaimer in the video title/description/into.

[@AzuriteCoast]

Oh my god me too! I think we know what the channel needs because I FLEW to this video.

[@BeCurieUs]

What kind of videos would you guys want for a philosophy channel?

[@BIGxFUDGE]

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 videos 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 video a topic was covered if I ever wish to go back to one. Thank you. Like seriously. Thank you.

[@klikkolee]

Haikus are easy but sometimes they don't make sense refrigerator (I took that from a shirt)

[@arunkhanna7210]

Who is this person? What happened to Mr. Green? Dislike. ...Just Kidding. Great video though.

[@TheMaplestrip]

I am already loving this series.this guy is great: has a classy and clever sense of humor and is explaining everything clearly. This far, he has basically only said things I already know, yet he managed to boggle my mind regardless. Love it! :)

[@justineo5529]

Thanks Stan. Can't wait for this series to go fully. I always hate watching the intro videos when there aren't any more of the series up.

[@Tarathiel123]

Don't get me wrong, I love crash course...but this video 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.

[@SophisticatedBanjo]

Tarathiel123 True, but he did raise concerns about them at the beginning of the video. I assume that as this was only the introduction, subsequent videos will include more debate about the merits and downfalls of IP legislation. CrashCourse always seems to do a good job of discussing both sides of an issue.

[@unpronouncable2442]

Tarathiel123 I think that Patent Trolling is just one aspect of the Copy Right law focusing on this aspect and this aspect alone will be spoken about but don't expect it to be in the pilot episode or have the whole series dedicated to it.

[@crashcourse]

Tarathiel123 That's why we're doing a series! We'll get into some of the downsides in coming weeks. I think it's a good idea to understand IP law as it exists now before getting into trying to predict the future. -stan

[@warfjm]

Tarathiel123 Maybe they'll cover it in future episodes. This was an intro video and they wont get to everything right away.

[@neeneko]

Tarathiel123 On the other hand, the downsides are something that is already done to death, and he did say they were going to try to focus on other areas that people might not hear as much about. Oh, and if someone had patented the internet, it would be long expired ^_~. However, many of the core technologies that went into the 'net as we have it today were indeed patented, even getting away from the questionable 'software' or 'business method' patents and excesses of the 90s .com patent rush. But a lot of the hardware that went into it was indeed under patents and other IP. Elon Musk is in a rather unusual position, due to his wealth he can afford to be magnanimous in ways a lot of companies and individuals can not be. He can afford to do whatever he wants and suffers from a bit of privilege perspective there.

[@Greymorn]

I would never have thought to ask for this Crash Course topic, but I need it. If only to swim in the irony of a program that explains IP, funded by Patreon, a platform that undermines the justification for IP, while rewarding creators who want to make their content "free to everyone, forever."

[@Rattiar]

Great video, Stan! Thanks for taking this project on. You did a really nice job of explaining the basics, while also entertaining folks who already know a bit about the subject. I look forward to the rest of the series.

[@victortrejo5725]

Yes!!! This should be shown to people when they join KZbin. This needs to spread!

[@ltericdavis2237]

Yeah, new intro to pause and read all the factoids! So, what was Abe Lincoln's patent?

[@gingerlee337]

Factoid It was for floating boats over obstructions in the water. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln%27s_patent

[@ltericdavis2237]

gingerlee337 Interesting. Thank you!

[@JimCullen]

Factoid fun fact, but they aren't factoids! Factoids are actually statements commonly believed to be true that actually isn't.

[@ltericdavis2237]

Jim Cullen Are you telling me I don't know what my own name means?

[@RonVandeil]

I have been waiting for this course for weeks. Thanks Stan.

[@twtelford]

So: who owns the coppy right to thisvideo? Is this the intellectual property of the writer, the guy filming it or the guy who owns the camera?

[@crashcourse]

Excellent question. Also, what about the patreon crowd funding aspect? Are all the contributors owners of the content? We'll talk about this in a future episode. -stan

[@notmareelnam7545]

I wrote this.

[@Groaker]

notma reelnam Well, you conceived the sentence and then input the data into a piece of hardware, using an OS, running software that enables access toh my GOD IT'S HAPPENING ALREADY.

[@ronburgundy8031]

Timothy Telford I just copied the video and am uploading the torrent file to Pirate Bay. I should find out in about a week.

[@franklyanogre00000]

Ron Burgundy Haha... a Patent Lol...

[@VapidVulpes]

Awesome! :-D! Finally, a face to the ethereal Stan! And a topic that is exceedingly interesting, important, and valuable for my line of work! Thank you Stan! You're now my new favorite.

[@matthewpavlantos9132]

Finally, the Infamous Stan!

[@roguedogx]

as someone who hopes to be an inventor one day, I am looking forward to this series.

[@SamoScopom]

OMG I was waiting for this for months. Thanks a lot. I'm really happy that someone who actually works with these sort of things every day is talking about it. Stan, you are awesome. I really like the work you do with all these video things :)

[@joew.1834]

Love the FF VII reference with Cloud Strife...that made my day :)

[@FieldMarshalFry]

HOLY SHIT STAN'S REAL!!!

[@michaelkrumbein5807]

I would have clicked thumbs up for the haiku alone. I'm looking forward to this series.

[@Mikeeeeeeeeeeeee]

WHO IS THIS PERSON? WHAT HAPPENED TO MR. GREEN? DISLIKE. UNSUBSCRIBE.

[@БулатМиннуллин-р8щ]

Mikeeeeeeeeeeeee (c)

[@Nehpets94]

Sue him Jenova 183

[@JB503PDX]

Mikeeeeeeeeeeeee This is Stan, John's Crash Course producer. John is off writing books again.

[@starkaat]

John Baxter (Mikē is repeating the haiku from the video. Is joke.)

[@JB503PDX]

starkaat Thanks for the update! / I saw the vid was posted. / No time to watch it.

[@Kinan.Eldari]

One of the most interesting CrashCourse videos for me, surprisingly. Thanks, Stan!

[@DJAIV]

Stan is an awesome host. This series is going to help a lot of people. I will definately be sharing these with my fellow artists.

[@BenJohnPoser]

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. I completely agree that educating people about IP is absolutely essential. I also believe that our current global system of IP is little more than a way to protect existing trade asymmetries and is a way for MNCs to consolidate a global market position. The promotion of IPRs is often justified on utilitarian grounds. I think there are interesting arguments that justify it through labour arguments (Brian Cwik) and which argue IP promotes the value of autonomy. It can, for some people, for others it can directly conflict with their autonomy, it can also conflict with more important moral values. Health, security and can stand in the way of individuals accessing their cultural and intellectual archives. How can we justify services like Elsevier? Academics don't labour intellectually for exclusive IPRs. That is why we are seeing a widespread trend for use of Creative Commons licenses. We can reward individuals for their intellectual labour in a whole host of ways, exclusive IPRs is just one way. We know it has huge limitations and yet we ratchet up the strength even though the incentive is barely affected at all. How can we justify life of the author + 70 years? It's a travesty.

[@GreatGwiaz]

I like Stan. He is nice and calm, and I can follow whats happening without distracting and overly enthusiastic jokes.

[@jd6133]

John's been making some great advances in the field of stanbots

[@AlthenaLuna]

I've been looking forward to this one...and it's turned out to be well-timed. I recently read Cory Doctorow's 'Information Doesn't Want to be Free' and finished my course on copyright law (for my masters program in publishing). Welcome to the front of the camera, Stan!

[@FieldMarshalFry]

thousands of dollars a pill? only in the United States mate... in Blighty all the pills we need are only £10

[@livedandletdie]

Field Marshal Fry which is about thousands of DOLLAH$...

[@ChickenWilickers]

Field Marshal Fry The reason the prices are so disparate is because we (non-US/S. Korean/etc) pay a subsidized cost. The cost we pay is really only for the production of goods, other citizens pay the cost of research which is both expensive and risky. Ideally, we (those with subsidized costs) would pay a little more and the healthcare corps would drop costs in proportion in nations like the USA. Again... ideally.... but its still a goal.

[@EvansRowan123]

Field Marshal Fry Only in England, Sais, in Wales we don't pay at all.

[@Lawfair]

livedandletdie I'd take $16.50 over thousands of dollars, the conversion rates isn't as dramatic as you make it out to be.

[@AvielMenter]

Field Marshal Fry They're really never thousands of dollars per pill in the US either, but as PotaTOES point out, the US does most of the R&D (and some additional inefficiency comes into play because we don't have a monopsony to purchase all pills and negotiate lower prices).

[@adamgrey268]

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.

[@tatianatub]

are you going to talk about creative commons?

[@neeneko]

ashley beaumont Going over CC and Copyleft would both make good episodes, so I hope so.

[@RudyBleeker]

ashley beaumont neeneko "Linux weirdo" reporting in here :-) I would love to see this CrashCourse series do one or two episodes on Creative Commons and Copyleft indeed. But I trust them to do the right thing and inform us about all aspects of the issue as they have done in their other series. Also, it's not entirely true that GNU/Linux software, licensed under the GNU Public Licence, does not enforce it's intellectual property. If you get caught stealing large amounts of GPL licensed code for use in commercial software that isn't also licensed under the GPL, you will probably get sued. This is however not the case with even more liberal licenses, for example the BSD licence.

[@makerlinux]

neeneko Based on this initial video and the monstrous bias Stan sported (see my other posts here), I guess that if he ever presents these concepts, he will unfang them completely, making them look like mild copyright-agreeing eccentricities. So, I would prefer that he does not do his ideological manipulation on this stuff.

[@RudyBleeker]

Maker Linux I couldn't disagree more. CrashCourse has a good trackrecord of showing all sides of an argument. Of course there is always some bias involved, that goes for your argument(s) as well. But it's simply a fact that everything in our world has to do with some form of intellectual property law, because we live in a society governed by laws. This holds true even for the ones who would rather have it another way, like myself.

[@UnproductiveSunbeam]

Rudy Bleeker anachist fist bump

[@kennys2806]

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.

[@kaiplue]

Figgs I think you might have just wrote an entire episode of Mental Floss there.

[@shack_em6752]

Figgs Actually the patent for the fire hydrant was lost in a fire XD

[@kalyani9153]

WOW

[@JonSebastianF]

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.

[@brightmal]

I hope this course includes some coverage of the Free Software Foundation vs Open Source debate regarding software.

[@chrisj4545]

***** Exactly, I made the same comment. I expect better from CrashCourse but they seem to be responsive to fan feedback, so hopefully they'll take note and at least have a segment on it. I would really like for them to run a correction on that comment though - that's blatant misinformation.

[@brightmal]

***** This gets to why it should be brought up in this context. The OSI vs FSF debate really looks at the issue of the purpose of IP as it relates to software. I'm pretty sure they could get ESR at least to say a word or two on the subject, though I don't know anything about RMS.

[@888SpinR]

ooh yes finally I've been waiting for this to come out!

[@Moadeeb_]

Yay!!! Stan has a show ! I'm looking forward to this one. +1 for thought bubble,.. We LOVE the thought bubble ! Thought cafe always does a great job. Wonderful intro Stan, you're doing a great job hosting, just as you did behind the camera.

[@MrSweetphats]

Nice to finally see you Mr. Muller.

[@AnandSekar314]

Who is this person? What happened to Mr. Green? Dislike. Unsubscribe.

[@tensequel7818]

"this person", is the person that directed entire Crash Course and making John/Hank as their main host! without him, John/Hank probably wouldn't even be here!

[@hannoo7858]

Lol

[@WhatsAnOxfordComma]

SO EXCITED for this!

[@MewWolf5]

I'm looking forward to seeing more of these!

[@beybladebaby]

I love you Stan don't listen to the haters =D

[@sunday87]

Dismissing the free software movement or even open source in general as 'Linux weirdos who don't think they have a copyright'... So *not* cool. These things are far more than that and should be an integral part of this discussion!

[@BinaryHistory]

sunday87 Indeed. I don't care if he has strong opinions or not, but indoctrination is not education, and on a channel with the stated purpose of education, it's hipocrisy at best. Heck, he could even have brought his point of view without being dismissive and extremely offensive. Now, all I can think is how I can't wait to be taught by some biased guy that knows shit about what he's talking about.

[@drdcs15]

I am so excited for this series!! thank you!!!

[@BrynKhaeys]

Not only did I need this course, I needed more of the man with the plan Stan Muller.

[@Aaron-P]

I really like Stan. Unassuming. So charming. His humor so wry. (c)

[@Krypto137]

I'm looking forward to all the comments in the next videos by both pseudo-intellectual Libertarian neckbeards AND pseudo-intellectual wannabe "socialist" teenagers. They're gonna be so salty.

[@santiagoadams598]

I HAVE OPINIONS AND I THINK THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME ONES

[@pkeros]

kryptospuridium137 As a patent attorney, I'm reading these comments and already facepalming (your comment, however, is very nice and astute).

[@makerlinux]

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. www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty

[@CallumAi]

Maker Linux The BSD license is much less restrictive and, IMO, better (than GNU GPL).

[@makerlinux]

Callum Aitchison Better for what? For everything? Every user case? I like the BSD license which is a valid open-source license too (I use for most of my works), and since it does not reverse copyright it is not copyleft, but I don't think it is fit for everything. Anyway, open-source licensing is one of several ways to react to the illegitimacy of copyright laws, so I don't think we are in opposition here.

[@CallumAi]

Maker Linux Sorry, I thought it was implied. Better for open source operating systems. I'm not saying GPL isn't good because it is, personally I just prefer the freedom the BSD license gives (and when I don't want to release my work public domain it's what I usually go for).

[@makerlinux]

***** Why? Who are you?

[@Romanticoutlaw]

the butthurt is strong in this one

[@wingduck91]

Excellent intro, and an important course to cover. Hopefully we see more of Stan in future courses beyond IP, he does a very good job with the cadence and flow of online educational videos.

[@SunjayVideos]

idk I think denying people lifesaving medicine based on cost is worse than censorship but what do I know (2015 seems like a long time ago)

[@xapemanx]

can't wait till part 2

[@Magicus1]

Thanks! I wish you were my legal course professor!

[@Fenrisson]

Hey Stan! Nice to finally see you on screen!

[@Theturtleowl]

I have a test about this next week. So crash course, let's do this!

[@SangoProductions213]

Well, I hope you guys talk about the impact of having copyright last longer than a person's life. Because that definitely encourages creativity. Why would I ever write a song that I couldn't cash in 50 years after my death?

[@makerlinux]

***** It was nicknamed "Mickey Law" for this reason...

[@tty8526]

I always pause to look at all the fun facts when they play the theme song.

[@mikeoxsbigg1]

I puked in my mouth a bit when he said T Swizzy.

[@crashcourse]

Mike Oxsbigg Me too. -stan

[@Nchinnam]

CrashCourse stan stan could you have john and hank as guests in this series. AS JOHN is a famous writer and Hank is a Beast.

[@stTonka]

Hey Stan, Nice to see you on the other side of the camera. Great idea for a series :)

[@darkenedwolf7502]

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.

[@ArchdukeVN]

I myself really look foreword to this series!

[@arand2]

Linux copyright is also being enforced (for example via software freedom conservancy), although since the license is a more permissive one than that of a proprietary operating system, it is arguably enforced "less" in a sense.

[@fahadahaf]

arand2 I'm offended that he called linux users "weirdos" :/ I guess not using something that limits what I can do is weird -_-

[@livedandletdie]

Fahad Hossain Weirdos. ;P

[@Romanticoutlaw]

if you get offended by something as mild as "weirdo", you're probably a weirdo

[@fahadahaf]

RebelWinterwolf Meh, not REALLY offended. But why would he call a whole bunch of people (including sysadmins) "WEIRDOS"

[@bcs1982]

Stan is a great host!

[@jgmweston]

This is a topic I've been wanting to learn more about for quite a while! Excited to dig into this new series.

[@IstasPumaNevada]

Ohhhh boy. I'm excited for this one but yeah, intimidating topic.

[@Jman1698]

Why does it say philosophy?

[@Superbiaetal]

Mikommi ...because this video contains the introduction to and the philosophy of intellectual property.

[@mediocre2]

I like this new series !

[@LeriObba]

From a philosophical and moral point of view I cannot stand by IP laws.

[@LeriObba]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[@Jensaw101]

***** I think you're argument has its roots in genuine concerns and problems, but that you have taken it into an exaggerated realm that chooses to fixate on some aspects of the issue and ignore others in order to strengthen an argument (I will only make a passing muse towards the irony of what you called the video). I can't say that I'm incredibly knowledgeable on the ins and out of IP law. I do understand that current IP law could probably be rewritten to be fairer and more successfully achieve its stated goal. I also understand that it is occasionally abused in order to crush competition and protect a shady business practices. However, I would not go so far as to ignore what IP laws were intended to do, or what they do successfully even as they are abused. IP laws, at their core if not their peripheries (which we as consumers interact with the most) are designed to promote creative works and the sciences among other things. If company A invests millions of dollars in researching a cure for baldness, and finds one, they need to be assured that they are going to be able to sell this product. Others can know of the product and learn how it works, but are not allowed to sell the product themselves or claim that they invented it -- as it is the tangible form of the idea that is protected. If this kind of system was not in place, then no company would ever dare fund research, because Company A would have dumped millions of dollars on a project just to be met with Company B selling the product. Why wouldn't Company A just wait for Company B to fund the research? And if they did, note that the research would never have been funded. It's a similar case with creative works. It sucks when someone takes an image, video, comic, etc that they found online, crops out the credit to the creator, and then passes it off as their own. If this were allowed to happen to movies without any legal method of stopping it, then no studio would be able to justify funding a movie. And few directors or screenwriters would put up with having their work stolen repeatedly.

[@LeriObba]

Jensaw101 The only constant is change. IP laws primarily try to allow companies to be lazy and greedy. There was a time when selling CDs was probably more profitable than touring or performing, that time is long gone. Same goes for many other things, companies had it good and didn't need to work a lot to make ridiculous profits by undermining others. Suddenly information is almost free to produce and distribute and that golden era is over. Now they have to make going to theaters worth it again, They have to pay artists to go on tour, they have to offer fair prices for what they're selling or else people will go around them. Those IP laws are the dying groans of a type of mentality.

[@Jensaw101]

Bob Jones A primary consequence of IP may be greedy and lazy companies, but it is not the primary attempt of IP. You're once again shifting the conversation to focus solely on a negative component of IP and ignoring positive portions of it. Companies are hardly the only things that benefit from IP laws, and they certainty weren't the reason IP was conceived of (although the specific laws may be another matter). The artists themselves benefit from IPs. Who would go to an artist's concert if anyone with a degree of musical talent could claim to have written the song and hold their own (possibly cheaper) concert? The artists would have no legal method of fighting back without IP. Specific IP laws may be bad. The ways in which IP is implemented may be bad. But there is nothing wrong with the concept of IP.

[@LeriObba]

Jensaw101 Actually not so, maybe a 100 years ago that might be something that could be pulled off, not today. There's no way I could claim to have written master of puppets no matter how good I am at music. Furthermore, if someone can perform better at a concert than another individual then they should be able to do so even if they didn't "create" the original, it just forces the other artists to be better. I'm against creating a thing and then 'banking' on that by preventing others to make a better version and get paid. It's another for of lazyness and greed, if they can make something better then it clearly means they put work and effort into it and you should make something new then.

[@o76923]

I'm actually curious about those two lesser cousins that you mentioned. I have a vague idea of what trade secrets are and hadn't heard of the right of self publicity. I hope you decide you make a bonus video on them at some point in the future!

[@benjaminthompson8359]

Thanks for producing this series. It looks like you're going to present many sides of the issue to give every a better understanding of this controversial situation. I look forward from learning from you.

[@TheLKStar]

This is really interesting to me, keep up the great work!

[@VictoriaSobocki]

09:38 lol @ “Chad and Stacey Studios”

[@Delzak1]

Love this guy.

[@cat-rafferty]

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.

[@luxabsio]

Catherine Rafferty "Life of the author" is a bad measure because life expectancy is not a fixed value. Why should IP produced in 2015 be protected for an average of x years while IP produced in 2030 is protected for an average of x+n years? I think we need to peg IP's value to a more relevant stat.

[@luxabsio]

Max Berndt I didn't mean to imply that protection extending beyond the creator's lifetime wasn't detrimental. And what you say about creators deserving the profits for their whole lives seems like it would be true from the perspective of the creator. But what justifies their right to those profits for the duration of their lifetime? Why not a smaller number of years?

[@gevorgrate]

Catherine Rafferty I'd guess it's plus 70 years in order not to make it tempting for competitors to kill the copyright owner and be done with it.

[@DataCab1e]

Catherine Rafferty I suppose an argument in favor of extending protection beyond the life of the author is that it does directly benefit the author, in that it allows publishers to pay them more for distribution rights of their work, with the expectation that they will have a longer period of exclusive distribution protection in which to recoup their investment. The real question is, are they? Have there been any studies of authors' income from publishers before and after copyright extensions were passed which support this? Furthermore, does this in turn lead to more output from authors which is beneficial to society enough to justify the additional protection?

[@DataCab1e]

gevorgrate The same could be said of making the protection period fixed, and not tied to the author's longevity at all.

[@JustinJustice22]

I would like to know more about trade secrets if it could be included. It is very relevant to technology, manufacturing, and more that I'd like to hear of.

[@sheepwshotguns]

i could see a day in which intellectual property gets so valuable, and so out of hand, that even schools become a pay to play system.

[@EvansRowan123]

sheepwshotguns ...you mean tuition fees?

[@sheepwshotguns]

Rowan Evans bingo

[@halfrocanadianv5086]

That haiku was great, keep it up Stan!

[@amojynca8608]

ohhhh First

[@Mzone246]

Best. Haiku. Ever.

[@roidroid]

Defends status quo. You see this on TV shows. i dont trust you Stan.

[@cedricvelarde]

People: Information must be free! Google: How about *your* information? People: ....

[@theQscience]

Thank you alot Mr Stan you are awsome

[@FlabbyPigLegs]

stan you the man

[@calcubite9298]

This is the first crash course I've seen with such lengthy fine-print. Hank &co must've hired a ton of lawyers to protect themselves from idiots.

[@crashcourse]

***** Just one. And he wrote the series. -stan

[@calcubite9298]

CrashCourse Haha wow. Nicely done! This just became my new favorite Crash Course. DFTBA!

[@calcubite9298]

***** Why did you hijack my comment for your bizarre response? You should have replied to the video itself, not my own comment. Besides, your comment made literally no sense and has nothing to do with Intellectual Property. Get off of KZbin, troll.

[@calcubite9298]

***** uh no. I called you a troll. This video has nothing to do with Adolf Huxley or Russia. It's about Intellectual property. Read the title.

[@chrisj4545]

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.

[@Groaker]

I need a Saucerizer in my life.

[@bemk]

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.

[@joeymarliniv2158]

There is no such thing as intellectual property. You cannot put concrete restrictions on abstract ideas.

[@EvansRowan123]

Midnight Overlord Well, empirically you *can*, the question is whether you *should*, or whether in principle governments have a right to do so.

[@joeymarliniv2158]

Rowan Evans You *can* but it's pointless to do so. It does nothing.

[@EvansRowan123]

Midnight Overlord I'm not sure what definition of "does nothing" you could possibly using for that to accurately describe an area of law that touches each of our lives as deeply as intellectual property law does. Maybe it doesn't accomplish any of the things you'd like to see a government doing, but other people can want other things.

[@joeymarliniv2158]

Rowan Evans Meaning it is impractical. Intellectual property laws are tough to enforce because intellectual property is not empirical in nature. Government has no role in making these kinds of laws. It accomplishes nothing.

[@EvansRowan123]

Midnight Overlord Impractical at achieving what goal? You say it "accomplishes nothing", but corporations that "own" "intellectual property" take in billions annually.

[@garouHH]

This video 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 KZbin is based on wouldn't exist, and using another one would be so costly that KZbin 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.

[@5to22a]

I don't even believe in IP.

[@Search4truth488]

You should still learn about it, the reasons for which he explained if you were actually patent enough to watch till the end before commenting.

[@Krypto137]

Dark Day Ministries Shame, because things exist even if you don't believe in them.

[@tsuich00i]

kryptospuridium137 And my ideas are mine, even if someone else claims them as their own.

[@tsuich00i]

***** All questions are philosophy questions. It's possible for a question to deal too much or deviate from the main view if it's something specific like an intrepretation of Intellectual Property through String Theory, or Structural Functionalism, but philosophy? Nay.

[@5to22a]

kryptospuridium137 I never said the concept doesn't exist, I said I don't believe in it. Catholicism is still practised but I don't have to believe in its tenets.

[@bigworlds647]

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.

[@RuiSeabra]

Dear Crash Course, does this video 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 KZbin comment, I'll reserve more arguments for later.

[@SchiferlED]

Information SHOULD be free. The problem is the way we handle economics. Capitalism incentivises the hording of information instead of free exchange for the good of everyone.