Why Creators Shouldn't Own their Creations (And Why its Good for them too)

This video and every other on this channel is released to the public domain with CC0 1.0 creativecommon...
Previous video: • You Hate all these Com...
Airlock Bound is being reworked with a new art-style:
www.webtoons.c...
Airlock Bound and all its assets are released to the public domain with CC0 1.0 creativecommon...
Support Studio High Sea here: / studiohighsea
Music
Kevin Macleod - Celtic Impulse
Newagesoup ambient - freesound.org/...
Kevin Macleod - Achaidh Cheide
Frankum - Enchantment - freesound.org/...
Kevin Macleod - Danse Macabre
2 5 8 3 - 816 -42 -144 - 288 - 33 -24 - 13 - Herman Schmidt - freesound.org/...
Low slow metal - Be-steele - freesound.org/...
Kevin Macleod - Village Consort

[@Uniquenameosaurus]

Guys I use Star Citizen to prove consumers will pay for something that doesn't exist or isn't fully realised. Its not SPOSE to be a perfect example of crowdsourcing as an alternative. Current crowdsourcing is still ravaged by intellectual property, which I talk about later in the video. Also if you're crowdsourcing for profits, rather than funding costs, crowdsourcing websites can hold customers money until they can confirm its not a scam.

[@twenty-fifth420]

A rather specific counter argument. High as fuck on weed and drunk my dude and I wanted to rewatch this video. A rather very personal anecdote if this helps but my very first book was CC-BY-SA and I did an amazon promotion for kindle exclusives that did get me peak top 19 in science fantasy genre downloads in kindle but I got no reviews. So I am all for this movement but I know myself since I am rewriting that because I have you opinion that reusing work is a slow, patient process. Hope to re-release this year and this video inspired me to do better but ngl I am three shots, six bowls of pot in in and I must be missing something lmao Dont worry buddy, you have the ethical high ground but I got what you meant lmao. Trust me, thirdish time rewatching. Have a good day unique ❤️ can’t wait to simp after university is over because hoo boy i need more free time.

[@Khronosian]

But what about when those services claim some kind of escrow fee? This is still the king putting his thumb in the pie.

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

Star Citizen is a great example Because it is a failure and it preys on desperate fools. It's not a scam, it's just incompetent at everything but selling dreams. This is the kind of product that would succeed in your world.

[@Korodarn]

@@KyriosHeptagrammaton Probably less likely to succeed in that world than this one, because Star Citizen succeeded due to being niche for doing that. We haven't seen other campaigns get that big in large part because that can only be done so many times. Also, "selling dreams" is not so bad. To some extent all games are doing that. They rarely fulfill their full potential.

[@Korodarn]

@Erwin Lii If what they did was truly the most essential part, without IP they could have reclaimed the property by going directly to the fans and creating new, better Superman comics.

[@Uniquenameosaurus]

If it wasn't obvious, you can find chapter 1 here: imgur.com/gallery/IoCwxRH And again, do whatever you want with it. Put my theories to the test! And you can support us here: www.patreon.com/StudioHighSea But only if you want to.

[@TheRealBrit]

Imgur link isn't working for me, the one in description works fine though. Think you may have accidentally added an "A" to the end of the link

[@Uniquenameosaurus]

@@TheRealBrit Oh whoops, u right. Thanks bud.

[@pongchannel.]

@@Uniquenameosaurus this would also make it so games that are old like the ps3 games that are gonna be literlly unplayable in a couple of months sense the ps store is closeing or like hundreds on dollars that goes to some rando on ebay. Or someone could just remake it and pepole could play certin games like mele or smt games

[@hannahprince498]

​@@Uniquenameosaurus Genuinely love the video, and fully agree we would be far better off without IP law, but do slightly disagree with your one point regarding defamation/false advertising being used against those who plagiarize and take credit for others work. It would most likely abide by the same issues as standard copyright, in that smaller creators would likely not get caught doing so or otherwise be able to sue those who steal from them due to legal fees, and only larger creators would be financially worth it for law firms to sue for doing so. The issue of slightly larger creators weaponizing their fanbases against those who 'falsely' accuse them of plagiarizing feels relevant, also. I think this issue can be bypassed by making accurate accreditation of sources/influences a legal requirement instead of just banning reproduction, or by just creating stronger social safety nets so that artists don't 'need' to produce a particularly high income in the first place (also so legal fees are more manageable/more patrons due to excess funds for everyone), but either way felt I should mention it, it's my only concern with doing so. Genuinely love the video, you brought up a lot of points I hadn't actually considered as someone who has debated this with their friends hundreds of times over, and all around it's just awesome to see you upload, great work as always.

[@signedzulu7637]

AHHHH YOU GENUIS BUT ALSO CRULE MAN! You left a speech bubble blank which is very integral to the story! You are encouraging people to fill it in yet driving me nuts as to what could have possibly been said! It’s genius! Yet I love and hate it!

[@ryanwelch1272]

Stuff like this reminds me of the SCP project. A bunch of people contributing to a public work.

[@MoreLoreThenThereSeems]

Exactly what I was thinking of

[@MoreLoreThenThereSeems]

@Fana Nox did you come here just to make people angry? Because if so you're going to have to be a little less blatant about your trolling

[@NawidN]

@Fana Nox Zero IP doesn't mean collaborative work. It means derivatives are free to be made. If you don't like some derivatives, you don't have to read them. You can curate your experience.

[@NitroNinja324]

@Fana Nox Zero IP means that anyone can make a better SCP if there's a demand. If the original sucks, offbrands will take over. Did you even watch the video?

[@romanplays1]

@Fana Nox you're just mad your waifu doesn't exist

[@paytonmiller768]

My god. The Pokémon games that could be made.

[@kkounal974]

There are a few fan games like Pokémon uranium but sadly only a few due to ip.

[@Hauntaku]

The Pokemon games are already good but the greedy fans would just abandon the real Pokemon and play the knockoffs. There'd still be a ton of people playing the real Pokemon games but GameFreak will no longer be told to step in to shut down the knockoffs.

[@MAndSquared]

@@Hauntaku And? Clearly if the games are still already good then GameFreak would have nothing to worry about. If GameFreak fails, then clearly GameFreak isn’t good enough. If people backed a Pokemon game made by GameFreak and the game the produced was good, then people back another GameFreak Pokemon game, even with people creating their own fan games. Without IP laws it would be ‘cool, more Pokemon games to choose from’ rather than ‘I just have to accept whatever GameFreak creates’. With the current Pokemon games, people would be able to offer fixes for what people don’t like, such as the stiff animations and the limit on which Pokemon are in the newest game. I don’t see the reason to have loyalty to a company that won’t put in the work. If there were no IP laws, and GameFreak announced they were looking for funding for a new Pokemon Mystery Dungeon game, I would go to back it in a heartbeat. I love the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon franchise, and with their recent remake of the first PMD game I have enough trust in them that they’d create an enjoyable game. Not only that, but without IP laws there would probably be someone who would create better walk animations for said remake, because for me that was the most noticeable flaw for the game. And if anyone else came along with promises for a remake on an existing PMD game, or for a new game altogether, I’d be skeptical and unlikely to back it unless they had proof that they could create a good PMD game. However, if a new person did prove that they could produce a good PMD game, I’d be excited because GameFreak only comes out with a new PMD game every five years. And you know what, while on the subject of Pokemon spinoff games, if Pokemon were public domain then the Pokemon Ranger game series could be revived as the last time a new Pokemon Ranger game was made was in 2010, and the last time it was known to have been touched was in 2016 with the latest game being released on the European Wii U. At this point in time fans have lost hope that there will ever be another Pokemon Ranger game. Without copyright protections, either someone could create a new game without legal troubles, or GameFreak would see the interest in a new game and might start making a new game for the series themselves.

[@Stinkoman87]

And what if you they all let you upload a file with all of a pokemon's info. You could transfer your pokemon from game to game, or even make your own.

[@jqydon]

Game freak only makes money from the ip because they have exclusive rights to the up. This pushes them to provide value outside a popular ip

[@NathanaelCrapo]

I think the biggest problem with switching to a production gain model would be that you're relying on the audience knowing enough about the industries to make rational choices. I think the flood of choice would end up causing alot of people to have choice paralysis or be willfully ignorant of creator's quality/background.

[@haze1258]

It's a good point but I think it would only be a problem in the early stages of the model and the audience will become smarter over the years

[@linop2]

@@haze1258 I wish I had your optimism.

[@drunkborb5463]

@@haze1258 I really hope you don't actually believe that. Because you're going to be very, very disappointed

[@ClonesDream]

@@drunkborb5463 If you don't allow people to grow and become smarter about their choices, of course they will be paralysed. Keep people in fear and you rule the world. It would most likely take at least a whole generation for the shift to happen, or even begin, but people would shift and make changes to their choices to better everyone else in their circles. It's only natural for us to take care of others, and we are incredibly compassionate and respectful beings, and peer pressuring is one hell of a method to stop any major disruptors, that we would change for the better. We live in a world where companies have been in control for over a century now, obviously you're going to say it's a dream to think of a better world because you can't even fathom a better reality as years of being taught this way has wore you down and accepted the reality as it is.

[@qepdqepd5612]

Counterpoint - that already exists. People get choice paralysis from the 20 different streaming services out there and later you get choice paralysis from opening the app - what movie do i choose? that choice isn’t a monetary investment but a time investment. And people already have to learn how to make those choices bc the market is already so saturated with creative content. As for being willfully ignorant - as if half the people who use Amazon, Google, or Disney products don’t already know they are giving money to shitty companies. They just have no choice but to give it to Disney or pirate the movies bc Disney owns the copyright.

[@zoycam7742]

I will preface this comment by saying when I watched your first video on piracy, I wasn’t against the idea. However, I definitely wasn’t for banning IPs. Going into this video as a small creator, I didn’t really think I’d change my mind. Especially because art content (which is what I make) relies so heavily upon IP. But I think the ethics argument is really strong. When I think about it, most call out posts for art theft and stuff are not to protect profits or something like that. It’s to give the creator recognition and not let others steal work they didn’t make. Even when public domain stories that have been repurposed over and over still are often traced back to their original creators i.e. grim’s brothers fairytales. There is literally no reason for people to honor these fairytales as no one adapts them directly, the original creators and their descendants don’t hold claim to them, and if you stole them word for word, no one would sue you. However, we still go “hey, by the way, this thing you like was based off this old story” and copies of the work are more preservation efforts (with a profit motive) than a profit scheme.

[@Uniquenameosaurus]

Oh this was a great example. I should have thought of this.

[@dorian8x]

Fun fact: Grimms' fairy tales were themselves a preservation effort (collecting stories from oral tradition), they're famous for being the ones to put the stories on paper, kinda like Homer with the Iliad and Odyssey.

[@Hauntaku]

@@Uniquenameosaurus Your video definitely convinced me too. Fanart is also very important and big companies and small companies don't bother to shut down artists for drawing fanart.

[@AA-lz4wq]

"Ethics" only work on a small scale, even with IP laws a bunch of big names get away with it, without IPs things will only get worse. It's a matter of volume and scale, yeah you can expose a tracer on twitter, but if a big name hollywood director steals an idea from a peer on the other side of the world and make millions there would be little to no repercussion (it wouldn't be enough to force a proper response). Even if a twitter mob arises they could just apologize and avoid giving the other guy a single penny, "but this happens today" No, most cases don't even go to court because the parts come to an agreement beforehand. Regarding volume, If there's less risk associated with an activity people will definitely be more likely to do it. Right now, plagiarists risk profit and prestige, without IP laws they'd only risk prestige, and good luck trying to stop a guy who just doesn't care about his public image. Now here's the thing, if more and more people see plagiarism as an option the "ethics" argument becomes unsustainable, you can only expose so many people until you just don't give a **** anymore. Uniquenameosaurus was confident about getting more views even if someone else plagiarize his videos, but what if a channel with more than 10 million subscribers decides to do it? Would "ethics" be enough to stop them? Come on, if their fanbase is big enough people can get away with grooming and even worse things... Never rely on ethics.

[@gnbman]

@@AA-lz4wq What are some examples of people getting away with things like grooming without repercussions?

[@boxedfoxstudios6479]

Me going to read the web comic: ah there's no website just imgur Me one second later realizing someone can create a website with a good ui for it: ooooohhhhhh

[@caleb_artzs2533]

😂😂😂

[@ableno.9906]

Make it and then plug the link there's no copyright remember, maybe put the ad's on the side bar cause you know.... ;)

[@fredrickreloaded4488]

Oooooohhhh he's not just making it legal to steal his web comic. He *wants* people to steal his web comic because his patreon link is on the first page.

[@B3ll3r0ph0nt3s]

@@fredrickreloaded4488 It's not stealing though, because it's public domain

[@verskarton]

Or just post it directly on webtoon, tapas and youtube.

[@IBeforeAExceptAfterK]

One of my favorite examples of what a lack of copyright can do for a work is this one Japanese indie game series known as Touhou Project. What started out as just some guy selling a bullet hell game he made with wonky art out of a booth at a convention has exploded into a multimedia phenomenon with hundreds of fangames, fan animations, and fan merch, all because the creator gave the fans complete freedom do make and sell content without even needing to ask him. The only reason it isn't more well-known is because for the most part he's only granted this privilege to the little guys, and kept big companies out of the picture.

[@davidportilla4377]

yeah, a world with more creative freadom, it will came with other problems, though , but i prefer that over what we have today, a copyright system that only serve for the ones who can pay a lawyer

[@alexs5814]

Most ppl don't even know it's a game, lol^^

[@Devedrus]

"Even though all my videos are public domain, I guarantee I'll have the most views" In before PewDiePie reupload his video on PewDiePie being underrated

[@luckylucas8596]

PewDiePie might get more views on that video, but he inadvertently will bring a lot of viewers to this channel by doing that. That’d probably be a win-win scenario.

[@UltimatePerfection]

@@luckylucas8596 Not to mention that Pewds wouldn't do that to another creator, PD or not.

[@yoyo6912]

@@UltimatePerfection yeah as like he mention ethics wouldn't dissappear like the animation example the studio posted an video and the animator of the video stole bunch of scenes wich wasn't copyright claimed but still was fired and video removed cause people recognize it was stolen

[@UltimatePerfection]

@@yoyo6912 Exactly.

[@heroslippy6666]

Mindless Self Indulgence is the best example of this. They held a new album hostage, in their heads, for a kickstarter campaign, it worked.

[@Riyamu0779]

I think the one place that comes to mind where this model might not work is within music. If you have an idea for a musical project (or any artistic project for example) and people don't like the 'proof of concept' you put out, or your idea isn't fully developed at a presentable stage, you can't build up an audience who would want your work. Similarly, one issue that crowdsourcing all art could have is unintentional monopolization. If a certain number of artists already fulfill everyone's expectations for art (i.e. a webcomic about X topic, movie about X topic) then once those desires are met then there's no new space for creators. If you've got a brand new idea for a musical album, a track, or any other piece of art but it will only be fully realized (and appreciated) upon completion, then the crowdfunding model falls apart. Nobody commissions you ahead of time, you release your work, it's public domain, and you don't earn anything from it. Basically your idea of "a lack of production motivating people to pay for productions" will still kill artistic productions, and not all of them will get funded, with the equilibrium possibly landing with a few creators/well-liked genres on top, and everyone else on the bottom earning nothing. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is great in the current artistic landscape, but it just doesn't seem sustainable in the longer term, or for an artistic environment saturated with creators. (Although now that I say this, the current artistic environment isn't that great for small creators either, so idk)

[@maximumforce8275]

The rich will always eat the poor as they say. So it doesn't really matter at this point.

[@MocaLykke]

That seems to me only a problem of "it's hard to build a clientele from nothing", but that's exactly the same currently. Public domain doesn't mean you can't ask money for it upon completion. If no one is interested in your product yet, either because they don't like the pitch or because of market saturation, it means no one is gonna "steal" it and you can get paid at distribution like it's done today. It won't change anything on that front. Then if your stuff is good and gets popular enough for others to try and profit from it, it means there's a demand for what you're making and people can ​fund you directly for more content.

[@RavenCloak13]

Well this also means said artist will have to be able to fund themselves and start it off as a hobby that they smartly put saved money away for to try and expand on it later. But like another guy said they already put there music out there as a test run and try and bring people in based on whoever listened to it and try and build based on word of mouth and people listening to the music. Hell, look at KZbin and stuff like Justin Beiber. Random kid doing song covers gets picked up by a record label and becomes famous because he's pulling in an audience. You also have Spotify or Garage Band (is that still a thing?) and try and build up a name that way while also making money. Really not that much would actually change. The thing that needs to change is peoples mindsets on how to actually operate in this new environment which we have a prototype run of already. Look at the Touhou doujin music circles that make money off song remixes because they upload there music to video sharing sites and then sell the actual albums at fan conventions. They end up also making original music as well and sell that at such conventions along side the remix covers.

[@shorewall]

@@RavenCloak13 yeah, I mean, patreon is already the proof of concept for this. People pay, just to support. It's no different from buying a shirt or mug I don't need. Not everyone does it, but people do. And if you didn't have to pay to watch, but you could pay to produce, more people would. Not everyone, never everyone. But more, and enough. Passionate fans would be producers. This is the future. The old order is already becoming untenable. We just need to fight for the future. It's already happening. You used to have to buy a cd for music. Now everyone streams. Exclusive deals are the last gasps of the old guards as they try to milk every dollar. But we are going to bring their castle down around them, and bring power to the people!

[@RavenCloak13]

@@shorewall Helps even more if people can make their own pay process system for themselves to use and don't need to have the patreon/kickstarter/etc middle man for more of the money.

[@Redoer]

watching the space jam 2 trailer with all of Warner Bros. IP on display feels very uncanny after this video

[@scottwatrous]

I mostly agree with this type of future. The main problem I see as it pertains to creative fiction work, and it's not without possible solutions, is the dillution and balkanization of what happens as a result. You'd still have organizations creating, I think, some kind of canon system or other mark of saying "the following work has been considered part of the canon" or "the following work is not canon" or something else. Because otherwise you get one bad event and suddenly 1/3 of the people who made some show (say The Expanse) going off and getting a bunch of people excited for THEIR version of the next season, while another chunk of the creative staff go off and get a different group of people excited for their version, while some of the executive producers and production people go off to a completely new team and then create a third competing season of the work. All have, to some degree, legitimate 'claim to the throne' in public opinion; and will each attract a portion of the public interest, and it'll divide up who puts dollars where. People will be like "which of the 4 series do I support? Which is the true continuation of the story?" And each studio will have marketing to explain why they have the true continuation of the story you should listen to, and to consider the real one. To make it worse, half the actors are on one project, the other half decided to go to the second project, some have been killed off in previous seasons but decide to just pretend that wasn't the real story and keep going, the third project in Toronto has the physical access all the original sets and the extras but has to recast 90% of the main cast, and another series just goes straight to animation as it has the original writers who felt it frees them up to tell the story better. And without Copyright, they're all reusing footage and elements from previous seasons, so they're like, definitely building on a common starting point. So we can't consider them just completely separate stories entirely. They're divergent alternate universe stories. And you can't just be like "oh did you see Season 5 of The Expanse last night?" but like "Did you watch Season 5 of the Prime version of The Expanse last night, not the Xbox version which I hate?" On the surface this is a good thing. We now have 4x the content from groups competing for our dollar. But I don't want 4 half-baked stories with a fraction of the content that made the original good, and that get only a portion of the viewership. Because that means none of them will likely survive. None will likely get the same level of budget or interest. Or maybe one or two do, but they're left a husk of what was before. Ask the fans of Batushka about how that goes. So even without copyright as we have it, there'd likely need to be some kind of organizational body (and maybe one does exist) that can help say like "this studio has the title of teller of a given story, for as long as they uphold that title in good standing, and continue telling the story they want, they have the backing of industry to support their claim as the official version of the universe they are creating" Once a story is told, and the people who were telling it decide that they have finished it, then open up the gates for new creators to come in and add their own bit. But while a story is being developed, even if there was no legally enforceable IP, I'd like us to have some method of saying "regardless of who else is involved in the project, these people are the Authors and have the final say"

[@Stinkoman87]

I think if there is a splintering like that, they will soon start riffing on each other, taking the good ideas others had, and eventually there would be a consensus about what the canon is. The fan response to different aspects would definitely play a role.

[@adammyers7383]

I would argue that contracts could still be made without IP law, so you can sign an actor, writer, etc for multiple seasons or movies or whatever. Also, we live in a world where individual creators and writers are getting fan based such as Alex Hirsch, Rebecca Sugar, Owen Dennis, etc. (though I’m aware those are each animation-focused, the trend is still out there). With a fan base linked to a person, and contracts possible, I think it might be easier to organize continuity and such than you might think.

[@RavenCloak13]

Honestly it sounds more like you answered your own questions. This wouldn't happen most of the time because... it be a headache. For starters the bases of this argument your suggesting is the first season was a success already and everyone would get paid... that in general would keep people from wanting to actually splitting up cause hey, people liked this thing already with us working together, it made money and it exist as it does now. It be kind of hard to split it all up cause of it already existing as how we made it from the start. Not saying it's not possible but it be harder. Take your point of if the separate projects took different actors from the original season and put them on there new project. It was already hard getting people in the past to accept new casting for characters like Aunt Vivian from Fresh Prince and such so this logic would already make people not want to even attempt this if they don't have the majority of the same actors for one project. Again this whole argument is going off the bases of again, first season was a success so that means that if nothing else that first season is the original and these people working together are what made it the original. However in this new logic suggested by the video it be common consensus that states what's canon and what's not and similar to SCP you could have different canons based on what you said. Production split and and now different derivatives exist that be like a choose your own adventure. Hell by this logic it means if you have the money for it you could basically make a high production fanfic and it would have just as much legitimacy as any of these derivatives since the original creators split and made different continuation similar to how "2001: A Space Odyssey" are different from book to screen because the writers of both were different people who came together to try and make a good sci-fi story and both made there own versions of the story. Basically it all depends on whats considered the good one and in general that concept alone would keep people from wanting to split up in the first place. This whole logic would also mean that when creators come together to make something like this they would have to already have a good idea if they can work together or not. It forces creators to become more business oriented and really see if thye can work together so headaches like this won't occur. Now this won't mean everything will be smooth sailing and we sort of will have to accept that such things could happen and somethings might just become shit. We already have to accept that with current media projects so won't be that different from now.

[@felixp535]

Why would you want an "original" or "canon" one in the first place? What if the "original" turns into shit whereas a fanmade one turns out to be really good? Why would the fanmade not have the right to be called "original"? Shouldn't the best version of a story be considered as the "original"? What do you get from branding something as "original"? As Scott said, if the first season of a show is great, chances are the same team will create the best possible season 2. If it's not the case, and some fanmade season 2 is a lot better and they continue with a 3rd and 4th season, wouldn't it become the "original"? Where I have to agree with you though is that this gives no buffer for error. If you mess up your story at any time, you'll probably not get the fund for the next season, which could be really bad. And if some fanmade stuff starts getting a lot of views instead, you'll have a hard time trying to convince fans that your version gets better. Also, if your season 2 is not good because it was supposed to introduce something bigger for the 3rd one, you might not get the fund for the third season. I feel like this system encourages everything to be as perfect as it can, but sometimes things need to go slower and start building up, which would probably not please the fans as much as huge reveals... This system definitely has issues, but most of these issues we already have in the current system anyway. It just has a lot less of them.

[@shorewall]

@@felixp535 if avatar the last Airbender worked this way, they would not have made The Divide. 😀

[@LavaCanyon]

Your mantra is an absolute full physical realization of my mantra. I have a very strong belief in something I call “Contactless Collaboration” basically the idea is that everything I make is usable by anyone. Mainly I started this mantra with my Uncommentated Gameplay videos, in the description of each of them, I’d say that you can use these in the background of your videos and I’d even have an unlisted companion video of all the takes and related footage I made along the way. Not trying to brag exactly, just saying that I believe in the same mantra. Also the “You can even make money from it” I have never heard from a soul aside my own. But think about it, if I did gaming streams or something, instead of paying people to make compilations, just let people make them and put ads on it or some other monetization and I can just sit back and have all that spread, that is a dream scenerio. Another thing, I am a lazy person, I don’t really like to do work. Obviously I’m not saying this as an excuse not to or whatever, I do try at least a little to achieve my dreams. I made the telesystem, I made games, I made drawings but to me it is generally a means to an end. So when someone looks at my stuff with $_$ in their eyes and chooses to steal my casually created stuff and use their position to fully realize it into a completed work; I’m not just okay with it, from my perspective, I just witnessed some rando make my dream come true without me putting any work into it. I’m not just ok with it, I would actively love this to happen. Anyways thank you for being a voice for this. I can’t stress this enough, I am shocked how much this extracts thoughts I’ve had for years.

[@Hamani1999]

i really love the fact that you dont just say stuff ( like almost everyone who does these types of videos, because its much easier) but you actually went ahead and tried to prove your own idea right by putting your own work, time and effort to support this idea. I find this really refreshing and different than the type of content i watch and hopefully th is will workout and you can bring some type of change however small or big to the way we see IPs and copyright issues

[@META_mahn]

Preface: I'm not a content creator, but as someone going into a field where creating is a big deal, this is immediately relevant to me. And while the ideas are solid, as it goes, every idea can and should be challenged. Note that as I haven't finished the video yet, these are mostly the notes I'm writing down Biggest issue: As with it goes, Star Citizen is an absolute meme. It just kept producing, never delivering, and just all in all isn't exactly...a great example. What stops other companies from setting up a similar scheme where they keep asking for money and never deliver a product besides "consumers shouldn't be stupid?" I know I'm specifically laser-focusing on Star Citizen and it goes to show that the idea can make it with enough marketing, but this also opens a wide world for scams of a colossal scale that people just get away with. This would drive consumers away, or make them hesitant to put their money in anything that isn't obscenely over-marketed. Well, this world already has absurd amounts of marketing. The only reason why CP2077 was so popular was because of its absurd marketing budget. A shitty mobile game (Warpath) managed to show up on everyone's radar for a short amount of time because they threw millions, if not tens or hundreds into advertising. Our world is already over-saturated with marketing already, filled with terrible mobile game ads (think all the horny game ads), who's not to say it'll get worse? This can go in both ways -- think a My Hero Academia ad in the style of Mafia City, or advertising getting crammed down your throat 24/7 because "we want to make the money for the next installment" I think the argument is interesting. It's very strange in the idea that going backward in protection would instead only help. You are right that IP doesn't help small creators at all, though. Small creators have no budget to enforce IP. I also think it's right in many ways, and it's not founded on baseless claims (like many modern arguments can be). The ethics side is also very valid, but personally (and this is my lens on it) I feel it's smarter to look at every argument with perfect logic and no morals attached. With this in mind, copying artwork and such only further pushes the scam potential, and further drives the whole point home about the person with the biggest marketing budget winning. Remember that even though ethics can be a big thing, if you are loud and the artist is quiet, with your massive marketing budget you can squish anyone else's voice as a big company stealing small company works. Again, this is how the world works already. Remember that McDonald's managed to make an old woman's severe coffee burns that *fused together her skin* seem like she spilled slightly hot coffee on herself. Bigger marketing budget wins.

[@Felixr2]

One major counterpoint to the scamming argument is that crowdfunding platforms could force creators to deliver their promised product within a certain deadline and, if the creator fails to deliver in time, can force the creator to refund all the backers their money. It could give creators the option to set this time limit themselves, which would actually be good for consumers because it would give them an idea about when they can reasonably expect the product they funded to release. This still leaves the option of scamming by releasing an unsatisfactory product, but there's a simple solution to that: let the people who funded the product decide if it is satisfactory. When the product is released, the backers have the option to claim that they are 'unsatisfied' with the result. If too many people are unsatisfied, the creator will have to refund part or all of the donations. This encourages creators to focus on creating as high a quality as they can and, perhaps more importantly, strongly discourages raising people's expectations beyond what you can reasonably provide. A second issue this comes with is that it punishes people who underestimate how much time they need for a project. There's several actions this hypothetical crowdfunding platform could take to prevent this from being a major issue. First of all, when a creator sets the time limit for their project, they'll get cautioned that it's better to give yourself significantly more time than you think you'll need. While a shorter deadline makes your product more interesting to back, the risk of making it too short far outweighs the risk of making it too long. The second option would be to yet again have it be decided by the people who funded the project. If partway through the project, a creator finds out that they'll need just a bit longer, they can ask the backers permission to extend the deadline. If a creator can show that significant progress has been made in the time that has passed, the backers will likely grant that extra bit of time. The same would apply when unforeseen circumstances cause a delay (lockdown, natural disaster, creator gets hospitalized, etc.) Now, this creates an opportunity for the backers to scam the creators, sure. So, our crowdfunding platforms could make all those controls optional, a creator can choose to apply those restrictions to themselves. People will be more willing to support projects that do have these restrictions set in place, but for small projects where relatively few people will have to support it to reach the fund goal (think stuff like commissioned art), the security for the creator in turning it off may be worth it. But even with the controls in place, if a person *is* satisfied with the result of the project, there is an incentive for them to *not* try to get their money back. You'd want the creator to reap the rewards of their hard work because that makes them more likely to start another project - and you were satisfied with their previous project, so there's a good chance this will be something you appreciate too. Lastly, the crowdfunding platform could keep track of your ratio of being satisfied/unsatisfied with products you funded, and if you're too often unsatisfied with the end product, you're exempt from getting a refund. This further encourages only claiming to be unsatisfied when you truly are, and it encourage people to only fund products with a reasonable chance of completion - which will also allow creators to more comfortably set longer deadlines for their projects. And why would creators use this platform that is so heavily geared towards the consumers? Because it's where the consumers are. If they genuinely intend to make their product as good as they can make it, there is very little risk involved for the creator, and this platform would allow the creators to guarantee the consumers that the project will get finished in a reasonable amount of time. Another thought that just popped up is an option to set an inconsequential 'expected release date' aside from the project deadline. The expected release date is when the creator thinks the project will probably be finished, and the deadline can be set to a later date to give the creator some room for unexpected delays.

[@nikolaitheundying]

@@Felixr2 boy I'd love to be receiving funding for a game I'm working on from a month to month set of patreon donations, that I use to not only work towards the game but also pay my bills and buy food, only to have a bunch of people literally retract every cent they gave to me and force me into debt because I didn't make the best product ever.

[@Felixr2]

@@nikolaitheundying Did you not get the part where I said it could be optional, so you don't *have* to take the risk if you don't want to, but it would just make it easier to get people to fund you? Or where scamming creators out of their money despite delivering a good product can make you exempt from getting recompense? Don't get me wrong, I know it's hypothetical and it's good to bring op possible issues. But your cynical tone and complete ignorance of all the solutions to that problem I already listed really bother me. As I said, if you're a small-scale development team, you're probably better off not offering any sort of refund guarantee. Maybe even make the refund option a slider where you can select the percentage of funds that can be refunded. And none of this would be an issue if you set realistic expectations for your backers. It's fine if you don't release the best game ever, just don't promote it to be the best game ever. Show bits of what it'll look like, how it'll run, what the story's gonna be like, while working on it. Give a reasonable (and safe) estimate of how much time a main story playthrough will take and how much time can be put into optional content. It's not about making something that's perfect, it's about not disappointing the people who pay you. *They* are giving *you* money to make the product *you* are telling them you will make. Just be honest about what you're making, people aren't going to drive you into bankrupcy for no reason. Oh, and the exact same holds up for the current system: if you spend way more resources on development for a game than you can make on sales, you're not going to recover from that investment, unless you have adequate reserves. The only difference is that you'd essentially be borrowing money for development, and if you deliver on your promises, you don't have to return it. If you can't deliver much, don't promise much. And even the burden of instantly having to refund everything can be lessened by giving the option to pay back in terms, which of course would be a statistic visible to your potential backers and can play a part in their decision on whether or not to give you their money. Did I mention that in my previous comment? No. Could you have thought of that solution yourself? Probably. So all in all, while I do see that what you're saying is a valid counterargument to the basic principle of 'people can ask for a refund if you disappoint them', I'm pretty sure I've given more than enough counterarguments to that in my original post. What I *would* be interested in, is if you could point out issues with it that I *haven't* provided solutions for. Thanks in advance, and have a wonderful day.

[@nikolaitheundying]

@@Felixr2 to me it's just the issue of "Hey I can refund here if needed, so I'll buy this instead of what I can't refund. So now a big company can afford the refund risk with minimal sweat while small groups are boned. You can't please everyone in a system. No matter how you format a system people can and will game it. They will abuse every thing they can for an extra edge if it puts them on top. Do not discredit human greed.

[@Felixr2]

@@nikolaitheundying See *now* you're making a good counterpoint. It's going to give large companies an advantage over small creators. However, I don't think that's as much of an issue with the system as it is with how things work in general. Large companies will *always* have an advantage over small creators, unless you're specifically limiting 'large companies' in some way. A limiting factor for large companies could actually even be implemented. The platform would have to take a part of the donations anyway, because the people running it need to make a living too. Now, one way this could be done, is if for bigger fund goals, an incrementally greater portion of the acquired funds will be directed to the platform. Heck, the platform could rake in quite a profit this way, and that profit could go towards covering (part of) the refunds of small creators who are either just starting out or have generally positive track records. The lower the fund goal and the better the track record, the more your refund will be compensated for by the platform. Of course, the fee would be quite a hurdle for large companies, and would encourage them to move to a different platform that doesn't charge them as much of a fee, so basically you can't make the fee too high, and it'd probably be a delicate balance - if a balance can even be found at all. As I said, the large companies will always have an advantage, no matter what the system is. They have more resources and a larger audience, and there's no sustainable system where that's going to have a negative impact on your brand. So no, this system likely wouldn't change the fact that large companies have an advantage on the market, no matter how the crowdfunding is handled, because the large companies will just find the crowdfunding platform that provides the best circumstances for *them* while still being a sustainable platform. That's a problem that can never really be fixed. But again, that's not a problem we don't already have. Zero IP would still have some benefits, and imo they could still outweigh the issues. Anyway, I appreciate the comment! You made a very good counterpoint and it gave me something to think about.

[@ianmarino9176]

Here after the premiere this is a rollercoaster

[@ashlynwoods8464]

My main complaint about this idea (which I think is interesting) is samples with music- small artists already struggle to get money when their stuff gets sampled, and without IP they don't even have to! That just seems crazy to me. They can't even cause outrage consistently (due to them, well, being small). Most people probably wouldn't recognize the samples.

[@monotonousprotocol8319]

how's this different from the point about stolen art which was already addressed in the video? As per his scheme, the small music makers receive money before the content which can get sampled is even released. As such, their samples being recognized is not essential to gaining profit. I have zero idea about the music industry though, could that work in context?

[@kennuimuffins2426]

You assume everyone making anything has time to run a crowdfunding program for literally everything they ever do/release. It takes a huge amount of time and energy to keep track of who paid what, and then give them their reward. Some people just want to make stuff and release it (without having their work stolen). They don't want to spend time running a business, they want to spend time producing their work.

[@drunkborb5463]

@@kennuimuffins2426 Yes. And you addressed something. Without having their work stolen. At the very least, intellectual property rights allow retaliation

[@frazonedracaoo6981]

@@drunkborb5463 But without IP it can't be stolen becouse you don't even own it in the first place.

[@ashlynwoods8464]

​@@monotonousprotocol8319 While I don't recall the details of his proposal (and I am not gonna fish through a 45 min video for this, lol), why would they have to pay them? This also gets even messier with cases where it isn't just a sample, but you steal the melody, or some other large part. You can just claim that you came up with it yourself (which is at least plausible!)

[@jonathanmathai9269]

Imma be honest, the moment I heard the CopyLeft exists, it had to put down the video for a day to process that

[@SoggycereaI]

My brain feels like it’s exploded honestly

[@phantomkitten73]

I know right? It's like a public domain virus, like what the fuck..?

[@spacefacey]

It almost feels like a standardization of production in the ways the scp foundation works

[@AndyTheWatchdog]

Wasn't this also a big part of how Vocaloids became so big? Like, you have to buy the Vocaloid program first, but after that you can use it and it's voice bank's however you please?

[@GoreHusbando]

That's also part of the reason why the fanon develops them as they see fit in song series and whatnot. They can be cast as vocal actors of sorts depending on the song series. And then you get cases where the song series gets super popular and spinoff into something else like KagePro and the Evillous Chronicles

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

vocaloid is tightly controlled proprietary software. you have to pay for a license to use it, like photoshop.

[@X1erra]

For those composers, paying the initial cost of having their first vocaloid definitely was their biggest hurdle. They did have to go through that license first. After their songs become "partially" open source because off vocals exist, the covers are helping themselves and the original creator to grow together. Everyone in the Vocaloid community relates the song to its composer first before its singer. The singer elevate themselves by making a lasting impression on the song we love, and in return helped the composer gain even more fame. Vocaloid single handedly allowed composers to become known without having someone sing it. Thus was the Golden Age of Vocaloid. The time when composers were king.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

@@X1erra you're right, in that aspect the vocaloid is a good example of the ways zero ip would benefit artists. also the fact that lots of people just pirate the extortionately expensive vocaloid software.

[@mk_gamíng0609]

No because what this guy is suggesting is that you would never have to pay, so no one would create because food still needs to be put on the table

[@TheBlastmeister]

I like the idea of this, but I have a few questions... 1. about croudsourcing and distribution: Wouldn't this just incentivize companies to focus on spectacular hype and empty promises, (like Fallout 76, No Man's Sky and preordering in general) get their money and release a shoddy product? 2. about croudsourcing and distribution: I think the Star Citizen example only really works for interactive media like videogames. A good chunk of the reason Star Citizen did so well is because of its stretch goals (Promising more content) and personal rewards to players (Like personal ships, vehicles and such). How would a movie company do something similar? Would they keep making the movie longer the more stretch goals are made? Maybe sequels? 3. What if a small creator with a small budget makes something that is ok quality (lets say 5-6/10) but then a larger company takes that idea and just improves the visuals, advertises with a bigger budget and then says that they made it? Now that small creator with a small budget will lose a sizable portion of the crowdfunding to that bigger company because they can make a "better" product. For a hypothetical example, what if Studio Madhouse remade One Punch Man without giving the One any credit? Their visuals are much better than the One's and on a more appealing type of media. Suddenly, One would be losing out on a good chunk of funding because Madhouse is offering a product they "stole" from one. 4. (Not really a question) I feel like the Bubble Tea and Uber examples arent the best examples. They cant copyright the right to cab service or food products in general. They can only copyright to their specific brandings of those products. the infringement would occur if someone else made Uber, called it Uber and did the same thing as Uber. I think this is a good argument against Monopolies but not Intellectual properties. I do agree that many intellectual properties should fall into Public Domain after a certain time no matter what. 5. On theft/plagiarism of intellectual properties: Isnt the reason that people hate it when companies do this is because intellectual properties exist? If intellectual property is no longer exist, then big companies can claim that they arent stealing (since the idea of ownership is no longer a thing) but are just "updating the visuals" or "adapting the product to a new type of media" and then give the original creator nothing. In general, i like the idea, but i think the idea definitely needs to be thought out, or it will be abused as much as the system that is currently in place.

[@ventuswill5817]

Personal take Text Wall 1. While it is possible, the incentive to do so would be less than the current system with IP. In a world without IP, it would be more profitable to act ethically because (as unique said) you can get crucified socially which severely reduces the potential for future profits. In the case of Fallout 76, Bethesda could release a shoddy product with little risk because people WILL buy the next Fallout game bc it's Fallout. Granted, people with a good reputation could trash it for a quick cash grab, but that would be sacrificing future profits for profits now which companies generally don't want to do unless they're exiting the market or the amount they could earn by scamming is just really fucking high. The thing is that people will do this whether or not IP exists, just look at Cd Projeckt Red. People trusted them so they bought into a shitty, unfinished product. 2. Unique mentioned talent as a possible stretch goal which I think is probably the most likely thing to be used as stretch goals. But the thing is, large project don't really need stretch goals to be profitable. People would fund a big Marvel movie because it's a big Marvel movie. 3. Pricing out people from their work can happen even with IP. If a small creator has their work stolen by Disney, what is the small creator going to do? Sue them? They can't fight that legal battle. What's stopping Disney is their image, it would look real bad to get into a legal battle with some small creator over stealing their work. In both the case with IP and without IP, what's holding companies back is public sentiment which is WAY more important in a world without IP. 4. it's not that you can copyright a service or bubble tea; it's kinda just a logical extension of the concept of IP. If we treat any idea as an IP (because an idea is something that should be protected like property), then we would end up with a ton of monopolies. In a sense, an IP is a form of legal monopoly, you have a monopoly on the justified use of an idea. Extending IP to all ideas seems unfair and wrong, so it could be said that using IP to project a small subset of ideas (media) should also be unfair. 5. People don't really care about things because a law says so. At least for me, I don't get mad because some company broke the law while they stole an artist's work; I get mad because that's a shitty thing to do. Humans not really logical beings, so even if big companies claim that "they aren't stealing" people will still think that the move is scummy and not want to support them. Also, nothing is stopping the original creator from being like "These motherfuckers stole my shit, so imma just rip their shit frame by frame and sell it myself. I AM the original creator and people can check that. After all, its not stealing right?" which would only really work if the large corp was ACTUALLY stealing content.

[@TourFaint]

@@ventuswill5817 for answer for the third point: Disney already thanks the staff of the concentration camp they filmed nearby in the movie credits, i don't think they, or their viewers care about looking bad. You are giving way too much credit for how much the average consumer knows or even cares about the producs they are consuming, fallout 76 was a financial success, as will the next fallout.

[@ventuswill5817]

@@TourFaint You are right, people don't care much about the companies whose products they are consuming. But given the choice between similar products where one is exploitative and the other is more ethical (even marginally), I feel that people will choose the latter. Even if the dichotomy isn't ethics (quality or novelty for example), an IP-less system promotes more competition between companies. The next Fallout will be a financial success whether or not the game itself is good, but that is in large part because there CAN'T be any other Fallout games other than Bethesda's. Their Fallout is THE Fallout. If the Obsidian hired the devs from Fallout NV to work on a new Fallout game and Bethesda just did what Bethesda do, people would likely be more hyped over the Obsidian game. This forces Bethesda to innovate to stay relevant. It makes "Fallout" as a brand a market with competition rather than a monopoly owned by Bethesda. An IP-less system pits novelty against innovation. The old must innovate to stay relevant while the new needs to capture the attention of the market.

[@Maldito011316]

Before all, listen to this. You can not know the answer, I can not know the answer, and that is fine. We don't need to solve all the problems beforehand. If we do, then we'll never get to the goal, as there will always be someone coming up in their minds with an edge case or a specific situation. 1. They destroy their reputation and the next project doesn't get as much budget. 2. Yes. Whatever they want or think the public would give more funds to reach that. It's their problem to solve, not yours, not mine. But for the discussion's sake, lets enumerate: Additional soundtrack, extra scenes, more time for the video effects to be done, behind the scenes production, release of assets, script, original footage, video effects project files... 3. "Did you know? Popular Movie was based on The Blastmeister's story "Cool Story Name". That's free publicity bro. The more they market their movie, the more your art thing will get popular. "Author of the story StoryMadeBetter was based on disses Company". People will always respond to everything that happens. If One say stuff about Madhouse everybody will start distrusting one of them. 4. 5. "is because intellectual properties exist" NOOOOO. People do that because 1. It's fraud to say you created something you didn't; 2. People don't like injustices period. If someone is profiting unjustly people will complain, always. Again, big companies can't say they created it, or else every consumer can sue them. The original creator will get popular nonetheless. People could fund their next thing. Can you imagine something like you proposed happening and the public not coming together to help the original creator of something they love?

[@Hauntaku]

@@ventuswill5817 "Happy Birthday" and "Band-Aid" are prime examples that weren't covered in this video. I hope there'll be a follow-up or somthing.

[@DawnsDeparture]

It really is brave of you to stand behind this idea by making your own work public domain. I've had similar ideas about copyright as well but had always been nervous to give that kind of leeway for my own potential works only because I felt that in the current economy and legal system I'd be putting myself at a disadvantage. But I may do public domain works in the future as a result of being inspired by your commitment.

[@Hauntaku]

The video really did a really great job explaining how only the biggest companies profit off of copyright.

[@j.e.s.m.4686]

Thank you, someone who understands the potential of PD. I really like public domain 'cause it gives content creators and filmmakers/artists liberties on creating something that they might enjoy. Sure, they might be some who just want to make or adapt other IPs into crappy projects for the sake gaining money but NOT everyone are like that; they are other content creators out there who want to create something that they are passionate about and show how much they actually do care and love the IP we grow up with. If everything turned public domain within 14 or 4 years, I would make a Lion King, Super Mario or Marvel film/series with my own ideas with endless possbilities and apportunities.

[@WorthlessWinner]

Big problem with paying before the product is out, is that you don't know if the product is worth it if you do that. I see so many kickstarter scams or if not scams just shoddy overpriced products, that i doubt this "invest in your media" model will work. ESPECIALLY for things outside media like drugs, which is where copyright is most an issue for me. One benefit of paying before the product is out is that you can shape what is made, no studios getting to decide

[@ray495903314]

A product is really only worth what someone is willing to pay

[@TuesdaysArt]

[flashbacks to Tumblr Kickstarters like All or Nothing]

[@luviana_]

In a world without IP or patents, at least for physical products, a Kickstarter doesn't really work. Once you create your invention, you allow anyone to do whatever they want with it. You can only really do a Kickstarter, in this case, for perhaps the construction of a business that produces and sells a particular product. At that point, it returns to what we have now, as production and selling of products isn't changed, at least functionally, by the abolishment of IP and patents.

[@WorthlessWinner]

@@luviana_ - surely if you take whatever wages would be enough to fund you from the kickstarter, it could work? But I'm unsure how that would be managed

[@luviana_]

@@WorthlessWinner Well, you can kickstart a business. People have done it before, with things like Anki's Cozmo and certain other tech (some scams, some not). However, most of those are based on both a new invention AND the production of said invention. They seek to profit off of being the exclusive owners of that technology. Without patents, however, you could still totally TRY to kickstart a company that produces an invention, but even if you don't release the information on how to make it into the public, people will still come in and try to do what you're doing and make your invention as well. In this kinda scenario, it would honestly make more sense to kickstart based on a business, rather than a new invention, since anyone can create an invention. You'd wanna advertise your company as being "great at making ___" rather than being "the place where you get ___". Scams wouldn't really work, since people would probably not desire to kickstart a business for producing products. They'd just start making them, perhaps modding them, too, and selling them on their own. It doesn't seem logical to kickstart a business like that in a world without patents, in my opinion.

[@themadpro]

Regarding the "If Knowledge of Crowdsourcing Wisdom Spreads" argument: You neglect the one _tie-in_ all IP hoarders need to bear with: Marketing. Star Citizen was able to amass all those views and funds over a very small outreach, compared to Disney who can run ads for Avengers: Endgame on TV, radio, *multiple* social media platforms; banners, cabs, in the trailer sections for their *own* movies... You get the idea. IP giants compete with IP giants, possibly eventually combining into an IP-cartel as mentioned in the first video, but until then even one IP giant is enough to "outbid" an indie crowd-sourced project. Similarly in the first video there was much discussion on medical patent hoarding. But even with an "open-source" bio-similar project, if the efficacy cannot be demonstrated then it won't be adopted. Now out of an open community and *BIG SCARY PHARMA* , who have the funds and resources to conduct extensive research? Who has the prestige to have said research published in big journals, presented in annual conferences and _warrant praise_ from prominent physicians? And don't forget, those company coffers are fueled on licensing. Remove licensing out of the picture, and suddenly all those IP giants not only lose their control over an IP, but also their very ability to market said property, at all. Thus, I really do not believe that this can apply to the real world, *outside of developing economies* . Crowdsourcing _can_ help niche industries and arts flourish, niche to the degree that those who are willing to fund them are *actively* searching for a channel to back them through. Conversely, IP marketing is reliant on _passively_ converting new people into customers, you are convincing people to pay for your IP whose value you are solely responsible for projecting onto them. If you can't project that image, you're not going to receive any funding. So not only do we need a spread "Crowdsourcingwise Conciousness" but also alternative visibility methods for product and productions for this to ever work outside of a small sphere.

[@Hauntaku]

I bet you've never heard of "Kindred Fates" before but it's a product funded by fans

[@themadpro]

@@Hauntaku I didn't say Crowdsourcing can't work through increased consciousness, I'm merely stating it can't become the norm.

[@psychopompous489]

From what I can tell, your arguments main point seems to be that some parts of products (such as research or advertisements) requires larger funds than they can afford long before they could be made. I could be wrong but after reading through it a few times I honestly can't see anything in your comment that can't be boiled down to that. I don't think advertisements are a problem unique to not having patents or copywrites. You're not gonna have funding for advertisements *before* your ip is popular and successful. Marvel can afford to do crazy advertisements? Marvel is a multi-billion dollar corporation who can afford to do that stuff; this model won't change that. New projects wouldn't be able to afford marketing out the gate? They can't now either. Even if he's arguing that the products should be absolutely free on open to everyone instead of just the backers who basically already bought the ticket (which would lead to big issues in and of itself if said backers aren't even guaranteed a seat), then the advertisements for the movie would effectively bring peoples attention to the studio for their next product to fund. The same argument could be said about the 'extensive research' with the added benefit that research doesn't have to be extensive. Mind you, it does have to be accurate, but you don't need a hadron collider to analyze the effects of insulin on the body. You can research one type of chemical and let others research others. Sure you don't get all the trophies but when we're talking about *chronic illness* that doesn't seem that big of a deal. Unless your argument is that marvel makes all their money from suing youtubers and that it should be that way. If that's your argument: gross. TL;DR: marketing and research will still be a thing for rich people, and still not for poor people.

[@themadpro]

@@psychopompous489 All fair points but that's not quite what I meant. I merely argue that the "If Knowledge of Crowdsourcing Wisdom Spreads" line of thought is a bit of a slippery slope, not that a world where crowdsourcing has become a standard is impossible. I'm not arguing that Marvel makes money from suing KZbinrs, they do **however** make a substantial amount of money (through redirection of funds) by blocking off organic exposure and smaller advertisers. Amazingly, you reached the exact same conclusion from a whole other angle in your TL;DR. Marketing and research will still be a thing for those who already have funds. And that's precisely **why** increased consciousness alone would not be enough. Crowdsourcers will need channels of exposure beyond Kickstarter or Twitter alone. They will also need access to sources more than just _funds_ ; think human resources or _"cell tissue"_ . The reason why I say this is likelier to happen in developing economies first, is that they have shallower bureaucracy (read less people and job titles you have to get through to get something done). Compare trying to license the work of a small local artist vs. something from a company like Ubisoft who literally have separate offices to specifically for handling of their IPs. Gross? Maybe. Naïve? I don't think so.

[@owo6641]

" who have the funds and resources to conduct extensive research? Who has the prestige to have said research published in big journals, presented in annual conferences and warrant praise from prominent physicians?" you know that goverments can (and already have) pay people to do the work right? stuff like insuline wasnt invented by private companies, it was invented by university students with the purpose of saving lifes, not making profits, in fact, a lot of companies exist because they got economical support from the goverment. you dont even need a goverment, if people were organized enough you can educate your population to become the experts the people need.

[@rendiggietydog]

OOO!! I just realised, doesn't this already happen in the manga community? I remember learning once that doujins don't get policed for copyright issues because many great manga artists started as doujin artists. This is basically the system you proposed!! Even though doujins exist and are popular, everybody still buys the original mangakas work, and doujin artists get to start their careers off other people's IPs until they get big enough to sell their own!

[@orkfighta]

Kind of, the doujin thing is more of a "gentlemen's agreement" between the doujin artist and the copyrights holder. The original author could bring down the hammer of the law rather easily on a doujin seller but don't because of the reasons you stated, which would lead to massive ostracization from the community, as well as the fact that the doujin writer isn't a threat to their copyright as they still own their series.

[@lazydelibird]

The writer of girl's last tour was also a doujinshi writer at some point. Just putting it out there Oh, and this season's nagatoro san is also the same case but more 18+ origins.

[@chayleaf]

Doujinshi authors often explicitly prohibit illegal copying or even reselling, basically spreading the work in any way. Japan has productive copyright infringement, the West has productive copyright infringement, but they aren't that similar.

[@ooferguy1517]

Well damn, this is a chunky one. I guess the anime piracy videos have both led us up to this behemoth of a video.

[@shmel3689]

I can say a lot of stuff, but all I wanted to say was already mentioned in the comments. A lot of people brought up how this system actually makes small creators even more vulnerable And here's another thought, much more personal to me: I'm very protective of my creations, it would devastate me if someone would try to claim my story and my characters as their own and try to sell it.

[@koukaakiva]

The abolishment of Intellectual Property was something I believed would benefit creators, but I didn't think it could realistically happen without a practical elimination of scarcity, but this convinced me that it could be done without that happening first. Fantastic video.

[@JohnSmith-ox3gy]

How does scarcity play into this? As far as I know the property rights require scarcity as removing one unit of infinite can not cause harm. While stealing your car results you losing the car stealing an idea of a car does not deprive you of that idea.

[@koukaakiva]

@@JohnSmith-ox3gy My previous belief was that due to the capitalist or demand economic systems of modern nations any endeavor one put time into needed to monetizable or it came at the expense of one's personal profit. The current Intellectual Property system is a way to make creative and innovative works monetizable by ensuring they cannot be copied. In a practically post-scarcity society, works would not need to be monetizable. One could make creative efforts for their own sake without losing out on the opportunity cost. Before watching this I saw this as the only practical way of ensuring the creation of creative works and inventions while still in a world with scarcity.

[@SepticFuddy]

@@koukaakiva And hopefully now you realize that IP laws are antithetical to the free market, not a "feature" of it

[@koukaakiva]

@@SepticFuddy I already felt that way. That's what I meant when I said that I believe abolishing IP would benefit creators. My general attitude towards it was like the video's author said: I felt it a necessary evil, but the video convinced me there is another viable method for achieving the intent of IP.

[@LiEnby]

There is no scarcity of interlectual property, that's litterally why it's stupid

[@diegog1853]

I agree that copy right law should be greatly revised and the years should be reduced by a lot. But I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, not precisely crowdsourcing all the way. My problem with crowdsourcing is that it is a popularity contest, people have to go viral to be paid, which is a problem with first time creators. I mean even in your star wars example, you had to assume that the original star wars already existed and I don't know who paid for it. The original star wars was already a financial risk, which would be an even higher risk if it didn't get monetized after production or without any crowd to support it initially. If you are a first time writer who knows how many years it would take to gain enough popularity to pay for your bills without resorting to becoming a youtuber or doing something to start building your popularity outside of the merits of your writing. When sometimes in the IP world you only need one editor to enjoy your work enough to make a risk in publishing, making a profit on how many copies you sold. It is not perfect, but everyone needing to go viral isn't perfect either. Sometimes experts make the best decisions and not the public, and one thing that definetely shouldn't be crowdsourced is science... Because the majority of people don't actually know a lot about science, they don't know what is possible or whats not possible, what is important for science and what is not so important. A lot of groups would profit greatly advertising themselves as trying to discover the secret of inmortality or the cure for cancer, while smaller more possible diseases to cure get less atention. There are a lot of small scientific advancements that are very important but not very well known outside of their respective scientific community, monetization of science should be handled by experts. And I think that is ultimately my problem overall with crowdsourcing, that the public not allways has the right answer, the consensus is not allways the best option. Of course crowdsourcing does happen, in science and in art. I'm just not sure if it should be the overall system to handle everything.

[@gene8512]

Regarding crowdsourcing of science: this already happens to an extent, but the general public isn't the patron party. At least in the US, a lot of scientific research gets funded through government grants, which could be described as indirect commissions: tax dollars go toward funding scientific research (and unfortunately, big science publishers such as Elsevier keep much of that publicly funded research locked up behind subscription fees even against the wishes of the scientists). Prospective researchers have to apply for the grants to convince the government to give them money, so the risk from the indirection in theory gets balanced out by the discretion of the "experts" in government, whoever they are. Presentations (i.e. papers, models, etc.) of findings of scientific research fall under copyright law and the practical inventions fall under patent law. Issues of copyright in the context of scientific research usually don't lie with the scientists, so those issues are less relevant with respect to funding. In cases involving inventions, especially medical inventions, there is a lot of abuse of patents. The government should continue to play a role in funding scientific research, but patents should still be drastically weakened or abolished in the context of medical inventions to prevent abuse.

[@diegog1853]

@@gene8512 That is a great point and I agree that copyright for scientific papers and patents are a huge problem in todays world. I mean I get what they are trying to solve, they want to incentivize people creating and publishing things by guaranteeing that the creator would get the money if the invention is successful. Ironically enough I think that big companies would be the ones that would benefit the most of a world without patents and copyright. Since they would have the resources that individuals don't have to mass produce their inventions. But I agree that the patent system gets abused enormously and I think a middle step would be a good solution. Like for instance a non-exclusivity clause, the creator has the rights under the patent but a company cannot pay an inflated fee to have the exclusive rights to produce it. Make it so that anyone that wants to buy the rights from the creator to produce the invention can do it at a standardized price, regardless if it is a big company or an individual who has the patent. The same goes with copyright... In general I think exclusivity is one of the biggest problems that gets abused. And I think it is wiser to tweek the problems within our system, than changing it entirely for a system with a new set of problems. A system that already exists... Everyone is allowed to have their work crowd sourced and in the public domain.

[@harney-barrow2036]

The "source code/assets as stretch goal" is the most galaxy brain idea I've ever heard that might actually work. It also provides a solid insurance plan in case a project's production nosedives into hell like Barkley 2 or Routine.

[@nuarius]

In fairness, a LOT of these same issues are easily addressed under the current IP system by reinstating its original expiration concept. IE, your IP is only protected for ~12 months before entering the public domain. If nothing else, This would be a MUCH more palatable "first step" that we could take to smooth such a transition.

[@burgeryoufoundbehindthegrill]

Yeah this right here 👌 Based

[@NinjaLobsterStudios]

Tbh I think going from current to zero is just impossible, but there is no reason for it to be as long as it is and I think that is politically viable. It is insane the Wizard of Oz movie is going to be protected for another ten years, as if it is still culturally relevant and MGM Studios will be bankrupted were it freely available. At longest, anything that was new during your childhood should be available by the time you are an adult (to average out the time one is a conscious child from age 2-18, make it an 8 year term). That is plenty of time for a specific piece of media to be culturally relevant and monetizable under current models before the creator has to get going on their next thing.

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

I think copyright is incredibly important in defending people from the same companies you hate. When you see a system is flawed the solution is not to replace it wholesale within an Entirely new system which will only be more flawed because it hasn't even had the chance at refinement that the current one has.

[@snowpoint720]

You grind for 10 years making an awesome web-comic for pennies, and then Disney makes the movie for Billions and you get none of that. (granted the current system isn't that different and Disney is in the news for now paying people anyway)

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

@@snowpoint720 1 of the current problems of copyright is actually in applying the law. In theory it should be fair so change in the law will do nothing until it can be enforced.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

small creators would stand to benefit a lot more from free use of disney IP than disney would benefit from free use of their IP. if copyright did anything substantial to protect individuals from big corporations, then why would big corporations spend so much money lobbying to not just defend copyright but extend it? lets say right now disney decides to just blatantly steal your shit. what are you gonna do? sue them? good luck. maybe you could milk a settlement out of them if it's an exceptionally clear cut case, but what does that accomplish? it doesn't prevent disney from doing whatever they want, since they can afford to eat the cost, and the only small creators that benefit are the ones that win the lottery by having disney blatantly infringe on their copyright. why would we prioritize a nominal benefit to the very very few creators who might get picked up by disney over the tremendous benefit to everyone else that comes with the abolition of copyright?

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

@@user-lk2vo8fo2q That's an enforcement issue. And defending copyright and defending copyright extension are 2 different things entirely.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

​@@KyriosHeptagrammaton It's not an enforcement issue. The issue is that small creators can't currently use corporate IP, but they would be able to if copyright didn't exist. That is an immediate and tangible benefit. Now, are there drawbacks that outweigh this benefit? The only one I've heard goes something like "but if copyright didn't exist, corporations could just take the things you make and re-sell them". This is certainly true, but you can't just leave it at that. In order for that to be a compelling argument, it must also be the case that this potential for corporate exploitation is so bad that it overrides the benefit of never having to ask for permission to use any IP ever again. Well, is it? How many small creators, would you estimate, make most of their income through royalty payments from large corporations? We're excluding people that are hired by corporations to produce IP (which, incidentally is how most corporate IP is created) because their salary is not dependent on royalties.

[@lssjgaming1599]

How could you say soemthing so controversial yet so brave. Mad respect

[@Avoloch]

not controversial, pretty milktoast. if you want something controversial, reppeal women´s vote, now we are talking

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

@@Avoloch Controversial means opinion is split down the middle, not something that every rational person disagrees with. You frickin edgelord.

[@TheSonicChaotix]

@@Avoloch Based.

[@Hauntaku]

@@Avoloch I'm reporting you for stupidity

[@roadent217]

@@Avoloch Repealing women's right to vote is reactionary. More in like with this video would be abolishing *all* private property, not just IP. Break the chains, comrades!

[@venrakdrake]

I think it's great in theory but how would you know that anyone you crowdfund will actually release a high quality product? You're relying on their own moral compass, which may or may not be good. This happens all the time with early access video games, devs charge the fee, then once enough people get into the beta, they stop giving a shit because they already made their profit. And that is precisely the reason why we pay AFTER the product is released. We aren't so trustworthy lol.

[@mimicry5713]

Exactly. I can absolutely see a larger company take an excellent concept and trailer and, once enough people have pre-paid, make a half-assed product that fails to live up to the hype. This already happens with the current IP system, but when a company releases a product that fails to meet expectations word-of-mouth and bad reviews dissuade people from making the purchase. Under this hypothetical new system, this sort of scam becomes profitable and will certainly become more common, since the company in question will have already received massive amounts of money pre-production funding that they/their product don't deserve and wouldn't get under the current system.

[@probablyfacetious2895]

That's not a sustainable business model for the fraud. Good luck doing it a second time.

[@mimicry5713]

​@@probablyfacetious2895 On a smaller scale this is absolutely repeatable. Just rename your company over and over again. In terms of big business, companies like EA and Bethesda aren't going away anytime soon despite enacting similar cons with pre-orders. At least they could suffer consumer wrath through loss of sales on Star Wars battlefront and fallout 76 respectively. Any company big enough to stomach consumer dissatisfaction will be able reel customers back in with their next big project, "Oh, Activision may have wasted my crowd funding cash and made Destiny 2, but I know the next Call of Duty will be good so my money's still going there."

[@NokoPilot]

@@mimicry5713 crowdfunding websites can just hold the cash until the product comes out

[@GamerTowerDX]

@@mimicry5713 Tracking a company's history and their workers would certainly become a standard in that timeline,people are going to point out "Heeeey,you are the guy that made that trash game!"

[@joh_kun5530]

What I'm gathering from the comments section is that it's basically a 3-way tug of war between big creators and their respective companies; a large normie/middle class/hobbyist populous as well as a small but devoted creative class or creators on who gets to win over control of copyright or who wants to state their case in order to benefit themselves in a world without copyright.

[@definitelynotobama6851]

Look at Angel Studios. Their entire business model is based on crowdfunding. They pitch shows, you put money into their pitches that draw you.

[@TourFaint]

All of this depends way WAY WAAAAAAY too much of people behaving rationally and thinking things through, no matter how right the logic and all the examples provided here are, an average person is just too shortsighted and not used to abstract thinking to get past the "but it's not out why would i pay" part, no matter how simply you'll explain it. You can't make a system based on delayed gratitude and efficiency, it's just not how people work, even if that system would be better for everyone. At worst this idea would stop production altogether because nothing would ever get enough money, or make everything shit because ALL of the focus is spent on marketing to get this crucial funding from random people. like in the example with star wars @ 16:00, a fuckton of people WOULD give a bunch of money for some knock-off starwars2 dude, because he promised the producs faster or something, this starwars2 would be inevitably shit and the whole name of starwars would be tarnished and no one would want a third one, no matter if you explained that this one would be by the original author, and not a cheap knock off. You would be right, but people would not care nor listen to you. This is a really good well thought out plan that hinges on at least a small portion of "the masses" not to be complete fuckwits and i'm afraid that assumption is way too optimistic. I know i sound like a fedora-tipping moron scoffing at "teh dumb masses" but i could give you countless examples proving that the average consumer is not smart enough to be trusted with making the logically beneficial choice, im talking about the people who buy the same basketball game every year for full price, and that's not even the stupidest example i could come up with. And that's just the basics for the core of the system to work at all and anyone to give money for anything. And then you expect the average netflix watcher to keep track of which animators/directors/whatever are good so you can frankenstein together a mythical perfect episode of one punch man? Most consumers can barely remember the title of the last stuff they watched. Like, the sad part is that i 100% agree with almost every single thing you said there and agree this system would be better than what we have here, but it just wouldn't work in practice, despite being the logically better option.

[@DaisyFarm_]

Hey I really enjoyed reading your comment but I think it’d be good if you replaced the word “retard” with a different one seeing as the word is quite offensive ^^

[@Simpsonsfan1011]

Hell this video is naïve where corporations and companies would just abuse the system. Unique's idea would honestly require a reset of how these sorts of things are established and feels like a pipe dream. I agree with some of these concepts but they are nothing more than an ideal because reality would not allow these sorts of things to be allowed.

[@TourFaint]

@@Simpsonsfan1011 I just feel like it falls apart when met with a normal consumer, that isn't passionate, just wants to watch a movie, a big movie will have trouble getting the funding because people wont give money for something that's not made yet, a medium movie won't have the reach to get the funding or it will get out-budgeted by a big corporation stealing the idea (consumers really don't care about stealing when it benefits them, they just like to pretend they care if when it doesn't cost them). I really feel this just doesn't scale past the "dude making fantarts on patreon" size, because there might be enough passionate and knowledgable fans to fuels a small project or an indie artist, but there is not enough of them to fuel even a percentage of the whole giant industry. even unique mentioned that only a small fraction of people uses crowdfunding, and i don't see it changing just because copyright laws changed. it requires an investment into the product that most people simply don't have.

[@osura_]

@@TourFaint While I mostly agree with what you said regarding the majority of people being too short-sighted to look into the producers behind a work and their history, I feel that we already see it work to an extent in crowdfunding like kickstarter. A lot of projects get funded on kickstarter specifically because it's a system that has been proven to work, and if when crowdfunding the producer behind the product supplies the portfolio of those working on it then even those short-sighted people will be more inclined to invest in it, especially if they receive something back. And I believe that the main reason "only a small fraction of people use crowdfunding" is simply because it isn't in the public conscience. People are used to paying for an already-made product, and the idea of crowdfunding large media projects is pretty much unheard of for people who aren't regulars of the internet. So the solution to that would just be for large companies to advertise and use crowdfunding more. Crowdfunding scams are still a problem, however, even if people are likely to spread the word about scams as a disincentive to people doing them. Finally, I'd like to second the request for removing that word. It's not just "a swear word," it is a dehumanising and derogatory term towards people with intellectual disabilities. It's literally a word that came from the old medical term for people with these mental illnesses, and that medical term had to be changed specifically because people were using the term in a derogatory way towards those disabled people.

[@Mathewrath]

The hell you talking about, mate? No one would pay to see a shittier version of whatever just to see it faster, and even if it ends up happening, people would see their mistake and put their thrust and money in the right direction. Nowadays, who makes things are as important as the things they make. George RR Martin, Kojima, Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, Yutaka Nakamura, CD Projekt red, Mad House, Bones, all of them have their names bound to their creations, productions and most importantly to a sense of quality and reliability.

[@huni3071]

Interesting idea, but I've two questions: 1. How do you make sure that companies spend money on research. Why shouldn't they just wait for somebody else to do it and then just copy the invention? And 2. How would you prevent big companies from remaking the public domain comics, and then over time merging in a monopoly?

[@roxsy470]

1. That would be fraud and is illegal even without IP. 2. Big companies cant take things out of the public domain, if they make comics, they add to the public domain.

[@janjohansson2567]

1. Inventions are protected by patents, a type of IP. With no IP, what OP says would be legal.

[@luviana_]

1. Without IP or patents, companies can wait for inventions to be made, and then they can sell those inventions. That's completely fair. They just can't own those inventions. Anyone can make them, distribute them, or sell them in any way they desire. That is intended. 2. Big companies can "remake" art all they want. They can't have a monopoly on any art, since they can't control any of it. They don't own anything they even create. They just have to have good ethics and good content, or they'll otherwise be ignored by potential customers. They can sell printed copies of something, or attempt to sell digital NFTs or some weird digital thing, but people aren't going to bother with that garbage when other people will be doing less greedy things. They can't merge and become monopolies, because they can't own anything. There is no stealing, because nobody owns any art. Anyone's allowed to use a brand name, or a character, or a story, etc. That's intended.

[@crapshoot]

1. They won't *have* any of that money in the first place unless they promise to do the research, because they're getting that money from people who are paying for them to do research 2. Anyone can copy from the big companies as well in turn, so there's no way they get to monopolize anything

[@Akasen1226]

I can't help but feel like what you're laying out in this video as an argument is extremely pie in the sky. Like I get WHAT you're arguing for, if we remove intellectual property, we could effectively get those "An episode of X SHOW but animated by a different person every ten seconds" deals. But so many other examples honestly fall flat on their face as vague ideas, and not solidly thought out theory as to how these things could happen. Like IP being gone doesn't mean we'd get more Firefly, it'd mean we'd get more Firefly from other people. I get the idea of maybe Joss Whedon gathering the gang, doing a kickstarter, maybe also having a wealthy producer behind him, and being able to give the one last hurrah for Firefly. I feel like the big backing argument here is that we should do away with the current system of how we do business with our media. Vote with our wallets, but to the extreme. Which sounds nice, but I can't help but feel like it doesn't do away with the fundamental problem in all these industries no matter how you look at it. The labor of the people who make our anime, our manga, and our games is severely undervalued by those who profit massively from their creation. This is a very surprising thing for me to to see here considering your past philantropic act of raising money for the animator dormitory project. Certainly it is great to donate to a good cause, but would it not be better if we could bring awareness to the conditions forcing these people to seek help by such means? Would it not be better for these people to have affordable housing and a living wage by which they can buy food, pay rent, live their life. I am absolutely all ears to the idea of the abolishment of Intellectual Property and Copyright, I consider myself just as well a big proponent of both Free (Libre) Software and of Open Source Software, so I know the argument in that regard completely. However, I feel as though the argument you have constructed of a world where Copyright is no longer around worries me just because it acts like we would live in a utopian world suddenly where all the artists we see on the internet are financially stable, not worrying about tomorrow. To put it simply then, I worry that your ideal world comes off more "Libertarian", as much as I despise using it in this sense, than anything else. That if suddenly we just got rid of certain restrictions, the Free Market will just sort itself out. I can admit to understanding the general benefits of its removal in the world of medicine, and even the potential for suddenly hundreds of animators and artists to attempt to turn out new Mickey Mouse cartoons of varying quality. I can not, however, see how this resolves the issues inherent in larger businesses that would likely still exist in the sudden Thanos snap of Copyright. Again, I'm not against the removal of copyright, but I feel your approach to this is flawed in so far that it ignores the most fundamental grievances that would still exist in these industries against the people who make our shows. I honestly see it more likely that Disney, even without any power over any particular product, would likely still set the course as they have. The removal of copyright but a minor inconvenience. And in Japan, we'd still find shocking stories of animators and mangaka finding it more and more difficult to survive in the industry as their business unsustainable models continue to fall apart. Also just so we're clear, it's likely that discussion of media might get better if we stop white people from playing video games. Absolutely based take.

[@darkychao]

honestly, if anyone was going to thrive from the total abolishment of copyright in the manor this video suggests it'd probably be the big studios that already exist. they'd instantly have free reign over whatever ideas they can find; just scour the internet, steal any good ideas you can find, and produce them faster and more efficiently than any small creator/studio would ever be able to and they'd make way more money off of the idea because people are still going to buy into big names. it wouldn't matter if you came up with the greatest idea ever, you can't do anything with that idea, the instant you try to make money off of that idea it's already been plagiarized by someone bigger than you, with more resources than you, with more brand recognition than you. this would effectively kill off the entire concept of indie productions of anything long-form in every medium.

[@savannahbugg]

This!!!

[@Akasen1226]

@@darkychao That's absolutely my view in this. If suddenly there was no IP law, copyright, or the like, what would really happen is that large studios with the manpower would gain more recognition for the things they're creating more than the smaller creator. Certainly, small creators may now be free to animate passion projects and maybe get funding for them, but the simple notion of "reanimating some scene of a show for money" isn't what anyone probably would have had in mind for something to fund. If I were wanting to fund a project, I'd probably put out kickstarter money for a big project, a full series, a movie, maybe just the funds to help some burgeoning group of animators make a pilot animation to show off their skills and ideas. Fundamentally, one of the greatest issues I will say is that we have to come to grips with something about animation and other media: it's monetarily worthless and difficult to put a price tag on. This above all means that no matter what, all who enter this ring whether there is IP law or not must find a way to make their creation a commodity, something people not only wanna watch and pay money to watch, but consume merchandise of, invest money into everything about that product. So long as we live in a world where not just small creators, but even those in the major industry, find themselves being potentially unable to make ends meet, unable to focus on those projects, and instead must answer to the whims of a large, wealthier, entity, the abolishment of IP and copyright will not bring about a golden age of creativity.

[@elayness1749]

You've basically convinced me to make all of my creative work public domain. On an artist standpoint, it saves the drama that comes from art theft. Not the pain, but the drama.

[@wrigglenight93]

Kind of. That’s part of the point he made. Art thieves are bad, but when’s the last time you heard about one being taken to court? You aren’t forsaking your right to call them out and whatnot

[@Error0101]

I love your work! :)

[@TheTGOAC]

Don't put your pride in your art. It's a part of yourself you're giving to the world, it's inherently meant to be shared and if people steal it and claim it as their own then eventually the truth will come out if they can't recreate it or you prove you were the original creator. Utilize Blockchain technology on your creations?

[@snappa-stick6458]

@@wrigglenight93 art thieves can be reported though? Most art platforms have a report system?

[@wrigglenight93]

@@snappa-stick6458 Believe it or not, those exist entirely independent of the law

[@thetetons744]

Id imagine since your content is public domain you will become a legend in the ytp community

[@kiaranecessary7972]

You didn’t mention a really common way small creators make money - live events. You can’t copy and reupload a living person, and tons of creators make significant money from live readings, signings, meet and greets, and other various kinds of tours.

[@Catthepunk]

​@kingkazain person shows will never die.

[@lansygamer2665]

God, if only the world would move to this in my lifetime

[@MxPokirby]

We're working on not only achieving this, but going even further.

[@caleb_artzs2533]

@@MxPokirby Sounds like a Gurren Lagann speech

[@NawidN]

@@MxPokirby And this is tO GO EVEN FURTHER BEYOND.

[@nixel1324]

@@caleb_artzs2533 BELIEVE in the Uniquenameosaurus who BELIEVES in US! Your content is the content THAT WILL PIERCE THE HIGH SEAS! Just WHO the HELL do IP-holders THINK WE ARE?!

[@Starfloofle]

I hope that one day we can topple the obstinate ruling elite and establish a world globally based on meritocracy, but with the grace to also not punish people for the mere act of existing. A meritocracy where everyone has an equal, inalienable right to the ability to prove what they are capable of.

[@wakanawill4526]

As somebody who does pirate stuff and as somebody who would like to one day make content and get money from it... I find your idea really comforting. It almost sounds too good to be true tbh. Idea of spending thousands of hours to make something that you have no idea if people will buy always sounds very scary for me. But in how you would see world with no IP the whole situation sounds... more secure somehow. Idk. It just sounds really comforting

[@SoggycereaI]

I definitely agree, it’s such a new mindset and I’m like, shocked because of it. I wish I lived somewhere where this was the norm, but for now I’ll just do what I can to provide this idea like having copyleft products myself and seeing how that goes.

[@mk_gamíng0609]

See why would someone pay for your content when they can just take it? Why should they pay for it , when its available for free? Also it would not be secure How can anything be secure when people can just take your work and it would not be stealing because you DONT own your creation.

[@GamerTowerDX]

@@mk_gamíng0609 "See why would someone pay for your content when they can just take it?" For the same reasons some people buy prebuilt PCs instead of building their own. "Why should they pay for it , when its available for free?" Bc you pay it before its released. "How can anything be secure when people can just take your work and it would not be stealing because you DONT own your creation." Bc you already made your money before it gets stolen.

[@AlbeyAmakiir]

I'd certainly be concerned that, as a disabled person, I'd be left behind even further than I am now. I work slower than most people, and I struggle to understand marketing (which is already hard enough for neurotypical people). First move advantage doesn't sound like it's actually an advantage when someone else can say "I'll do it faster (implied: because I'm not disabled)", and spread that message better than me. ... I mean, I'm not sure that IP could protect me from that either. But I don't see speed and reputation as being as fair as this video seems to make out. Still, it's an attractive idea. Perhaps this is just something to keep in mind.

[@GamerTowerDX]

Thats why a helping hand is always welcome,there's always the chance to contact a buddy to help with marketing and other to make produccion go smooth.

[@gene8512]

I think that the first-mover advantage arises from the fact that you can complete the work before anyone sees it. You may release small samples, but surely people wouldn't gather enough info and material from the sample to create something similar to your final result before you've published your complete work. You'll get your work in front of people's eyes, and then anyone who would want to make a very similar work would have to start from that moment instead of before. This advantage, to the extent that it exists in practice, isn't a consequence of the new system. The first-mover advantage applies to the current system, but copyright eliminates the relevance of the first-mover advantage because it would be outright illegal for someone to make a similar work to yours. Regardless, the first-mover advantage isn't the main point of the video. As long as you get commissioned before you start making your work, you will still be able to profit.

[@_zurr]

Maybe I missed it but I'm a little confused on the situation where the existence of a product causes people to be interested in obtaining it rather that being interested in its creation. At the moment, investors with a bunch of money do the heavy lifting of finding the right people/company to back for a product, because they know that since they have the rights to it, they can make money off it eventually when it's released and advertised. Why would they do this if didn't have that guarantee? More importantly, if a person doesn't have a product, how are average consumers supposed to know whether they like it enough to pay for it? Will every one have to research who made what before and all the people involved in the project before they spend any money? What about projects that the average consumer cannot ascertain is a good idea or worth supporting, that someone with more experience in the industry could recognize would actually do well? Would they have to convince everyone, before there's trailers, or any content at all, that it's a good idea?

[@aidengray3998]

We already have ads saying "From the creator of ________" be pretty easy to expand that.

[@vojtechstrnad1]

With large scale projects what would likely happen is that a production company takes care of choosing creators that have proven themselves in the past, and you now only need to know how the production company has proven itself in the past. This also applies to head artists like film directors. So as an example, if Pixar wanted to croudfund a movie about robots, Quentin Tarantino a gangster movie or Christopher Nolan literally anything, I wouldn't need much research before happily throwing my money at them.

[@Hauntaku]

@@vojtechstrnad1 Sometimes, people just see something cool a throw money at it. There was no guarantee that Kindred Fates would be any good but I still gave them $3 for it. IDK when it's coming out on the Nintendo Switch but by then, word will spread if it's worth it or not

[@Hauntaku]

Peck, even Hypixel is something that caught my attention because others were saying it looked interesting. Word-of-mouth is very important.

[@Hauntaku]

@Zurr I've sold art commissions in the past that require full payment up front and people still buy my art. I don't see how IP really matters since I've already gotten paid and they'd probably just copy it anyway if they felt like it, so there's no real point in me trying to prevent the client from sharing my works. If they make money off of it then I hope they at least credit me as the artist. The font community does this sort of thing but usually, they give everyone the opportunity to download their font for free for anything and hope that people will credit them. People usually won't credit them sadly.

[@zodayn]

I have three potential (not sure if it would turn out this way) issues with the everything is crowdsourced approach. Maybe the video adresses them but it's hard to remember all point in a 45 minute video. 😅Also while these are counter points I don't think the idea is bad per se as it has benefits too. I'm just an economics nerd who loves to write massive walls of texts under youtube videos. 1) In crowdsourcing a smaller group is paying more than in a pay for access model. So a creator is incetivized to pitch a product that appeals mostly to the crowd and in that crowd te largest contributers. This might lead to larger inequallity as media gets more catered to people who can afford large upfront payments for media that might never come. It might harm representation for groups who can't stand out in the crowd. Basically in the current pay for access model we all pay the same price with perhaps some bonus content for people willing to pay extra. But in an all crowdsourced world wealthy people will pay more and have more power. Of course there are ways to fix this. A maximum contribution should limmit the influence of very wealthy contributors to create balance. And creators can naturally refuse certain contributions or not cater too much to certain contributors if it goes against their ideal for the product, although refusing vital financial support is difficult. 2) Another issue is that a product sells based on how good it seems before it's made rather than its reputation after. It creates an industry of making interesting trailers rather than interesting products. Currently you can wait for your friends or prefered reviewer to give their opinion and let them help you decide if you want to buy the product. But in a legal piracy world any newcomer after release is worthless. If it's the trailer that creates the income rather than the game, it doesn't matter if it plays well or if its pacing is good. You wouldn't find those things out before release anyway. If building hype is the only way to earn money there would be a rise in false or misleading advertising. Comedy movies already have the reputation of putting all the good jokes in the trailer. That would probably get worse. 3) It creates a thug of war over the release. Currently a quick release means a faster return on investment for shareholders. Which has the benefit that rightsholders create stuff as much and fast as they can but also the downside of for example games getting released with bugs. In a free piracy world it becomes attractive to delay full release as long as possible since after that you can't make any profits. A studio will absorb money with new stretch goals until all goodwill is gone, which is already seen in Star Citizen still not being out despite having started in 2011. So to the financially minded this thug of war of providing snippets of content to keep generating income while delaying as long as possible would become the core business strategy. Rather than creating a product that can generate income by itself. Of course as with the previous point this probably wouldn't be the case for a passion project. But large corporate studio are the only ones to realistically produce blockbuster movies and AAA games with millions of dollars in funding and they will use this stalling tactic to maximise their profits. They might get critised for using this method but since the massive scale of their opperations setting up a competitor would be nearly impossible.

[@brankoburcksen]

I especially like your first point. It is one reason why I brought up UBI. IPs do not exist in isolation to the rest of the economy and the issues people struggle with in their day to day lives.

[@TentacleHand]

1) That really is not a problem. Want to see representation? Go fund those projects. Cannot pay? Ask if you could shill for the project, make some money as you hype the project. Or do it free, it's your time. However the IP free model will give the creator largest freedom to produce the product they want. Wanna know why movies are often bland compared to the books they are based on? Because they cater to a large number of people. Much better, at least more unique and interesting stories, will be made if the target audience is niche rather than appealing to everybody. And that is assuming that the creator is willing to compromise at all on their creative process. On IP free model you most likely will make more money by creating stuff that you want to create as that is what you are best at. Someone else may be better at appealing to everybody, or even a niche, but you probably are the best person to create the thing you want to create. I, at least, want to see better art, not fulfil some arbitrary quotas, and for that the IP free world, or something resembling that, is much better. 2) Well yes, if you only plan on ever releasing anything only one time. Nobody will buy your product second time if you betray their trust AND a legal alternative to the same product is easily available. Works on one trick wonders, does not work on anything else, I believe that most creators would like to see their later projects to be fulfilled, not just the first. Also if the release turns out to be shitshow, only having an interesting premise and nothing beyond that guess what? Anyone, literally anyone, can take the premise and make a better product. Again, as a customer I want the best product possible and this would improve my chances on getting better products.

[@iandwyer8310]

Wouldn't this just be gambling hoping that you get a product that you want, and if not you've lost your money to some crowd fund?

[@windums560]

Well do we get refund after bad movie? We don't. You can play games and refund in few hours. That is cool. You can read other people opinions for choosing to pay. We have that one. That is awesome too. I don't know. We could create the world both of the option is avaible. Which is we live in. We need to build better systems for the our second option. And we should join projects we think it will be cool right now. Maybe we should use patreon's of the creators who are making or made good contents. I read that you can refund for fake crowd refund. I didn't research it

[@iandwyer8310]

@@windums560 if you watch a bad movie, you atleast knew for a fact you were going to watch a movie. Crowd funding everything makes nothing a dependable product. No one can review what doesn't exist.

[@MetroAndroid]

@@iandwyer8310 Crowdfunding sites can and do hold money in escrow until the initial goal is met, if it is met. There can be and are lawsuits based on incomplete campaigns where goods or services weren't rendered. Reputation ensures a creator could only make a mistake that big once. And at the end of the day, fans could legally take what is known and released and create the thing people originally wanted from it. I'd by far much rather support a creator I love, who has a good reputation and has made many games, for a decent chance at something good, than definitely get something bad.

[@CounterFlow64]

@@iandwyer8310 That's why reputation and track records exists. Plus, it's actually better for the studio this way, they get to ensure they get the money they need regardless if the product sucks or not, but if this happens with a movie that earns money via sales, they would be in for a loss.

[@fcoomega7734]

@@iandwyer8310 this already happens in the current system, where do you thing movies get their budget? They need investors that trust them when they say "this movie will produce millions in profit"

[@TheUnHappySponge]

For a long time I've thought copyright needed to be reduced to at least 25 years (pretty sure that's what it was at first too). You've convinced me to move that down to 10 years. I think that's short enough that you'd start to see the kind of monytisaton you're talking about without throwing everyone into the deep end of the pool. If it works then people will move towards your way of thinking and eventually enough support could be built to get rid of it altogether. If it somehow has a really bad effect, then it's pretty simple to go back to how it was before. People need time to adjust to the new way or they'll reject it regardless of how good it'd be in the long term. Incremental change is almost always better than revolution.

[@Nedeles]

Companies already have the control over consumers, and for a reason, it gives stability to both consumers and creators, taking the risk, but also taking the profit, ensuring the job for the creators, and the content for the consumers, it also come with the stagnation of the products, i dont think we are on an ideal situation, but abolishing the intelectual property, and rely mainly on crowdfounding doesnt seems like the panacea, i think crowdfounding can be a way to resolve the stagnation problem, but not the risk that comes creating something with money given You use Star citicen as an example, and is a good example, but not for you case, it has been in development for 10 years and its still considered in alfa, full of promises and wasted money on unnecesary things, just because something is crowdfounded doesnt mean the consumers have full control over the product, the creator's part need boundaries You can say Companies already do the same with predatory schemes and broken promises, but the thing is, when the consumer takes part on that with their money, the product is already published, and can decide on its own if its should put money on it, not only on the hopes of becoming something down the line

[@kullundee]

This is an interesting video. After watching it, I will admit that you've raised some fantastic arguments. But the whole time I was thinking in the back of my mind, "I feel like there's a massive downside to this system in a practical setting that I cannot forsee right now." It's definitely food for thought and maybe my worries are founded in the fact that I've lived in a world built around IP. Regardless, maybe one day we can see a rise in crowdsourcing.

[@firekoovin3347]

ඞ

[@Khalixs]

I think this is a flawed video with an almost hopelessly idealistic view of a world without ip. I also have concerns about some of the issues that ip protects us from that are either glossed over or ignored entirely. I'm not a big youtube video guy but I might make one with a response after exams. Coming from an economics major with a basic idea about these things.

[@brankoburcksen]

I would look forward to that.

[@pacefactor]

As someone who has worked both in publishing, art, and design - I agree entirely. There is a lack of knowledge here that bothers me. Despite the fact that I am a huge fan of CCL, public domain, and a supporter of the "Free Information Society"

[@wolftitanreading5308]

@@pacefactor agree as a writer and creator its clear hes a moron

[@GamerTowerDX]

Still waiting.

[@SocraticMayhem]

@@wolftitanreading5308 I dont think he’s a moron, I think he has POINTS but there are glaring holes in his proposal that makes it also not worth it. The current system is already bad enough, and while this new system does get rid of a lot of other problems, it creates new problems to deal with as well.

[@Literally-Brian]

I’ll be honest, as an aspiring artist who’s training to become a proper author, the idea that I don’t own my characters and story is absolutely terrifying. I’m all for those who liked my story to take inspiration from the ideas present. I also think people are allowed to openly use those characters in fan-projects and parody. But I feel that I should have ownership over what I create. I fear that if I made a story that people enjoyed, large companies would just steal all my concepts, ideas and even characters to make a profit. Under the current system those things are much harder for them to do due to my intellectual property belonging to me. I made my art. I spent my time on my labour. The labour should belong to the individual who creates it. I find it absolutely absurd that I could spend *years* on a story just to allow someone else to take it without giving me a single ounce of credit or recognition. I’m all for reforming copyright and IPs, but this ain’t it chief

[@mk_gamíng0609]

I agree. I think people just want stuff for free. I honestly think this would ruin any creative industry

[@andreirachko]

Didn’t he dedicate a significant portion of the video addressing this particular problem? Ethics don’t magically disappear with the abolishment of copyrights, people will still call out companies on stealing ideas if they’re found out doing so.

[@Literally-Brian]

@@andreirachko idc about if people “call out” companies. When normal everyday people watch my IP being stolen and rebranded as a Netflix show, they aren’t gonna stop watching and ask “hmm, I wonder if this story is being unfairly stolen by this company”. They are going to keep watching the show and keep supporting the company that stole my IP, because most people wouldn’t care. *We* might care. *We* might call out companies that does it. But we are the minority. Most consumers don’t give a crap about this. If they did, companies like Néstle would have gone bankrupt *ages* ago

[@andreirachko]

@@Literally-Brian good point, especially about Néstle. I guess we have some room to grow and evolve as a society (yes, sorry for mentioning the sOciEtY) before we could have something like this. I believe we are evolving though, so perhaps we’ll see the gradual movement away from copyrights some years ahead.

[@sigmundfreud4472]

@@andreirachko another point was that people don’t need to call out companies. Companies can call out companies. One platform can advertise that they contribute some portion to the original creators. And there’s no networking effect in that, since any platform can stream any media. Also, bottom line, if you engaged in the patronage model, you would have already received compensation you agreed to for the work you did. In any case, you can at least claim authorship of it when asking for future funding. Only you can claim authorship non-fraudulently, meaning the success of it directly helps your reputation and prospects of future funding. Also, IP is different from fraud. If someone falsely claims to be the original author of some work, that does not fall under IP, as it is misleading the consumer, and can be punished without IP law. Unfortunately, you still have the problem of small artists being unable to finance legal fees against big company fraud, just as with IP now.

[@disr3686]

I agree with the premise, but personally, if I was a creator I would want to credited, I wouldn't want anyone to be able to just copy my work and pass it off as their own, or just change up important plot points in it because they didn't like it. I think there needs to be a distinction between the original and the fanwork like with fanfiction. I also think there should still be regulations, not everything should be left to the people and content creators to sort out on their own.

[@tymondabrowski12]

Maybe CC-BY instead of public domain, then? There are other limitations to add - ND (no derivative), NC (no commercial), but CC-BY is good enough in most cases. Especially sine NC, for example, doesn't say anything about how big this "commercial" goal must be, so denying it might just deny using it by another small business.

[@GamerTowerDX]

"or just change up important plot points in it because they didn't like it" You've never had a finale of a show that you hated so much that you wanted to change it? That literally happens ALL THE TIME,if da people don't like it that means you gotta up your game.

[@marinosnyhe6538]

@@GamerTowerDX So basically Game of Thrones.

[@cyanlos01]

Ok, have a second comment, because I finally got through the video. As much as I agree with you, I'm still going to play a Devil's Advocate here. I've probably forgotten a few points, but I'll address some I do remember, and I think it may be worth thinking about: 1) How do you differentiate Replication from Plagiarism, where one is ethical and the other isn't? Simply because of how successful the plagiarised work is? You mentioned the necessity of on studio to replicate a product but do it better because the original may not be able to deliver to the market as the market desires it, which not only limits potential abuse but also drives innovation. But how is that different from one artist plagiarising another but imply making it "look better", even if he had to trace the image one to one, and why would it be ethical to call him out for it considering it IS ethical for the plagiarist to offer a more superior replication of a product? Why even feel it necessary to call out the plagiarist when it is not only legal but actively encouraged? (I'm also trying not to bring up the "Cancel Culture" to this discussion, otherwise it would make the argument unnecessarily convoluted, even though it applies in this instance.) Consider Yandere Sim as an example which you made: Sure, there have been developers trying to "replicate" a better Yandere Sim and developed faster than the original because there was a demand for it, but YandereDev himself would argue that this isn't replication, but rather "Plagiarism", and that it is unethical to plagiarise what is, rightfully, the labour of his own mind. So your argument splits in two directions, becoming self-contradictory. 2) How would it be better for, say, Hollywood to produce block-buster movies directly based on a novel series by an actual published author but neither crediting nor compensating him for it? At the very least, under current law, while intellectual property theft still goes on where large companies can take advantage of smaller creators, at the very least contracts and compensations do take place legally because the author is publicly known to hold the labour of his mind. But once that goes away, there's still chances of abuse in more ways than simply via economic terms, where the original author will be forgotten -- for instance, if he has a specific philosophy he wants to espouse through his creations, but future works by other artists (including corporations) can take his stories but pervert the message significantly to the point where, even if the same name exists the original message is completely lost and directly betrays the author. On top of that, it may also become the "definitive" way to consume that future product because the original work would be inferior simply because the author neither had the skills nor capital to create something better himself. 3) What will stop your country from being vulnerable to another rivalling nation (presumably authoritarian and with a rapidly expanding military force)? As much as I'm an FOSS junky and I will stand by it to my grave, I can't deny there are legitimate security issues that readily-available technology poses to the same country it originates from, especially when said technology serves in some small way to a nation's own defenses, even if it wasn't intended for its use. Closed-source software, of course, aren't immune either, where the nature of closed-source and its algorithms (see: social media) serve more as threats to destabilise nations compared to something like Mastodon. Still, a one-way free exchange of information between two nation where one of them has no intention of giving back and may be actively hostile to you... Well, let's just say it would be tantamount to dropping an axe on your own foot. 4) Crowd-Sourcing is not going to be a universal part of production, no matter how much you want it to be, particularly because of the diverse market preferences, including that of how an individual prefers to make said payment. Crowd-sourcing carries a larger degree of faith than payment at release, considering you wouldn't know how good a product might be let alone if it gets made in the first place (let alone if the original artist is willing or even capable of doing so later down the line, such as if he gets sick or even if he's passed away, for instance) -- again, Yandere Sim is a great example of this -- which you don't have with an on-release model. With an on-release model, you at least know from snippets and trailers what the release look like, what the experience could potentially be, and you have other consumers' reviews to depend on (both mainstream media as well as indie reviewers, and even word-of-mouth which is underrated af). Many potential consumers, and I'd argue a large swathe of them, would not risk paying for a product unless they are relatively convinced it is a good product, and therefore it would not only be risky for them to participate in crowd-sourcing but also unthinkable. This means not only is a product at risk of not being made in the first place, but even if it does get made it has a huge risk of not being paid sufficiently for its efforts because now the "sales" aspect is also out the window. To compound it all, too, is the fact that now crowd-sourcing would have to rely more on marketing expenditure than sales would. Because the thing with sales is that it's there for "almost" forever; you can have it produced 10 years ago, and you can still sell it and make a significant return if not an outright profit from it, so you can afford to wait for word-of-mouth to do its thing. But Crowd-sourcing has a smaller window of opportunity to make its returns, and if you can't do that then the project may actually be dead, meaning even smaller creators would have to spend exorbitantly on marketing despite the risk of lower revenues, especially if they don't have their own reach. And word-of-mouth can't carry you all the way there in this instance. I'll end my arguments here for now, but if I have more points of contention I'll write you again.... or not. Let's see how it shakes out. That said, as much as I agree with you on principle, I still think your ideas are too utopian, because human beings simply won't act the way you expect them to. We have an instinctive need to control, and it exists for a reason, for good or ill. I'd refer to Game Theory on this subject rather than purely economics and ethics.

[@oputoeopucci451]

yes, it is just the old case of someone pointing that something is wrong, the person is right, but when that person start to suggest how to improve it, the person get that wrong. the actual system of copyright is wrong but the way he want it to be he just missed the point. copyright, just like most things in life, is not bad or good it depends how it is used. i think fan work should not be a crime but it should have rules, principally if the fan work want any kind of monetization, just as the original creator should receive the credit or a percentage if someone is profiting for what you did is nothing more than fair. medical copyright is more delicated because I dont make part of this profission, i am a artist, but there"s a big diference betwen a medicine that can cure cancer and the end of one anime that you didn't liked, you will not die because of some series ending, you may die if your medicinal treatment cost 1 billion. and also art is not the same thing as medicine any person can learn how to draw, any person can learn how to make a surgery, wich one of those, both having good skills, you will look with fear if they say to you that they don't have a university degree before doing a work for you ? medicine is a necessity, series and games are entertainment. and human beings are not fair and 100% moral, this is one of the biggest problems i have with this kind of ideas because just as you said this is utopian. let's be honest if human beings where the ideal prisons would not exist.

[@ougi_rk]

Just watchout for the Touhou IP. It is free for everyone to use it because the creator gave free right of the use of the IP and look at the cheer amount of fan works it has.

[@JerryFlowersIII]

FASCINATING I would love to see this in practice in some larger scale.

[@JerryFlowersIII]

I dare someone to make a Kickstarter and have a stretch goal be the final product will be free. People would JUMP on that. Edit: WOW I wrote that before you mentioned it in the video. I think that just shows how much sense "no ip" makes when the systems seem to all work together so well.

[@Rais-Codex]

Why stop there. If I ever make a kickstarter, I'd make one to have the true final goal of having it be OPEN SOURCE.

[@JerryFlowersIII]

Also just realized Corridor Digitals website has a feature where you put your subscription dollars towards what production you want to see from them. Subscribers are paying for production.

[@GameHero152]

@@Rais-Codex That would be the absolute best, stretch goals that everyone benefits from. I would absolutely support such a project so it could be free and open source

[@JerryFlowersIII]

At this point it seems like it would be in companies best interest to follow this model. There's less risk and all the work going into cracking down on copyright stuff takes money, time, and work that they wouldn't have to spend anymore.

[@AnselmsAlwaysAccurate]

God I'm so glad you're back. KZbin has been dark and cold, void of hope.

[@wollebay]

I dont think IP should be abolished. But i do think it should be much much shorter and it also shoudn't be appliable to such minor improvements as in the medical industry.

[@carso1500]

This, i'm all in for changes in the copyright laws and to abolish certain patents like there should be no patents for medical products, it would be nice if scientific journals can also get rid of those pesky copyrights, but outright abolishing the entire copyright system seems like burning your house down because it has an ugly coat of paint

[@carso1500]

@@duncanohoge it was 14 years with one renovation and they changed it before disney as a concept even existed, the only thing Disney changed is how much copyright last after the death of the original author

[@lamihadamshareef5270]

@@carso1500 which is so long Copyright back then was fine For how long it lasted but Disney came buy and just extend to a point were the public domain is just not a thing anymore I won't be surpirsed in the next year they extend it again

[@flamestoyershadowkill6400]

agreed but put a mechanism where the original creator has to be credited even after the seven year period

[@CrabRango]

This ending makes me feel like I’m about to join a cult Neat

[@marlonmontelhiggins8570]

Honestly, even if this were a cult, it would be one that I would have no qualms in joining.

[@horserage]

@@marlonmontelhiggins8570 "You make bets with art and you can see if other artists are as based as you, or even more based, tbh." Just sounds like independent music artists, tbh.

[@Glockenspheal]

There once was a man named Uniquenameosaurus, who was King of the Pirates.

[@quandarioustoddricioushorn9292]

In a alternative universe where Copyright doesnt exist: "Creators SHOULD own their creations"

[@PrabhjotSingh-wg8lz]

I was about to comment that

[@j.e.s.m.4686]

I wrote a series of fake wikipedia-like style pages called 'Fakedpedia' where I imagine living in a world where IPs entered public domain in early years (4 years in North America / Asia, 5 years in Europe, 3 years in Latin/South America). Really wish we live in a world like that so we don't have a to deal with greedy corporations and idiotic bigots.

[@morpheusfishborne]

I went into this video thinking that I would disagree wildly with every point. And I did... until you kept making points. Every time I felt like there was a gap in your argument, I got ready to write a comment saying "fine video... but what about x", and then you'd cover x. And so I'd write "good video, but what about y". And then it would be "great video, but what about z". And now I've run out of counterarguments because you really thought through everything. Amazing work with this one, really. Absolutely brilliant.

[@Dragonmist19X]

It was an interesting watch feel like it'd be incredibly hard if not impossible for small artists to make a name for themselves in a system like that.

[@SeraphX2]

And that is the reality because that is EXACTLY why Patent and Copyright laws were made in the first place. To protect little people who create something but may not have the means to fully realize it at a mass production level. Which is why they would pitch their ideas to investors, but then investors would say no, and find someone to do it for them then mass produce it. Even current patent laws still can be loopholed. It's how Beats by Dre legally stole the rights to earbuds that were invented by a lone Chinese man and his son. Small businesses can sucked into things they don't understand while big companies take advantage of them. Just imagine what we would go back to if we removed these laws in a day and age when anyone can try to invent and there are the means to get started and anyone's fingertips.

[@wires-sl7gs]

@@SeraphX2 Bu tthat's the thing, Patents and Copyright *doesn't* protect little people, like he stated in the video, so what's your point?

[@jghifiversveiws8729]

@@SeraphX2 What do you mean go back to?

[@TheSpeep]

I'd live to watch this right now as it just came out, but it is currently 2:30 am and I want to at least try and not let my biorythm go to any more shit than it already has... So have this comment to please the algorythm for the time being. =)

[@fredrickreloaded4488]

oh man if this video had come out at night for me I would have lost so much sleep

[@martinrisy3125]

@@fredrickreloaded4488 its 4 am for me after finnishing the video, so if it weren't for the fact that i can sleep for as long as i want. I would be dead xD

[@xinterest9029]

I would really enjoy seeing a rebuttal video of the comments and concerns from this concept in the future, if you were ever considering it.

[@UnrelatedAntonym]

I wonder if this stuff were to come to being, if there might also be groups of people who join together to make investors unions based on shared interests. For example, a MCU fan union which would vote on where to invest, join their funds together towards filming.

[@TheTGOAC]

Direct democracy investing? Interesting

[@diegojesusespinozafrancia4984]

I wonder how many mangakas would try to give an ending to berserk, vagabond, hunter x hunter in a zero IP world.

[@awts..7954]

y e s

[@apt-get2587]

Less idolmaster lolis, more GRIFFIIIIIISU

[@diegojesusespinozafrancia4984]

@@apt-get2587 YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[@minaDesuDesu]

HSoTD

[@risso2309]

It wouldn't matter because people want the ending of the author, not some nobody who doesn't understand it.

[@justthere845]

I just remembered this video and realised I already knew something like this working and I knew it for years. It's the pixel dungeon community. It's a free mobile open source roguelike game made by watabou. So anyone can change the mechanics or add something unique to it and the players can choose who they support by donating to the creator that they feel make their favourite version of the game. For a long while the original pixel dungeon was the best even though there were a lot of different versions until the dev added in a durability mechanic that was poorly implemented and the community disliked it. Then 2 games came out and stood out to the community. Yet another pixel dungeon which took the durability mechanic and changed it to work well for it. Then shattered pixel dungeon which is now considered the best pixel dungeon game that removed that mechanic and added unique things into the game. Evan Debenham(the developer) puts in the most effort and creativity out of all the developers and it's so good that it even has it's own modded versions because he implemented a class armour ability, added class talents, reworked the alchemy system twice, added more challenges and other changes. Even though it's open source and people can take the exact same game(and some people do while adding changes like in rat king pixel dungeon 2 and rat king adventures) shattered is still considered the best and most supported by the community because of Evans history of making changes so good that it becomes the standard for the community and a lot of the mods of it going forward.

[@llcouchpotato4973]

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.” ― George Bernard Shaw

[@wolftitanreading5308]

But if you kill the other man then you have both the ideas and can make money off them while the other man has nothing

[@timgibson6173]

Me, reading airlock bound: Man, I wish this was in colour... Me, 3 seconds later: WAIIITT A SECOND!

[@WildermanJNM]

Minecraft adventure maps are another great example of small creators building off of big IPs' popularity to share their creations. Some people really did great stuff and elevated Minecraft to a level most thought literally impossible, and they got recognition because of it. If Minecraft was a bit harsher on its copyright those people would've needed to make a whole new game (instead of relying on Minecraft's foundation) and it might not be as popular as they deserve, and it would've been way more expensive (I'm thinking of KillerCreeper55 when writing this o.o).

[@marcossegon5433]

The largest Minecraft server right now basically started as a group of map-makers (Hypixel) so that checks out. Another server recently blew up pretty big (Telos Realms), having hundreds of players from day one while being based off Realm of the Mad God and bullet hell games, so that's another example of someone building off another IP

[@HexenDarkside]

Showing E;R and Dimitri Monroe for KZbin examples and then bringing up Louis Rossman's crusade for right to repair at the end... that is some good taste, matey. Really good video, especially since I often forget IP is not just cartoon characters, but real important stuff like medicine and internet access.

[@OK-uj2tg]

Sorry but when did he show them?

[@HexenDarkside]

@@OK-uj2tg It was just some pictures of videos when he was talking about creators as examples where it showed one of E;R's Star Wars videos and Dimitri Monroe's Dark Souls video, I guess it wasn't as early in the video as I though scrubbing through. I know the example that showed Louis Rossman was right near the end, though.

[@j.e.s.m.4686]

I personally like Public Domain and I consider to be very important 'cause it allows/gives content creators, filmmakers, animators, game developers and artists the liberties on creating something that they are passionate about, making something new with their own set of vision and show how much they actually do care and love the IP we grow up with. Without it, we wouldn't have gotten the stuff people would see. Yes, I'm aware that they're some greedy bastards out there who might take advantage of this by creating a cashgrab project for the sake of gaining money but NOT everyone are like that; I know there are other content creators out there who want to create a project that they have dreamed and show how much they actually do care and love the IP we grow up with endless possibilities and opportunities that indie filmmakers/animators can explore. But this shitty copyright law has now become broken thanks to Disney and is now preventing creative people making something they wanted to do, fan games exists for a reason and Nintendo doesn't care on how they're actions are hurting their own fans and name. I'm hoping that someday, this copyright timeframe gets changed for the better and give artists the freedom they deserve.

[@Showakusai]

Bro, this is one of the greatest videos I've ever seen on KZbin and I've been on here for 15 years.

[@zachall1573]

I think the sentiment for this is wonderful, but I think it would need a lot of testing and a lot of support and advice from people who understand business and economics. There would also need to be some level of organisation and collaboration so consumers aren't sifting through the 15 different versions of endgame to find the one they want. It's still open to possible abuse, like if a specific hateful group fund a bigoted version of a film, and people stumble onto it thinking it's the official version etc... Plus, we've seen what can happen when a project is criminally over-funded and the makers just sit on it while throughout the occasional chicken bone of content, a lot of people still donate to Yandere Dev's Patreon. That, and there are still plenty of projects on sites like Kickstarter that fail, or are released and aren't what people asked for. There would need to be a lot of changes to support it, but I don't think it's not worth looking into.

[@Hauntaku]

People who create a bad product end up shaming themselves into obscurity and big names that steal a product to claim as their own also have this happen to them. Butch Hartman stole a bunch of art and lost a ton of credibility. The fan film of Star Wars was more popular that the actual film in some aspect. Doujins are fanmade stories featuring copyright characters but are widely accepted in Japan even when sold for cash

[@Lauloque]

imagine theaters having an onsite panel showcasing movie crowdfundings in the lounge. Want more popcorn?

[@maxtsenov9543]

Love your videos about how companies screw over consumers :)

[@AA-lz4wq]

I mean, even on this case, the main source of problems is government regulations. Companies (and even individuals, really) will use whatever the government provides in order to maximize profit. Right now you're complaining about the rules being unfair, blaming those who benefit from them rather than those who create the rules in the first place.

[@TeleportRush]

@@AA-lz4wq To be fair, I find it unlikely that at least some of those rules weren't demanded by those who benefited through incentives given to the rule makers, creating a perpetual cycle of wealth between the winners and the judges.

[@kkounal974]

@@AA-lz4wq This doesn't have to do with companies or governments but large power imbalances. If these exist, if someone has a lot more power that someone else, statistically there is going to be more abuse, what the thing doing the abuse is called isn't really of substance.

[@AA-lz4wq]

@@kkounal974 But this is unavoidable as every single little difference between individuals is a potential tool to an exponential increase in power imbalance. What we don't want are mechanisms that'll exacerbate these things, state power and an overreliance on policies to "solve" our problems are likely to be abused.

[@AA-lz4wq]

@@TeleportRush Yes, but that doesn't take away their responsibility, if I buy a judge, for instance, yeah, I'm at fault, but at the end of the day the judge is the one abusing their power. Now, you can't make generalzations like talking about "companies" screwing up consumers, even if every single company can benefit from these policies that doesn't mean that every single company "demanded" these policies. For instance, patent laws existed before the owner of Adobe was even born. Let's put it like this, you find a glitch on youtube that can quickly boost you sub count, even if you don't make use of it someone else will, now who's the main responsible for this exploitable glitch, the guy who use it or KZbin? It's the same with patent laws, again, if Adobe wouldn't be claiming certain features someone else would and you'd hate that guy instead, it's unavoidable, the problem isn't with Adobe or any of these companies (unless you demonstrate that they use illegitimate ways to influence the government, which, again, makes government the main institution at fault... and AGAIN this wouldn't mean thar companies as whole are responsible). That said, I highly doubt that every single law passed is the result of lobbyists doing their thing, why are people so in love with government that they immediately discard incompetence as a possible explanation? Now, if you want companies to stop messing around with public policies you don't fight the companies (cut a head and two will grow on its place), you wanna fight the policies and those who make them and reduce their power and influence over our lives.

[@valerian_e_song]

as an artist and creator who believes heavily in the magic of transformative work, you have no idea how much the general concept of this webcomic means to me. It's- downright inspiring, honestly. Who knows, maybe I'll be the one to hop on those motion comics! I think you and your team are going to go far, and even if I can't donate on patreon I will be keeping up with this comic!

[@Jaszcz07]

We really need things like this to gain traction in order to make the world a more fair place. There's way too much exploitation of exclusivity nowadays. Thank you for your work

[@shorewall]

The corporations literally hold back progress if they can't profit from it.

[@irishtank42]

It is an interesting concept, but it is overly idealistic. I think it does show the disconnect between the purchaser and producer and how far that divide is though. I agree the relationship between the two needs to increase to a degree, I don't think intellectual property rights are going anywhere. There is a reason IP was created and many of those reasons are still very relevant. The rights of the individual should not be infringed upon by a group. A bad example would be if a group voted to paint a mustache on the Monalisa, which would have gone against the artist's wishes in all respects. Remember, all ideas in moderation.

[@fcoomega7734]

Your example is bad, people can make another monalisa and pit the mustage in there, not to mention that modifiying a 300 y/o paint isnt a violation of anyones rights'

[@peacemaster8117]

"Remember, all ideas in moderation" ALL? Shouldn't it be "some ideas in moderation sometimes"? Why so hardline? I don't see the point on being half-assed about ethics. IP is morally wrong, so obliterate it.

[@TheItalianoAssassino]

Copyright is dumb in a lot of ways. You're a genius man.

[@wolftitanreading5308]

Hes a moron

[@zacharyloiselle734]

@@wolftitanreading5308 just like your comment

[@snarkspawner]

Interesting concept, but I'm not sure it's as viable for small time creators as you think-- especially ones that have original stories or characters. This concept seems entirely geared towards fan games and fan projects of already existing IP's. 1. Small creators don't have large enough audiences to pull commissions or crowdfunding at a living wage, often regardless of quality. People want to see results before they pay, and even then, some people still don't want to pay for work that hasn't been done. 2. Without IP, it's essentially opening up creative works to mob rule, even for small stories that the author potentially hasn't finished. Once again, benefitting fanfiction/fan game creators far more than the original creator. 3. I'd like to see more of a Valve-like approach to large title franchises-- because fan content isn't bad, nor should it be squashed by massive IP holders. But that doesn't mean the original creators should be powerless either. More laws or exceptions to allow profit for the original creator AND the fan creator is ideal in my opinion. 4. Nobody likes the Mickey Mouse issue because it's not Walt Disney himself owning Mickey, it's a company. Maybe a better discussion should be around whether or not COMPANIES should be allowed to own IP, and if so, for how long and what should be legally allowed fan material?

[@oputoeopucci451]

yes, it is just the old case of someone pointing that something is wrong, the person is right, but when that person start to suggest how to improve it, the person get that wrong. the actual system of copyright is wrong but the way he want it to be he just missed the point. copyright, just like most things in life, is not bad or good it depends how it is used. i think fan work should not be a crime but it should have rules, principally if the fan work want any kind of monetization, just as the original creator should receive the credit or a percentage if someone is profiting for what you did is nothing more than fair. medical copyright is more delicated because I dont make part of this profission, i am a artist, but there"s a big diference betwen a medicine that can cure cancer and the end of one anime that you didn't liked, you will not die because of some series ending, you may die if your medicinal treatment cost 1 billion. and also art is not the same thing as medicine any person can learn how to draw, any person can learn how to make a surgery, what one of those, both having good skills, you will look with fear if they say to you that they don't have a university degree before doing a work for you ? medicine is a necessity, series and games are entertainment.

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

Everything else aside this video also seems to be Throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to copyright. There is a difference between being allowed to sell your Harry Potter fanfic and being allowed to sell your own print of the original books.

[@sinnerthesinful552]

Well, with this system, J.K.R would get the money BEFORE any book was printed, so it doesn't really matter to her if you sell your own copy, besides you'd be competing with the author or a professional printing company using your home printer, and the books themselves could very well be free after the funding, so you'd be the one at disadvantage here

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

@@sinnerthesinful552 Why would anybody give money to JK in the 1st place? Without writing her 1st few books they have no idea who she is. This would make it very hard for new creators to break into the space and would vastly benefit established media creators

[@TheLastScoot]

@@KyriosHeptagrammaton I think it's already similarly hard for new creators to break into the space. Why would anybody buy the book JK wrote in the first place? Because they'd read it and find that it's good. So she doesn't get money until the book's been written. In that case, it's pretty much identical to her writing that one book, and then getting paid to write more.

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

@@TheLastScoot The thing is, under the current system she eventually will make the money she deserves for her book whereas under the pay upfront system her 1st book would never make her any money at all.

[@TheLastScoot]

@@KyriosHeptagrammaton Fair enough. The only real ways to get paid without pledging to create more would be either selling merch, or selling the book as per usual. People would be able to distribute it for free once they buy it, but this only matters once it gets big, and some people are willing to buy official physical releases anyway. Buying an unofficial physical release is pretty pointless (unless the official one is really bad/overpriced), and some people don't like digital releases.

[@jillythefoo]

In the crafting world, a lot of big companies will go through craft shows and etsy and take all the good ideas and mass produce it themselves to put in their big stores. I can see that as a thing with stories and art in a big public domain world. It is a curious subject. I think it might be neat to chose to put one's work in PD just to see all the weird stuff people can spin one's work into.

[@XxjeffersonDkidxX]

The series the chosen is crowdfunded. they are releasing they series for free on youtube and they app. its a perfect factual and practical exemple of you idea.

[@PorthoGamesBR]

Fully locked IP is realy bad, is basically asking for a monopoly to happen. But i think all free doesnt work neither because bigger companies can just steal things from smaller creators and, most of the time, nobody can do anything about it. I think the best way is a payment for usage, so you can use IP but you need to pay some percentage to the original creator based on the sucess of your version. The percentage can be from 20% to less than 1% depending on your actual finnantial power (A company would pay 20% while and independent creator wouldd just pay 1%, for an example)

[@educprof2160]

Companies already do this, The Lion King was a copy of an old japanse film, disney got away with this even tho the copyright system was exactly like the one we have now, copyright only be used by people who have money and time for a lawsuit.

[@Swordflash4]

@@educprof2160 Lion King was a copy of an old Japanese film? You mean Kimba the White Lion? I thought YourMovieSucks proved that that was a myth: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWalYqB_m7aopZY&ab_channel=YourMovieSucksDOTorg

[@JustSomeDinosaurPerson]

@@educprof2160 No it wasn't. This was already disproven.

[@Ethan13371]

If you came up with this on your own, you are one of our generation's greatest thinkers. If not, then you still may become one of the most important influencers solely by compiling wisdom into media until it overflowed.

[@Rinkerbro]

It's literally just saying "copywriting and patenting are fucked", which tons of people have been saying for many years now. He makes a convincing argument for removing intellectual property laws entirely, but it's not new ideas, it's just repackaged.

[@Ethan13371]

@@Rinkerbro thank you!

[@argonhammer9352]

The new marx

[@Ethan13371]

@@argonhammer9352 isn't free market quite the opposite tho? you (probably) say that as a joke, but they have similar energies pointed in opposing directions: More individual freedom at the cost of the supreme ruling class as opposed to less individual freedom to the benefit of the supreme ruling class

[@argonhammer9352]

@@Ethan13371 are you assuming that i don't like Marx? Otherwise im not sure with what you mean.

[@trappedontheinternet]

The biggest threat with the immediate abolition of IP is that big companies will have license to steal ideas and projects from small creators for their own productions- which they actually do have an advantage to do I believe because they already command so much production power and ability to reach a wide audience/influence public perception. However, I think consumers collectively hate large corporations and would, in a crowdfunding scenario, be more inclined to rally behind the small creator to try to prevent abuse when these things occur. (Hence, as you said, there will be more organic incentive than there is currently for bigger companies that want to build off a small creator's idea to settle with that creator and behave ethically.) And on the flip side, corporations would be MASSIVELY losing money by not being able to own their copyrights anymore, meanwhile small creators can completely move into that market completely freely. There's big money to be made making content for existing properties, and a lot of small creators have gotten their start with fan content anyway.

[@GameHero152]

I am so lucky that I just remembered that your channel existed yesterday so I could see this cause I am hyped for this and ready to support it!!

[@AcerbicGangrene]

In a perfect world, this might be a solution.

[@greengummy5664]

I was sceptical at first but I think I agree with you, I want to make video games, and people might steal my ideas but they can't make it the way I can, and it means that people can make as many fan games as they want which I always thought was cool. Like how Nintendo shuts down fan games, I always hated that, they don't even make money of it just let people have it

[@expertionis794]

this needs tons more views. I need more people to know about this whether they agree or not.

[@ritikasharma6983]

So, does that mean that if I create a great manga and earn $1000, and a studio creates an anime out of it and get $10M dollars selling Merch, I should get none of it?

[@_WhiteMage]

Sounds like a crap deal to me.

[@mk_gamíng0609]

Yes, this is exactly what this means in fact if your create a great manga , ANYONE could just take that manga and COPY it word for word and that would be fine. No one would have to pay for your work since they could just take it for free

[@x_stardr33m_x]

@@mk_gamíng0609 Yeah, I respectfully disagree with this video. I want to own my work and be rewarded for the effort I put into it.

[@SeeMyDolphin]

Yes. Why should you get any money for an anime and merchandise that someone else made? How ridiculous.

[@_WhiteMage]

@@SeeMyDolphin If I write a book and somebody else sells copies of it under their name, my work is being stolen. The creation of a book is in coming up with the text, not simply reproducing ink on paper. The former is difficult and the latter is easy; anyone can run a Xerox.

[@danielb677]

Paying for production rather than distribution? Personally I think steam early access is a perfect example of why that’s a bad idea. Paying for something to be developed rather than the finished product creates far too much uncertainty that people just wouldn’t want to risk.

[@TheLastScoot]

If you don't want to pay the first time around because of risk, you can pay them afterwards for their next project, even if you're not particularly interested in that. Or you could buy merch released by them. There's still ways to reward them and get money in their pockets.

[@plfaproductions]

​@@TheLastScootand what if I don't want? Most people would say yes to everything free and even more would not care about the creators, we literally don't care about the shit on our food and objects, why normies would suddenly care about creators

[@TheLastScoot]

@@plfaproductions That option's already open to them 99% of the time. Pirating exists. Plus, certain of the more-risk methods of consumption (long-running TV series that normies watch, but which don't have dedicated fans going out buying merch) can still have similar methods of monetization, just with different incentives. Instead of networks paying to have the right to air it, they pay to have it continue existing for the people who watch their network for that show.

[@arjdroid]

I am not aware of what sources you have used in your research although I want to add that open source software is a great example of an Intellectual Property Free World. Currently, almost all of the planet's internet infrastructure relies heavily upon open source software works and open standards (mainly using Copyleft Licensing) like the Linux Kernel, Chromium / Firefox, OpenSSL, GNU Coreutils, Android, etc. And it is great because everyone has access to the source code and can do whatever they want with it, if they want an improvement to be made, they have free reign to make derivative works that improve aspects that they wish for and it's also better from a security standpoint and leverages the vast open source community to make the software better in general. The flaws that I find with the model are mainly caused by the continued existence and merging of copyright into these matters such as large corporations like Apple and Amazon thriving off of open projects and making boatloads of money while barely contributing back and the fact that most of the open source developers don't make much money and it is still only a side hustle for most. You had also mentioned in your video a bit about how artists who can create successful projects and make a name for themselves create employment opportunities for themselves due to a proven skillset and audience which is attractive for companies. Open source developers [artists] who make successful and popular projects can make a name for themselves which can be of value to companies that want to higher them and thus increases employment opportunity.

[@m5w5]

Fun fact: the semiconductor industry (the industry that makes the electronics in the device you're watching this video on in production facilities that cost billions of dollars) operates almost exclusively on trade secrets. And consumer electronics companies very often "commission" semiconductor companies to design and produce custom chips. By the time a competitor could reverse engineer a chip, the original company is probably releasing the next generation of the chip.

[@StephenHarperRaptagon]

I want to start off by saying that I know you are coming at this from a place of goodwill. And that on the surface this can seem like a good idea. But as a content creator this is a terrible idea, and if we adapted it on a large scale it would actually create worse stories and be terrible for the creators. So I am making a web comic. It’s decently successful for a web comic, not making me much money, but I don't mind that for 2 reasons. 1, the story is something that I made and it is quite personal for me, so I enjoy putting it out and sharing it with others. And 2 I know that it is an investment for my future. You see, I don’t think I would be able to justify the long hours I put into this project if I knew that I was never going to profit from it. That may sound greedy but it’s realistic. Right now I can’t physically do a lot (something that I think you can understand) and this is the one thing I can do with the hopes that I can create something of value to help support my family. But with your system the only value I could get from it is from the work I put into the initial making of it (Which isn't worth it right now). After I am done, the payments from supporters disappear and things get really bad. Because then other people can just take this story that never existed before now, and that only has value because of my efforts, and sell any part of it for profit. What if someone wanted to create an animated show from my work? I wouldn’t get anything from it directly. Just a little bit from those who bothered to look up the creator. The animation company wouldn’t bother to hire me because they already had an outline for the show and could make any changes to my personal work without asking. And in the process make that personal story something else. Potentially losing that personal flair that made it work. If I knew that this was the situation, my story would never get finished. And even then I would never put in as much effort. Maybe tell it to a few people who would listen but never draw any of it. There are more things I would want to talk about with this but maybe I will make a video about it. In closing I know you have the best intentions, but I don’t think that this will work in practice.

[@StephenHarperRaptagon]

@@jemmilam4388 the only reason someone would pay you for a production model is if you can prove that you can deliver a product. That means that any new companies would have zero support for their work as no one would have trust in them to make the product. This is why big companies fund smaller risky ventures because it is nothing right now, but has the potential to become something. But it is only when it pays off that it becomes valuable. But with this model, that value is given to the public instead of the creators or funders. And if you are working on something and get zero support, abandoning it for something else is never going to go anywhere because no one trusts you to finish a product. He used the example of people waiting for things from Amazon as a example of people waiting for things without instantly getting them. But every item on Amazon already exists and you can get a refund if the product is broken or not as advertised. If you are paying for production, you get nothing but risk. Every crowd funding project makes promises them can't keep. If you has ever run a patreon, you have made promises you can't deliver. Because right now I am working on a production model with my comic and the pay is terrible and I know that everyone supporting us is doing so as a charity. They get very little back for what they pay and I often have to do extra work to meet their expectations. And when I ask others to support us they say they would buy a finished product. I am living off of production. With the hopes of reaching distribution. He is coming from this with the idea of a youtuber who has had success making videos, and very generous patreons. He has benefited from making an art form that can be quickly made in large quantities (in comparison to most) This system would never work for movies or shows or any art that takes a lot of time to make

[@luminomancer5992]

@@StephenHarperRaptagon But it in small form but is working for those stuff, blender the 3D software, is going on because people want more features from it and the creator can promise and deliver. corridor crew, rather recently made their own site so you can get a subscription and decide which production that money is going to, essentially paying for that show or short movie's production. star citizen, despite not being to deliver on alot of aspects is still being financially supported. and in your first comment you say that you are doing it now for little pay for the purpose of better pay in the future, and that is still what the video implies you do, you do a teaser, or a small personal project, for the sake of gaining trust of the consumer, so they pay for your future productions. hell as the video suggests you can piggyback off of other projects, essentially fixing what others couldnt deliver, for the sake of the recognition and trust you need for people to fund your own project.

[@StephenHarperRaptagon]

@@luminomancer5992 Blender is an open source program and not something I want to get into right now. I am far more concerned with story IPs. Corridor crew is paid from their subscriptions because they are constantly delivering content. Compare that to any blockbuster movie where they spend two years working on one project and release something that could be watched in 2 hours. This format only works for quick lower quality content. And star citizen may have made money but it failed to deliver what was promised. Turning many people off of the idea of crowd funding in general. When you pay for production, you are at the risk of the product never being made. Which is why many people wait for the product to be finished before buying because then they know what they will get. The video implies that you can do a teaser and gain interest in the project, but if you have ever seen a teaser you know that more often than not nothing comes from them. He made the claim that people won't just let something they care about die, but even if a few people really care about something that doesn't mean that there will be enough funding from crowd funding. In fact, blender, corridor crew and star citizen all have huge investments from large corporations who are supporting them. In many cases so they can get profit from the end product. But if IPs are eliminated the end products are worthless. If every piece of art becomes free when it's released, why would any company invest money in them if they won't pay off in the future? Support of any of these projects becomes nothing but charity

[@silverdamascus2023]

I still think that no, copyright should exist, but should be reformed to benefit small creators and fight against corporations. In a world with no copyright, we would still have a problem with huge corporations exploiting the work of small artists.