What 'fair use' is and how copyright is choking the internet (PODCAST E70)

Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring! Go to hellofresh.com... and use code 50ragusea for 50% off plus free shipping!

[@r.emmettmurphy6090]

I am a lawyer who focused on IP in law school, and not only did you do a great job giving an overview, but more importantly, you highlighted the vagueness of the lines between it all wonderfully!

[@SuperSmashDolls]

You might even say they're... "Blurred Lines". 🕶

[@commander5640]

I don't fully understand fair use

[@frankfurter7260]

No one “focuses on IP in law school.” You focus on it by working in a large law firm with an IP dept., like I did. I didn’t listen to the podcast. However, the internet is the greatest source of copyright infringement of all time.

[@shadowgirl]

Though i can’t speak for everyone, i’m personally here because i could listen to you talk about almost anything for an hour (or more). I always look forward to the weekly pod

[@derek8315]

Agreed. If he stops the main channel vids I would be fairly indifferent, but would be very disapointed if the podcast stopped.

[@marvnch]

Agreed, Adam makes anything interesting and I find his commentary and presentation really rich.

[@gypseetim]

I totally agree with @shadowgirl :D

[@malemd]

I concur

[@bzymek7054]

My favorite example i use whenever i discuss the pathology of the length of Copyright law is this: I was born 33 years after The Beatles broke up, and i will probably not live to see most of their songs go into public domain. Because that's gonna happen 75 years after both Lennon and McCartney die, and the second one is still kicking.

[@meneldal]

I think it should be life of the artist + 20 or 30 years, whichever comes first (20 years for corporations). Corporations can always release a new "special edition" that is slightly different to get a new thing under copyright if they feel like it.

[@mukkaar]

@@meneldal Personally I think what would be fair is system like this. People in relatively good health can usually live to something like 80-90, so if person dies before 90 that copyright will extend to till when they would have been 90 or if they live longer till they are dead.

[@grlnexdoorable]

​@@meneldalI think that seventy five years is to protect the income of the artist's heirs.

[@Aubreykun]

@@meneldal It was originally 15 years. Most books are out of print within a few years of their publishing, and it's way shorter if they're not popular. The point of IP constitutionally is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors[...]" - Last I checked, competition drives innovation, and an author's/inventor's heirs are NOT the author or inventor in question. That latter point I think may be an angle to challenged any "life-plus" ruling court via long long legal battle at the minimum.

[@backpages4910]

It's 75 years after the death of the copyright holder.

[@ststst981]

The closest we'll get to Adam acknowledging the YTPs Edit: i know he hasnt seen them but fumny enough most of the big ones with him atr not sexual with the humor

[@philidips]

I'd call this acknowledgement pretty thorough.

[@danielhill8551]

How could he have acknowledged it even more?

[@duubiousdisc]

@@busimagen the vast majority are not about sex. A lot of them are just using out of context, absurd clips of adam to make it seem like he is a terrible cook, or that he eats absurd creations. Although, I'm sure there are sex ones I have never seen them. They are mildly funny, and i would 100% say that they are fair use. Its not trash content, but if you've never seen one you're not missing much.

[@theantithesis1]

Is that still going on?

[@alexandernordstrom1617]

It's kind of crazy how effective the filter bubbles are at keeping apparently old people like me completely ignorant of so many of the new weird parts of the Internet. And honestly, I don't feel like I'm missing out terribly.

[@baylinkdashyt]

7:16 - two guys, covered in internet news a few years ago, have already done this. They've created midi sequences of every possible combination of notes to a certain length, and put them on a hard drive. 88 GB or so, and copyrighted everything. I'm on the road but I'll find the story later.

[@samposyreeni]

The depressing legal counterpoint to that string of thought, if it ever came before a court, is that since copyright law substantively protects the incentive to create something of artistic or otherwise expressive and uniquely recognizable value, it does not protect anything in a wholly systematically autogenerated corpus. At most a narrow, creative selection from it. In a suit, rather certainly you'd have the recording companies pointing out the fact that aleatoric modern classical music exists, and is widely held to be copyrightable. So why is it, if it just came from a random flip of a coin? Obviously because of artistic selection in both the form of randomness, and the selection from the final run of the algorithm. As such, it's quite likely that a judge would hold it more material that you couldn't possibly have run through all of the autogenerated library in order find your melody, than that you just copied somebody else - which then hurts the underlying interest of copyright law. I.e. it's not originally so much about the eventual end product. It's about the process by which you ended up with it. Now obviously that isn't how it works anymore; for some queer reason, maybe because of evidentiary hurdles, copyright law isn't enforced on the footing that the claimant has to show ill intent. True, *demonstrable* copying from an identified source, instead of, say independent reinvention or unknowing cultural perpetuation (very common especially in melody and harmony in music). But so it now goes, and I'm willing to bet my literal pants the big movers in many artistic industries would turn *right* back to original idea in case law. They might even challenge the copyright status of the generated database of tunes beforehand on multiple grounds: 1) it's not original creation/novel, 1a) in the human sense of the word, 2) it doesn't fall within the idea of "a work", but under the separate idea of a "data set" or "database", which also confers protection, but *only* as a *whole*, not within its line items, and of course, 3) a countersuit might be raised on the premise that by using such a database as a defence, you were knowingly deceiving the court, since you purposely manipulated justice on a false, needlessly technical premise, unconnected to your creative endeavors. Now, I'm no fan of IP. With the exceptionj of trademarks, I'd do away with all of IP. Anti-hacking laws, too, and whatever. I'm from the longest time "The Free Speech Absolutist" even Elon Musk couldn't comprehend. But here and now, that's not how it works. That's why I understand @aragusea's idea fully: if we have to have these laws in place - I as a political libertarian and Finnish Pirate Party member don't think we do at all -- it's that that idea of replacement and unfair competition is where it's at as a law an economics, efficiency idea. As a societal and moral whole. It runs through the whole idea and history of IP law that it ought to incentivize something useful in the economy, against its immediate harms of hurting reuse and curtailing further creativity. Just don't do that, okay? It's not too difficult to sculpt legistlation to that effect.

[@hoylemd]

I think Damien Riehl is one of them - he popped up on my instagram feed talking about this and also claimed that defendents have used that database to win these lawsuits. Dunno if it's true, but it's lead if someone wanted to research further

[@abelvd]

Another example of crazy KZbin copyright claims: Back in the day we had a Death metal band, we uploaded our own full original music video for a fully original song. We got 3 copyright claims in different days, taking away the earnings of the first week of the release, so basically all the earnings we could get...

[@CCRoxtar]

Damned if you sing an original, damned if you sing a cover. You can't win either way.

[@spudd86]

Fun fact about software and patents: Up until either the late 1970s or 1980s it was assumed you couldn't patent software because it is *math*, something that is explicitly outside the coverage of patents. So nobody did. We should probably go closer to that. (Note: I say this as a software engineer)

[@Sammysapphira]

It's almost a fact that software would not be where it is today if it weren't for massive collections of free open source projects. Imagine if you had to pay $4 every time you used an npm package or a cargo crate. Imagine if you had to code all your own abstraction and dependencies from SCRATCH due to aggressive copyrighting of code. God forbid a searching algorithm is copyrighted. I think the idea of trade secrets and non competitive patents are out dated and just don't belong in modern time. The fact that any kid can boot up blender and become a 3d artist and animator is beautiful. It used to cost upwards of 500 smackers for a license for a 3d software.

[@jasonnong3305]

lol without open source I wouldn't even have half of my projects made

[@devluz]

Fun fact: Patent 5,838,906 in 1994 essentially managed to patent browsing the internet ... luckily it was kicked out in the 2000s for being too broad. Still I think it shows that the system is entirely broken. Most inventions are absolutely trivial and only make sense in the historical context.the first one to stumble on it gets the patent ...

[@tann_man]

and we are coming closer. The open source movement is evidence. The internet has been a wonderful tool in dismantling the evil monopoly system that is IP law. It allowed anyone anywhere at anytime to copy data which was and is and always will be infinitely replicable.

[@calebbridges4748]

Yeah as a mathematician and academic I just wish information were freer. I wanna be taken care of. And I wanna stand on the shoulders of giants to learn. But I didn't "make it myself" imo.

[@deersakamoto2167]

Have Stephan Kinsella on. He's a patent lawyer who believes copyright laws (as well as other IP laws including patents) should be abolished. His book "Against Intellectual Property" is available for free online as well

[@Aubreykun]

Kinsella is great! Definitely recommend his work.

[@jmacd8817]

While there absolutely needs to be a massive overhaul of them, the argument that they all need to be abolished is simply moronic.

[@Aubreykun]

@@jmacd8817 Why do you think copyright is ethical to begin with?

[@meneldal]

I do like that he follows his own ideas and doesn't sell the book for money.

[@tann_man]

@@jmacd8817 What exactly is the argument that you assume is so moronic?

[@technetium9653]

To put how oppressive copyright is, my grandma is within the age range of Beatlemania back in 63, my 3 year old nephew will never see 'any Beatles song go into public domain, copyright being 4 generations is absurd

[@Seltyk]

Adam's views on YTP are pretty based. "These videos are stupid, but they are transformative, and they generate new culture." It is alarmingly rare that someone in Adam's position actually recognizes this fact

[@HipkissDesign]

Sure, but his condescending tone is pretty lame. There's very much a haughty undercurrent of "this is stupid, low-brow content and if you like it, that's fine, but I do think less of you for doing so". Then again this is Adam we're talking about so the haughty undercurrent is kind of agiven.

[@StephenWorth]

I work for a 501(c)(3) non-profit digital archive serving film makers and artists. The Millennium Digital Copyright Act and the U.S. Copyright Office have provided expanded fair use provisions to digital archives serving the public, but KZbin and social media doesn't recognize that. They don't even have a liaison at their company that interacts with non-profits on these issues. When we create an educational video that follows fair use guidelines, we get copyright strikes. We contest it, explaining the context and our status as a 501(c)(3) the strike is upheld with no explanation. Our channel isn't monetized. We serve educational purposes. The guidelines say that we can do this. But because KZbin isn't designed to deal with organizations like us, we are treated like a copyright scofflaw. It has gotten to the point, where we have pulled back from KZbin and several social media platforms. We only use them to advertise videos that we share on our own website. But our exposure is extremely limited. We aren't able to do the good work that we should- not because of laws, but because of KZbin policies and automation.

[@aayambasnet548]

I admire the breadth of your knowledge, and your ability to write about these topics in such a wonderful way. Keep up the good work, Adam!

[@SunBleachedYouth]

The only thing worse than getting a copyright claim is trying to get a sample license for a song owned by UMG. The representative basically blew me off and wouldn’t tell me how much it would cost to get a license for an old Oscar Peterson sample. I got cold feet and pulled the song off Spotify because I was worried I would get sued for Copyright infringement.

[@LennyMill]

Incorporation is a wonderful thing. Be the Phoenix you were always meant to be, fly my pretties, fly.

[@RandomDudeOne]

It's absurd that there are old movies still under copyright where all the actors in it, and everyone who worked on it, have been dead for many decades.

[@Domcrad]

"Flowers are in the commons." Monsanto has entered the chat.

[@Ewenique]

I transcribe songs I like into sheet music, which seems transformative enough to consider fair use, but difficult to defend as the purpose is to literally mimic the source material with a different toolset. I tend not to dispute the copyright claims that come in, but find it’s always worth checking who they come from- I’ve been claimed by other KZbinrs’ covers before, which seems super fishy. Thanks for the podcast, as always :)

[@CCRoxtar]

Fishy indeed. Those who posted those other covers don't even have standing to claim your cover.

[@thinge4me]

0:06 I know it wasn't intentional, but the subtle head movement brought in more sunlight as you said "copyright law". It was both intimidating and angelic at the same time...

[@HubrisInc]

Be Not Afraid...

[@hwstar9416]

another problem is video game companies not allowing youtubers to make videos playing a game. It's not like someone is gonna watch the video instead of playing the game (unless the game is a visual novel or something like that). Nintendo had a whole system a while back where you can't make videos playing their games without being affiliated with their program (although afaik that whole thing is over)

[@WARnTEA]

I disagree. I am one of those people that will watch games to save money instead of playing them. With that said, I probably wouldn’t have paid to play the game in the first place, which is why the general stance by videogame companies to allow gameplay videos makes sense because it serves as a free marketing tool to increase the overall sales of most games. In general fighting to protect your products or knowledge is typically a bad move. The execution is the hard part and what customers tend to respond to most. There are plenty of great innovations out there that get ignored by the general public. Being transparent about your product, encourages customers to trust you and buy from you. Even on a personal level, if you are an expert in a certain field, holding onto your knowledge is often the mark of a fool. By teaching others what you know, you increase your own status as an expert, and you build relationships with people that can introduce you to bigger and better opportunities, and often times teaching people what you know will increase your own understanding of the subject and occasionally result in experiences where the student teaches the teacher and evolves the general pool of knowledge by adding to it.

[@deefdragon]

one of the things that I would love is if the thing that grants the ability to make covers automatically could be applied to everything. on top of an extension of fair use. current copyright law is negative to cultural remixing in more than just fair use.

[@OrigamiMarie]

I would argue that the epigraph could actually increase the number of people who are reminded of the copyrighted work and go pay to consume it.

[@uniworkhorse]

All hail Lord Ragusea, our benevolent father who graciously lets us create YTP in peace without fear of copyright claims

[@energuminum]

I understand the argument of "as long as it doesn't hurt profit from it, it's fine", this has A LOT of holes in it. And it's a good thing we don't have that, as you said. If it was as you said, a billion react channels would die, but also a lot of "let's play" channels would never exist. Which might be fair, right? I sometimes watch videos on a game before I play them, to see if I'd like to play it. Bu this would ruin channels like Game Grumps which play video games and comment over it constantly. Sometimes they're talking about the game, sometimes they're just talking about their lives or making jokes or just whatever, and I'd argue it's just as transformative (in some cases) as anything else. I wouldn't want every video they ever make to be a subject of a legal battle.

[@kristianlamprecht4831]

“Plagiarism is necessary; progress implies it.” - Guy Debord

[@SuperSmashDolls]

6:57 Copyright has already thought up of a defense against the "10TB hard drive with the world's best MIDI chord pack on it". Bots that create art (e.g. Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT) are not humans and thus their contributions to art are not copyrightable. So effectively if you do publish every song ever, it doesn't matter, because a human did not physically sit down and compose each one of those songs.

[@alan2here]

a single 2.5 second clip is basically always fair use, use a no-lose no fee lawyer as used by various large youtubers, fees come from the other side, abstracts away a lot of busywork

[@jedisilvr]

Adam knows the video will be over an hour long before he's even recorded it? You may say he knows how quick he talks and can estimate based on the length of the script, but I say magic

[@ioanbotez7128]

No, he's just talking backwards, so that was actuality the last thing he said. He then reversed the audio file and boom, done. Easy.

[@Nicksonian]

I suppose Adam got out of journalism because he didn’t like being edited or having to write concisely. He likes to show off how smart he thinks he is way too much and most of these videos could be a third as long and much more watchable. Sometimes I scream, “get to the freaking point” just before turning it off.

[@jpkotta]

​@@Nicksonian Personally, I like the style. For better or worse, it fits how my brain works.

[@dadjokes2815]

Well, Adam used to work on the radio, so knowing how long it takes to read the script might have been a necessary skill.

[@Nicksonian]

@@jpkotta I suppose if you have nothing else to do all day, his style is fine. Although I wasn't a writer, I have a degree in and was a career journalist, and spent some time as an editor. His style doesn't fit that of an old newspaperman.

[@trickvro]

Patricia Taxxon has a pretty good and thought-provoking two-parter on KZbin called "The Golden Calf" making the case for abolishing the concept of copyright. Recommended watching!

[@AndrewGillard]

Oh cool, thanks for mentioning that. I've been following Patricia for a few months (some of their music was included in a video I watched, and I followed the description's credit link, IIRC) but I hadn't scrolled very far through their channel so I never saw that. I've now added both parts to one of my _many_ "watch later" playlists 😅 I also appreciate that part one is 13:37 long 😹 To help others find it: RGRKTw-DWfw (I have no confidence in full URLs not flagging this comment as spam...)

[@skybluskyblueify]

"The nature of the copyrighted work" sounds like the answer to the question "How do you know it is fair use?" A: "Because the way it is." Yup, that helps./s

[@ymi_yugy3133]

I don't find the "interfere with market of the original work" criterium particularly compelling. A sampled version of a song and its original might be duking it out in the radio or streaming charts at the same time and can totally interfere with each others market. A parody of a movie character might become so popular that no one can take the original serious anymore. Someone may only take a tiny part of some code for a totally unrelated purpose and then someone else takes a small part of this code and builds something that competes with the original. The main problem with the competition criterium is, that it's pretty tough to judge if and what impact your use can have on copyrighted material or if the material you use contains other fairly used copy righted material.

[@Aubreykun]

I overall agree, however the most recent case of Warhol v Goldsmith resulted in the court's opinion stating it was a very, very narrowly-set decision as they were competing for the exact same magazine, and had other contract obligations. So courts may be moving towards the competition argument being extremely narrow in scope to limit speculation.

[@Erik_Swiger]

Great video, Adam, very useful and helpful. I'm working on a channel of my own, and copyright and fair use are huge, obvious concerns for what I plan to do. Thank you again.

[@GEInman]

Thanks for the overview: trade secrets, patent, trademark, copyright. As a retired librarian, copyright matters! As a current poet, copyright matters! I appreciate the mini-course.

[@tann_man]

No.

[@chezmoi42]

Greetings, fellow poet. How do you find that copyright affects you in your own writing? In online workshops, I've seen beginners who carefully mark their work as copyrighted. Most of us never bother; recording it, virtually or on paper, has always seemed sufficient. In any case, I've never had any fear that someone will steal and claim one of my works as their own. I've used epigraphs (with appropriate attribution, of course) from Virgil to Marianne Moore, and am a huge fan of building found poetry and parodies. I don't think I'd be offended if someone sampled my work as I like to do.

[@GEInman]

@@tann_man Thanks for the response. What leads you to say "no" ?

[@GEInman]

@@chezmoi42 Thanks for your response. I participate in a local weekly writing group. The poets in the group established the convention of copyrighting our poems. I use it because it helps me shift my self image from "librarian" to "poet." I use copyright to help me to image my work as "art" instead of "scribbles."

[@chezmoi42]

@@GEInman That's interesting. I have friends locally who write poetry, but they tend to attack weighty and personal subjects. I prefer to frequent an online workshop, mainly during April. My work is about imagery and sound and the capture of butterfly moments on the wing. Inconsequential is the word that springs to mind, but there are connections to be discovered, and new ways of looking at the world. I write what pleases me, and leave it up to the reader to find joy or value in my work, as I would if I were a visual artist. No amount of ©marking will cause them to do that.

0:15 “about an hour long discussion of copyright law” man, i watched from the sidelines the “copyright wars” unfolding in the early 2000’s internet. I saw the birth of the Creative Commons org, read 2 bajillion explanations about copyleft and endless discussions about the goodness/evilness of the viral clause of some licenses. I’m pretty burned out of all that, but happy to hear Adam’s take on the matte, 20-some years later.

[@orrenlane]

Hey Adam. As a long time fan of your work and listener of the pod, and one of the uh.. definitely childish individuals who has made an Adam Ragusea YTP before, I'm happy you don't have a downright negative take on something like that. I was surprised that you even acknowledged them, lol. I make them out of a deep appreciation for the source. I have NO idea why YTPs are how I choose to express my creativity, but I'm glad you're not one of the people that go after those making transformative remix content out of your content. Just wanted to express my gratitude that you don't mind people making stuff like that.

[@grantbosse6437]

Now we just need Dre to sample you singing “Go ahead, make my day”, and take the case to the Supreme Court when Warner Bros sues.

[@austinbell4685]

The Sheeran - Gaye controversy is reminding me of Dizzy by Luna, probably my favorite non-electronic band. It's literally a boring cover of Jump by Van Halen with different lyrics.

[@notapplicable7292]

As someone that watches tom scott's copyright law video for fun I'm offended you wouldnt expect me to be all over this.

[@gabrieljennings5492]

I became fascinated with copyright law due to being into hip hop and weird music in the early 90s, notably the Negativland classic U2 album (and ensuing book "The Letter U and the Numeral 2", which I highly reccommend, it's very entertaining and informative). As somebody who always loved repurposing audio creatively (or... not creatively, in some cases lol), Negativland and De La Soul getting sued hit hard

[@KilledWithStyle]

(sarcasm) In this video: Adam pitches several videos for others to use freely because he won't sue for that idea.

[@lettuce1626]

I haven’t seen much Adam ytp but the ones I have seen don’t mention inappropriate stuff at all. The one I remember the most is just a compilation of Adam breathing and its hilarious

[@robertkendall6660]

Adam, due to the length of the video and the fact that I’ve been busy recently, I broke this into three viewing sessions between 20-40 minutes each. I’m wondering if you know if this affects your pay out (or if that is even knowable due to the trade secret nature of the algorithm)? I appreciate the content. It was very informative.

[@PurpleNoir]

Haven’t listened to the full episode but I love the podcast as always adam ❤

[@t918theblade]

I think the solution to this copyright abuse is to put in more of something called “anti-trust laws” which protect consumers from monopolies and predatory business practices. We need to put in more of these, but for copyright.

[@justwhistlinpixie]

Didn't Adam Neely interview someone who created and posted the "omni-melody"? Exciting stuff.

[@thesquirrel6141]

"What the cool kids might call "selling out" is actually what enables you to NOT sell out. " That needs to be said more often. People have an inverted idea about how to be successful AND retain their creative freedom.

[@Spabobin]

"I am sleeping with my cake" is about to be the new "Coolsville sucks"

[@TheRepublicOfJohn]

Dang, I'm really late to this one... I completely disagree about the Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye dispute. I'm not a BA in Music or anything but I did pass the AP Music Theory exam 14-15 years ago and did another year of music theory in college and have been making mashups and remixes for fun over the past 12 years... and the compositional differences between "Thinking Out Loud" and "Lets Get It On" are demonstrable, articulable, and remarkable... the melodies are very distinct in comparison to each other, in terms of contour and motion, rhythmic patterns, intonation and expression of the vocalist., etc. I didnt even kinda hear the supposed "copyright infringement" until someone pointed me toward the chord changes... and it was surprising to me that a I-iii-IV-V chord progression was the only identical trait

[@Jcewazhere]

Copywrong needs fixed. It should be affirmative on the part of the content owners, and there should be punishment for their failed suits. No more "well this looks kinda like it might've come from something we temporarily hold the rights to so we can sue on behalf of the people who actually own the content" (copywrong trolls) or "well you're tiny and I have a lawyer on retainer so I'm going to sue just to quiet you down" (slapp suits and similar). The rights also shouldn't last nearly as long, and should not be renewable. 25 years is what it'd put it at. Patent rights too, especially for public goods like medicine, but I digress. Thanks for another good video.

[@swankshire6939]

Your analogy/request of an AI that generates music and copyrights it wont work. You can't copyright AI made content, that's already been established

[@PurpleNoir]

That sounds kinda like a paradox, the AI-generated content has stolen from numerous copyrighted/watermarked artistic content, so you really can’t copyright an amalgamation of stolen material.

[@revmaxproductions]

First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the freedom.

[@TheMimiSard]

Two thoughts on how I relate to copyright issues: Skibidi Toilet has issues with the use of "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" as the Speakerman theme, and even the snippet of "Give It To Me" by Timberland that is in the Skibidi remix. There is more issue, it seems, with reaction channels for the first one, but though I haven't checked myself, it seems some compilations of the whole series has substituted the second for something less at risk. Maybe DaFuqBoom is avoiding the issues by not featuring the music themes clearly in more recent episodes, since newer parts of the series seem to be concentrating more on action and story. (Can you tell I have become a Skibidi fan of late?) The second is Fanfic. Fanfic culture is shaped by copyright, and remains a free market because if someone tries to make money off a pre-existing franchise, they are at risk of copyright suits. Like, if a fanfic writer wants to go original, they need to "file off the serial numbers" enough to avoid suits, meanwhile AO3 is a non-profit that lives on donation by the users of the website, and donation drives will pop up every few months. I think fanfic readers and writers respect it because the drives end up being filled pretty quickly.

[@thefareplayer2254]

59:53 He did it! He did it! He acknowledged the YTP videos! We’ve won!!!!🎉

[@jpkotta]

This is already a super long video, but I wish there would have been a mention of copyleft, the GPL, and Creative Commons licenses.

[@jeanschyso]

Adam singing Persona 4's "Heartbreak, Heartbreak" song was very funny.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

This reminds me of Flanders filing taxes: Cash register ink, that surely is a business expense. But then again I do enjoy the smell of this stuff...

[@karmicxkoala]

A good example of the specific combination of words in a (kind-of) recipe being a trademark is one that is immediately recognizable, at least to those in the US: "Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun"

[@yourguysheppy]

Video games are rife with copyright/patent nonsense too. Infamously, Warner Bros patented the concept of having a persistent nemesis for your character. It's one thing to patent code and assets that your team created, but being able to lock down an entire idea or concept from every other developer is utter trash. These laws weren't built for "new" media like KZbin or video games, and need to be reformed tbh. Adam never misses with these pods, though. Keep it up boss

[@doc8125]

Not to mention all the fuckery nintendo has and continues to be up to

[@AdityaMehendale]

"Music-Bot" 7:07 - that has already been done - there was even a TED-talk about - about a year ago now.

[@VulcanLogic]

I think they should demonetize all reaction videos (to other videos). That's not fair use. That's talentless hacks using other people's content for commercial use.

[@jacktaylor9917]

Adam the reason I clicked on this despite being the "season you cutting board guy" is because im a political viewer first, and a food enjoyer second. I love the way you meld the two better than any other channel. Youre my comfort youtuber because you make me think about global issues while i make my dinner

[@uniworkhorse]

59:55 Holy canoli it is a momentus occasion, Adam finally acknowledged YTP

[@LiraeNoir]

25:45 "they would steal your intellectual property"... no they would not. To steal, you have to remove something from someone's else possession. If I steal your orange, I have it and you do not have it anymore. Illegal reproduction of something under copyright is, legally, like bootlegging. And not stealing. Which is why most jurisdictions tend to treat it alongside counterfeiting and similar laws, and not alongside theft, burglary, etc.

[@Aubreykun]

Thank you. The amount of people who insist on calling it "stealing" is such a headache.

[@LiraeNoir]

@@Aubreykun it's something said colloquially, I do it too. But not when there is a proper debate or discourse, and certainly not for a formal writing or content produced. Although, Adam's point go even further than that with an interesting third case: 1. If I repost his podcast on my channel, I pirate it, as in I bootleg it, I infringe on his copyright and possibly trademark if he has trademarked his name or show title. But I don't steal it, because he still has it. 2. If I copy his podcast, and go into his channel to delete the original video/pod, and go into his computer to remove his source files and various assets, then I steal that video. I have it, he does not. But I still haven't stolen his IP. 3. To steal his IP I would need to probably do all that (it would help), then present him with a contract saying I'm now the sole owner of that video/pod and his pen or his brain will sign the contract to that effect, then and only then would have I "stolen his IP".

[@Aubreykun]

@@LiraeNoir In 2's case I don't see that as stealing, it's more like trespassing and vandalism - ironically moreso trespassing by violating youtube's property (which they "rent for free" to Adam, or you, or me) in the same way going into the boiler room of an apartment building that you rent in and messing with the boilers would be trespassing and vandalism. In 3's case, assuming he does so without coercion, signing over his IP would be just a contract. If there's coercion involved it's that... coercion. Or extortion specifically. Which are their own unethical things.

[@szaszm_]

Adam Neely made a video about actually generating all possible melodies, and thus owning copyright for them. He did that to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the pretense that that is copyrightable. I treat fair use more conservatively than your description, but I would love to live in a world where what you described was clearly and unambiguously the law. I disagree with the part that attribution should be mandatory: there are many transformative uses that I don't think need to include attribution, and even if it may be nice to give it anyway, I wouldn't use the force of law to require this, or only in cases where substantial amounts of the copyrighted work was used. Reaction channels that just play the content and snicker over it is definitely not fair use.

[@DougASAP]

Please include a link for the "When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore" T-shirt. Great episode!

[@suburiboy]

Emplemon has a fantastic video memoir about his life as a YTP creator. I recommend it.

[@radconman]

I have to point out that School actually has 3 lines. Adam omitted “You’re in high school again!”

[@TrulyZer0]

God Adam, I hope youre right that Ragusea pod listeners do, in fact, vote. Voters that listen to this pod are something that we need more of in this world.

[@andrewhiebert6499]

“Roll over and take it because you’re scared” is gonna be in the next one.

[@devashok4242]

I watch at double speed, everything ends orettys quickly, so its fine for ne to watch these long podcast, since they will end in half an hour or something, I could watch at even faster speeds but KZbin only goes till 2x, the only downside is, you think everybody is speaking pretty slowly immediately after watching a video, music still need to be listened at normal speed, movies and shows are to be seen at normal speeds, but I get bored with them pretty quickly

[@thejavilobby]

I just stopped doing reactions on my KZbin channel because the copyright claims are outrageous. Glad someone with your level of following is speaking out about it. Thank you!

[@fatzzke]

59:42 Adam talks about the use of his videos for YTP

[@Craxin01]

I never liked listening to any KZbinr bitch and whine about how unfair KZbin's algorithms deal with copyright and complain that KZbin is being the big mean. However, this was an hour and a half of much more thoughtful introspection with a little winging about how bad the system is. MUCH easier to listen to, IMO. You often speak on issues other KZbinrs do that irks me, but you do so in a much more pleasant and thoughtful manner, so I am down to hear it.

[@nikkihavers6432]

I had never heard of YTP before, so I had to immediately go out and find one of your channel, a commentary on how you take simple dishes and add additional, extraneous ingredients. If I choose to watch the comedy of the YTP instead of the education of your source material from now on does that make it no longer fair use?

[@syriuszb8611]

Patents were good idea on paper, but today, they do the opposite. Firstly, there are copyright trolls who patent garbage that they have no idea what it could be used for, but somebody could invent something vaguely similar and then they can sue him and squeeze him out of his money that he earned with this useful invention. Secondly, patents are prohibitively expensive for garage inventors and even small businesses. But for corporations, and patent trolls, it's pennies. So if poor person invents something, he gets no protection, or has to sell it to the big company. It is even worse than you think, since small person need to patent everywhere to protect himself from corporations that have global reach, but corporations and especially patent trolls need just to target few places that are prone to invention in the area they target. And you need to defend your product, so if you don't have a legal team, you basically don't have patent protection. Thirdly, if your invention is any good, you will be able to buy it on aliexpress few months later anyway. Patents in practice only limit invention in US and EU. Fourthly, with so many people sharing so much information today, with so many issues and ideas that arise every year, it is a given, that multiple inventions, ideas will arise independently. So why only the first person that got enough money to patent it should get all the rights? Fifthly, the bar to what is patentable and not is very low. Often those patents end up in court that decides that yes, this was nothing new. But only corporations can afford that. Example- SpaceX and Blue Origin reusable rockets dispute. (yes, no garage inventor will build reusable lifting rocket, but imagine any other invention dispute). Often those obvious ideas are getting patent protection.

[@chrislorusso433]

I love your idea of an AI bot creating all the possible song melodies and then declaring them as creative commons. Too bad that such a bot would be created by Apple, Google, or Amazon and all those melodies would simply be registered as their copyrighted IP.

[@SuperSmashDolls]

46:47 An economic system that just rewards you for just possessing capital is not capitalism. It's feudalism. The defining feature of capitalism is that the economy is dominated by businesses that make money from active income - i.e. working and selling shit people want - in contrast to the passive income scam that is just, say, owning a manor and having peasants pay to farm it for you. Or, in modern terms: owning Amazon and having your suppliers pay you to sell on there.

[@commander5640]

Thank you for making this video, I've learnt so much from this Hi from Australia

[@LennyMill]

Copyright isnt choking the internet, platforms who are too lazy to put a shred of effort into the process of determining whether a reasonable copyright claim has been made is choking the internet. 90% of the videos taken down from copyright strikes are fair use. Fair use isnt the problem. Its the fact that you get forced to expose personal details to a stranger to defend yourself against a claim that is CLEARLY fair use

[@Bluedragon2513]

Would love to see you have a conversation with Destiny over the issue of copyright as it pertains to streaming

[@Aubreykun]

Destiny has stated that if he was in charge he would violently suppress dissenters, so please do not have him on.

[@Bluedragon2513]

@@Aubreykun That sounds terrible if true, but he's generally liberal, which is antithetical to your alleged statement

[@fruitylerlups530]

Destiny is a pseudo-intellectual who over evaluates his capacity to discuss topics, Adam Ragusea is humble but also actually knows how to read a paper.

[@Bluedragon2513]

@@fruitylerlups530 Destiny himself does research in the topics that he is interested in. He has done streams where he openly reads research aloud and has written full manifestos (documents of information). I don't think he is merely a pseudo-intellectual.

[@Aubreykun]

@@Bluedragon2513 If you watch the "discussion" he and a couple others had with the Sitch & Adam show a couple weeks ago you'd see his true colors.

[@SpareMango]

Best ragusea pod yet

[@tristan7216]

Nah bro, it'll be the opposite. Intellectual Ventures will build that bot, copyright all the melodies, and make billions suing everyone. Look them up if you don't know who they are. IP law has steadily increased in scope over the last 3 decades, and it's strangling the economy and making life worse in all kinds of ways. Devices being un repairable, out of control pricing for old drugs, software patents, business method patents, non compete agreements - all of that is IP law. This is all unproductive, people suing over miniscule changes or just to assert power. You've stumbled onto a small portion of a large and growing problem that's eating the world.

[@blankspace0000]

The Coca-Cola thing is fucked up. People deserve the right to know what they're putting in their bodies.

[@logicalparadox2897]

This is possibly the best thing you’ve ever done. Bravo. Lead the charge!!

[@Kierangaliano]

Wasn’t expecting Adam to come out swinging against Ed Sheeran 😂

[@CCRoxtar]

I got a CR strike for having sung a cover of Bryan Adams' song "Hey Honey, I'm Packin' You In." Because the claimant is Universal Music Group, one of the megacorps that own most copyrights these days, I don't dare challenge the strike. Instead, I took down all my remaining vids as a damage-control measure; hardly anyone ever viewed or commented on them in over a decade anyway. I never monetized any of them, esp. given that nearly all of them were covers. I always prefaced my singing with a note about who originally sang the song, perhaps with the subconscious hope that anyone watching would become curious about the original & seek it out. In the Bryan Adams cover, I even noted what album his song appeared on: Waking Up the Neighbours (1991). Except for that one, artists seemed happy to let my vids stay up, probably so they could get a li'l ad revenue from them. Claims were fine with me, but after the one strike, I don't have any vids up anymore. Commentary may be protected by fair use, but a homemade song cover using a simple guitar & microphone is less likely to be. We are long overdue for serious reform & clarification, both of copyright AND of fair use, so we small amateur creators can have a better idea what our rights & duties are. Above all, thank you for this in-depth, philosophical analysis of the current legal & social landscape regarding these twin issues (copyright & fair use).

[@InfiniteQuest86]

This was probably as good a job as anyone could do explaining this, but there is at least one glaring mistake. Patents do not necessarily go into the public domain. There are secret patents (aka classified patents). These exist because if someone at NSA for instance comes up with a way to decrypt all internet traffic, then they may be eligible for a patent. But releasing the info would be super damaging to the entire world economy and stability. So they get a classified patent. The other issue is that reverse engineering something is very often times actually illegal. I can't reverse engineer a proprietary image compression algorithm and then go sell it.

[@michaelwalker4977]

Is there a time limit on those appeals? You may still be able to go after van halen's record label

[@40nights40daystv]

Personally I can’t stand react streamers like xqc or Hasan. They legit just steal from smaller creators and their excuses are lame as heck man. No edits, no transformative analytics…just “wow dude” “no way” and “oh my god” while eating or leaving the video paying while going to the bathroom. All the while they get the copyright pass from Google because their huge creators. Personally I think creators need to spam copyright on these ppl, don’t let them get away with it.

[@Rizzo91]

I think my favorite example of getting around KZbin copyright strike is the upload of the entire movie "Tenet" in reverse.

[@grlnexdoorable]

If someone were stupid enough to share a big enough corporate trade secret getting sued would be the last of their worries. When money is involved I'm convinced somebody that stupid would meet with "an accident".

[@Jcewazhere]

YES! Do the react thing! Especially to TV show food. For example the Babylon 5 episode where Garibaldi wants to make Bagna Cauda. Or how bout DS9's "rolloped azna" The Asgard's food pellets from Stargate: How could those work, would they be food or just fuel?

[@grandmothergoose]

I'm 6 months late to the party, but I found this video interesting, mostly because the law about fair use is quite different in Australia, because we don't have fair use, we have fair dealing... it's very similar, but more detailed. For example, copying a section of a book for educational purposes is allowed, but you're only allowed to copy 10% of it. Most reaction videos on YT would be considered in breach of fair dealing because most people that do such videos show more than 10% of the copied video. Technically, making and posting on social media a meme that uses a copyrighted photo is a breach of copyright law in Australia... not that anyone cares, so long as no one complains no one is going to do anything about it.

[@joogergo1]

I'm a law student and I've never learned US copyright law, so I'm intrigued, hence listening

[@MedalionDS9]

Dude, love the Star Trek shirt... yes the Next Gen era is the best

[@quinn3334]

you’re gonna anger The Mouse

[@trennonclapp7930]

You've got good research. That's why. :)

[@mctit]

This isnt my spare time! I'm "working"!

[@dwaynezilla]

It's messed up and probably telling that stuff in the zeitgeist is essentially paywalled by corporate interests in the pursuit of perpetual profit.

[@idratherbeatthebeach4752]

Why? Because you do your research and I appreciate your take on a wide variety of topics.

[@sarahbuck2506]

All here for the Adam Ragusea Reacts channel

[@sasmiain3323]

8:33 if we inflected based on truth value in English, we wouldn't ask this question