What if Copyright Law Reverted Back to the 1790's?

Copyright. Fair use. Things I’ve discussed at length before, and will discuss at length in the future. Today, I don’t talk about it too long. Like 8 minutes or so.
Anyway, here’s the vid I mention at the start;
• The Lawnmower Man: A F...
I wanna get more vids out on this channel, just been busy with Whimsu stuff. It’s close to 40K subs so that’s cool;
Here’s that link;
/ whimsu
And all this is…yeah. Thanks patrons, if any of you are reading this. Any contribution helps a ton, and one day I’ll be able to hopefully give you all something great for all the support.
Twitter: / whimsuhubty
Soundcloud: / user-503704039
Patreon: / theknowledgehub
Second Channel: / @seaburgerdotorg2154
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/3STpe...

[@CivBase]

Honestly... this all sounds fine. Everyone is already making remakes, they're just limited to their own properties. Who cares if Illumination was the one to remake Ghostbusters instead of Sony? It's still just a bad remake. And that doesn't take anything away from the original. Were this to happen, I imagine people would probably, eventually become even more sick of remakes than they already are. Remakes would gradually become less profitable, the values of IPs would degrade faster, and studios would be more incentivized to create new and original works instead of cashing in on nostalgia. That sounds great to me.

[@bodaciouschad]

Agreed. The scenario described would only harry the current trend of reboots and remastering to it's end. If anyone can remaster anything that is old enough to deserve a remastering, why on earth would a studio even bother? At a certain point, smaller companies and independent creators would have eaten the collective reboot and remaster lunches of the film and video games industries, leaving little incentive to farm old IPs any further for the large corporations with the capital to take risks on new franchises.

[@Isometrix116]

I was about to say pretty much exactly this. I’m completely for this change.

[@peteranderson037]

If copyright law never changed in over 200 years then corporations would just abuse the shit out of trademark law instead. Honestly, there's nothing preventing them from doing that now other than the fact that they don't need to because copyright laws are so stringent.

[@brickman409]

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. I usually like Knowledge Hub but this was kind of a dumb video.

[@tiffyw92]

@@peteranderson037 This right here. Wishing for an ideal world where people don't have to worry about some hated thing is one thing, but reality has shown across history that said hated thing will manifest itself in some other form one way or another.

[@AlphabetSoupABC]

If there were 10 different Shrek 2s in the theater, I would watch every single one of them

[@themaskedperu-man5547]

You after Binge watching every Shrek 2 Flim : Finally After years, I finally watch them all

[@raeldri5867]

OMG THERE IS A TIMELINE WITH 10 DIFFERENT SHREKS! we really are on the bad timeline

[@BeaglzRok1]

and then be the first person to make a Shrek 2 Tier List, kids still love tier lists right?

[@TammyJerkChicken]

I’d have to give some law and order by going to them alphabetically by director

[@MDLuffy1234YT]

Genndy Tartakovsky's Shrek 2 is the best, even if it's not in our timeline.

[@ThisCreativeBastard]

Oh no! We'd get a whole bunch of bad remakes of older movies and ... WAIT A MINUTE!

[@ButWhyMe...]

@@boldCactuslad Oh yea, Twilight zone would be pretty cool to see again.

[@BrandonWhatTheF]

I'm from the future. Where bad remakes are concerned, y'all ain't seen nothin' yet!

[@FlameLFH]

"The industry would just burn out over the course of 10 years with predictable reboot and remake patterns." Considering everything is bought out by like four companies, we're already headed that direction.

[@RoyalKnightVIII]

The only difference would be is that the wealth from them wouldn't be concentrated in just a couple of hands.

[@leshacke1041]

​@@RoyalKnightVIII this is why copyright laws are some of the most corrupt laws of our political system.

[@slap_my_hand]

People would realize that soulless reboots aren't fun to watch, and after a while everything would go back to normal, with the only difference being more free stuff.

[@Deathington.]

There would be more garbage remakes and more good remakes

[@cranknlesdesires]

@@Deathington. by god I can't imagine that. Like that isn't happing now. Whoa. This is sarcasm. It is happening now. Art by corporation is dead already.

[@ThePooper3000]

Not *just* free stuff, but *fresher* free stuff. Under the current copyright system, a lot of properties that become public domain are culturally irrelevant. Who cares about what your great-grandfather watched nearly 100 years ago? Under a 28-year system, you would get more relevant things in the public domain, and more regularly at that. At least an IP would become free within the average audience member's lifetime: you could've watched Star Wars when you were 5, and then film your own version at 35.

[@oswalds8355]

And it's not like we don't have plenty of soulless reboots in copyright world

[@matheus5230]

@@ThePooper3000 I don't like how you are implying that older art is worse

[@NACHOXXX4]

That shit would stop being profitable and we would move on to the next thing. There are thousands of sherlock holmes, christmas carol and greek mythology versions and yet they don’t clutter the market because it wouldnt be profitable.

[@sergiowinter5383]

God of war is proof that there is a market for mythology, problem is the movies itself were bad and no great director wanted to make a project about it.

[@Horatio787]

@@sergiowinter5383 Exactly. If Christopher Nolan for whatever reason made a movie about Greek Mythology, more people would go see it because of his name than the mythology.

[@raeldri5867]

I would rather have 10 bizarre creations based of a loving franchise than one bad reimagined just to milk the brand

[@dylanbuchanan6511]

YES. 100% AGREED. I want something that sticks out in my mind for being bizarre and taking risks than something that just panders to the masses.

[@alphayun7401]

i agree, and i think if we could live in a world where everything is in the public domain would be a utopia ,also where anyone can use anything for creative work only (ie non profit)

[@Great_Olaf5]

Except that's not what it would be. It would be ten bad reimaginings to milk the brand. Or maybe 9 and one passion project.

[@themaskedperu-man5547]

@@Great_Olaf5 It was still Care And Effort than some Corporate shell want some Quick Bunk

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

​@@alphayun7401Thank 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.

[@DJstarrfish]

"Immediately, you'd see attempts to remake every major film" So it's just like the world we currently live in then

[@hotmailcompany52]

I'd think there'd be more but I think the industry would learn quicker though because of it and we'd also get some pretty cool ones in the alternative copyright law IMO cause of crossovers and such lol

[@Phil9874]

@@hotmailcompany52 honestly batman in the mcu would be cool they would just have to make it work thematically

[@hotmailcompany52]

@@Phil9874 ngl a DC and Marvel combined universe would be cool but difficult to make lol

[@Phil9874]

@@hotmailcompany52 I mean yeah but that is a challenge to be overcome not something to never be attempted.

[@akumarajio2691]

I point to HP Lovecraft. Everything with tentacles might be called Lovecraftian but in reality those that actually incorporate the horror and existential elements well are by far made better by the influence. I point to Robin Hood. A work built upon generations of different authors over time to present a relatively consistent canon despite shitty knock-off adaptations. I now point to the corpse of star wars. A thing left to rot and decay because of corporate influences and shitty exclusive handling and barely a hint of decent spin-off works. Really at this point the only things that should be allowed to be enforceable in this are trade secrets, trademarks and other things that could reasonably hurt another product or the producer of said product via something like malicious deception.

[@gmt-yt]

To say nothing of Star Trek, holy cow... however I suppose the fact that this could be an endless list doesn't prove any point since there have been a lot of media over the years and only a relatively small slice of it is any good by most peoples' standards.

[@ministerexharme]

I absolutely love "The Thing." The concept, the story, how it plays out. I would love 10 more movies that try to be extremely similar, but try something different to draw in more of an audience. It's no different from shitty bootlegs IMO

[@akumarajio2691]

@@gmt-yt It proves that a property can operate fine if it was in the public domain and in reality that copyright barely does shit to help a property and only becomes a cudgel for people with money and a team of super lawyers. I didn't even touch the concept of piracy either...

[@DacLMK]

Star Wars should die. The first 6 movies were enough.

[@gmt-yt]

@@akumarajio2691 l think we're on the same page roughly. I think the whole notion of intellectual property is a deontologically and legally indefensible grift and injurious to mankind. ATM we're too addicted to go cold-turkey, but I see it as something we should be working to get rid of over time, like lead pipes and coal-fired power plants.

[@ivancorredera4241]

As crazy as this concept is, it sounds more promising than what we currently have. Many fan projects of Nintendo properties have been struck down by Nintendo themselves for instance.

[@sookendestroy1]

Well tbf a lot of nintendos strikes are ligitimate against projects. For instance Pokemon Uranium was shut down after a ton of work went into it and everything. The crux of it being they called themselves Pokemon which they didnt own the rights to. If they called the project Uranium series for example they could probably pass but they called themselves Pokemon. This is a whole mess of things you have to maneuver through when working in or adjacent to someone elses intellectual property. Though how they strike even youtube reviews is just blind fire copyright

[@theprofburg]

@@sookendestroy1 It's funny you should mention that because recently there was another Pokemon fan fangame called Pokemon: Xenoverse, however they managed to learn their lesson from Uranium's downfall by officially calling themselves Xenoverse: Per Aspera ad Astra as a way around Nintendo's lawyers.

[@TrueEnding]

What if the project was made completely anonymously, like theres no credits, no website, no email links, no twitter account attached to it. Who are there going to send their C&D to?

[@jons5478]

This sounds like forced creativity via survival of the fittest

[@flaviaocopeiro]

Yeah, but in a world like this we would get yearly ea and activision mario and zelda games

[@yat282]

I think this hypothetical scenario misses an important detail. Audiences basically wouldn't go see most of these movies. There's no way to know what would be more successful, but similar to the video game crash of the 80's the lack of quality control made to pump out stuff from familiar brands slapped on it would cause people to just stop going to see most movies, especially those based on a previously existing property. However, I think it would eventually force movie studios to continually create new properties and franchises, instead of remaking the same properties over and over for 60 years

[@sergiowinter5383]

The biggest the market, more important Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes become.

[@maxillebastille9079]

You know that ain't true

[@Mr_Monolith]

You say that but people still complain about sequels and reboots of properties they love but see them anyway

[@joeyramstad8529]

Agreed. This is a great way of actually putting market control in the hands of consumers. Sure it looks like we influence the market but really we don't. Did we show up to the new star wars movies because we were certain they would be works of art, or did we flock to the theaters because it was the first star wars property made in years. If anyone was free to offer up an adaptation of star wars, people wouldn't show up to the ones that didn't look worth their time, and instead opt for what actually has the strongest appeal.

[@christophercook9693]

Hey so the argument "it would be worse because remakes" isn't a good justification on it's own to extend copyright law. It's paternal, and it assumes that we as consumers can't be trusted to watch things that we actually like. It feels like an argument made by copyright companies to keep their assets safe than something we actually should be worried about.

[@Phanton404]

And then we have the Touhou Project, where the creator lets anybody use the characters/setting/music as long as they credit him which results in ''fangames'' being made by large dev studios and what not.

[@ponponpatapon9670]

if only copyright law was like this

[@orngjce223]

@@ponponpatapon9670 You can be part of the change by asking creators to license their works under Creative Commons (mine are already)

[@SomeGuy1117]

There would be a bit of chaos at first (likely an investment bubble in the entertainment industry), eventually things would quickly get oversaturated though leading to the bubble popping as audiences don't show up meaning that the investment put into those knockoff titles would be wasted. This would cause massive divestment from such projects unless there is strong enough demand beforehand with the market eventually finding equilibrium. This ultimately means that after the initial boom bust cycle we'd ultimately be left with a more consumer friendly environment that allows for more projects to be explored by other teams outside of the corporation or creator of the property.

[@thicksunroof4687]

I would be 100% for no copiright for the possibility for everyone to work on eachothers projects or products Everyone would win I mean if people would watch it is fine but market rules and workers would have more demand consumers would have a better offer

[@FelipeJaquez]

Disney and Viacom: *eldritch screeching*

[@zombieranger3410]

[VICTORY ACHIEVED]

[@merrittanimation7721]

"The evil has been defeated"

[@corv3007]

But the health bar begins to refill

[@AndreGriffiths1]

Breaking this system puts the emphasis on the artist rather than the art/franchise. One could argue it would create a system where talent rises to the top rather than corporations who simply own numerous properties

[@neptun6761]

Get rid of intelecual property

[@dylanbuchanan6511]

I have the exact same opinion.

[@cranknlesdesires]

Yeah, like how people are more loyal to the game of thrones books than the show. Or how people have headcannons and cannons built on selected works and fan theories of Star Wars and Star Trek.

[@Horatio787]

Tarantino sells better than Frankenstein.

[@checker297]

@@neptun6761 you need some IP laws, because otherwise why even invest in something when your competition which is larger/more efficient etc can just distribute/make it cheaper and easier thus we would enter dystopia.

[@asriel09]

Y'know a lot of smaller creators are effectively living in their own bubble where copyright doesn't exist at all, some of them even think that intellectual property could be abolished all together if we restructured the economy to make it work. With small creators, they earn a reputation working for free and when people start rooting for them or want to help them make something big, they give them money in advance. As opposed to copyright, where you simply use your ownership of the property to gatekeep who can view it in exchange for money.

[@maldonr2758]

That sounds aweome, a decade of chaos and then all studios crashing and burning, let's do this!

[@johnnygyro2295]

All empires burn eventually...

[@tardvandecluntproductions1278]

They will suddenly invest in new IP, it's currently cheaper to not to

[@dylanbuchanan6511]

Yeah. Creative chaos. One insane remake after another. I’m totally behind this.

[@daniel_rossy_explica]

You are one of those kinds of people that actually want to see the world burn, now don't you?

[@41-Haiku]

@@daniel_rossy_explica Not the whole world, just the "artistic" organizations that behave as if art was described to them in passing once.

[@maxotis4686]

I'd still take it over the corporatism we have now.

[@_MysticKnight]

Corporatocracy not corporatism.

[@Touhou20246]

I would also rather have this then having to treat elitist millionaires and billionaires like god like beings and be forced to blindly agree with their philosophy of conservative philosophy.😑👍🏻😅

[@cranknlesdesires]

@@_MysticKnight Corpratism is the journey and the corporatocracy is the destination🥰

[@_MysticKnight]

@@cranknlesdesires No. Corporatism is something completely different from corporatocracy. Corporatism is a political theory that suggests that society should be organized like a human body (corpus in Latin), through institutional corporate groups (which are comparable to human organs) such as families, clans, guild associations, business associations, scientific associations, military associations, agricultural associations, etc, on the basis of their common interests. Corporatocracy is a political system dominated by large business interests, directly or indirectly.

[@flowgangsemaudamartoz7062]

@@_MysticKnight Thank you for this free information.

[@YourPoopDealer]

Honestly, I think that the most reasonable copyright law "time period" would be simply until the original creator dies. After all, their kids certainly didn't make it, and arguing that it should continue to be some sort of asset that allows future generations to make money off of it just irks me. While there would be a (metric fuckton) of crap that gets produced, we've seen a similar thing in the past. The stuff that no one likes often never gets preserved unless purely for the sake of preserving old media. So as time goes on, not many people would remember an illumination-made MCU, but if say Christopher Nolan made his own, then it probably would be looked upon more favorably. I'd think that in some way, if multiple groups are competing to make the best version of something once it enters the public domain, we'd actually see them trying harder since the stakes are raised. In short, I'd prefer more over less, because while more means "more shit" it also means "more gold". Burnout might seem like a bad thing, since having 12 different iron man movies come out at the same time, or 10 different MCUs would be a headache to deal with, the fact that corporations couldn't just rely on old properties forever to make their big bucks, since competition would follow behind soon after and probably cause that burnout, it could also force companies to either milk something for everything its worth before it goes public, or try and create new properties, though that an idealistic vision in the age of the megacorp. Also, it's fucked up that it's just kind of accepted that "yeah, this corporation has more money, so even if you're in the right, you're probably gonna lose". Pretty terrifying if you ask me.

[@quapin8174]

I agree on the life time only but when conversed with other people about it, I remember sometimes works only get popular when someone dies. I say lifetime +7yrs maybe. I wouldn’t be against only lifetime either

[@CivBase]

I generally argue for 25 years or a few months after the death of the creator, whichever lasts longer. That assures publishers and investors that they'll get their return so they'll continue to invest in developing and supporting creative works. It also assures the creator that if they die shortly after creating a work, the profits of their work will be able to support their family for a while and take care of potential debts. And if they die suddenly, there is some opportunity to get things in order and prepare for the work(s) to transition to the public domain.

[@loganvurklemeyer1957]

If the work comes to the public domain when the creator dies there could be a big problem where major writers are murdered to let the rights be used by the company that sponsored the killer. Incentive for murder, and big companies would be able to dominate over murder suits via cash. Marvel wants to make a Harry Potter movie? Kill JK Rowling. Small creators could die mysteriously right before a new movie begins production using their things. A good way to get people shot.

[@agme8045]

@@loganvurklemeyer1957 I was thinking exactly this, companies could just begin murdering people in order to profit from their copyrighted material. Creating successful stuff would be scary if you knew that’d lead to companies wanna murder you.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

I think it should not exist at all

[@conradborba4324]

Disney: b-b-but I thought reality can be whatever I want 😨

[@themaskedperu-man5547]

Fandoms: More like OUR reality can be whatever WE want

[@floridaman318]

@@themaskedperu-man5547 damn good point lol

[@TomyDayos]

I am really angry at disney.

[@aruce9]

no... this is the reality disney wanted we are in. because they wanted to protect steamboat willy from entering the public domain. They are the enemy of public domain.

[@DacLMK]

@@themaskedperu-man5547 Communism intensifies

[@TheGuyWhoIsSitting]

I don’t exactly see everyone rushing to make a million different movies based around what’s currently public domain. Honestly I’d add a caveat that if the company that owns the property doesn’t do anything with it for a substantial amount of time then it would go into the public domain. It may mean garbage stuff in order to keep their stuff going but sometimes it would probably end up being more of a financial loss to the company than just letting some stuff die. Copyright law is effectively indefinite now anyways. I don’t think people would undervalue new stuff either. Besides even with the current system Disney could still argue that you taking the original stuff they based their movies on that is in the public domain and you tried to make an original animated version or something based off the source material that you were ripping off their stuff despite the fact it’s public domain sourced. It’s a mess.

[@jaspervanheycop9722]

Well there is the proud tradition of having at least one "re-imagining" of Sherlock Holmes, Arthur, Robin Hood or whatever other British folkhero out every year. But honestly that's not bad at all. There's obvious drek but that is instantly forgotten (like that Taron Edgerton Robin Hood), but we also get great stuff like The Green Knight (imagine if we couldn't have that because the rights still belong to Guy Ritchie).

[@matheus5230]

@@chestnut4860 I hope you're not implying that older art is worse

[@scienceface8884]

Garbage films to maintain exclusivity already exist. There was a Fantastic Four movie in the 90s made on a budget of whatever was in everyone's pockets when they showed up to work that day. It was never meant to be seen by the public, only to fulfill contract obligations.

[@lurkalisk]

I do wonder if this scenario would have simply prevented modern franchise nonsense in the first place. After all, much of this insanity has ramped up largely in step with various corporations' (mostly Disney) efforts to extend copyright. Never extending copyright lifespans may have just meant things never got to be this way at all.

[@bjorntheviking6039]

The short-term chaos of suddenly shortening copyright duration is vastly outweighed by the long-term benefits to the American culture and entertainment industry. Shorter copyright means there's a greater incentive to produce original works.

[@ayye4329]

To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to this. I think it would be chaos for a while but eventually it'd stabilize on a better situation than the one we have today. If someone has a better version to tell of a story I like, which was made in the last 20 years, I'd be all for seeing it instead of having to wait until after I die so the copyright can expire for it to be released (the earlier Disney movies were made based on public domain material after all)

[@gansmith]

I do believe that it could create an era of chaos, but having burnt out audiences will be incentivized to look for new stuff. Just look at the growth of the indie scene in gaming after many gamers got tired of the current AAA market.

[@Cableguy15]

Yet AAA games are worse than ever, making more money than ever. And all of the mid-sized companies are dead or bought up by said companies. I'd rather have what we have now than that equivalent in Hollywood.

[@gansmith]

@@Cableguy15 That is more a result of the rather new economic model that predates on children and game addicts. Just look at mobile games. AAA games simply do not receive the same hype/support they did in the past. Many tried to go full P2W like mobile and got blasted for trying. The number of indie studios is now MUCH higher than what it was 10 years ago despite huge studios gobbling up the smaller ones.

[@ModernWhoFan5B]

Me looking at the video: Gee, wonder how much it changed in 50 years. Me less than a minute later: Oh, wait, 1790's not 1970's. Well, this just got interesting.

[@theFLCLguy]

I don't think it would be as bad as you make it out to be. Yes there would be a ton of crappy movies for a bit but when they didn't make money they would stop and start focusing on making better movies. Right now it's not about making a good movie it's just about keeping the rights to movies. And what about all the good remakes that would come from it?

[@bobross4886]

There’s already a ton of crappy movies now. Sometime chaos is a good thing.

[@morescodesup2087]

Yeah I didn’t really get his points on why this is gonna suck

[@TuesdaysArt]

Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant, but wouldn't it incentivize companies to make more original content if they couldn't just have a monopoly on a certain IP for a century or more? Why make another Shrek movie when you can make a new character only you have the rights to use? I suppose you can argue this will just incentivize companies to essentially make recolors of existing characters and change just enough to allow them to have exclusive rights for 28 years, but is that really going to be worth it in the long run?

[@hamboid4998]

Maybe it'll force companies to have more original ip's instead of making old rehashes. The problem we see today in cinema, movies and video games too is that tons of companies can just sit on valuable properties and milk it, so if everyone could do the same thing these big wealthy companies can do, it would create a market that values different experiences than ones just from the shear amount of unoriginal content being pumped after the 28 year copyright rule.

[@TuesdaysArt]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this...sure, some of those IPs might only exist to create a loophole, but it might also mean we actually get to see new and interesting characters for once.

[@mathieuleader8601]

fun fact Congressman Bono former husband of Cher successfully made the Mickey Mouse act into law allowing Mickey to be under the hands of the Disney company

[@TheItalianoAssassino]

This actually sounds amazing. Like the early Internet. Pure chaos.

[@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368]

I'm looking forward to all those copyright-free Game of Throne memes coming out in 2130

[@connorbanepoop]

This situation is still 100x preferable to what we have now. A lot of negatives here you mentioned were pretty obtuse. When it comes to media the market regulates itself pretty effectively. Oh nooo more competition between corporations to provide the best iteration of an IP THE HORROR? I mean seriously.

[@clockworkdeity]

There wouldn’t be as much of an incentive for a company to sit on it’s property, churning out poor quality products until someone is willing to buy up the IP.

[@The_Jovian]

This all sounds good to me. Public domain works get remade all the time but no one complains about that oversaturation because they're mostly unknown. In a market where no one studio owns the rights to something forever, the cream of the crop will eventually be filtered out.

[@ToxicAtom]

despite being framed as negative, I honestly think this future sounds awesome. So yeah, abolish copyright revisions.

[@The_Jovian]

Just abolish copyright full stop. If I can write Lord of the rings better than JRR Tolkien, that's on him.

[@organicleaf]

@@The_Jovian copyright itself is good tho, its just getting abused to death. imagine making *something* and someone just taking it and selling it as their own, i would be pissed, but i couldnt do anything about it

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

Yes, exactly and it should be abolish for good. While I'm also on the side of abolishing copyright but also wanting to be changed for the better. This copyright law is broke as fuck and for some reason; nobody seems to be talking about it despite being a very serious issue for me (including anyone else as well). Like, it caused nothing but chaos and arguments over "who should own this or not", People getting constantly sued for no reason other than using copyrighted characters and claiming to be stolen (but nobody was intending or trying to steal anything) and leaving/spreading fear among artists without giving them freedom while companies get to keep the IP/Character(s) all to themselves without sharing anybody else (which pretty selfish and greedy). This is why I personally like public domain so much because it gives filmmakers, animators, game developers and artists the liberties/freedom to create something new with the IP and show much/some passion on the IP that they or we grow up with. I've seeing many people online how creative they are, wanting to create comics, books, games, shows or movies on the IP we love growing up, coming up with cool pitches and premises that could change entertainment and having many folks who have cool ideas with their own set of vision, Before anyone says something, yes, I'm aware that they're some scumbags out there who might take advantage of this and make an idiotic cash grab so they gain money, I know it's annoying but NOT everyone are like that; they're people out there who wants to make something that they love and I support that. But for some reason, people don't seem to appreciate creativity and brush things off like they meant nothing, which leaves me frustrated as hell. But what angers me the most is that we can’t have the good stuff because of DISNEY! They extended the timeframe because they were scared of LOSING the rights of Mickey Mouse. Okay, I get Mickey is iconic but he's not THAT iconic and yet, they decided to do something idiotic, stupid, cowardly and selfish without thinking on how it might affect other IPs. Sometimes, when someone has something they created, they cannot keep it all to themselces luke that FOREVER! We need to either change and/or abolish copyright, so people can have the freedom and liberties they deserve. No more DMCs, C&D letters or unnecessary lawsuits. Just free content to enjoy. If I could change the time frame, personally; I would shorten it down to 4 or 6 years. I know it's very short and a bit limited but at least it seems very much fair to me. But hopefully someday it gets changed for the better and hopefully people can find a way to do it. I know it will be hard ti do it and I have hope but sometimes I feel tired of seeing shit happen to people. Hope you folks understand what I feel about it.

[@theonebman7581]

I legit thought this was Cody's channel at first, ngl *I hope Cody does the same with his next video and gives it a Tyler-touch*

[@Ditidos]

@@roguetoa9787 No, back then Cody was the narrator but it was Tyler the one who made the scripts, I think one of them mentioned it but I haven't checked it again.

[@AlcoholicBoredom]

You do realize it’s the same guy doing a slightly different voice, right?

[@sergiowinter5383]

@@AlcoholicBoredom That's good conspiracy

[@Illuminationsfromtheattic]

I think the end result would be to actually be more originality in media, as it would no longer be profitable to hold on to and remake old properties.

[@calebricks4890]

That Despicable Me and Blade Runner crossover sounds hilarious and also horrifying. Maybe the Minions have been androids all along...

[@hamelconsultancyllc]

Disagree completely. People will still go by brand - people are going to see the big ones and the og ones. We see this with many other products - brand loyalty is very real

[@Frogman1212]

You underestimate the power of marketing

[@cranknlesdesires]

@@Frogman1212 people still are waiting on the proper ends to the game of thrones books.

[@cynthiarios271]

lol i missread the title as 1970s and was confused when you started talking about the 1700s

[@owennorcross4407]

I must agree with your opinion on the over-saturation of reboots and remakes though I would agree that the releasing of everything in the past 28 years would still not solve the constant bullying that is going on between small creators and big corporations.

[@KH0LRA]

This, its something people defend because "oh they're a business and they're doing what they have to do to protect their IP!"

[@AshnSilvercorp]

So everything would look like what current YTP and memers already do on the internet... That's fine with me.

[@randomdebris]

I would like to see copyright to be more differentiated? Sure have 90 yrs of copyright on your exact story, but let other people create their own derivative works playing in the same universe after 15yr? Make use of the same characters after 30yr? If copyright is property, why not tax this property progressively with time? Maybe to protect authors make copyright non-transferable, only licensable for 10 yrs at most after which it reverts back? Maybe limit the copyright of works which are no longer available? Etc…

[@ministerexharme]

100%

[@sergiowinter5383]

@@ehhwhatevericantthinkofago8903 Law is usually impractical.

[@raptorfromthe6ix833]

still more realistic than what most comments are saying

[@XxXVideoVeiwerXxX]

You aren't embracing the absurdity well enough bro. If everyone can make whatever property fairly after x amount of time, that is perfect. Let natural selection weed it out. Sure it would be chaotic at first, but when fans make better products than companies, they earn and grown from that. It levels the playing field. Saying "companies can do this too" means nothing, they already have the keys to the castle. Allowing independents create and mix and match old IP's will only benefit the little guy.

[@alicesmith255]

You mean to tell me the gripe you’d have with it is this pretty cool notion that we could get both fan and studio productions of a lot more stuff (that probably wouldn’t be saturated too much bc people would get extremely bored of just seeing 50 remakes of a 90s sitcom so that kind of thing would die down pretty quickly) …and not the theoretical reason why copyright law was created that it gives the author a sort of safety net, so individual creators could potentially see the earnings from their creation greatly diminished (i despise copyright law as it stands now but that was the tall tale/“original intent” behind it)

[@Zones33]

There needs to be a meeting with congressional leaders that represent modern day media platforms to rewrite these outdated laws. KZbinrs, artists, streamers, influencers (Yes, I know), and anyone else who believes they use and create media fairly.

[@sergiowinter5383]

Cute for you to try to reason with evil.

[@LunaExpiX]

My idea of this law. The copyright date gets reduced to 30 years. If a company goes bankrupt or falls out of business, they loses all copyrights. But the catch is that while the company exists, you can request your copyright to be protected. Even if it is protected, if your company goes out of date it will be put into the public domain. This pleases both companies and fair use.

[@felonyx5123]

The concern of literally every studio making their own Shrek, I think, is unwarranted. Movie studios and TV networks do keep an eye on what each other are doing. They generally want what they make to differentiate itself from the crowd, and that would be the definition of an overcrowded market. Once say, Warner Brothers hears that 2 other studios have already got a Shrek reboot in the works they're going to reject any Shrek pitches for a while. There'd be an initial mess but eventually things would reach the same point we're at with things like Robin Hood adaptation, where someone comes along with a new take every 5 to 10 years but we aren't being flooded with multiple competing adaptations in theaters at the same time.

[@YouW00t]

Honestly, I see people on board for watching 10 versions of Shrek 2. Heck, they would make a holiday in which they watch all of them on the same day.

[@alphayun7401]

and people who complain about canon, well they would just be different canons to different universes

[@Horatio787]

@@alphayun7401 Star Wars is nearing 3 separate canons at this point. Canon isn't sacred even to the people who technically own or even made it.

[@t.d.writer1589]

No but this is probably how certain myths (especially the Greek and Middle Eastern) either borrow from each other, seem inconsistent, and some of the gods have alternative identities. There was never any copyright holding back a certain writer bullshitting another story about Zeus. The chaos may be warranted though, the mythical characters still had a basis. It'd be cool to see Spiderman fight along side Minions to stop Voldemort from conquering Bikini Bottom.

[@Whatever100500]

And we just accept that Zeus/etc are different dependent on actual setting.

[@Mohamed-lz2yx]

Who remembers in the early 2010s when every movie and cartoon was on youtube for free in full?

[@iveedoodle]

personally, i think if this were to happen, it would be Very Good Actually. Because over time people who want money will finally realise that quality makes more profit than quantity. Originality will finally be back! and fanwork could get a chance to become mainstream, something like fifty shades of grey, but it would keep Bella's and Edward's names wouldnt have to be changed because of copyright.

[@TuesdaysArt]

Hmm...I'd argue that having fan fiction writers "scrape the serial numbers" off of their fan fiction could be beneficial. Anastasia Steel feels like a different character to me than Bella Swan and EL James is free to expand upon that character. Of course, it would be nice to get to see fanworks get expanded upon on a larger scale...but if an author wants to take a risk and establish their own IP, they should be free to do that as well.

[@iveedoodle]

@@TuesdaysArt fair point, but also fanfic writers would still at least get the choice of making their own original work from the fanfic material, or keeping it as fanwork and still make money from it either way. Currently fanfic writers can only benefit from their work if they change the names of characters or have a patreon or something (although, i heard that wattpad is letting fanwork get monetised, I'm not sure though, they could be only monetizing the original content)

[@Taunocturna]

My mom is a fan of Cinderella, this is property in the public domain so there are literally hundreds versions of the film through the world. There is a moderately high profile one at least every 5 years. The vast majority are straight to video with no name actors and actress or the cheapest animation possible.

[@trygveplaustrum4634]

Could you imagine a good live action Fantastic Four movie? Or a good Green Lantern movie? I'd like to see those someday. Shame I can't.

[@bodaciouschad]

Well, I can't help with the sub-standard 4 franchise, but if you want to watch a good Green Lantern movie, you could always watch Deadpool with the saturation on your tv set to 0 while squinting.

[@sergiowinter5383]

Make a indie movie with a lantern that is green, easy

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

Yeah, I can already vision it. It would be cool to see a Fantastic Four or Green Lantern movie made by someone else (either a hollywood or independent filmmaker) who actually knows the source material with their own set of vision. I even have other ideas on how to adapt Marvel or DC projects into film or show.

[@siwoksiwok]

Imagine is youtube copyright is doesn't exist forever, except claim, strike, fair use, always been public domain in every youtube video

[@DasGreenCow]

Public domain idea: once a property has been made, the creators own the domain for 20 years. If they make a continuation, sequal, remake, etc, in that time and in a similar medium, they retain the copyright for 20 years from that release date

[@technetium9653]

We could see how this goes wrong in fantastic 4, the studio had to make something or it goes back to marvel, then we get the dumpster fire that is fant4stic

[@dukenightrider6104]

I believe in the long run if this were to happen it be for the greater good to allow studios to focus more on new original stories to profit off of and stop focusing on nostalgia like they are now.

[@GlidingZephyr]

Shares of cabbage and East Indian opium are also down. I should probably invest in Alpaca wool and tea subsidies to make up for the loss.

[@cranknlesdesires]

Thats a wise investment but I would look deeply towards the strange grades of wool and honey that flow out of New Zealand. Mayhaps a worthy capital venture.

[@ProgressOnly]

This could have been an alternate history thing

[@JuanTonSoupXP]

“What if we lived in the Harrison Bergeron dystopia”

[@florinivan6907]

'the author's lifespan' so if they cured aging and the author lived to be whatever he felt like then copyright would never expire?

[@ductoannguyen7595]

By the time we can made people immortal we would have change copyright

[@dave7886]

That pure chaos sounds pretty entertaining

[@bearcatben4762]

I think it would be fun to watch how 10 different studios try and make shrek 2 completely unique from the original shrek 2 and eachother's version's of shrek 2

[@politicallyambiguous8424]

We already have to deal with crappy remakes and a reduction in the length of copyright will mainly effect faceless corporations making money on older franchises. I honestly think the scenario you listed would actually be better than what we have now.

[@Somethingaweful]

That already sounds like what it is already. Except only corporations can do something like that instead of you the fan. There are a ton of songs that are covers, samples, or remixes. But none of them ever credit the original songwriter. Sometimes, the cover gets more views than the original just because of who is singing it. Films still get remade over and over, regardless of copyright. Same thing with games. Honestly, there wouldn't be a massive blow to the general public. In fact, the current copyright system does more to mess with individuals who create fan projects than with anyone else.

[@Malcadon]

Another thing to consider is that companies usually use Trademark to get around copyright limitations. For example, Conan the Barbarian/Cimmerian was first written by Robert E. Howard in 1932. Howard killed himself in 1936, meaning that all of his published works fell into the public domain in 1964, well before the change in law in 1976 and 1998. Mind you, this does not count for derivative work like the novels, comics and films, so Red Sonya (Hungarian Pirate from "The Shadow of the Vulture" (1934)) is Howard's, but not Red Sonja (metal-bikini-clad amazon made for the Marvel comics in 1973). Nor his posthumous published works like his fragments and correspondence -- those belong to whom first published them. Despite this, Conan Properties International control of the character with Trademark Law -- the vary branding of a product or service -- and that last for as long as its under someone's control. They manage to enforce Trademark when a Spanish miniature producer lost a legal battle while trying to sell Conan miniatures, despite the fact that the look and name of "Conan the Barbarian" is cliché as hell.

[@dinoblacklane1640]

I think the most disturbing thing about modern society. Is how a corporation cab say "fuck you" and screw you over with lawsuits. and the only way to defend yourself is so prohibitively expensive that it would ruin you finically even if you won

[@skeletonmf]

I think if we made all these properties public domain, the big budget movie industry would hang itself with its own rope. The media would be oversaturated with artists who care about their craft with full access to these properties. Maybe I'm putting too much faith in the marketplace of ideas, but there could be another Alan Moore out there just itching to write a Batman story, but can't make it for public consumption because he doesn't have the rights. I think if there were more options available, people would opt for that over whatever crap the DCU is pumping out.

[@bulliemthembu5846]

Honestly it would be pretty lit being able to see 10 different shrek 2's, like each time I go I'd spin a wheel, there'd be a shrek-off... yes

[@CocoHutzpah]

Eraserhead with Jon C Riley would be the only remake I'd actively seek out

[@BratacOfChulak]

knowledge hub became alternate history hub again

[@DelNiceBeto]

Night of the living dead is public domain and remakes of that aren't released every week

[@aturchomicz821]

Well thats a rather classic title lol

[@johannesbrandl2328]

This is an excellent video.. everybody seems to disagree with it's sentiment yet the video itself appears to be mostly liked. It turns out to be a potent catalyst for a consensus by politely putting out arguments for a point and then letting people think on and coming up with rational counterpoints. I liberally assume that it took less time to make than the "lawnmower man" essay mentioned in it's introduction but i feel it's a step in the direction of 'something'. I personally believe that the reversible of current copyright laws would make for a great, liberating moment to human culture - after a few years of turmoil and chaos (but, probably, no violence for a change). It might lead to the 'death' of large IPs but I also often feel that this emotional focus on a narrative universe is slightly perverse anyway. However I was swayed for a moment by the argument about Nintendo, and how a sufficiently large corporation could still exert influence by threat of litigation based on similarities to their recent iteration of an IP.. but then, to stay with the example of Nintendo, what if Sony were to make a Mario game.

[@TBDF12]

Most consumers would probably avoid random remakes and reboots at some point.

[@thewittywhygaming6487]

This chaos is what I dream of. :3

[@Blue2x2x]

What if we have the law where it is but also add an abandoned clause that states that if the owner(s) doesn't publish any new material for a property in the span of the original timespan (14 or 28 years). Then the property is considered abandoned by the eyes of the law and automatically place in the public domain.

[@rmwf8836]

I like that idea personally. I think it would make sure the original artist aren't left out in the snow if they keep making more art. However, I could definitely see a world where someone could, for example, write an amazing book that redefines its genre and is remembered for all time, only for the the author to publish bullshit every 14 or 28 years, to keep the copyright.

[@trstmeimadctr]

If copyright was shortened to 28 years, we probably would see the amount of money put into music, movies and games take a major cut, because if you can't bank on getting dividends for the next century, the value of anything you make takes a big hit monetarily. Why make CG that will hold up for 30 years if you're not going to be making anything from it by then?

[@longarooni]

Tbh, copyright seems a bit off in media, but if it was music, such as sampling, then we need to readjust em

[@Shatterverse]

Simple solution: make non-commercial public domain legally distinct from commercial public domain. Make the rules the way they used to be for PD for any work created for non-commercial purposes. News, transformative, even fan remakes, but you can't make any money of any kind for any reason off of it, full stop. Yes that means no ads or sponsorships. But if you put it into a product that makes money (not a profit, necessarily) then it's illegal. Want to make a Batman fan animation, parody, or analysis vid using 30 year old scripts? Sure. What to put him in the MCU? Not a fucking chance.

[@richmanifesto1090]

Eraserhead starring John c Reilly sounds unironically amazing

[@egggge4752]

Everybody would try to make new original properties as fast as possible and as much as possible since they have to have at least 20 copyrighted franchises every year to make profit (Toy deals). You would actually see less remakes and more orginial 3 - 6 part franchises that are built up for 30 years and then abandoned after copyright expired.

[@minderbart1]

but they could do that already with things that are currently in the public domain. also the reason why franchises are so strong is because they aren't available to everyone. change that and those ips lose a lot of their value

[@TheGreenScout]

So an actual free market where demand has more affect on supply than execs on blow?

[@VladiSSius]

Oh yeah I can see that; corporations would milk the sht out of old title on public domain, launching soulless remakes and remaster version. Gee... I hope it's not happening right now. Not.

[@terryh.9238]

lax copyright law for average person making their own fan content = good lax copyright law for huge soulless corporation = bad

[@seri0usxs673]

Who remembers in early 2010s when all movies and tv shows were on youtube?

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

Copyright should be the primary creators life time, and that’s it. To paraphrase cgp grey, once you are dead that is the moment that anything (including copyright) ceases to mean anything to you.

[@yoshimasterleader]

This future you propose is chaos I'm here for.

[@Electric0eye]

"What would you do?" *I would watch them, Tyler.* *I would watch them all.*

[@valletas]

I dunno if the "remaking everything" would be a bad thing Think of how many versions of love craft and sherlock holmes we have i would even say that with love craft in particular people only care about his type of horror because of how many times it was used thanks to public domain

[@telotawa]

2:24 this would be a good thing, people would realize that (insert movie studio here) doesn't care about making *good* content, but sellable content only actually good movies would reach the top of the charts

[@TauGeneration]

i'd make the copyright valid until the creator's death if companies want fresh ideas, they should get them from new staff

[@technetium9653]

The problem there is there's a non zero subset of people who'd John Lennon them to get it out of the copyright chokehold

[@TauGeneration]

@@technetium9653 hmmm

[@b0cket380]

C'mon, the copyright still valid as for now

[@kevind814]

I can imagine a movie theater revival as studios no longer release movies on easily copied media (digital). You want to see "Avengers 21: Nobody Cares", you're gonna have to see it in the theater for whatever price the studio wants to charge.

[@TuesdaysArt]

It would be nice to see movie theater revivals be a thing. I wasn't able to experience the theatrical release of Treasure Planet and the opportunity to be able to see those graphics on a large screen might actually motivate me to go the theaters again.

[@felonyx5123]

A concept I've been thinking about for a while is that a show you watch as a kid should be public domain before you retire. Well more than 25 years but much less than the current ridiculous standard. The original creator(s) have decades to not only make money off the original work but to hold creative control on follow-ups, and even after it goes in the public domain they have the advantage of inertia in people accepting their version of the property over whatever other people and companies come up with. But if a property has gone dormant for ages, or been going downhill for ages, there will always be a moment where fans of it who are now writers or directors at the peak of their career will get the chance to take their own crack at it and revive it.

[@chefjrmz]

Two tickets for Shreck 2. Which one? Yes

[@AmIWhoIThinkIAm]

In the U.S. all artists of any medium can repurchase their works for the price paid for that work. It's a weird time to be living in, iconic IP are being asked to be returned. Like freaking Spider-man. DC had to bribe the descendants of Superman's creators twice, as they failed to do so properly the first time.

[@TheSenhorcaioo]

This is amazing!

[@hoshi314]

if it weren't for Disney meddling around the public domain thing then the localization of "The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles" game can be released like 5 years earlier. I mean IIRC this thing can be done in the first place because i kid you not, "Herlock Sholmes" got into the public domain very very recently