EU Intellectual Property Office Produces Dumbest Propaganda Film Ever, Pretending Without IP There Is No Creativity
from the don't-watch-this dept
Intellectual property law professor Sarah Burstein tweeted over the weekend correctly mocking a truly ridiculous tweet from the European Intellectual Property Office, hyping up a film it created that purports to show a drab, creativeless world without any intellectual property.
The tweet actually just shows a 16 second clip from what appears to be a nearly 10 minute “film” that the EU IPO actually released back in April. You can view the whole thing here, though I warn you that it is 10 minutes of your life that you will not get back, and it is so dumb that you’ll really wish you could get them back (I, at least, watched it on double speed). The film, called “IPIDENTICAL: Imagine a world without creativity” is supposed to be an example of what the world would look like without intellectual property. In this world, everything is the same. There is one song in the world, called “The Song” and that’s it. There is one movie, “The Movie.” There is one car in one color. Everyone wears the same clothes. All products on store shelves are identical. See? How dystopian.
The “tension” in the movie is that the main character has brief nostalgic memories of her dad maybe singing a different song when she was a little girl. That song — called “The Ultimate Song” — is lost to history since there is only “The Song.” However, in a record shop one day (why are there even record shops? Who the fuck knows?) she sees at the bottom of a stack of “The Song” singles, one sleeve that looks different. OH MY GOD! It’s “The Ultimate Song.” She grabs it, and rushes home, excited to hear that song from her childhood. That song is exciting and full of life and you can dance to it, rather than “The Song” of this world, which apparently was composed on an organ grinder. Except… she puts The Ultimate Song on her record player… and the organ grinder plays instead of what she expected.
Isn’t copyright great?
The film is a wee bit heavy handed. It’s also ridiculous. It’s also… apparently paid for and promoted by EU bureaucrats, which raises a shit ton of questions.
First off, anyone with even the slightest familiarity with history knows it’s bullshit. I mean, there was pretty widespread creativity prior to there being intellectual property laws. William Shakespeare wrote everything he wrote without copyright. He didn’t just write “The Play” and be done with it. Indeed, evidence suggests that the lack of copyright was partly responsible for him writing so much since he had to keep producing new works to satiate his audience. And you don’t even need to look at history. There have been lots of studies of creative arenas today that don’t rely on intellectual property, from fashion to comedy to magic to cooking — and they’ve pretty much all found that categories without intellectual property protections actually generate more output and more creativity because you have to keep creating, rather than rest on your laurels. We’ve written about some of that in the past, but if you’re looking for sources, The Knockoff Economy book by Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman is a good start, as is Creativity Without Law, which is a collection of case studies about creativity outside of intellectual property.
And, look, I get it: it’s the EU Intellectual Property Office. Of course, they’re going to think the world revolves around copyright, patents and trademarks. But is it really that big a deal to expect that government bureaucrats should at least be partially reality based? And is it too much to expect that a government agency shouldn’t be spending taxpayer dollars on blatantly false propaganda that is so laughable as to only serve to lead more people to lose respect for intellectual property?
But, perhaps the most damning of all: copyright wasn’t necessary to make this bit of insane propaganda. Notice that the EU IPO posted the film for free to YouTube, and they’re tweeting out clips of it. The reason they made this film is for propaganda (which some might refer to as “educational”) purposes, and they want as many people as possible to see it. There is no need for copyright on the film. They’re not selling it or licensing it to anyone. The incentive to create it was wholly separate from copyright — as is true of nearly all content created today. It was created not because they had an exclusive right, but because they wanted people to see it.
Someone in the EU should really ask the IPO how much money was spent on this bit of propaganda. For what it’s worth, it doesn’t seem to be having its intended effect. I’ve found tons of tweets mocking the EU IPO, but none in support so far.
This is an embarrassment. Why are you wasting taxpayer money shilling for content industries?
— Christopher Sprigman (@CJSprigman) June 22, 2019
For a government agency dedicated to science, this is sad propaganda with zero empirical support. It would be nice if they applied the same standards to their own work that they allegedly do to granting IP rights.
— Jason Schultz (@Lawgeek) June 22, 2019
This is ridiculous. There was human creativity & innovation before IP; those things would still exist without it.
— Sarah Burstein (@design_law) June 22, 2019
Imagine a world without Bach. Oh, wait.
Imagine a world without Rembrandt. Oh, wait.
Imagine a world without? the wheel. Oh, wait.— J?rgen A. Erhard (@georgehank) June 22, 2019
Because Mozart, Goethe and Shakespeare never produced anything of value, as there were no "IP" laws. You're a bunch of #propagandist hypocrites, bought by publishers. Go dissolve your agency.
— Peter Keel (@Seegras) June 22, 2019
Fear mongering to justify your existence is ridiculous!
The variety of European arts and culture has more to do with identity than intellectual property laws.
If anything, #copyright laws prevent rapid iteration and refinement of ideas in music, art, and movies.
— David Michaels (@davidmichaels) June 22, 2019
#ipdentical is a piece o' shit propaganda movie.
— J?rgen A. Erhard (@georgehank) June 22, 2019
No wonder “comments are disabled” on the YouTube video…
Filed Under: copyright, creativity, eu, eu ipo, intellectual property, ipidentical, propaganda
Comments on “EU Intellectual Property Office Produces Dumbest Propaganda Film Ever, Pretending Without IP There Is No Creativity”
If lies and dishonesty are all you can find to support you...
What is it about all things imaginary property that the propaganda for it tends to be so monumentally stupid? You’d think at some point they’d run these boneheaded ideas past someone who doesn’t have a vested interest in imaginary property law being as extensive as possible before releasing it to the public and making public fools of themselves, but I suppose when they work in a bubble it never occurs to them that the general public might have different opinions.
I’d say at the point you essentially have to re-write history in order to support your narrative is the point at which you’ve made it crystal clear that it’s not even remotely based upon reality.
Re: If lies and dishonesty are all you can find to support you..
That look …. during interviews sometimes there is a look of disbelief when confronted with the fact that some people do not share the same level of enthusiasm.
But it is soon dismissed and they go back to believing their own silliness.
Using your enemy's weapons against them
(Should have checked the first link before posting, almost missed a gem.)
I read the film as an example of what you get when all IP is locked down and everything looks the same because nobody can create anything new without getting sued. The title for my version is "DisneyTopia." -Kris Joseph @krisjoseph
That… is brilliant. As a pro-imaginary property film it’s absurd and grossly dishonest, as anyone with an even passing knowledge of history and/or awareness of the explosion of creativity these days(much of it in spite of copyright law, rather than because of it) knows just how unrealistic the premise of ‘there can be no creativity without IP law’ is.
On the other hand as an anti-imaginary property film it’s all too believable. Everything is the same and nothing new comes out because no-one dares create anything that might get them sued or otherwise face a penalty, something that is all too realistic, all the more so with the constant push to always ratchet the law up so it covers more things with harsher penalties.
In an attempt to create a propaganda piece to push the idea of ‘IP law = creativity’ they have instead, entirely by accident, created a work about how damaging the very laws and ideas they push can be to creativity.
Soooo either they are arguing that IP laws always existed… or that IP laws were NOT a create work?
Re: Re:
Same as all these brainwashed and/or paid off idiots always do – they define "creativity" as anything sold by a major corporation under a traditional business model. If you ignore everything created before modern copyright law, all non-traditionally defined media and all independently produced content, it’s amazing how close to home they hit.
On a side note, I saw this pop up today and thought it was an interesting counterpoint (if you can’t read it, it’s a tweet showing a cinema marquee from this week, where every movie is a remake of or sequel to something made in the 90s). This is presumably the kind of "creativity" they’re trying to protect.
https://twitter.com/DevonESawa/status/1143704137336365057
Re: Re: Re:
Same as all these brainwashed and/or paid off idiots always do – they define "creativity" as anything sold by a major corporation under a traditional business model.
Well of course, everyone knows that being signed to a studio/label/publisher is a sign of skill and ability(it’s not like they would put out anything bad after all), and as such anyone not signed clearly isn’t a real creator and is just an unskilled amateur, any ‘creativity’ nothing more than worthless tinkering not worth counting alongside the real creators.
It’s also… apparently paid for and promoted by EU bureaucrats, which raises a shit ton of questions.
Mostly rhetorical ones.
Extreme IP
They got it backwards : If you look at this in the extreme way of IP, this would be the world. Someone creates a song, and patents making music. Bam One song only. Someone creates a car, patents making autmobiles, presto, only one vehicle.
If they had their way, they show in this video what their ideal world would look like. No copying. One one of each item, and price set by the creator.
This is not the wold without IP, but with IP to the max !
Re: Extreme IP
We get it. 😉
A world WITH copyright?
Oh, see I was confused. I thought there was only one song because someone wrote a song, copyrighted it, and now making any other songs would be copyright infringement. That seems more plausible than no one writing songs because there’s no way to get paid without preventing someone else from looking/touching/using your stuff.
Re: A world WITH copyright?
Oh, and in true form, "The Song" was actually just a ripoff of "The Ultimate Song" but they used IP to scour the actual source material from the face of the Earth.
Obviously they got it horribly wrong: without IP laws there would be no reason to make other humans.
Are you certain this wasn’t released April 1?
See fashion, comedy, trad folk songs, fairy tales, myths, all were created without the benefit of copyright laws .When sherlock holmes went into the public domain there were more films and tv shows made about him,
for instance bbc sherlock tv show .
The long length of copyright is likely to limit creative artists ,
is there any reasonable reason to give song writers copyright for 70 years after they die,
do dead people need incentive to create more art?People in the fashion business realise copyright would just provide money for legal action,
lawyers fee,s and also put more limits on the people who create
new designs .
The internet, tcip,web servers and email were invented before
software patents were in common use .
Well, they have a point.
In the world before copyright, composers routinely reused the same stories and texts. There are uncountable versions of "Ave Maria", the common mass, requiems, the Song of Songs(!). There are a gazillion settings of "Oh Sacred Head, Now Wounded". Can you imagine how much richer the world of music could have been if J.S.Bach had been precluded from just grabbing existing melodies and setting them in four-part harmony? If the whole despicable practice of "musical parody", leading to wagonloads of unpaid-for references, would have been barred from early on?
Re: Well, they have a point.
I can imagine: it would be far less rich.
More likely Bach would have been undiscovered and unlauded due to not being able to reach an audience without taking existing melodies and setting them in four-part harmony. There’s a significant chance that we would not have Bach, or if we did, it would be a far different Bach.
But, given you call "musical parody" despicable, whereas I consider it a great contribution to overall culture and human interaction, I doubt we will ever see eye-to-eye on this.
Re: Re: Well, they have a point.
I think your sarcasm detector may need a tuneup.
Re: Re: Re: Well, they have a point.
If I have been able to see eye-to-eye, it’s because I have been standing on sarcasm detectors.
Rotating in your grave is not sufficient for copyright renewal, Sir Newton.
Is this the IP Industry’s version of Refer Madness?
Just one example of why the UK voted for Brexit
"But is it really that big a deal to expect that government bureaucrats should at least be partially reality based? And is it too much to expect that a government agency shouldn’t be spending taxpayer dollars on blatantly false propaganda that is so laughable as to only serve to lead more people to lose respect"
No chance. This is the unelected EU bureaucracy you’re talking about. The clowns who want to ban memes. The sooner Britain leaves the better.
Re: Just one example of why the UK voted for Brexit
Voting to jump out of the frying pan is not the whole job, though.
Re: Just one example of why the UK voted for Brexit
Yes, because the UK’s recent record on copyright is so much better.
Re: Just one example of why the UK voted for Brexit
The UK does the exact same shit, frequently with more gusto than the rest of the EU. Brexit was sold on lies about things that will not actually change when the UK leaves, plus plain old xenophobia. Not a good "example".
Re: Just one example of why the UK voted for Brexit
I’ll say what I always say – if you think UK sole government will be more sensible or less draconian that it is with EU involvement, you’re ignorant of both history and the actual policies that have been implemented by the UK government in recent years against EU advice.
So, of course you’re dumb enough to be a Brexiter…
Re: Just one example of why the UK voted for Brexit
UK force people pay TV tax for create content (BBC) but no BBC content is public domain .
Enforcement
Enforcing Strict Copyrights will cure Cancer!!
Re: Enforcement
If cells can be enjoined from mass distributing bastardized copies of DNA, indeed cancer will find it hard to prevail against competent lawyers.
What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your work?
I’ve been waiting TEN YEARS for you to even attempt answer, college boy.
You have no answer except another attack on copyright because you are pirates having sole goal of getting expensive created products for FREE.
You want creators to pour money and energies into making good products so that you can STEAL more value, and then you enjoy their struggles too.
Besides that criticizing this bit of cajoling is futile, you’re not even up to seeing the clever self-reference in making a dull bit predicting a dull future.
You are not harmed by someone else having copyright. — STATE SPECIFICS. — Other than that you can’t legally wallow in entertainments for free.
s/u/b/s/t/i/t/u/t/e /h/o/r/i/z/o/n/t/a/l /r/u/l/e
Linux shows exactly that "free" doesn’t work: even after quarter-century, it’s crap. Just read Distrowatch comments this week.
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
Nice word salady rant but you look like you have a bone to pick instead of a useful comment to share. both Apple OS and Android are based on Linux. Not to mention the large amounts of the cloud that run on it.
Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your
Actually, Apple’s iOS, macOS, watchOS, iPadOS, and pretty much every Apple OS is NOT based on Linux. Their underlying OS base is Darwin, an open-source OS based on Unix. Linux is also based on Unix, but they don’t share the same codebase. I’m not entirely familiar with Android’s codebase, but I’m fairly certain the only Linux component is the Linux kernel. While both are definitely Unix-based, I think it’s a far cry to say they’re based on Linux.
Re: Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take
"Linux is also based on Unix"
afaik, linux roots are based in minix more than in unix.
Re: Re: Re:2 What's the incentive to create if everyone can t
Not really. Linux "the system", often called GNU/Linux, borrows much of what was intended to become the GNU system. Linux "the kernel" (or Linux "proper") was basically designed from the start to follow the POSIX standards. The exception was the file system which started out identical to the Minix file system and took a few generations to diverge from it in major ways.
The current btrfs system is a rebirth of some of the concepts of the Tux2(?) file system which died a flaming patent death.
There also is systemd but children might be reading here.
Re: Re: Re:3 What's the incentive to create if everyone c
That’s a problem, when the name linux is mentioned in the absence of context, one does not know if they are talking the kernel or a system which incorporates the kernel.
Either way, linux is not unix.
Re: Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take
It’s true that Darwin is not Linux, but it is still an open source project with roots in UNIX, so it’s close enough for the ignorant ranting of the guy being replied to.
Re: Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take
That’s true, because Linux is only a kernel. The userspace portions of a Linux distribution are GNU (thus Stallman’s insistence that it should be called "GNU/Linux" not "Linux").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your
Not to mention, several of the servers and routers he’s using to post his ignorance are based on Linux, while the browser and other programs he’s using to post are almost certainly either fully FOSS or partially using such software.
He’s not only dumb, but he’s ranting against the very things that allow him to speak in the first place.
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
There are a few horizontal rules for you. You’re free to reproduce them, no license required!
See? I created without IP protection!
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
Well…
looks at the body of human creative works that pre-date IP law
Too bad we can’t ask any of those creators. Seems like they didn’t have a problem with a lack of incentive.
I can’t provide an answer for myself though. IP law has created a huge disincentive for me to create anything – I don’t want to get sued into bankruptcy by some bozo who thinks I’m infringing on their "property."
Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your
They didn’t have a problem with cheap high-quality mechanical copies either. That started with the printing press and later phonographs et al.
When the stereotypes of the copy producing industry changed from poor scribes to filthy rich publishers, creators were increasingly not even getting the short end of the stick but a mouldy carrot.
Re: Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take
The printing press was invented around 1440. The Statute of Anne came in 1710. I wonder what happened during those 270 years in-between. Surely there can’t have been a lot of creative expression, what with no incentive to create because everyone could steal your work and there was no IP law to stop them…
Re: Re: Re:2 What's the incentive to create if everyone can t
In the years in between, a printer needed new material to print, and so would buy new content to print. Also, the printing press introduced the idea that writing could make money for an author, as prior to that the author would pay to have a scribe produce the first few copies of their works, which hopefully others would copy to spread their work to a lager audience.
Re: Re: Re:2 What's the incentive to create if everyone can t
Reminds me of a comment I wrote (omg) seven years ago about how all copy restrictions were in response to new technology reducing the power of entrenched interests.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120824/12382120149/authors-guild-continues-to-battle-present-attacks-another-legal-service-as-infringing.shtml#c760
Re: Re: Re:2 What's the incentive to create if everyone can t
Errr, I think your math needs a bit of fine-tuning. It was more like 600 years before Gutenberg that the Chinese had similar mass-printing capability. Bingle for it, it’s quite interesting.
Oh, and as we’d all guess, there was no such thing as "IP" (yes, in fact, I do pee – don’t you?), but if you have access to a Chinese library of History, you’re gonna see on display a helluva lot of ancient works. (Ancient to us. To them, most of these works are somewhat recent.)
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
First off, let’s talk about your "chosen" username. If Linux is as feeble and unreliable as you say it is, then why is it true that practically everybody uses Linux for most of their servers, cloud computing, and other internet services? I guarantee you that you can’t find one company (Microsoft and Apple included) that doesn’t rely on Linux in some way. Just because there are few people using it as their main operating system doesn’t mean that its crap. Try again.
Tyler Joseph writes music for Twenty One Pilots as a means of self-expression and sharing his insecurities, as well as helping him get through tough times. Britt Allcroft creates TV shows and movies for children for no other purpose than to enchant and entertain them. Adam Young started making music to help him escape the dread of working a dead-end job. And even after he found success in Owl City, he sees it as a privilege to continue doing what he loves to do as opposed to working that dead-end job. He’s not set on creating another #1 hit and has rock-solid integrity, wanting to continue making music for the rest of his life simply because he enjoys it.
Notice that out of the people I mentioned above, NONE of them said copyright is why they create content. In fact, I think you’d be hard pressed to find even one creative person who creates because of copyright.
Okay, let’s imagine for a second that copyright is abolished effective tomorrow. Not much would change. Unlike the dystopian scenario that this "film" predicts, artists can still thrive. Why? Well, legally speaking, selling bootlegs would be perfectly legal. However, because people tend to pay for items as a way to support creators they like, they will go out of their way to make sure that their money is going to support the artists. Follow supply and demand, and you’ll realize that piracy that DOES earn money will NOT be a long-term profitable endeavor. People will demand chains of sales that benefit the artists MORE, not LESS. Copyright is not necessary to ensure that artists get paid.
Also, like the tweet mentioned in a comment above, I too thought about writing a story about a similar dystopian world that was caused by overly strict IP laws that made real innovation and creativity nearly impossible by anyone other than a rich person approved by a gatekeeper. That’s a more accurate IP dystopia than a world where there are no IP laws. In fact, given that barriers to sampling would be broken down permanently, I’d imagine more creative works being produced that CAN’T be produced without a cost-prohibitive license and permission granted because of copyright.
I can think of several examples of how copyright has created harm:
These are 6 ways that copyright harms the public outside of legally being able to get stuff for free, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
So, sorry, you lose. Copyright is largely not needed and creates more headaches and hassles than necessary. Enjoy your comment being flagged for free!
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
In that case explain why a foundation was set up to pay Linus to work full time on Linux. And by the way, he is comfortably well off despite giving away his lifes work.
Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your
what about Tim Berners-Lee and Vint Cerf also
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
"Linux shows exactly that "free" doesn’t work"
The OS you’re using for free to post your comments? You might have a point, though it’s not the one you think it is!
"Just read Distrowatch comments this week."
I’d rather not, but I guarantee that they’re better than Windows ones…
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
With regard to "Linux is crap", it’s worth looking at the list of operating systems running on the top 500 supercomputers. Place #1 on that list is running on Linux. In fact, so were place #2 to place #100 last time I looked.
Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your
Like most people who spout such ignorant tripe, he probably just means he couldn’t get some random game nobody else cares about to run seamlessly on Linux 10 years ago, and his intellect isn’t wide enough to conceive of uses for a computer other than that and spouting nonsense online.
Re: Re: Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take
Alternately he might have a point.
I mean human software dev is still in it’s infancies. We might all be mistaken about what true good software looks like…
Though if it really is crap, then it’s a lot less crappy than several of the alternatives. What, seeing as a huge portion of modern experts use it (last I checked 100/100 supercomputers used a Linux based distro as the OS, and for several years previously it was upwards of 90%). Additionlly, 60% (or what ever Android’s current smart phone market share is) of smart phones use Linux.
Also it’s a huge misnomer that ‘Linux’ is an OS. It’s just a component of an OS (though an important one, but glibc is also an important component of some operating systems). Microsoft is currently promising to ship a Linux kernel in WSL… so I guess that means windows will-now/soon-will ‘come'(I haven’t used windows in like a decade, so I don’t know if WSL requires you to download something… but still you don’t have to install a new OS to get it) with Linux.
I definetly agree that some Linux distro’s may be terrible. (But using that to say linux sucks is like sayibng "My car is terrible, therefor wheels are terrible")
Re: Re: Re:2 What's the incentive to create if everyone can t
When going to the planet surface, it is best to not be wearing a red shirt.
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
You created this… "argument". What was your incentive? The right to keep other people from using that combination of words ever again?
Re: What's the incentive to create if everyone can take your wor
"Linux shows exactly that "free" doesn’t work: even after quarter-century, it’s crap. Just read Distrowatch comments this week."
Some 80% of the server architecture in the world runs on open source. MacOS is based on an open source kernel. Even Microsoft is putting open source into every last application they own these days.
So let me get this straight. every last electronic gadget you’ve ever owned wouldn’t have been possible except for open source, but "free" doesn’t work?
Thank you again, Baghdad Bob, for yet another declaration on par with your previous claims that the allies will never take Iraq.
"Imagine a world without Bach. Oh, wait."
Oh yeah, Charles Goodyear couldn’t have made his gazillions in material science without the IP system. Oh, wait.
This is one of the arguments for investing in big science. We went to the moon for the bragging rights (and to beat the Soviets, and to respect a dead president), but we got a ton of technology out of it, much of which is in the public domain (not including Tang or space pens, but definitely including memory foam). Fourteen dollars for every dollar spent.
I think we’d be fine without IP, and artists and inventors would get about as much credit as they do today.
Re: "Imagine a world without Bach. Oh, wait."
And Jonas Salk would never have created the Polio vaccine…
Lets look at an instance..
Films made by a Famous Movie producer in China..
Sold into the USA, Collected by a Private GROUP…
Hardly ever seen, unless you were part of that group and knew it was there..
Finally released on Hulu…Including most of the collection.. Digitized..and reprocessed..from the original tape..(LOTS of work)
But it should be in the public domain.
AND, they even started/tried to REMAKE the series..
(the Blind swordsman/Zatoichi)..
There are LOTS of movie/music out there that has been Buried..Sold and collected that you will never see again. And the Makers ARE NOT PAID for that..
Artists are those that DO things to DO them.. Its not always for Profit..but do they get anything AFTER it is bought? And the odds are, its been Put away or displayed where FEW will ever see it again.. Do you think they get paid PER PERSON to view the art?
Lets take this farther..
The Creators OF TECH…the workers, REALLY dont get paid that much for inventions. The corps get to claim it. and everything the workers do..
We used to have TONS of small companies making Hacks/improvements that we could add to our hardware..from extended ram cards to Direct to HD video recording.. Allot got bought up by corps, as GREAT ideas..
TRY it now..without IP/CR..you wil get hit so hard its stupid…EVEN if you make an IMPROVED product..(change that 1 resister so it dont break in 1 year)
The EUSSR
This why they are called the EUSSR.
The Maastricht "treaty" was imposed on Europeans just after the USSR died of logical death (the bolshevik form cultural marxism created by the jews to destroy Imperial and Christian Russia).
The "EU" took the relay and since then has progrssed step by step to become totalitarian nightmare that we know today.
Fake "refugees" invasion and colonization, fale ecomomic crisis like in 2008 so that international finance (global jewry) can tap directly into your bank account, destrution of all the values, standards, decency of the greatest culture on earth with the help of brainswashed useful idiots like neo marxists, lgbt lobbies, islamic, asian and african scum, masonic lodges and all the usual deviants used by the globalists to fisnish off Europe and the USA.
For those who still have a brain and some guts left, we will die standing rather than be exterminated on our knees.
Well, *counterpoint taken* — and I don’t even need to watch the film. (I haven’t).
However …
Bach, Shakespeare, et al. — creative sans I.P., but we’re talking copyright context there, not a patent context with e.g. gillions of sunk R&D costs.
What should we make of the fact that the ancient Greeks tried to protect the reputations of their best chefs by decreeing it illegal to copy their recipes? I ask this because they pre-date Bach, Shakespeare et al. and from what I understand were instrumental in laying the foundations of Western philosophy. Just a question. Despite what may be a bad film, the real issue is whether a good I.P. framework fosters or hinders creativity.
Re: Re:
What should we make of the fact that the ancient Greeks tried to protect the reputations of their best chefs by decreeing it illegal to copy their recipes?
I think I’ll go with ‘If the only way you can succeed is by preventing other people from trying, you expose how fragile your achievement really is.’
Despite what may be a bad film, the real issue is whether a good I.P. framework fosters or hinders creativity.
There’s probably some gain, but it’s almost certainly vastly outweighed by the cost. For every one or two people who might not have made something if they thought it would immediately be ripped off there is almost certainly dozens if not hundreds who would not have been able to create if they strictly followed even the hypothetical(because I’m not aware of any that actually exist currently) ‘good I.P. framework’.
Now this is not to say that there shouldn’t be any protections, merely that they need to be reasonable and realistic, with the cost to the public in the form of government granted monopolies outweighed by the gains the public gets afterwards.
Re: Greek chefs
This story reminds me of the war over cloth buttons which presented a disrupting technology that wreaked havoc with the guilded brass-smiths.
Which is to say, we’re willing to go to any lengths of stupidity — even risk our own extinction — to retaliate when our money or power is threatened.
If people can’t invent and create stuff with out IP monopoly, how people invent create idea for copyrights, patents, and trademarks several hundred years ago?
Never forget nature create and invent millions of life forms and with no IP monopoly.
Remix?
This is good for create anti IP movie too. Its creators put this in public domain for us can remix it?
Video not allow comments too! Why, … ,ha, ha, ha?
Re: Remix?
Video not allow comments too! Why, … ,ha, ha, ha?
Oh that’s easy, they knew that the comment section would quickly be overrun with gushing praise and agreement, and modest as they are they didn’t want the comments to overshadow the masterpiece that was the video.
Really, they closed the comment section for the public’s sake, to avoid any potential distractions from people that would otherwise be scrambling to post about how amazing and true the video was.
Sorry that I’m late to the party, but…..
For a fascinating read about patents in particualar, but highly applicable to copyright as well, visit tinaja.com, and scroll down a bit… look for "Avoid Patent Ripoffs", and from there, look for "The Case Against Patents". Should be worth a "OMG" or two…..
And let me not be remiss in amplifying a comment above about not creating anything for fear of being sued by a cartel: In 1982, Spider Robinson wrote "Melancholy Elephants", a short story dealing with that exact same topic – fear of reprisal for thinking that you’re doing something original or creative. In fact, I just researched that story to make sure of my dates; Much to my pleasant surprise, S.R. hinself has posted the entire thing online! Try this: http://spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
There was a time when calmer, cooler heads prevailed. Alas, those days are in short supply just now.