Should We Abolish Copyright? | Tom Nicholas

Copyright and Intellectual Property are issues that have prompted a number of controversies recently. The Dark Horse vs Joyful Noise court case in which Katy Perry was found to have infringed on the intellectual property rights of Christian rap artists Flame, for instance, recently provoked a great deal of astonishment online (and inspired a fantastic video by musicologist Adam Neely on the flaw in copyright law as it currently applies to music). Beyond this, the "fair use" or "fair dealing" doctrines which essentially allow for legal copyright infringement for the purposes of parody, commentary and critique regularly draw the frustrations of YouTube creators hit with a copyright claim (see, for instance, Nintendo's copyright policy which, until it was recently changed, was seen as somewhat draconian).

In today's video, then, I wanted to ask whether we should abolish copyright and intellectual property altogether?

I begin by giving a bit of a copyright and intellectual property crash course before continuing to look more broadly at forms of property ownership such as the distinction between personal property vs private property, all to inform a slightly more in-depth discussion of the inconsistencies in the law surrounding forms of intellectual property.

Further Reading

Intellectual Property: A Very Short Introduction by Siva Vaidhyanathan

Theft! A History of Music by James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkins

Capital: Volume One: A Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx

[The above are affiliate links. I receive a small kickback from anything you buy which, in turn, helps to support the channel.]

Thanks for watching!

Twitter: @Tom_Nicholas

[jamesbunch]

Well, it seems to me that the people who most benefit are the companies that simply control copyrights. The artists mostly don't...

[spooons]

Used to be really involved with the SCP community and everything there is creative commons so anyone can write about anyone elses works or even add to another's. It really is an amazing thing to see people create art together and build upon each other.

[InternetLaser]

As an econ student: your analogy to land is stronger than you realize.
Neither private landownership nor copyright increase the productive or distributional efficiency of these resources, both of these merely create monopolies that lead to increased economic rents, and in the terms of economics, intellectual property is a type of land.

[Narlgoth]

An excellent example of the bounty allowed by free domain is the Cthulhu Mythos. H P Lovecraft whilst alive shared and encouraged fellow writers to write on and expand his own thematic universe, and as he never copyrighted anything it has continued to permeate popular culture in thousands of ways up to present day.

[josephyoung]

In case anyone is interested, Ms. Perry won an appeal over "Dark Horse".

[MinutelyHipster]

27:50
Access to media being held hostage by copyright holders who deem it uneconomical to rerelease their intellectual property is actually a talking point in video game conservation.
Since the consoles each game is made for get replaced by better hardware and are harder to source, the games on that console remain stuck on outdated consoles (unless the company sees it as profitable to release it for modern consoles or remake the game from scratch altogether.)

One way to preserve games is to emulate them on computers, extending their lifespan. But since this doesn't get people to buy their consoles, games publishers don't tend to do this. When fans emulate games they love to conserve them, publishers have been known to legally take down the emulator. (Nintendo is one of the most well known for doing this.)

[MarteaniArt]

I was waiting for that "how will creators pay the rent" to come in. Small content creators are already treated as a grazing ground by larger entities, relying on their financial inability to fight back to get away with theft (see how fast fashion lifts from individual designers and then blames it on an intern). We are in heavily unequal system, where creative work is already devalued. The "creative commons" concept works if there is a framework for creators to get paid, and we don't have that. Even Patreon is now making several moves to ratchet up profit instead of insuring creators gets paid.

[pantsfortwo]

Disney can keep the mouse indefinitely if they shut up about everything else 😒

[NCKSO]

"doesn't deplete the reserve of Darth Maul" should be an argument brought in court agaisnt Disney for their abuse of copyright, if only to hear a middle aged lawyer say it to an elderly judge.

[RadicalReviewer]

Wonderful as always.
The concept of 'cultural commons' is incredibly fascinating.

I'm sure you're aware but if not o highly recommend Patricia Taxxon's 2 videos on Abolishing Copyright.

[OjoRojo]

"Every new invention is a synthesis, the resultant of innumerable inventions which have preceded it in the vast field of mechanics and industry.
Science and industry, knowledge and application, discovery and practical realization leading to new discoveries, cunning of brain and of hand, toil of mind and muscle – all work together. Each discovery, each advance, each increase in the sum of human riches, owes its being to the physical and mental travail of the past and the present.
By what right then can anyone whatever appropriate the least morsel of this immense whole and say – This is mine, not yours?”

Some bearded man....no, not that one.

[PizzaMineKing]

Copyright used to be a good idea - Back when it lasted only a few years and protected the writer in order to ensure plagiarists wouldn't overrun them. The way it works now, lasting longer than the original writers lifetime, that is how it becomes a problem.

[vantahawk]

The idea that intellectual property should submit to capitalist property rights despite there being no such thing as _scarcity_ of ideas/information/etc can only be backed up by one (capitalist) defense:
That it is not about ownership of the idea _itself_ so much as it is about entitlement to any and all economic reapings that could _potentially_ be produced as a result of that idea - within a capitalist market. Implicit then in the conception of intellectual property rights is an entitlement to an uncompeted market share - a monopoly.
The only thing then that is supposedly being _stolen_ by infringing on one's intellectual property right is the _opportunity cost_ that one _might conceivably_ suffer as a result of having to share the market with someone else.
Note that this all builds on the _potentiality_ that sharing an idea is economicly _detrimental to the individual_ rather than _benefitial to the community_ or for that matter the _individual_ . Just consider for example how often in the Internet age small content creators _benefit_ from exposure alone when having their ideas copied and repurposed though memes, fan content, remakes, etc.

These are some fairly ironic contradictions considering that the same ones who will defend intellectual property for capitalist reasons will also praise the need for free markets and ease of access.

Regarding intellectual property rights for small artists and content creators I certainly get that it is in their economic interest, and that in the current economic order it may even be necessary in order to be materially secure in one's artistic pursuit and to get anything off the ground in the first place.
My policy preference in that regard would probably be some type of minimalist intellectual property legislation. A property right that 1) leaves much space for fair use and that 2) completely expires after like 10 years max.

Regarding technological things however, industrial patents for example, I think i am radically opposed to any form of intellectual property, especially considering the immeasurable harm that is done to humanity by withholding these things from the public domain. Ask yourself for example how much unnecessary suffering has been bestowed upon the world by the existence of privately held medical patents.

[HxHDRA]

This topic is one I'm really passionate about myself (though that doesn't translate into writing about it well XD). In Japan there's a huge industry of fan works that doesn't cause any issue whatsoever, it's really fascinating

[vladprus]

Well, the thing that bothers me the most about copyright is the idea that you can make other person, or ogranization as a whole owning something.
This isn't protecting creator at all. This serves only to ensure someone would have monopoly.
Copyright shouldn't be transeferable. And it shouldn't belong to organizations. It should belong to specific people who were involved in creation ONLY.
Also copyright in modern incearnation completly ignores how culture works. EVERYTHING is at least partially based on something else. Some well known works of culture were created only becouse of copyright wasn't a thing (like Arthurian stories as a whole).
I agree that plagiarism is a bad thing and artist should be able to make money from creation, but copyright in modern incarnation clearly isn't an answear.
And idea that it should even exist after creator is dead should be scrapped completly.

[alicekaniova]

"This is my longest video to date. I will aim to come back with snappier content."
not even joking, the next recommended video is Media bias with 55 minutes...

[transcrobesproject]

Just discovered the channel and have been bingeing in reverse order. Funny how many times I have heard "this must be my longest video so far, sorry, and I'll try not to make a habit of it". I'm very happy these early promises were not kept!

[shadoeboi]

the original idea of Copywrite was to promote creation and innovation of culture/sciences/ect... by creating a short term financial incentive but the systematic increase in the length has in effect done the opposite by making it 95-120 years that creator no longer has an incentive to keep creating and no one else can generally create or innovate on the original work for at the minimum a lifetime

[Disthron]

*The Tragedy of the Commons*
My understanding is that this was basically made up and that the original paper sites no real-world examples of such a thing happening, where it wasn't done on purpose so someone of means could maneuver to enclose it for themselves. It also assumes that people act like large corporations and can't communicate with each other.

[seastnsw]

"the rational herdsmen concludes that the only
sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached for each and every rational herdsmen sharing a commons." Don't believe this misdirection. Only a selfish, and shortsighted, herdsman thinks like that. A rational person can see the sense in a self imposed limit.