All or Nothing
noredirect/The Small Faces Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴
But now I see you don't hear a thing
Got to make you see how it's got to be
Yes if it's all right
All or nothing yeah yeah
All or nothing
All or nothing for me
Things could work out just like I want them to
If I could have the other half of you
That's all I would if I only could
Is to say
All or nothing oh yeah
All or nothing if I could I'd say
All or nothing for me
Pa pa pa pa ta pa pa pa ta ta
Pa pa pa pa ta pa pa pa ta ta
I ain't telling you no lie girl
So don't just sit there and cry girl
All or nothing (oh no)
All or nothing (oh yeah)
All or nothing (gotta gotta gotta keep on tryin')
All or nothing
(For me, for me, for me we're not children)
"All or Nothing" by The Small Faces is a song about a person who has given their all to a relationship and is frustrated by their partner's lack of commitment. The singer pleads with their partner to listen to their reasoning and see things from their point of view. The singer believes that the only way for things to work out is for their partner to fully commit to the relationship, and they are willing to accept nothing less than that. The song is a declaration of the singer's conviction in what they want and their unwillingness to settle for anything less. The song's catchy beat and vocals express the singer's determination and urgency to make their partner see the importance of their relationship.
The lyrics are also notable for their use of repetition. The phrase "All or nothing" is repeated several times throughout the song, emphasizing the singer's insistence on complete commitment. Additionally, the phrase "If I could I'd say all or nothing for me" suggests that the singer is willing to make sacrifices for the relationship and expects the same level of commitment from their partner.
Line by Line Meaning
I thought you'd listen to my reason
I believed that you would understand my perspective
But now I see you don't hear a thing
However, I have come to realize that you are not interested in what I have to say
Got to make you see how it's got to be
I must make you understand how things have to be
Yes if it's all right
Assuming that it is acceptable to you
All or nothing yeah yeah
I want everything, no compromises
All or nothing
I am not willing to settle for less
All or nothing for me
I need everything I am asking for
Things could work out just like I want them to
Things could go exactly as I envision if my wishes were granted
If I could have the other half of you
If I could have your complete and undivided attention and affection
That's all I would if I only could
That is all I desire, if it were only possible
Is to say
To articulate my wishes
All or nothing oh yeah
I still insist on everything with no exceptions
All or nothing if I could I'd say
I would choose for everything to be exactly as I want it to be
All or nothing for me
My needs and desires are non-negotiable
Pa pa pa pa ta pa pa pa ta ta
N/A - this is nonsensical vocalizing with no discernible meaning
I ain't telling you no lie girl
I am not lying to you
So don't just sit there and cry girl
Therefore, do not just sit there and cry without taking any action
All or nothing (oh no)
I refuse anything less than my desired outcome
All or nothing (oh yeah)
I am unwavering in my expectations
All or nothing (gotta gotta gotta keep on tryin')
I must keep pursuing everything I want without giving up
All or nothing
I must have everything I desire
(For me, for me, for me we're not children)
I am an adult and expect you to take me seriously
Lyrics © O/B/O APRA AMCOS
Written by: Philip James Rice, Richard Guard
Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind
Jacob Ogden
@NateROCKS112 I largely agree; copyright [in the US] was 28 years [originally 14/14] for a long time and that seems reasonable, at this point works from 199X are thoroughly dated, that said "sampling" SHOULD fall under "fair use" which can be expensive and messy to litigate, hence the reason small portions can't be copyrighted in the first place. [Different than derivative works that US copyright is very strong on, something I think definitely doesn't fit with the internet era.]
One point it's meant to help the public by stopping monopoly's like the current 70+ year copyrights and to ensure people are not disincentivized to put out works, it's in the public GOOD but it's not FOR the public.*
*"that nothing is more properly a man's own an the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tends to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries."
[Wikipiedia] - Patry, William F. (2000) [1994]. "Introduction: The Constitutional Clause". Copyright Law and Practice. BNA. ISBN 978-0871796851. OCLC 30355355.
Zemi Damebris
While it's a very interesting video, i think this is way too naive of way to seeing it.
As you stated the current system doesn't protect the smaller creator but even here it doesn't protect them and I feel like instead opens up to more abuse and ignores the feelings of many small creators.
Currently creating content is mostly a hobby for many artists and the likes and they have jobs outside of it. But we make the content out of passion, not expecting nor wanting to earn money for it.
All we want is to share our work.
But now with this new system anyone can take the art shared and make a profit, just because.
That just feels incredibly dirty and would likely stop many artists sharing their art, me included.
It even gets more insulting when the art created is highly personal. What if I write a story based off my own experiences, this gets adapted into a different even more popular work and they don't even have to mention it's from me.
This ties to the plagiarism issue you pointed out, because it reeks like a case of survivor bias. Yes, someone noticed that X work was stolen/copied 1:1 but how many stories are there of creators whose story you didn't hear?
I also don't think Ethics will protect me nor others, especially with how blatantly brazen and entitled lots of consumers have become towards creators.
Overall this just feels like a violation of my own boundaries I set for my art and it's ok you don't have the same ones, but many don't. Of course the easy solution would be stop sharing. And this is what I would do, just like many others.
I'm not in favour of a broken system replaced by another system that's as flawed and overall this seems more skewed towards the consumer than the creator.
Liz-with-a-Smile
@Tuesday's Art
Please at least get sleep before you bother me again.
I compared stealing the the seven wonders of the world or an ancestral home to cultural appropriation. Your losing track of the discussion.
Regardless, a 12 year old's doodles don't require much protection, they don't have much worth. But regardless, if they did have worth, IP protects them. And small creators steal from each other all the time. In droves. A person can use art they didn't create to promote a website, or create a game. People rip each off constantly. If you had something valuable, you'd understand why you wouldn't want it stolen.
Most of the people who promote this wonton theft have no creativity and no valuable work of their own. They have no sense of work ethic, or authorial intent, or integrity of any kind. They just want mountain of content for their own pleasure with none of the work that goes into making it.
Frankly, I'm tired of arguing with such people. When they have something worth protecting, they'll understand. But they likely never will.
Tuesday's Art
@Liz-with-a-Smile I read through the discussion, though this was before I got any sleep (I stay up way too late because my sleep schedule is non-existent) and I could've overlooked something or misread a comment. I'm grateful for your clarification because I understand your point better now.
Personally, I'm not sure if I'd feel comfortable comparing someone stealing my characters to cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation involves colonizers turning a rich cultural practice into a cheap commodity. As much as I love my ocs, calling theft "cultural appropriation" seems like an exaggeration. My ocs aren't as sacred as a cultural tradition, even if a lot of them have my own trauma poured into them.
Also, even smaller creators won't claim someone else's artwork as their own unless they know they can benefit from it. An adult generally isn't going to steal a twelve year old's Sonic oc because why would they bother stealing it when they could simply make their own thing or steal from someone who has proven to be successful through their art? Stealing from a successful person seems counterproductive, but the attention it could give them the adrenaline rush they crave. The people who stoop low enough to steal art don't really care about being successful artists—they're looking for clout.
I'm probably still looking at it too much from an internet angle but I spend most of my time online. I don't really like sharing my stuff irl, so internet theft is the only thing I'm honestly worried about.
I'm glad you at least keep your private personal stuff private.
Liz-with-a-Smile
@Tuesday's Art
Simple. Not everything is created for monetary gain. Not everything in this world is about money and I'm sickened and pity the people who think it is.
There are any number of examples where someone else stealing and profiting from someone else's work would destroy it. For example, everything from a critical analysis of the Bible intended to be given for free to those who don't understand, this would be horribly damaged if someone copied it, edited it or profited from it by selling it when the original author didn't want it to. Or there's the case of an creative storyteller who i making an elaborate world with a powerful message, perhaps a message they also want to share for free, on some service like Youtube, but before production is complete someone else takes the their work, and sells it, changes the characters and message and renders what ever the original authorial intent of the production was useless because now the public is sees a shadow of what was actually intended. A million examples exists of why someone would create something and not want to profit off of it.
And not profiting of something is not the same as "burning down one's ancestral home". So I have no idea what you are actually trying to compare with that example. And I 100% know if some random country made exact replicas of the Pyramids or Tahj Mahall, and tried to present it to the world as the original... many people would feel their cultures has been spit upon. They have a name for that "cultural appropriation" and a lot of people find it offensive and destructive. So YES it would matter what joe shmoe did with my ancestral home. The "burning it down" example makes no sense. I'd burn "joe shmoe's replica down." Not the original. And frankly, IP laws would be the equivalent for ensuring Joe shmoe's fabrication was destroyed.
You've misunderstood the whole thing.
Disney is not the threat to you. No one from Disney would care about your art, ever.
The point is, if your art where good, other artists, other small artists could still try to profit from stealing your work. I have no idea why you think Disney would want what you have, but that's not a scenario applicable to you.
Also, let me make it clear. I am not stupid enough to post valuable content online for any reason. I'm simply not that stupid. Never have been never will be. Regardless, IP protects even my sketchbook. It protects anything and everything that anyone creates.
It seems your arguing from a mindset that the internet and small insignificant posting of dribbles is all that this argument amount to. Its far more serious than that. The internet is not the end all be all of sharing ones work nor is it the sum of where theft occurs.
And theft of one's intellectual property is not merely "a breaking of boundaries" it is theft. Case and point.
I'm surprised, I doubt you actually read this conversation, but replied to it anyway.
Michael Kindt
I think you made a lot of great points in this video, and your arguments are clearly well-thought-out. But, I have three caveats that I think would need to be addressed before for abolishing intellectual property rights can even be considered:
1). We would need to have a thorough/exhaustive/robust method of dealing with/handling plagiarism (likely including keeping trademarks and the Attribution Creative Commons license, and/or something similar to those).
You seem to have covered this in your video, but I feel like your arguments are insufficient. You seem to argue that we don’t have to worry about plagiarism because the peoples will notice it and spread the word around, thus causing people to bring justice, and likely giving the victim a larger audience.
I think this is a bit optimistic because, although there are a lot of cases where that has happened, this seems like it would be highly susceptible to survivor bias. Survivor bias is when one assumes that the surviving examples of a thing are representative of all examples of that thing, the standard example being when people wanted to armor planes in World War II to protect said planes and the pilots, but they didn’t want to put the armor everywhere on the plane because that would make the planes too heavy to fly, so they took the planes that have already seen the battlefield, and decided the best place to put the armor would be where the bullets were on those planes, until a guy pointed out that any planes shot in places were getting shot means failure to function would not have been able to be obtain and retrieved to be examined, and so decided to put the armor where the bullets weren’t. (Sorry if my explanation is too long, it’s not exactly that well-known of a fallacy, so I felt like I needed to explain it, and this was the shortest way I could think of.) We know about the examples where plagiarism was found and corrected, but what about the cases where were we didn’t learn about the plagiarism? How do we even begin to calculate how common those cases are?
It’s not like it’s all that hard to come up with reasons why this would happen anyway: maybe the creator didn’t know about it before it was too late; maybe the plagiarizers somehow has enough power over the victim to shut them up; maybe the creator is dead now. There are all kinds of possibilities that could happen.
And all of that is assuming the peoples will care about it when they find out. What if the original creator is generally considered “immoral” by the public, and so the peoples don’t care if the victim doesn’t get the recognition they deserve, and the plagiarist ends up getting the credit instead? What is the original creator supposed to do in this case, buy the product and then file a fraud accusation, despite already knowing that the product is a fake because they were the ones who made the original? And before you start unironically arguing that this would be completely fine “as long as they actually are immoral”, then I’ll have you know I have a variety of key blades, and I am not afraid to use all of them to kill on site.#Hyperbole.
Our current laws might already be good enough to handle all this, but I’m not necessarily sure on that.
2). We would need to have a refined/exhaustive/robust enough method to make sure that the majority of people how end up getting ripped off by crowdfunding will get their money back consistently. Including the requirement of the receiver of the money to pay back everyone who paid them, and an option for the government to pay off the remainder of it if it is physically impossible to pay off the debt (or at least, impossible without becoming too bankrupt to live) and paying it off with jail time, or community service, or whatever.
This doesn’t just include cases of fraud, but also cases were somebody just gets to in over their head, and then it turns out it’s literally impossible to make do on there promises.
While you seem to have touched on this in your video, I feel like you might be too optimistic in terms of how well the law will work in the consumers favor. Our current laws might be good enough for this, but I’m skeptical.
3). Hey system refined/exhaustive/robust enough to stop all products, services, and companies necessary for your proposed system to work (including, but not limited to: all banks; all crowd raising services, such as Kickstarter, and Patreon; and all methods of spreading ads, such as Google AdSense) from abusing their power.
If you want more detail on this there is a video that goes into more detail on this than I can (and willing to) do in this comment, here: https://youtu.be/MvJX1UdVtMo
This, along with a lot else, is a big reason why cancel culture is a problem, and I would be opposed to anything that can make it worse. And if you don’t think any of that is a problem, and think anything susceptible to getting deplatformed “deserves it”, I would like to refer you back to my Keyblade comment in caveat one.#Hyperbole
This would also be necessary to ensure that the services always give the proper options to both consumers and creatives.
Intellectual property rights might be the reason why we would have to worry about this, but I’m not sure either way. Again, I do not know whether or not the law as it stands is good enough to address this.
———————————————————————
The above caveats likely have a bit of a catch 42 attached to them, as most creatures would not except the abolishment of intellectual property rights unless these caveats are addressed, but the best way to make sure we wrote the laws properly would be to abolish intellectual property. Luckily, I believe that the above caveats our stuff that we should consider regardless of whether or not we abolish intellectual property, so it shouldn’t be a big problem.
In terms of implementation, The fashion industry allegedly has no concept of intellectual property, so they would be a good example to use as a reference to see how abolishment would work in practice, but fashion involves selling physical goods, so it is imperfect. Since the way copyright involving music currently seems to work in a way that’s antithetical to not just how we feel entitled to use music in the modern day, but also to how writing music was taught for thousands of years on end before copyright, if there is an industry where copyright should be abolished, it would be that. And in general, The best way to implement it would be a slow, gradual process of expanding fair-use and lowering copyright terms, both to make sure that the above caveats are properly addressed, and because many corporations who benefit from intellectual property rights have too much power (likely largely gained from intellectual property rights) for complete, all-at-once abolishment to be realistic, so we would need to weekend them slowly first.
For the above reasons, and more, I am currently on the fence about the system proposed in this video.
After seeing many of your videos (including the ones in support of piracy) you have already earned my subscription, and I would be delighted to watch any video you make that addresses these points, and any others. And if anyone knows of any video responses to this very video, I would be happy to check them out. (I know I’ll be looking for them.)
Copyright is an important issue to me, and so I made a playlist a couple years ago about the topic (now including videos from this very channel), here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRBCukFwWzHtwo0PhNOILKRcFkLOrgr2M
This comment is in the public-domain, and you are free to copy pasta it to your hearts content.
UmTois
I agree with this. As an artist, I just saw yesterday a case of someone tracing a work, and profit or not it didn't really sit well with me.
Those things already happening with the law doesn't make me want the law to disappear, just to work properly (also, the law existing in the first place already is a means to make it somewhat less common than it could be).
However, big companies abusing the system doesn't sit well with me either, there should be laws that prevented these scenarios of buying an IP and not doing anything about it.
Having said that, I'm not too found of the idea of me putting my heart and effort into creating a character/ story and then anyone can own it and make something big with it without asking me first.
Fanart and asking me about using my creations is totally fine, but to use them without my knowledge or aproval for anything - and I do mean ANYTHING - is just too much.
Liz-with-a-Smile
The issue with this is that there are sounds that can't be heard, recorded or replicated, sounds so soft or loud a device can't accurately reproduce them let alone store code for them on a chip. This is why a live production with real instruments hits different than a reproduction from an audio output device. There is subtlety that can't be captured on a recording.
In addition, words are the limit of idea that currently exist. Some languages only have ideas for amounts but not actual numbers. Which begs the question, was their a time numbers didn't exist in any language? If an idea like that can be invented...or discovered, what other ideas can still be discovered and discussed? What branch of science or reality could exist that we simply aren't evolved enough to think of or sense. Words and meaning can grow along with new ideas and understandings of the world.
In this same sense...their are colors they eye can see, dimensions of space the mind can't fathom, and possibilities beyond what is currently comprehensible.
While I can agree with the notion we are discoverers....not creators....I disagree that there is a limit to what can be discovered.
Time maybe limited, even for the existance of this entire univese....but no one can prove this universe is the sum of or even the standard of existance itself. What elsewhere exists in ways we can't think of....in colors we've never seen in processes different then time and in ways other than space and matter.
When presented with a limitation always ask.
Who says?
And why do they say it.
Most limits you think are their...are just what you've been told.
And most discoveries are by those who disagreed with them.
Dracon-Draven
The issues with the first point; That profits can be made from an No IP world,
would be that its essentially only possible to make a profit off the first step of something and then basically have fun working from there. Why? Because you only need someone to take one step down the path of any idea for everyone else to get their own ideas on how that idea should be used. When that happens, the first step advantage isn't an advantage because its basically only an advantage for that one product and nothing else.
To give an example;
Creator A makes the first issue of a web-comic. This first issue doesn't have everything but it has the general idea of the main characters, the execution/form of the magic system, a central goal for the characters and a world's aesthetic. That's enough of a starting point to continue anything even if its going to be in a different direction as Creator A's work. Because all of those elements can be repurposed and reused without too much thought into the initial set up of those things. Creator B doesn't have to worry about the main characters since they are already made. Doesn't have to worry too much about the setting because he's got a general idea of it and can make up the parts he doesn't have on his own with his own ideas. Doesn't have to worry about motivations because the characters already have them. Everything else is about the execution of the set up ideas and the filling of the rest. Creator C then works off of Creator B's 5 issues of the webcomic and goes off his new characters, new ideas and new concepts and it just keeps going from there.
If the idea that 'people aren't going to fund the creators whose work off of stolen ideas' then I have two concepts for you. The first is the comic concept; 'every issue is someone's first' and this goes into the idea that no matter what you make, someone one might jump into it at any time. This means that even if they go back to the original somehow, they might just continue with the one they jumped onto for the sheer idea that its the first and you tend to stick with what you get onto first. The second concept is 'diversity breads adversity' which means that just by there existing multiple versions of the same thing, people are going to argue and fight over which is better. When that happens, some people are just going support some just out of spit for the other and that's not going to go back to the original creator at all.
The reason why copyright and IP exists is for that very reason. If everyone can take your first step and take their own step, the idea of the IP itself becomes dilutes to the point of obscurity. There is no verification of the original past the first one since after that point, the guy with the authentic original isn't going to matter so much as the product they produce and that can be just as much up to preference of the public.
Hell, seeing as we have essentially gotten rid of the idea that any one creator is entitled to the work they produce than why does it matter if someone else takes, recreates and than produces versions or even copies of their work if that's all allowed? You say that ethics would kick in to stop this but why would it keep kicking in if things happen to essentially disprove that specific ideal of the ethics? Considering that this fashion of IP creation/production/propagation is essentially tailor made for only the best creative works to survive in what is essentially a Darwinist model of 'survival of the fittest' sense, why should we care if the originator of the idea doesn't get to profit on it if someone else just takes it and make just a few edits to make it a better version by only a fraction? If ethics were all that mattered or were as big in this regards as you claim, then no one would be buying any product that has any connection to modern china and their legal sweat-shops.
So while you can say that profits would still be earned, it would be the equivalent of saying that a man in the fighting pits of Rome is earning his right to live every round. Sure they are, but that winning streak can easily turn on them and and in both the creative world and the fighting pits, if you loose that streak you might never get it again.
The issue with the second point; That artist have no intellectual right to the IPs they create,
seems to only be predicated on the fact that 'IP doesn't apply equally'. That premise is false but I understand why its formed. It isn't that IP isn't apply equally but that it can't be fought always on equal grounds. This is different because it establishes that while all IP is the same, not every can fight the same. This is true but the solution you have come up with is to abolish it altogether which is basically leaving everyone pants-less but with only one group the ability to manufacture them at any decent rate at all.
If you abolish all IP, what is there to ensure that people have any incentive to create anything? One might say the need for X is going to do it but at the same time, why would anyone put there neck out to fulfill the need for X if there isn't a way to ensure their own needs are met or even that their own ideas aren't abused even further than what they wanted. Now in an IP-less world, everyone has to either defend their ideas or products until they are produced and hope no one reverse engineers them or is able to produces them at a higher rate and quality than the original.
Your argument about the differences about the differences between Copyrights and Patents is also blatantly false as there are legal definitions for both and different criteria each one has to meet before it can be recognized. You can be denied patents if the Patent Office doesn't see it fit for actual Patent use which is its own long thread of legal cases and conditions. Its also wrong because you aren't given an IP just because you thought of an idea that's potentially new, you are given IP when you are able to create something of that idea of from it. Just having the idea doesn't protect it ,but proof of actual creation that does so. Then it becomes IP and patentable/copyrightable because the world wants you to expand on it. The whole deal of copyright and patent is basically saying 'you are allowed to make money of this with the express hope that you will expand this idea further than initially created'. People create shit from hard work, determination and innovation and if all of that can be removed from than just by putting it out into the world for use; why in gods name would you do so and not just keep it yourself and sell the product and monopolize it yourself? We had a system like this! Remember the workers guilds of the Middle Ages where you had guilds for candle making, glass making and even blacksmithing? That's what no IP means because if everyone who knows how to do it can make it and you have to make sure your the first to do it at all times, you are never going to share the secrets to anything you make as a way to make sure you can reap profits. And this is just for the more utility based ideas such as Patents and possibly Trademarks, this is whole new bag of beetles for Copyright and art based ideas.
Fyo Fyoriosity
Really interesting and well made video! Nyem, I like the idea behind it and love a lot of the points you made, but I still have some issues I'd be interested in hearing discussions about :D
The first issue is a silly sounding one, but - I'm absolutely scared of humans.
So many decisions are carried by misinformation, and really emotionally charged. How would we make sure the support doesn't go into the production of something harmful? And on the other hand, how do we ensure humans know enough about the things they need, especially the medical area, that they know where to invest?
Another thing is reputation. As you said, reputation and integrity is immensely important. Now I'm just a single person, but I made so so many mistakes in my life, had an edgy teen phase, surely commented a bunch of stupid things that I don't remember, and like in my first statement - act emotionally. People change, learn, but already the internet is crazily intimidating and unforgiving. Same fear as before, just applied to a single person instead of all of them.
How can you tell what the truth is, what distributor you should watch through, when it's already so muddy? And how do we ensure everyone has enough money to at least live, let alone to produce and put up a trailer or concept that will get funded?
I'm by no means the brightest lightbulb out there, and might have overseen a bunch of points and connections, but I'd genuinely be interested in other takes on these!
And I do enjoy the end is nighs soundtrack in the backgound XD
RadikAlice!
Brilliant essay, absolutely love that you've brought this up. It's a conversation that needs to happen
This peaked my interest as a fellow radical, but I come from a slightly different background
But hey, you still mention copyleft so you're already good in my book. What's my background?
I don't code, but I believe in the practical and ideological value of Open Souce. FOSS if you wanna get nerdy
Mad respect for putting your money where your mind is, I'd say Friday Night Funkin' is my biggest example
Aside from being a crowdsourcing success story, lead dev Ninjamuffin is a FOSS aficionado
and the game (or at least the code) is free under the GPL v2 which means every mod also has to be
because it's a copyleft license. And God damn it, it's like you want me to like this.
The commentary on ethics is great, but let's just say. Businesses and economic models are inherently
unethical, amoral. But it's up to us to make them ethical. An example comes to mind in the form of
FutureClub, a game dev studio spawned from the ashes of Lab Zero Games that's set up as a coop
from the start. So every employee owns the business and has a say in how it's run. And lastly
feels like a gigantic nitpick. I bet they work just fine in GIMP, but why release the colorless lineart of
Airlock Bound in a proprietary, closed format like PSD? It's probably because like, you use the Adobe suite
and that's it. Definitely a nitpick, excuse my FOSS evangelist side showing up. Can't help but be invested
RavenCloak13
@carso1500
Wait Yooka and Laylee is getting a sequel? I thought it bombed because people wanted it to be more like the old Banjo Kazooie games? Also you say that but even fan games that are free for say Pokémon get taken down al the time so no, those still have problems. Reverse side of that Touhou's creator ZUN lets people profit off his work and it's one of the internets most prolific series. All he ask is credit for the original idea and anyone would tell you who originally created Touhou.
Gods you are not wrong about copyright laws, IP laws, trademark laws and so on. It's a fucking confusing mess that really seems like it's just needlessly confusing to fuck with people unfamiliar with the law and just naively think it's there to protect you. Also you literally brought up why these systems are broken so why are you defending it in this sense when other points like distribution would be the real problem with a copyright free world. Well technically not since it be more of a trademark thing but that goes back to all these laws concerning this stuff is confusing.
Why would crowdfunding large scale be bad if we go by the logic presented in the video of multiple small donations going to one thing? You never actually specified why. Also I keep bringing up that you'd still have bigger investors as well. See stuff like Might #9 that got millions. Hell, your point about Avengers End Game doesn't really apply as what made it cost so much was actor salary, massive PR campaign, CGI and so on that they made up for with merch sales. Like the movie wasn't profitable cause it cost a lot to make but because of merch sales around it the actual companies involved were able to make money that way.
Look at Joker. It was the most profitable comic book related movie ever because of how little it actually cost but brought in a fuck ton of money. You don't need big budget for everything. Not to mention Avengers End Game was a culmination of a multi movie franchise series so... yeah they want to splurge on that as there literal big finally thing... I'm pretty sure if it was crowdfunded they could have made it even crazier with how culturally significant it was.
carso1500
@RavenCloak13 well for once if thats the case i don't see then why we would have to eliminate all copyright law for that to work then, under current law as long as you don't go and try to make a Kickstarters for a new super mario bros game or something like that Kickstarter already works good enough for most independent productions with the added benefit that you can copyright your idea and be protected from stealing, like some ex rareware workers wanted to create a sequel to banjo and kazoie but couldnt because the trademark belongs to Microsoft so instead they simply use their original characters yooka laylee and called it a day and now they even are creating a sequel
It even worked for the better in some regards because since they where forced to change characters they also made some interesting gameplay changes like how you can use yooka tonge to platform
Because copyright, patenting and trademark are diferent things, not having the trademark for a character only means you cannot name your character spiderman but instead idk, tarantulaman and thats it problem solved, not having the copyright would mean that you cannot use the spiderman Sony trilogy as backstory for your work but thats it, you can make your character go thorugh oddly similar circunstances and i doub that anyone would demand you, patents is where things gets trickly because indeed companies can patent more complex and usable ideas like how Warner brothers for example patented the nemesis system of shadows of mordor which is fucking bullshit and shouldn't be patentable anyway but the laws on that regard are broken
I think there is some confusión on what those three mean
Also no thats not what i'm talking about, he specifically states in the video that he things crowdsourcing is the way how big productions like Avengers endgame should be funded which is as i say counterproductive and not really a smart idea, also what benefits does it gain for that, he point things like how companies could sepárate production of the product and create it in sepárate studios or stuff like that so that they don't get robbed and leaked because that would be a real problem in a world where you can't demand people from doing that because all products are legaly free but all that is just adding unnecesary complexity to a very simple problem
Richard Pace
Overall, good job and great work trying to tackle such a difficult subject. I applaud the drive that caused you to make the video.
Ok I could only go about half through this one before I gave up. You have some good ideas here, but there is a clear lack of knowledge in many important areas that really hurts your arguments - like on how copyright actually works, or the actual impacts of marketing, investment, and how intellectual property works in all that. As someone who has worked in publishing, art, and design - I 100% agree with your first video, but (to me) you are focusing on the entirely wrong part of the problem and the suggestion that IP should be abolished would do more harm than good. You always have to assume there is going to be "that one guy" who will ruin the entire thing, because there is ALWAYS that one guy - that's how we got here. Thanks Disney.
First off - good on you for promoting the public domain. I am a huge supporter of CCL (Creative Commons), Public Domain, and the "Free Information Society". Transparency is Key, Access is Paramount.
Much of what you focus on ignores the biggest thing about IP - it is an aspect of property rights. As in - your right to own property. A fundamental
humanright. And this is where most of the problems occur.We have major businesses and corporations that are legally treated in the same capacity as an individual. This statement, by itself, should illuminate the issue. This is a global problem.
At no point should a self-governing entity be considered, by any measure, to have the same rights as an individual human. This is why, in democratic/electoral systems, people typically develop constitutions to limit the powers of the government. A government, much like a megacorporation, is a self-governing entity. It is void of rights, but has power and the capacity to do things. Now, this is not to say that the individuals who MAKE UP that entity (system) don't have rights - they do, just the same as the individual. But then the obvious problem occurs where you have a litany of individuals against a few - but as those rights need to be equally split among them for it to have equal measure for them to even POSSIBLY challenge it legally (if the system worked the way it was suppose to). This is the thing that needs fixing - and is pretty much at the center of our copyright/IP woes.
Another concept I would like to introduce, however, is the concept of "Memetic Relevancy". Whereas the first may be impossible to accomplish because the forces at play, I think this one is far more viable. Especially because we live in the internet age. Now while the concept of "Memetic Relevancy" (memetics, as in the philosophical/sociological idea) can be inherently more complex than this, the basic idea is that the more "relevant" an IP/Concept/etc. becomes in the public consciousness, the less it can be "owned" by any particular individual.
For example, you can show nearly any random group of 100 people in the developed (and even undeveloped) world a picture of Mickey Mouse or Nintendo's Mario and they would probably recognize them. This shows how these characters are "Memetically Relevant", perhaps to the maximum level, for that cultural location or group. If literally EVERYONE knows it and interacts with it, it can hardly be said that the original "owner" really owns it anymore - as the offshoots of that impact are reasonably distant from the original creators work - thus forcing it into the public domain.
This also works the other way around for protecting creators - as it can keep companies from buying properties just to eliminate competition and pull good ideas (a very common practice - lots of bands, artists, and studios experience this; to the degree that people make a living off of it) as if it sits as a contract clause ( a thing that MUST happen an exchange of rights occurs) when that the buyer is not maintaining a certain level of "memetic relevancy" they lose all "rights" to the work. With this, you create an environment of constantly new content, a growing public domain, a process for the corporate vultures to make money from it (meaning they might actually support it and allow it to pass), and increased protections for the creators - all with more awareness of cultural/societal impact of a certain idea. Sure there's problems with it - but its a damn sight better than whoever is the biggest bully owns everything by default.
SeaRuxIAN STUDIOS
Firstly, You didn't discuss the service, security, and convenience models
and secondly, you really need to give your view base more information
on the practical side of No IP, an idea is nice and all but its useless
without actions.
You need to make a video showing people how to make a work of there's
public domain, and make sure people both understand it as well as being
confident in its ability to not have legal problems, as a short piece
of text saying its public domain worries me as this is the internet
and someone could potentially change that text at any time or remove
it and sue me or DMCA me or whatever anyway and there's nothing stopping it.
Secondly, the convenience model is paying for things for the convenience
of having it, such as a pre-compiled software or going to a cinema
instead of setting up a home theatre, however, that goes more into
the service model, which is providing additional service and support
for a product that the consumer wants and is willing to pay for, not
because there isn't another option but because it is the 'official
and 'trusted' option, and that brings us into the security model of
which where you may buy an official service from a company because
they have a greater level of trust and security over the alternative.
While this doesn't stop competitors from building trust, this combined with
other services, makes security another reason to buy over free, especially
if buying is required for the service, but not the product itself.
for example, I am working on a game (well sort of, I'm still learning
the Godot engine and doing it as I go), its gonna take me a decent
amount of time to make that game, however it's a passion project
so to be fair I don't have the same worries a company would have.
When I finish this game, I plan to make a Kickstarter
to fund the games steam release, and to break even on anything I
may end up putting into the project.
Providing when I have the game made, I reach my minimum goal for
no-loss release, I will release the game for an amount on steam
more than whatever backers would have to give to get a copy.
This sounds like a typical distribution model, right? NOPE!
Upon steam release, the game will also be made public domain and the
source code will be released. The incentive to buy the game on steam will
be things like STEAM SERVICE SUPPORTt (like joining a friends game and the like)
as well as official servers, maybe early access to any updates, and most
importantly, buying a game on steam is MUCH MORE CONVENIENT than compiling
a project yourself.
The same would go for a mobile release with ads, most people aren't gonna look
for the free version if it's free with ads, maybe they will download a cracked
version without ads, but if you market ads as funding the development most
people won't bother with "privacy" as there wouldn't be enough reason for
most people to do so as long as the ads aren't too egregious or annoying.
Furthermore, the idea of official 'verified' servers and the fact that and official
client over one that you downloaded that someone else compiled may in fact
be more secure, or at least feel more secure, and therefore also fit to the
security model as well as the service model.
again, the game would be free and public domain, but you take a risk when you
go through unofficial sources. And the moral thing, combined with any noticeable art
and branding and staple points, as well as community synonomsy, causes it to be hard
if not straight out impossible for larger companies to steal for profit, as the
the main reason I am making this a passion project while still keeping an
understanding how I can also monetize it, and not announcing anything outside
of this causal example mentioning format, and definitely not going into ant real detail,
is BECAUSE IT GIVES ME TIME WITHOUT PRESSURE TO MAKE SOMETHING WORTHY OF THE
CONSUMER, THAT IF REPLICATED WOULD HAVE TO BE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL AND NOT EVER
BE CONTESTED, AS A PRIVATE COMPANY VERSION WILL NEVER BE OPEN SOURCE!
In the end, I love this idea of No IP and intend to follow suit once I have something
to follow suit with, however, I highly encourage a video or guide of some sort on how
to publically and without abuse or change register things as public domain; do that,
and even before my project, as that's gonna take me at least a year if not longer, and
I will go and register the small amounts of things I do have out there as public
domain, even if they've never watched, seen or used, I will still do so.
Lastly, to anyone reading this, It won't be for quite a while before I can even
a fraction of what I want to do, while I fully intend to make a said game,
please don't read this and start following me expecting some amazing
project in a few weeks, because as I mentioned, you will be disappointed
what I'm working on is only in my free time, and I've only just started and still
have a lot to learn on just how to make the darn thing, but I'm confident I will do it
because I've had the base ideas for 2 years and sat on them, and those ideas have
only grown in number in that time.
If you liked this comment, however, or anything I had to say in it, you can check out
my channel where I post about 1 video a fucking year of content that is compleatly
unrelated to what I have just typed, and just make whatever I want.
yes I know I'm advertising now, don't really care, I don't
think based on the video that Uniquenameosaurus will mind as my comment isnt just
and ad, and while hes free to remove the comment for this paragraph alone, I highly
doubt he will do so based on the obvious ethical standard he has.
Thank you for reading.
No matter who you are.
Thank you.
Scott Watrous
I mostly agree with this type of future. The main problem I see as it pertains to creative fiction work, and it's not without possible solutions, is the dillution and balkanization of what happens as a result. You'd still have organizations creating, I think, some kind of canon system or other mark of saying "the following work has been considered part of the canon" or "the following work is not canon" or something else.
Because otherwise you get one bad event and suddenly 1/3 of the people who made some show (say The Expanse) going off and getting a bunch of people excited for THEIR version of the next season, while another chunk of the creative staff go off and get a different group of people excited for their version, while some of the executive producers and production people go off to a completely new team and then create a third competing season of the work. All have, to some degree, legitimate 'claim to the throne' in public opinion; and will each attract a portion of the public interest, and it'll divide up who puts dollars where.
People will be like "which of the 4 series do I support? Which is the true continuation of the story?" And each studio will have marketing to explain why they have the true continuation of the story you should listen to, and to consider the real one. To make it worse, half the actors are on one project, the other half decided to go to the second project, some have been killed off in previous seasons but decide to just pretend that wasn't the real story and keep going, the third project in Toronto has the physical access all the original sets and the extras but has to recast 90% of the main cast, and another series just goes straight to animation as it has the original writers who felt it frees them up to tell the story better.
And without Copyright, they're all reusing footage and elements from previous seasons, so they're like, definitely building on a common starting point. So we can't consider them just completely separate stories entirely. They're divergent alternate universe stories.
And you can't just be like "oh did you see Season 5 of The Expanse last night?" but like "Did you watch Season 5 of the Prime version of The Expanse last night, not the Xbox version which I hate?"
On the surface this is a good thing. We now have 4x the content from groups competing for our dollar. But I don't want 4 half-baked stories with a fraction of the content that made the original good, and that get only a portion of the viewership. Because that means none of them will likely survive. None will likely get the same level of budget or interest. Or maybe one or two do, but they're left a husk of what was before.
Ask the fans of Batushka about how that goes.
So even without copyright as we have it, there'd likely need to be some kind of organizational body (and maybe one does exist) that can help say like "this studio has the title of teller of a given story, for as long as they uphold that title in good standing, and continue telling the story they want, they have the backing of industry to support their claim as the official version of the universe they are creating"
Once a story is told, and the people who were telling it decide that they have finished it, then open up the gates for new creators to come in and add their own bit. But while a story is being developed, even if there was no legally enforceable IP, I'd like us to have some method of saying "regardless of who else is involved in the project, these people are the Authors and have the final say"
The TyRant
I'd say that people already do that. Star Wars is a pretty good example of a universe that used to have an extended canon, then Disney retconned that canon. Now you have a whole bunch fans who refuse to acknowledge Disney's sequels as canon.
To a lesser extent, Avatar: The Legend of Korra. Where you have a minority of fans who refuse to acknowledge the events of Korra because it was inconsistent with what was established in TLA. Don't even get me started on the comics.
The best example are modern adaptations. Lord of the Rings for instance. You have the original books by Tolkien, you have the animated film in 1978, you have the Peter Jackson Films, and now Amazon is making their own live action series. Think of that, a person can sit down and talk about the Peter Jackson films without ever reading the original source material, and still share common ground with someone who only read the books. Also more often than not, the adaptations are not a one by one replica of the source material. Likewise, I bet no one remembers the animated film because get this; it was mediocre.
It's not surprising that most fanbases today are already VERY tribal. Yeah, fan wikis are going to be screwed up. But if that's the worst to happen, then I think they can manage.
The chances are that if an adaptation is poor, it's likely not going to be remembered, and if it is it's by a niche fanbase. Also, I don't think a company is going to release the same adaptation under the same name at the same time if another company is airing it. That would A. Confuse the Audience. B. Probably split viewings. There is such a thing in economics known as the law diminishing returns that states that if a consumer consumes to much of the same material, they're going to burn themselves out and not get much enjoyment out of it.
Uniquenameosaurus
Guys I use Star Citizen to prove consumers will pay for something that doesn't exist or isn't fully realised. Its not SPOSE to be a perfect example of crowdsourcing as an alternative. Current crowdsourcing is still ravaged by intellectual property, which I talk about later in the video.
Also if you're crowdsourcing for profits, rather than funding costs, crowdsourcing websites can hold customers money until they can confirm its not a scam.
Jace G
@Khronos_ This is about companies like kickstarter taking an theoratical big cut from the funding to make money from the producer?
Lets say I just copy their work, as is allowed with the new rules, and halve the money that gets taken from the creators, then it is of course an better deal, then others can lower their prices and enventually an place will be reached where nobody can provide an cheaper platform for creators to broadcast their projects without improving it,
Did I understand your question correctly?
Silica 🏳️⚧️
@Lord Cameron except someone else could just create Star Citizen.. after the original creators proved they can't make it - lol
Multi
@Uniquenameosaurus, I want discuss IP with in the future if you are interested.
shade necrophades
@Robert Wyatt who said I was broke and if it's a pro Bono lawyer then I don't have to pay them
Robert Wyatt
@shade necrophades nah, actually. You can’t. Because you would need to be able to pay a lawyer for that, which you can’t because your art is being stolen, so you’re not getting any money.
Joseph Felderhoff
So basically: nobody should have a monopoly on an idea.
truthterrain
Yes
Peace Master
@Fabrizio Caragiulo That "concrete implementation" is still just an idea, that's the point. There's nothing "concrete" about a loose collection of names, places, scenes, designs, etc.
Wolf Titan Reading
No its more i cant make my own shit so i take everyone else cause i can't create.