4 ms·

Research the origins of IP. IP didn't exist forever. It was introduced because it was needed. If you think this is subjective, let me ask you think: you have a

by slver 6y ago

Research the origins of IP. IP didn't exist forever. It was introduced because it was needed. If you think this is subjective, let me ask you think: you have a popular YouTube channel, your content requires paying writers, actors, VFX teams and editors. Bunch of other people copy your content freely and legally and get most of the ad revenue. You protest: you made this content, you paid for it. Please just link to me, not the copycats. Response "we can just as easily assert that you'd continue making videos anyway with or without other people copying you." Kind of tonedeaf isn't it? Look, eventually all our jobs will be producing IP. We'll have IP schematics to prints 3D printers which prints other 3D printers, which print robots which do all the work. I'm simplifying but basically that's the future of jobs. No one cares about your muscles, they only care about your brain. So, to say IP deserves no rights in the long-term means basically no one has jobs, and we have no economy.

saithound 6y ago
Your hypothetical scenario is silly: it relies on the dubious assumption that neither YouTube nor the viewers have any agency about who they give money to. The agency of the viewers was discussed in the other responses, so let's focus on the agency of YouTube. Why would YouTube pay ad revenue to a "bunch of other people" in a hypothetical world where YouTube could freely and legally host a copy of the content themselves, and take all the ad revenue for themselves? They have an incentive to pay something the creator (if they think that doing so would motivate them to create more content, and hence lead to more ad revenue in the future), but certainly not to a bunch of random people uploading the same content.
- slver 6y ago
  Your argument in favor of YouTube protecting IP rights basically applies 1:1 about the government protecting it. You do realize if YouTube alone protected copyright, we'd have a NotYouTube clone setup within minutes where the copies and ads will go to, or not? We have governments for this stuff, so we don't have to play whack-a-mole with copycats all over the internet and the world.
  - saithound 6y ago
    1. I didn't give an argument in favor of YouTube protecting IP rights. 2. No that argument is still silly. It does not work for the same reason: it assumes no agency on part of economic actors. The only way your hypothetical "NotYouTube" could stay in business vs. YouTube is by adding enough value that they actually get ad revenue. If people decide to advertise on "NotYouTube", to the extent that it is profitable to run "NotYouTube", then "NotYouTube" will have the exact same incentive to motivate content creators by sharing part of their ad revenue with them. The argument is precisely that these copycats are a net positive: coordinating against them (playing whack-a-mole) is a net negative, with or without governments.
    - slver 6y ago
      > The only way your hypothetical "NotYouTube" could stay in business vs. YouTube is by adding enough value that they actually get ad revenue. Well, they have the same content as YouTube for starters. So all they need is a slightly sexier or faster app, and they're done. > "NotYouTube" will have the exact same incentive to motivate content creators by sharing part of their ad revenue with them. "NotYouTube" doesn't have content creators. Why would they. They have YouTube's content. See, the part you keep missing in your analysis is that without IP rights, NotYoutube doesn't need original content, full stop. It just needs to copy/paste YouTube's content. They don't have to share ad revenue with anyone. You really need to think through the entire chain of events that'll unfold if we had no IP rights. Creators will no longer be someone you need to deal with. They're just the gullible idiots who made something on their own, for others to just take it and profit from it. In a world without IP rights, content is worthless. So who would bother producing it? Let's figure that out. The only way for content producers to profit would be product placement deals. However the product placement should be inseparable from the content, because in a world without IP rights, anyone can just cut out the ads and sponsored messages from your content. So what's the conclusion here? All content will be just... ads. Not videos WITH ads. But the videos themselves will be ads. Ads for products you can sell, as those are the only thing you can sell for money in a world without IP rights. Probably also political propaganda, as politicians can pay for that as well, and then embezzle it from the budget. That's going to be all of it. Wow, I just got sad imagining that.
aequitas 6y ago
If people truly value the effort you put in and appreciate you making more content for them they can always subscribe to your Patreon and give you money directly. No need to go through a platform that uses advertising. And if the content can be freely distributed there is no need to go watch it on a platform where someone is leeching large amounts of money through advertising, unless the platform itself provides some actual value. 3D printers is a bad example by the way, as one of the most successful 3D printing companies works completely opensource: https://github.com/prusa3d https://github.com/prusa3d Why do people still pay them a large sum for their printer when they can build one themselves or buy a cheap clone off of Aliexpress?
jayd16 6y ago
Innovation existed before IP. To argue it would stop requires a lot of proof. Your hypothetical scenarios rely on perpetuating the current ways to monetize but again, that isn't the goal. New ways would surface. The world would certainly be different but nothing about your arguments convince the reader that the world would be worse.

by slver 6y ago

saithound 6y ago

Your hypothetical scenario is silly: it relies on the dubious assumption that neither YouTube nor the viewers have any agency about who they give money to. The agency of the viewers was discussed in the other responses, so let's focus on the agency of YouTube. Why would YouTube pay ad revenue to a "bunch of other people" in a hypothetical world where YouTube could freely and legally host a copy of the content themselves, and take all the ad revenue for themselves? They have an incentive to pay something the creator (if they think that doing so would motivate them to create more content, and hence lead to more ad revenue in the future), but certainly not to a bunch of random people uploading the same content.

slver 6y ago
Your argument in favor of YouTube protecting IP rights basically applies 1:1 about the government protecting it. You do realize if YouTube alone protected copyright, we'd have a NotYouTube clone setup within minutes where the copies and ads will go to, or not? We have governments for this stuff, so we don't have to play whack-a-mole with copycats all over the internet and the world.
- saithound 6y ago
  1. I didn't give an argument in favor of YouTube protecting IP rights. 2. No that argument is still silly. It does not work for the same reason: it assumes no agency on part of economic actors. The only way your hypothetical "NotYouTube" could stay in business vs. YouTube is by adding enough value that they actually get ad revenue. If people decide to advertise on "NotYouTube", to the extent that it is profitable to run "NotYouTube", then "NotYouTube" will have the exact same incentive to motivate content creators by sharing part of their ad revenue with them. The argument is precisely that these copycats are a net positive: coordinating against them (playing whack-a-mole) is a net negative, with or without governments.
  - slver 6y ago
    > The only way your hypothetical "NotYouTube" could stay in business vs. YouTube is by adding enough value that they actually get ad revenue. Well, they have the same content as YouTube for starters. So all they need is a slightly sexier or faster app, and they're done. > "NotYouTube" will have the exact same incentive to motivate content creators by sharing part of their ad revenue with them. "NotYouTube" doesn't have content creators. Why would they. They have YouTube's content. See, the part you keep missing in your analysis is that without IP rights, NotYoutube doesn't need original content, full stop. It just needs to copy/paste YouTube's content. They don't have to share ad revenue with anyone. You really need to think through the entire chain of events that'll unfold if we had no IP rights. Creators will no longer be someone you need to deal with. They're just the gullible idiots who made something on their own, for others to just take it and profit from it. In a world without IP rights, content is worthless. So who would bother producing it? Let's figure that out. The only way for content producers to profit would be product placement deals. However the product placement should be inseparable from the content, because in a world without IP rights, anyone can just cut out the ads and sponsored messages from your content. So what's the conclusion here? All content will be just... ads. Not videos WITH ads. But the videos themselves will be ads. Ads for products you can sell, as those are the only thing you can sell for money in a world without IP rights. Probably also political propaganda, as politicians can pay for that as well, and then embezzle it from the budget. That's going to be all of it. Wow, I just got sad imagining that.

aequitas 6y ago

If people truly value the effort you put in and appreciate you making more content for them they can always subscribe to your Patreon and give you money directly. No need to go through a platform that uses advertising. And if the content can be freely distributed there is no need to go watch it on a platform where someone is leeching large amounts of money through advertising, unless the platform itself provides some actual value. 3D printers is a bad example by the way, as one of the most successful 3D printing companies works completely opensource: https://github.com/prusa3d https://github.com/prusa3d Why do people still pay them a large sum for their printer when they can build one themselves or buy a cheap clone off of Aliexpress?

jayd16 6y ago

Innovation existed before IP. To argue it would stop requires a lot of proof. Your hypothetical scenarios rely on perpetuating the current ways to monetize but again, that isn't the goal. New ways would surface. The world would certainly be different but nothing about your arguments convince the reader that the world would be worse.