I do enjoy that video, but also, despite my deep cynicism about copyright, I can't help but think this is not in any risk of happening. If you trace the economi

I do enjoy that video, but also, despite my deep cynicism about copyright, I can't help but think this is not in any risk of happening. If you trace the economics it makes no sense. Why would a creator make a thing, then sell you the experience of that thing, then be upset that you have memories of the experience of that thing? If they do try to claw it back in an era where memory editation is possible, why would anybody shell out any money to have an experience if they won't be allowed to remember it tomorrow? Why would I use copyright law to prevent word-of-mouth marketing, the most powerful form of marketing there is? The point of copyright in general is to protect the economic value for the producer. Being so grabby about "IP rights" that they literally claw back the experience of consuming it means that the economic value of the IP drops to zero. It only has value in the context of being consumed, remembered, etc., and where the person purchasing the experience has confidence that such a thing will be allowed. I suppose hypothetical future simulated humans could be shaped and molded until they give up some real value for an "experience" they won't be allowed to remember tomorrow, but by then they have passed so far beyond what is "human" that I have no further guesses what they may act like. (That's the true meaning of the "singularity" term, not any particular future, but the point at which our predictions are meaningless.)