it sickens me that it is even a possibility that someone could own the footage of an event that inspires and belongs to all humanity and was paid for by the public, for the sole purpose of profiting off of that footage.  this is wrong on so many levels.

“As I say, IP is broken – there’s a lot that needs fixing.”

I am not unfamiliar with the arguments you present, like I stated protecting the small guy is how IP is sold to the masses but does not in any way reflect the reality of IP as implemented. We both agree it is broken as currently implemented and we are not alone in that sentiment. IP hurts the little guy hundreds of times for every one time it offers any protection or support. The little guy can’t even play in the legal playing field they would need to in order to get said protection.

I’d offer up that there was plenty of grass roots innovation throughout human history before the last 2 hundred years when IP was first though up and enacted into laws. So we wouldn’t be cutting off the nose to spite the face, we’d be cutting off a relativity new growth that turned out to be cancerous.

Most patents, music rights, and all forms of IP are owned and locked down by large corporations, not the small guy, even when the small guy is the one to create the the initial thing, as are most markets where the small guy would try and sell their new creation. Not to mention that it is getting increasingly impossible for any small guy to create anything, because almost everything we create is based off of previous ideas techniques, information, and incorporate more and more of a domain that is no longer free to build or innovate off of, most of which is now owned by large corporations for purpose of extracting money. The little guy is almost forced to sell, bring the product to market themselves is a rare rare thing these days. IP is increasingly starting to suffocate innovation especially with how much of the intellectual space is now locked away from true innovation. IP is inhibiting further innovation directly.

“Even at the top-end, technology companies would be far less inclined to spend millions on R&D knowing that their product would be like-for-like duplicated the second it reaches market. ”

This has been a HUGE problem, but in exact reverse of what you describe in medicine. Many very useful medicines have not been brought to market because there was no way to copyright them. Big pharma deals with this all the time. Meanwhile there have been some huge innovations in other countries on open medicines, from organizations where their primary goal is helping sick people, not making a profit off of sick people. IP has perverted the medical space to no small degree.

Musical innovation is in a very similar predicament.

Scientific innovation is in a similar predicament as well. Most of the big innovations are coming from public funded science, not private corps who are in a secretive arms race of sorts and discourage any sharing of information and ideas.

As far as tech. Do we benifit more if Apple is the only company that can make a tablet? or if it is an open playing field and competition forces them to make a better tablet at a reasonable price and we have cheaper alternatives for students and people who cannot afford the premium product. I’d put forward that the second is more beneficial to humanity then the first.

“I think it’s a bit fanciful to imagine that would cause an explosion in innovation. ”

It might be a bit fanciful to think, but every golden era in human history has been preceded with an explosion in innovation and thought brought about by the sharing of and influx of new information upon which everyone was free to act. It might not be a guarantee, but it is surly better then the dark ages we are headed directly towards on our current path.

Anyway, don’t get me wrong, I do understand the points you are making. I just think we need to tear down the whole system and rethink how we think about these sorts of things. Information and ideas are most useful to everyone when they are usable by everyone. The idea that you can own a thought or idea or concept is ludicrous in my opinion.

thanks for the dialogue.

Cheers,
josh

Do you know how difficult it is to get a product to market? Imagine how much more difficult it would be if you created something revolutionary, from blood sweet and tears, and GE/P&G/etc. could get the same product onto store shelves within 72 hours.

It could hamper grass-roots innovation as much as invigorate it – and without some form of guaranteed protection over things that people can spend their life (and life savings) creating, I’m pretty sure that you’d have some innovation issues. Even at the top-end, technology companies would be far less inclined to spend millions on R&D knowing that their product would be like-for-like duplicated the second it reaches market.
Open Source would be as it was, but there’s no problem with open source as it is. Same goes for creative commons. Naturally it would bring some proprietary stuff back into the hands of the people; but I think it’s a bit fanciful to imagine that would cause an explosion in innovation.
It’s worth noting that since IP we’ve seen far more innovation than before it. I won;t be silly enough to suggest IP is the reason, but I do believe that it’s a contributing factor. People (and companies) are far more likely to make an investment if they know it’s protected.

As I say, IP is broken – there’s a lot that needs fixing. But you don’t need to cut off the nose to spite the face.

Why don’t we just join the party?

It’s a stupid law, but it’s not YouTube’s law.

If I called the police every week and reported a crime that didn’t exist, I’m pretty sure they’d have some harsh words for me.

YES

It’s not about censorship. Removing a video because of a copyright claim, regardless of it’s validity, is not intended to prevent another person from expressing their thoughts and opinions, its about protecting the thoughts and opinions of the party issuing the takedown notice. 

There’s a fine line between protecting your rights and infringing upon my rights. It’s not as easy as a yes/no question. What if, for arguments sake, this Skripps News company did own the copyrights to some portion of the video NASA/JPL posted? Would you want to make it more difficult to protect their work from blatant copyright infringement?

How does Scripps (or the other false DMCA filers) get away with saying that, although they signed a false statement under oath, it was just a technical oversight?  Charges should be laid for such misdeeds.

Much better to prosecute false claims as perjury, which is what they are.

Who cares about the value this video has to humanity. Can money be made in the next 2 minutes? It reminds me why ye olde-tyme cartoonists always depicted Capitalists as monicled swine with top hats and coattails.

Couldn’t there be a “this is 100% original content” option for certain uploaders which would require human intervention before such content could be taken down, with the option revoked if it was abused? Only certain uploaders could get it, which would prevent fly by nighters abusing it.