Name: 知的財産入門。クラッシュコース知財1 (Introduction to Intellectual Property: Crash Course IP 1)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T05:44:05.000Z
Duration: 10 min 10 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Hi, I'm Stan Muller. This is Crash  Course and today we begin our miniseries on Intellectual Property

Hey, isn't the entire concept of Intellectual Property illegitimate?

I mean, how can we justify locking up the world of science and arts so corporations, publishing houses

and other gatekeepers can control what we know and what we think!

Hey, me from the past! There's a Stan from the past! This is great!

Anyway. I can tell by looking at your vacant and bloodshot eyes that you've been up all night downloading Chumbawamba records over dialogue connection.

I remember those days and I remember you desperately trying to cling to any ethos that justified your rampant copyright infringement.

That is if you ever participated in such activities. And even if you had participated in said infringing activities,

the statute of limitations has likely run out. I don't even know what LimeWire is!

I like how this is getting started, because Stan from the past raises some interesting points!

There's a good chance that he, and a lot of you watching this video, might think

about aspects of Intellectual Property as outdated and pretty much irrelevant. Maybe

That line, "Information wants to be free", has been used to argue that current intellectual

properly laws are outdated, over-broad and generally awful.

The quotation is attributed to Stewart Brand and he said this to a group of computer programmers in 1984.

"On the one hand Information wants to be expensive,

because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life.

On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is

getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."

The full quote, which you hardly ever hear,

actually spells out the major tension between intellectual property and technology quite well.

And it did it more than 30 years ago, when the digital age was just beginning. As information

technology becomes more and more pervasive and important in our day-to-day lives in the information society

, information itself becomes exponentially more important and more valuable.

Paradoxically, as our information technology improves, and as our computers and connections

get better and faster, and sharing becomes easier, we're less able to control the copying

and dissemination of this incredibly valuable information. The law of supply and demand

pushes down the information's value. This tension is nothing new.

Technology, especially in the context of copyright law, has always presented challenges.

Socrates's and Plato's 'Phaedrus' bemoaned the advent of books, arguing that they "will

implant forgetfulness in [human beings'] souls; they will cease to exercise memory because

they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves,

One way that humans have attempted to deal with these new technologies, with varying success , is by passing laws.

The scourge of the piano roll was contemplated in the 1909 Copyright Act,

the photocopier in 1976, and the Internet was covered in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

But we're going to try to avoid this simplified intellectual property versus technology binary.

The idea that we have to choose between devaluing the fruits of intellectual talent and labor,

or devaluing the revolutionary information sharing capacity of our networks, is wrong-headed.

The more interesting and more difficult question is how we can strike a balance; how we can

incentivize and promote this revolution in the way we share information, while at the

same time incentivizing and promoting the production of creative works and inventions

by having respect for the human beings that actually created them.

The difference between today's debates and those that took place 100 years ago is that

intellectual property pervades our lives more and more every day.

This is especially true for anyone viewing this video. I know that about 90% of you view

Crash Course in a web browser, so consider the layers of IP in this very YouTube page.

A lot of what you're looking at is covered by copyright. This video, for example, is

covered as a motion picture work. The website itself is considered a literary work.

The Thought Bubble, the theme song, and the video you watched right before this one, all

have copyright protection. The software that streams the video is also a literary work.

The web browser you're using is most likely registered as a computer program, as is the

operating system. Lest you Linux weirdos think that you don't have a copyright on your OS:

Even your comments could be covered by copyright. That haiku you just posted:

"Who is this person? What happened to Mr. Green?

When you agreed to this (image of YouTube user agreement), you granted YouTube a worldwide,

perpetual, non-exclusive license to use your content in any way they see fit.

There are also patents in play here. There's proprietary video streaming technology, and

many of the components in your computer are patented.

YouTube is a registered trademark, and if you saw an ad before this video, there was

most likely a trademark in there. This is a trademark

and under this sticker is an image of a piece of fruit, also a trademark.

And behind the camera, our most precious and valuable mark, Mark Olsen. Mark Olsen, everybody!

The search algorithm that got you here? That's a trade secret. My appearance in this video,

and subsequent marketing of commemorative mugs with my likeness fixed on each one- that

If you're watching this on an iPhone or an Android, there's a whole other world of copyrights

When you start to deconstruct it like this, it's dizzying. But despite all this complexity,

most of the time the system moves along with a fluidity that sometimes makes it easy to

put it out of your mind. Kind of like the internal functioning of your digestive tract.

But it's there. Always there. Gurgling and churning and functioning. Did anybody order lunch?

Now most of this fluidity and seamlessness is borne on the back of hundreds or thousands

of lawsuits, many of them against Google, thousands of pages of intricately complex

contracts, and hundreds of millions of take down notices.

The point is that none of us, or very few of us, can go about our daily lives without

being impacted by intellectual property. It's only when it hits home, like when you receive

a cease-and-desist letter from a trademark attorney for opening a restaurant called Burger Queen,

or digital rights management software stops you from listening to your iTunes downloads on your Zune.

Maybe your YouTube video gets taken down because of that T-Swizzie song in the background (that's

Maybe you get a letter from your internet service provider, informing you that someone

using your account has downloaded every episode of Game of Thrones and that if it keeps up

you may be fined or imprisoned- or beheaded! That's when it flares up.

Flare up! God, are we still on the digestive tract metaphor? Somebody get me a Tums. Tums,

by the way, registered trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies.

Most of us encounter IP only on its borders. We hear horror stories about the motion picture

and recording industry suing grandmothers. We watch those unskippable FBI messages warning

us about the consequences of copyright infringement, or we complain about paying thousands of dollars

We tend to encounter intellectual property law in places where we, as users, are basically

being told 'no'. And being told 'no' over and over again is irritating, especially when

these "no's" don't seem to make any sense. And they're really irritating when they come

字幕リスト動画再生

知的財産入門。クラッシュコース知財1 (Introduction to Intellectual Property: Crash Course IP 1)

computer

die

life

book