WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en
Style:
::cue(c.colorEEEEEE) { color: rgb(238,238,238);
}
::cue(c.cyan) { color: cyan; }
::cue(c.yellow) { color: yellow; }
##
1
00:00:01.720 --> 00:00:03.980
I'm not saying
that's how it should be.
2
00:00:03.980 --> 00:00:05.580
I'm saying that's how it is.
562
00:00:07.220 --> 00:00:12.340
So. How do we fix it?
4
00:00:12.340 --> 00:00:13.900
What's up, world?
It's your boy Tom—
5
00:00:13.900 --> 00:00:14.840
Oh, come on!
6
00:00:14.840 --> 00:00:16.500
This video is sponsored by CuriosityStream,
7
00:00:16.500 --> 00:00:19.200
and by this:
my new Nebula streaming series
8
00:00:19.200 --> 00:00:20.900
that you can watch for free
when you join.
9
00:00:20.900 --> 00:00:22.000
More on that later.
10
00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:23.100
Sellout!
11
00:00:23.100 --> 00:00:24.980
What's up world?
It's your boy, TomReacts.
12
00:00:24.980 --> 00:00:26.460
Let's see what this prat has to say.
13
00:00:26.460 --> 00:00:28.780
A few disclaimers before we start:
14
00:00:28.780 --> 00:00:32.380
While this video has been proofed
and fact-checked by a team of legal experts,
15
00:00:32.380 --> 00:00:35.440
I am not a lawyer, and this is not
a substitute for legal advice.
16
00:00:35.440 --> 00:00:36.940
Yeah, I can tell that, mate.
17
00:00:36.940 --> 00:00:41.280
I'm also talking a lot about YouTube and Google,
companies that I benefit from enormously.
18
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:44.020
Google even sponsored an entire series
on this channel last year.
19
00:00:44.020 --> 00:00:45.100
Shill!
20
00:00:45.100 --> 00:00:47.000
I'm friends with a few YouTube employees.
21
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:48.120
'Course you are.
22
00:00:48.120 --> 00:00:51.980
So, while all the words here are my own,
YouTube don't even know I'm making this,
23
00:00:51.980 --> 00:00:54.120
you should know that
if you're one of the outliers
24
00:00:54.120 --> 00:00:57.620
who's been screwed over by
YouTube's copyright system…
25
00:00:57.620 --> 00:01:00.620
Yeah, you will probably have
a different view of parts of this.
26
00:01:00.620 --> 00:01:03.420
Although I hope you'll still agree
with my conclusion.
27
00:01:03.420 --> 00:01:05.680
With all that said,
enjoy the show.
28
00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:06.960
Get on with it!
29
00:01:06.960 --> 00:01:07.840
Not you.
30
00:01:13.580 --> 00:01:16.880
I realise saying
"YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken"
31
00:01:16.880 --> 00:01:19.060
is a controversial claim to make,
32
00:01:19.060 --> 00:01:21.500
when every week
there seems to be a new headline
33
00:01:21.500 --> 00:01:24.340
about how a YouTube creator
is being screwed over
34
00:01:24.340 --> 00:01:29.540
by false copyright claims, or mistaken identity,
or deliberate copyright abuse.
35
00:01:29.540 --> 00:01:31.920
I'm not saying
that the system is perfect.
36
00:01:31.920 --> 00:01:35.140
It's far from perfect,
and I'll talk about that too.
37
00:01:35.140 --> 00:01:38.220
But I don't think
it's fundamentally broken.
38
00:01:38.220 --> 00:01:41.160
In May 2019, a YouTube
Minecraft player called Oli
39
00:01:41.160 --> 00:01:44.580
had hundreds of his videos claimed
by music label Warner Chappell
40
00:01:44.580 --> 00:01:46.760
using YouTube's Content ID system.
41
00:01:46.760 --> 00:01:50.180
His post about it made a lot of people
righteously angry.
42
00:01:50.180 --> 00:01:53.920
He'd got permission to use a track from
an independent composer as his intro music,
43
00:01:53.920 --> 00:01:58.400
and now a big corporation was
claiming every video and taking all his revenue!
44
00:01:58.400 --> 00:02:02.740
Popular websites went so far as to claim
that Oli was the victim of outright theft,
45
00:02:02.740 --> 00:02:07.220
since 25% of his revenues
were directed to Warner Chappell.
46
00:02:07.220 --> 00:02:10.240
But the follow-up wasn't seen
by nearly as many people:
47
00:02:10.240 --> 00:02:12.980
those claims were entirely legitimate.
48
00:02:12.980 --> 00:02:16.220
Yes, Oli got permission
to use that music from its composer,
49
00:02:16.220 --> 00:02:18.840
but that composer had sampled
another piece of music
50
00:02:18.840 --> 00:02:22.880
that was owned by Warner Chappell,
without a license.
51
00:02:22.880 --> 00:02:26.360
So the permission that Oli got
was entirely useless.
52
00:02:26.360 --> 00:02:29.720
Warner Chappell was right,
and Oli was wrong.
53
00:02:29.720 --> 00:02:31.300
So, here's how
that should have worked
54
00:02:31.300 --> 00:02:34.860
in the world that current copyright law
was designed for:
55
00:02:34.860 --> 00:02:39.560
First, everyone involved would have been
part of a large company with a legal team.
56
00:02:39.560 --> 00:02:43.680
Lawyers from the music label would have contacted
the lawyers for the video company,
57
00:02:43.680 --> 00:02:48.160
and they would have said, "What's going on?
You didn't license that."
58
00:02:48.160 --> 00:02:50.340
And the video company lawyers
would have gone:
59
00:02:50.340 --> 00:02:52.540
Oh, I'm sorry. I had no idea.
60
00:02:52.540 --> 00:02:54.880
We bought that license in good faith
from a third party.
61
00:02:54.880 --> 00:02:56.140
We should both talk to them.
62
00:02:56.140 --> 00:03:00.100
At which point the third company's lawyers
would get a very worrying phone call.
830
00:03:00.100 --> 00:03:02.040
[screams]
64
00:03:02.040 --> 00:03:05.100
And all the mess would almost certainly
have been settled out of court.
65
00:03:05.100 --> 00:03:06.360
Maybe by backroom dealings,
66
00:03:06.360 --> 00:03:09.040
maybe by teams of lawyers
sending formal letters to each other.
67
00:03:09.040 --> 00:03:11.600
That was the world
that copyright law was designed for.
68
00:03:11.600 --> 00:03:13.820
Because individuals couldn't make things
69
00:03:13.820 --> 00:03:16.780
that were viewed by millions
without corporate support,
70
00:03:16.780 --> 00:03:20.360
you needed a publisher, or a broadcaster,
or a huge production company,
71
00:03:20.360 --> 00:03:23.660
and… those companies had lawyers.
72
00:03:23.660 --> 00:03:26.820
The world has moved on,
and copyright law hasn't.
73
00:03:26.820 --> 00:03:29.020
And the result is that,
when something like this happens
74
00:03:29.020 --> 00:03:32.920
in the world of relatively-tiny,
independent online creators,
75
00:03:32.920 --> 00:03:36.820
we have to work around
what the law is meant to do.
76
00:03:37.000 --> 00:03:40.000
[Canon in D by Pachelbel]
77
00:03:41.360 --> 00:03:45.780
Music has two main copyrights.
78
00:03:45.780 --> 00:03:48.760
First, there's the copyright
on the composition itself:
79
00:03:48.760 --> 00:03:52.100
all the parts of a work
that can be written down,
80
00:03:52.100 --> 00:03:54.500
so, lyrics and notes.
81
00:03:55.740 --> 00:04:01.780
And then, second, there's a copyright on
each individual recorded performance.
82
00:04:03.040 --> 00:04:07.020
So I can sit here, and I can play
Pachelbel's Canon in D
83
00:04:07.020 --> 00:04:09.660
without having to pay any licensing fees,
84
00:04:09.660 --> 00:04:14.780
because Pachelbel died in 1706
and his work is now in the public domain,
85
00:04:14.780 --> 00:04:17.500
in the pool of works
where the copyright has expired.
86
00:04:17.500 --> 00:04:21.740
His music is now free for anyone to use
without payment and without credit.
87
00:04:21.740 --> 00:04:23.840
Which is brilliant!
88
00:04:23.840 --> 00:04:25.680
But if I'm not playing it,
89
00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:27.000
I'm actually using a modern recording of it…
90
00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:28.380
[music continues]
91
00:04:28.380 --> 00:04:29.500
…then it doesn't matter that
the composition is in the public domain:
92
00:04:29.500 --> 00:04:31.200
[music stops]
93
00:04:31.200 --> 00:04:33.580
someone has added
their own hard work playing it,
94
00:04:33.580 --> 00:04:35.800
along with the work of a production team
making it sound good,
95
00:04:35.800 --> 00:04:38.880
and that recording is
under a separate copyright
96
00:04:38.880 --> 00:04:41.780
that needs licensing to use
in a video like this.
97
00:04:41.780 --> 00:04:45.440
Songwriter after songwriter after songwriter
has used Pachelbel's Canon in D
98
00:04:45.440 --> 00:04:47.380
to the extent that it's now a cliché,
99
00:04:47.380 --> 00:04:50.560
and no-one's had to pay Pachelbel
or his family a penny in centuries,
100
00:04:50.560 --> 00:04:54.640
but that doesn't mean any of the modern songs
based on it are in the public domain.
101
00:04:54.640 --> 00:04:56.060
There is new work there.
102
00:04:56.060 --> 00:04:59.820
And I can't use those modern songs
in this video to demonstrate that,
103
00:04:59.820 --> 00:05:02.640
unless I'm actually criticising them.
104
00:05:02.640 --> 00:05:03.860
On that point…
117
00:05:03.860 --> 00:05:03.860
♫♫
816
00:05:03.860 --> 00:05:06.260
Maroon 5's Memories
is an infuriating composition
107
00:05:06.260 --> 00:05:08.700
that uses the start of the melody
of Canon in D but never resolves it,
108
00:05:08.700 --> 00:05:08.700
which means it has the same
stuck-in-your-head effect as the jiun-gle from—
109
00:05:08.700 --> 00:05:10.700
which means it has the same
stuck-in-your-head effect
110
00:05:10.700 --> 00:05:12.740
as the jingle from
Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man,
111
00:05:12.740 --> 00:05:03.860
and I hate it.
117
00:05:03.860 --> 00:05:03.860
♫♫
113
00:05:14.240 --> 00:05:16.780
Coolio's C U When U Get There
was a lukewarm lead single
114
00:05:16.780 --> 00:05:19.060
from a third album that obviously did
far better with a naive world audience
115
00:05:19.060 --> 00:05:21.200
than it ever did
with its actual target market.
116
00:05:21.200 --> 00:05:03.860
There's a reason it went platinum
in New Zealand.
117
00:05:03.860 --> 00:05:03.860
♫♫
118
00:05:23.400 --> 00:05:26.240
And The Farm's
All Together Now is…
119
00:05:26.240 --> 00:05:27.380
actually a pretty good song
120
00:05:27.380 --> 00:05:29.160
despite the incongruity between
its subject matter and its style,
121
00:05:29.160 --> 00:05:30.980
but it's been completely destroyed
122
00:05:30.980 --> 00:05:34.100
by repetitive and unnecessary
cover versions and football chants.
123
00:05:34.840 --> 00:05:36.940
Criticism and review!
There we go.
124
00:05:36.940 --> 00:05:39.920
That is the sort of thing that's considered
"fair use" under US law,
125
00:05:39.920 --> 00:05:42.840
and "fair dealing"
under the much more strict UK law,
126
00:05:42.840 --> 00:05:45.340
but I had to censor the album art
of those songs,
127
00:05:45.340 --> 00:05:48.020
because I wasn't criticising
and reviewing the art,
128
00:05:48.020 --> 00:05:51.160
and the art is covered
under separate copyright.
129
00:05:51.160 --> 00:05:54.600
In 2009, Andy Baio,
then one of the directors of Kickstarter,
130
00:05:54.600 --> 00:05:58.820
released an 8-bit chiptune version
of the best-selling jazz album of all time,
131
00:05:58.820 --> 00:06:00.440
Miles Davis' Kind of Blue.
132
00:06:00.440 --> 00:06:03.380
He got a license from the music publisher.
He called it Kind of Bloop.
133
00:06:03.380 --> 00:06:04.960
It was all above board.
134
00:06:04.960 --> 00:06:09.300
But he settled out of court
for more than $30,000 with Jay Maisel,
135
00:06:09.300 --> 00:06:13.080
the photographer who took the iconic photograph
on the original album cover.
136
00:06:13.080 --> 00:06:16.880
Kind of Bloop's album art was
a pixelated version of that album cover.
137
00:06:16.880 --> 00:06:18.900
Baio thought it was fair use.
138
00:06:18.900 --> 00:06:22.180
Maisel said it wasn't,
and Maisel had lawyers.
139
00:06:22.180 --> 00:06:23.100
To quote Baio:
140
00:06:23.100 --> 00:06:26.060
"The fact that I settled
is not an admission of guilt.
141
00:06:26.060 --> 00:06:29.720
"This was the least expensive
option available."
142
00:06:29.720 --> 00:06:34.600
Because copyright lawyers and
copyright lawsuits are very, very expensive.
143
00:06:34.600 --> 00:06:37.240
Expensive enough that
that isn't the album cover!
144
00:06:37.240 --> 00:06:39.700
That is a stock photo
that looks kind-of like the album cover,
145
00:06:39.700 --> 00:06:42.460
because I am taking no risks.
146
00:06:42.460 --> 00:06:45.100
I don't know if that pixel art was fair use.
147
00:06:45.100 --> 00:06:50.260
If someone took your greatest work,
ran it through a pixelation filter, and then sold it,
148
00:06:50.260 --> 00:06:53.100
I don't think it's entirely unreasonable
to think you've been ripped off.
149
00:06:53.100 --> 00:06:55.560
The line of 'fair use' is very fuzzy,
150
00:06:55.560 --> 00:06:58.740
and both sides can have
very strong and conflicting arguments.
151
00:06:58.740 --> 00:07:01.060
That's the job of the courts to solve.
152
00:07:01.060 --> 00:07:03.060
If both sides can afford it.
153
00:07:03.060 --> 00:07:04.760
And there wasn't even a music video
involved there!
154
00:07:04.760 --> 00:07:06.560
That is a whole separate problem.
155
00:07:06.560 --> 00:07:09.540
There is something
called a 'compulsory license'
156
00:07:09.540 --> 00:07:12.080
for selling and performing just music,
157
00:07:12.080 --> 00:07:15.180
but if you want to publish a video
to go with someone else's song,
158
00:07:15.180 --> 00:07:18.780
even if it's just a video of you
performing it on a ukelele in your bedroom,
159
00:07:18.780 --> 00:07:21.580
that requires a separate
synchronisation license,
160
00:07:21.580 --> 00:07:25.780
and the copyright holder has
an absolute right to say no to that.
161
00:07:25.780 --> 00:07:28.100
YouTube has always had
a lot of people uploading cover songs,
162
00:07:28.100 --> 00:07:30.180
singing and performing
the music that they love,
163
00:07:30.180 --> 00:07:32.080
and hoping they'll get noticed.
164
00:07:32.080 --> 00:07:34.220
By talent scouts, not by lawyers.
165
00:07:34.220 --> 00:07:37.420
A lot of modern pop singers
got their start on YouTube,
166
00:07:37.420 --> 00:07:40.680
but the legal baseline for doing that
outside the YouTube bubble,
167
00:07:40.680 --> 00:07:44.080
if you just filmed yourself
and put it up somewhere else online…
168
00:07:44.080 --> 00:07:46.780
Well, the baseline is that
you'd have to pay for an expensive license,
169
00:07:46.780 --> 00:07:49.000
or you get sued, and you lose.
170
00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:50.820
Or more likely,
you get a cease-and-desist letter,
171
00:07:50.820 --> 00:07:52.620
you pay a bit of money
to make the lawyers go away,
172
00:07:52.620 --> 00:07:56.160
and you drop out of
the music industry, disillusioned.
173
00:07:56.160 --> 00:07:59.340
And you can't get away with it
by changing the lyrics.
174
00:07:59.340 --> 00:08:03.400
A parody is probably not "fair use"
unless you're directly criticising the original,
175
00:08:03.400 --> 00:08:05.020
and even then, it's questionable.
176
00:08:05.020 --> 00:08:08.260
'Weird' Al Yankovic,
the most popular parody artist in history,
177
00:08:08.260 --> 00:08:10.260
licenses the songs that he parodies.
178
00:08:10.260 --> 00:08:13.060
There are lots of lengthy law journal articles
asking whether he needs to,
179
00:08:13.060 --> 00:08:15.340
but… it's better safe than sorry,
180
00:08:15.340 --> 00:08:18.980
and yeah, I wouldn't fancy his chances
if it actually went to court.
181
00:08:18.980 --> 00:08:22.560
The worst-case scenario of doing
an unlicensed song parody on YouTube
182
00:08:22.560 --> 00:08:25.260
is that you get sued, and you lose.
183
00:08:25.260 --> 00:08:28.200
Because under current copyright law,
you are in the wrong.
184
00:08:28.200 --> 00:08:30.320
I'm not saying that's how it should be.
185
00:08:30.320 --> 00:08:32.040
I'm saying that's how it is.
186
00:08:32.040 --> 00:08:36.200
And most people won't have the money
to even start to defend a case like that.
187
00:08:36.200 --> 00:08:39.700
Now, YouTube has a workaround for this,
Content ID, I'll get to that later.
188
00:08:39.700 --> 00:08:42.040
And if you're not actually using
the original piece,
189
00:08:42.040 --> 00:08:44.220
if you're just…
reminding the viewer of it,
190
00:08:44.220 --> 00:08:46.760
just getting close enough
in your parody,
191
00:08:46.760 --> 00:08:48.860
then you're probably in the clear.
192
00:08:48.860 --> 00:08:52.720
YouTube creators who change
just the lyrics of songs to do parodies
193
00:08:52.720 --> 00:08:56.640
often say, "Oh, but it's transformative!
It's fair use, it's for criticism!
194
00:08:56.640 --> 00:08:58.600
"They can't claim copyright over it!
They're making a false…
195
00:08:58.600 --> 00:08:59.980
[hits piano]
196
00:08:59.980 --> 00:09:01.340
They're making a false claim!"
And…
197
00:09:01.340 --> 00:09:05.460
Look, if you're taking a Katy Perry song
and changing the words
198
00:09:05.460 --> 00:09:08.920
to be about something other than
criticising Katy Perry or the song itself,
199
00:09:08.920 --> 00:09:10.640
it's likely not fair use.
200
00:09:10.640 --> 00:09:13.980
The same way that big movie companies
can't take small songwriters' work,
201
00:09:13.980 --> 00:09:16.760
change the lyrics, and put the result
in movies without paying and say,
202
00:09:16.760 --> 00:09:20.000
"Oh, but's transformative, it's fair use.
Look, we changed the lyrics."
203
00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:24.420
And it may seem unfair that the law holds
kids on YouTube messing around
204
00:09:24.420 --> 00:09:27.680
to more or less the same legal standard
as Hollywood studios.
205
00:09:27.680 --> 00:09:30.540
In public opinion,
there's definitely a big difference there:
206
00:09:30.540 --> 00:09:35.700
People smile at small creators taking content
from big companies well outside fair use,
207
00:09:35.700 --> 00:09:37.320
but never the other way around.
208
00:09:37.320 --> 00:09:39.640
And that's the reason that
some small-time reaction YouTuber…
209
00:09:39.640 --> 00:09:40.940
Hey! Hey!
210
00:09:40.940 --> 00:09:44.820
can take a five-second clip from a movie
and use it for a cheap punchline,
211
00:09:44.820 --> 00:09:47.260
even if it's not criticism and review…
212
00:09:47.260 --> 00:09:51.060
but I'm damn sure if a movie studio
took a clip of a reaction channel's video
213
00:09:51.060 --> 00:09:52.640
and used it in a film without permission,
214
00:09:52.640 --> 00:09:55.040
there would be lawyers lining up
to take the case.
215
00:09:55.040 --> 00:09:57.240
Yeah, you're right.
This is my content, I own it!
216
00:09:57.240 --> 00:09:59.060
You hear that, Disney? Right.
217
00:09:59.060 --> 00:10:02.280
Remember, tomorrow I'm reacting
to the new Star Wars trailer.
218
00:10:02.280 --> 00:10:04.680
Maybe there should be
different treatment there.
219
00:10:04.680 --> 00:10:08.140
But in current copyright law,
there isn't.
220
00:10:12.260 --> 00:10:16.740
If you take a photograph off a stock image site,
or from some photographer's Flickr account,
221
00:10:16.740 --> 00:10:20.280
and you just copy it into your blog post
or your company website,
222
00:10:20.280 --> 00:10:23.840
you might well get an email
from a service called Pixsy.
223
00:10:23.840 --> 00:10:25.720
They use automatic systems
to scan the web,
224
00:10:25.720 --> 00:10:28.360
detect people who've used photographs
without permission,
225
00:10:28.360 --> 00:10:33.300
and then they send legal letters
threatening court action and demanding payment.
226
00:10:33.300 --> 00:10:35.680
And legally, they are in the right.
227
00:10:35.680 --> 00:10:38.360
They're using strong-arm tactics
and they're in it for the money—
228
00:10:38.360 --> 00:10:40.700
and in some cases,
they are threatening someone
229
00:10:40.700 --> 00:10:43.660
who has absolutely no idea
about copyright,
230
00:10:43.660 --> 00:10:46.540
and genuinely thinks that
stuff on the web is free to take.
231
00:10:46.540 --> 00:10:49.180
There are lots of threads online
with people going,
232
00:10:49.180 --> 00:10:52.880
"Agh, what's— what's happening?
I didn't know, how do I make this go away?"
233
00:10:52.880 --> 00:10:55.560
To which the answer is: pay up.
234
00:10:55.560 --> 00:10:58.060
Photography is an art,
and an expensive one,
235
00:10:58.060 --> 00:11:01.880
and yeah, until we live in magical
post-scarcity Star Trek space communism,
236
00:11:01.880 --> 00:11:07.240
you shouldn't just be able to rip off
a photographer's copyrighted work and use it.
237
00:11:07.240 --> 00:11:10.640
Except, that's what the Internet does.
A lot.
238
00:11:10.640 --> 00:11:11.820
Heck, I used to do it.
239
00:11:11.820 --> 00:11:13.640
It's gone from the Internet now,
for obvious reasons,
240
00:11:13.640 --> 00:11:17.020
but when I was younger,
I unashamedly took images
241
00:11:17.020 --> 00:11:19.200
and other stuff from the web
and repurposed it,
242
00:11:19.200 --> 00:11:23.080
because I knew hardly anyone would see it,
even fewer people would care,
243
00:11:23.080 --> 00:11:27.400
and the worst case scenario
was that I'd get a cease-and-desist letter.
244
00:11:27.400 --> 00:11:29.840
and if that happened,
I might be able to cry 'censorship'
245
00:11:29.840 --> 00:11:31.660
and get some publicity out of it.
246
00:11:31.660 --> 00:11:33.220
I've grown up since then,
247
00:11:33.220 --> 00:11:37.580
but there are a whole new wave of kids
who have that same philosophy.
248
00:11:37.580 --> 00:11:40.340
"No copyright infringement intended",
they'll say.
249
00:11:40.340 --> 00:11:42.360
"I own nothing,
all rights to the copyright owners",
250
00:11:42.360 --> 00:11:44.900
or "this is transformative
under fair use",
251
00:11:44.900 --> 00:11:49.720
as if just claiming that is some
magic incantation that will ward off lawyers,
252
00:11:49.720 --> 00:11:51.700
like waving a cross at vampires.
253
00:11:51.700 --> 00:11:53.400
[with accent] I want to sue you now!
254
00:11:53.400 --> 00:11:59.120
No copyright infringement intended!
No copyright infringement intended!
255
00:11:59.120 --> 00:12:00.340
[hisses]
256
00:12:00.340 --> 00:12:04.420
András Arató, from Hungary, posed for
some stock photography a few years ago.
257
00:12:04.420 --> 00:12:07.740
He doesn't have rights over his face
or image in any of these photos,
258
00:12:07.740 --> 00:12:10.080
he signed those away
as part of the photography contract.
259
00:12:10.080 --> 00:12:13.940
And while there is a discussion
to be had about personality rights
260
00:12:13.940 --> 00:12:18.520
and the ethics of taking some random person's face
and using it without context,
261
00:12:18.520 --> 00:12:23.080
that's not relevant here.
What is relevant is the copyright on that photo.
262
00:12:23.080 --> 00:12:25.680
If you're criticising or commenting
on the photo itself,
263
00:12:25.680 --> 00:12:29.340
if you're judging the composition,
the camerawork, or…
264
00:12:29.340 --> 00:12:31.680
yes, the incredibly awkward expression
265
00:12:31.680 --> 00:12:34.680
that meant he gained
the nickname "Hide the Pain Harold"
266
00:12:34.680 --> 00:12:38.500
and became one of the most-recognised figures
in the nerdy underbelly of the Internet,
267
00:12:38.500 --> 00:12:41.100
then yes, that may well be acceptable.
268
00:12:41.100 --> 00:12:44.740
But if you're just using those pictures
as a stock image
269
00:12:44.740 --> 00:12:47.320
to make a point about anything else,
270
00:12:47.320 --> 00:12:52.060
then you'd better have a license
or you're exposing yourself to a lot of legal liability.
271
00:12:52.060 --> 00:12:56.460
When big publications talk about
the "distracted boyfriend" picture, they license it.
272
00:12:56.460 --> 00:13:00.520
There is no exception, under law, for:
"I just put it in my video as a quick joke!"
273
00:13:00.520 --> 00:13:03.120
I licensed all those photos
from a company called Shutterstock,
274
00:13:03.120 --> 00:13:04.860
here's the license agreement.
275
00:13:04.860 --> 00:13:09.020
Actually, I got a bundle deal of image credits
from them because it was cheaper,
276
00:13:09.020 --> 00:13:11.000
and I had some of those credits left over,
277
00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:14.300
so please now enjoy
a few inexplicable stock photos
278
00:13:14.300 --> 00:13:16.620
that I also now have
the legal right to use.
279
00:13:24.300 --> 00:13:27.480
Anyway, the photographer who took
that original "distracted boyfriend" picture
280
00:13:27.480 --> 00:13:32.040
was asked how he felt about his work
being used everywhere without permission.
281
00:13:32.040 --> 00:13:35.680
And he said: "They're just a group of people
doing it in good faith.
282
00:13:35.680 --> 00:13:39.120
"We are not going to take any action,
except for the extreme cases
283
00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:42.760
in which this good faith doesn't exist."
284
00:13:42.760 --> 00:13:45.280
That is an act of generosity
on his part.
285
00:13:45.280 --> 00:13:48.540
He would be entirely within his rights
to hire a service like Pixsy,
286
00:13:48.540 --> 00:13:51.360
let them play the bad guys,
and rake in a lot of money,
287
00:13:51.360 --> 00:13:54.840
and if you think that's wrong,
then talk to a professional photographer.
288
00:13:54.840 --> 00:13:57.860
Ask them how they earn their living,
and how much their equipment costs,
289
00:13:57.860 --> 00:14:00.140
and how they'd feel about it.
290
00:14:00.140 --> 00:14:04.300
Now as I record this, Pixsy doesn't appear
to have automated systems
291
00:14:04.300 --> 00:14:08.460
hunting through YouTube videos to find
unlicensed images and send out legal threats,
292
00:14:08.460 --> 00:14:11.460
but… they could. Pretty easily.
293
00:14:11.460 --> 00:14:14.360
Maybe those claims could be
defended in court with enough money,
294
00:14:14.360 --> 00:14:17.720
but in the current system,
most people would be forced to fold,
295
00:14:17.720 --> 00:14:19.980
and pay a license fee,
and give up.
296
00:14:19.980 --> 00:14:23.040
And viral-video licensing companies
like Jukin Media
297
00:14:23.040 --> 00:14:26.540
do already search through YouTube for
unlicensed use of the video clips they own,
298
00:14:26.540 --> 00:14:30.000
and while as a company they are vilified
by the creator community,
299
00:14:30.000 --> 00:14:32.520
they've, um… they've got a point.
300
00:14:32.520 --> 00:14:35.240
Creators have the right to determine
how their work is being used,
301
00:14:35.240 --> 00:14:38.360
and taking someone else's
copyrighted photos or videos,
302
00:14:38.360 --> 00:14:41.280
and using them commercially,
without permission, without criticism,
303
00:14:41.280 --> 00:14:43.320
is not fair use under the law.
304
00:14:43.320 --> 00:14:45.420
Even if loads of other people
have already used them.
305
00:14:45.420 --> 00:14:49.060
Even if you add some words on top of them.
Even if you mash them up with three other things.
306
00:14:49.060 --> 00:14:53.660
Are you 100% sure that you are transforming
or criticising the original,
307
00:14:53.660 --> 00:14:54.860
not just using it?
308
00:14:54.860 --> 00:14:58.240
And are you 100% sure
that a court would agree with you?
309
00:14:58.240 --> 00:15:00.420
And just to repeat:
I'm not saying this is how it should be.
310
00:15:00.420 --> 00:15:03.480
I'm saying: this is how it is.
311
00:15:03.480 --> 00:15:07.020
But that's pictures and videos.
What about bits of pop culture?
312
00:15:07.020 --> 00:15:11.260
At the end of 2019, Giphy,
a GIF-aggregation site, briefly removed…
313
00:15:11.260 --> 00:15:12.860
Actually, hold on.
People will complain.
314
00:15:12.860 --> 00:15:16.180
I'm pronouncing it /ɡɪf/ because Giphy,
the site I'm talking about, pronounces it /ɡɪf/.
315
00:15:16.180 --> 00:15:18.260
And besides, the real problem
is that they're not actually GIFs,
316
00:15:18.260 --> 00:15:19.780
they're short video files
in other formats.
317
00:15:19.780 --> 00:15:22.060
GIF is a really specific descriptor
for a data format.
318
00:15:22.060 --> 00:15:25.140
Short looping videos are not GIFs,
but apparently now they are!
319
00:15:25.140 --> 00:15:27.120
It's like how "emoji" now refers to
any small image.
320
00:15:27.120 --> 00:15:29.700
I'm still grumpy about all of this.
Don't @ me. Anyway.
321
00:15:29.700 --> 00:15:33.200
At the end of 2019, Giphy briefly removed
its many, many GIFs
322
00:15:33.200 --> 00:15:34.900
of The Child from The Mandalorian,
323
00:15:34.900 --> 00:15:37.240
a creature designed to be so adorable
that I can only assume
324
00:15:37.240 --> 00:15:40.720
the design came directly from
Disney's merchandising team.
325
00:15:40.720 --> 00:15:43.660
Those GIFs were removed
because of what Giphy described as
326
00:15:43.660 --> 00:15:46.700
"confusion about certain content".
327
00:15:46.700 --> 00:15:48.960
I'd guess they got a legal letter
from someone at Disney,
328
00:15:48.960 --> 00:15:51.540
before Disney realised
what a PR disaster it would be
329
00:15:51.540 --> 00:15:54.980
to stop the Internet having
immediate access to Baby Yoda.
330
00:15:54.980 --> 00:16:00.380
But the Guardian article about that brief takedown
has a really interesting final line:
331
00:16:00.380 --> 00:16:05.900
"Images in GIFs are widely understood
to fall under the 'fair use' exception."
332
00:16:05.900 --> 00:16:08.720
Notice how that's phrased:
"Widely understood."
333
00:16:08.720 --> 00:16:12.660
There has never been a court case about this.
Are GIFs fair use?
334
00:16:13.660 --> 00:16:15.680
I actually think that, if some company
got a bee in their bonnet,
335
00:16:15.680 --> 00:16:17.960
the same way they did about Napster
twenty years ago,
336
00:16:17.960 --> 00:16:21.340
and if they insisted on litigating
all the way to court,
337
00:16:21.340 --> 00:16:23.980
it is entirely possible
that a judge would go,
338
00:16:23.980 --> 00:16:28.320
"No, GIFs aren't a parody, they're not criticism,
they're not transformative, they're not fair use.
339
00:16:28.320 --> 00:16:32.440
"Giphy's entire product, the GIF economy,
is based on systematic copyright infringement.
340
00:16:32.440 --> 00:16:34.460
"Pay the money, shut it down."
341
00:16:34.460 --> 00:16:36.460
In practice, of course,
it wouldn't get that far.
342
00:16:36.460 --> 00:16:39.500
Giphy would accept a cease-and-desist
and take down what was complained about.
343
00:16:39.500 --> 00:16:41.720
It's just easier,
because remember,
344
00:16:41.720 --> 00:16:44.580
they're not an individual creator
or a small site.
345
00:16:44.580 --> 00:16:46.940
Giphy has an enormous office
in New York
346
00:16:46.940 --> 00:16:51.140
with catered lunches and arcade games
for more than 100 employees…
347
00:16:51.140 --> 00:16:54.800
based on a business model that is
arguably copyright infringement.
348
00:16:54.800 --> 00:16:59.120
I am amazed that no big media corporations
have looked at their money and gone…
349
00:16:59.120 --> 00:17:00.960
"We can sue them for that!"
350
00:17:01.620 --> 00:17:04.640
In the same way, uploading
video game footage to YouTube
351
00:17:04.640 --> 00:17:09.220
is "widely understood" to be okay,
but that's questionable.
352
00:17:09.220 --> 00:17:14.280
Maybe if it's something like Minecraft,
where there's a lot of original work, it could be.
353
00:17:14.280 --> 00:17:18.280
And besides, the license agreement
that you accept when playing Minecraft
354
00:17:18.280 --> 00:17:20.900
allows streaming
and most YouTube videos.
355
00:17:20.900 --> 00:17:23.280
But if it's just a video of cutscenes,
356
00:17:23.280 --> 00:17:25.080
or following roughly the same
sequence of events
357
00:17:25.080 --> 00:17:27.200
that every player would follow,
358
00:17:27.200 --> 00:17:30.580
it's a bit like putting up a video
of you watching a TV show.
359
00:17:30.580 --> 00:17:33.260
We've seen companies decide
in the past that…
360
00:17:33.260 --> 00:17:36.280
actually, they don't want
videos of their games online.
361
00:17:36.280 --> 00:17:40.900
It is very easy to make the argument
that online streaming of games affects sales.
362
00:17:40.900 --> 00:17:43.120
And the impact on sales
is a key component
363
00:17:43.120 --> 00:17:45.080
in determining whether something
is fair use.
364
00:17:45.080 --> 00:17:48.800
Sure, the games get some exposure,
but exposure doesn't pay the rent.
365
00:17:48.800 --> 00:17:52.200
I didn't buy Untitled Goose Game
and experience the beautiful artwork
366
00:17:52.200 --> 00:17:54.780
and immaculately-timed
comic setpieces myself.
367
00:17:54.780 --> 00:17:56.980
I skipped through a couple of videos
so I could get the jokes,
368
00:17:56.980 --> 00:17:58.620
and then I moved on.
369
00:17:58.620 --> 00:18:00.320
I didn't buy Superliminal either.
370
00:18:00.320 --> 00:18:04.120
I just watched a video of someone
playing it to get how it works,
371
00:18:04.120 --> 00:18:06.840
skipped forward to see how it ends,
and then I got on with my life.
372
00:18:06.840 --> 00:18:09.320
And I'm glad I did,
the game mechanics are clever…
373
00:18:09.320 --> 00:18:11.400
but the ending is unsatisfying.
374
00:18:11.400 --> 00:18:14.700
Or maybe I just think that
because I watched someone else play it.
375
00:18:14.700 --> 00:18:19.160
And that someone else, who provided
a substitute for the original product,
376
00:18:19.160 --> 00:18:23.340
made money off that, either from
advertising or streaming donations.
377
00:18:23.340 --> 00:18:25.860
Now, video game streaming
might be fair use
378
00:18:25.860 --> 00:18:30.240
if you've got someone constantly criticising
and reviewing the work as they play it.
379
00:18:30.240 --> 00:18:34.560
Not just talking about it, or not just
repeating what they're saying in the game,
380
00:18:34.560 --> 00:18:37.620
or saying hi to the chat,
like actively criticising.
381
00:18:37.620 --> 00:18:39.740
Maybe.
It would be up to a judge to decide,
382
00:18:39.740 --> 00:18:41.380
and no-one wants any case like that
to get to court,
383
00:18:41.380 --> 00:18:43.960
because somehow
we have an entire industry
384
00:18:43.960 --> 00:18:46.960
based around something that is
very possibly copyright infringement,
385
00:18:46.960 --> 00:18:50.420
but which most video game publishers
are just going along with.
386
00:18:50.420 --> 00:18:52.620
Perhaps because they genuinely think
it's a good thing,
387
00:18:52.620 --> 00:18:55.580
or perhaps… because they've seen
the backlash that happens
388
00:18:55.580 --> 00:19:00.720
when horrible gamer children are suddenly
denied something they think is their right.
389
00:19:00.720 --> 00:19:03.120
Like our friend in the corner.
390
00:19:03.120 --> 00:19:06.520
Hey, this is transformative.
This is definitely fair use.
391
00:19:06.520 --> 00:19:08.740
Would you do this
to a Marvel movie, though?
392
00:19:08.740 --> 00:19:11.460
No, mate. They'd sue me for
every penny I've got.
393
00:19:12.221 --> 00:19:18.160
♪ In the not-too-distant future,
next Sunday A.D. ♪
394
00:19:18.160 --> 00:19:21.220
In 1988, KTMA-TV in Minneapolis
395
00:19:21.220 --> 00:19:25.280
aired the first episode of
Mystery Science Theater 3000,
396
00:19:25.280 --> 00:19:27.260
which was basically a reaction channel.
397
00:19:27.260 --> 00:19:29.080
A host, along with a cast of puppet robots,
398
00:19:29.080 --> 00:19:32.140
would watch a full-length movie,
usually an old science fiction piece.
399
00:19:32.140 --> 00:19:35.480
They'd be in silhouette, as if they were
in the row of cinema seats in front of you,
400
00:19:35.480 --> 00:19:38.580
constantly cracking jokes about
whatever was on screen.
401
00:19:38.580 --> 00:19:41.480
It's tightly written, scripted with
joke after joke after joke,
402
00:19:41.480 --> 00:19:43.940
although the skits that
surround the movie
403
00:19:43.940 --> 00:19:46.620
are often so laden with in-jokes
and character shtick
404
00:19:46.620 --> 00:19:51.060
that new viewers who don't know
the show and the cast can be completely lost.
405
00:19:51.060 --> 00:19:53.500
Like I said:
it's basically a reaction channel.
406
00:19:53.500 --> 00:19:58.500
Time magazine listed Mystery Science Theater as
one of the 100 greatest TV shows of all time.
407
00:19:58.500 --> 00:20:00.760
A Kickstarter brought it back in 2016,
408
00:20:00.760 --> 00:20:03.940
and then Netflix brought it back
for another couple of seasons.
409
00:20:03.940 --> 00:20:10.040
Mystery Science Theater was absolutely criticism
and review and absolutely transformative.
410
00:20:10.040 --> 00:20:12.520
But they still licensed the movies.
411
00:20:12.520 --> 00:20:15.720
Anything that wasn't in the public domain,
they negotiated and paid for,
412
00:20:15.720 --> 00:20:16.900
because… yeah.
413
00:20:16.900 --> 00:20:21.340
Playing out someone else's entire movie,
just with wisecracks over it…
414
00:20:21.340 --> 00:20:22.780
probably not fair use.
415
00:20:22.780 --> 00:20:25.480
And even if it was, a studio would've
probably sued them at some point anyway,
416
00:20:25.480 --> 00:20:29.440
and they'd have had to defend the case
and spend the money to defend the case.
417
00:20:29.440 --> 00:20:33.820
Now, there have been YouTube commentary channels
who have defended lawsuits
418
00:20:33.820 --> 00:20:36.520
where fair use and fair dealing
seem clear.
419
00:20:36.520 --> 00:20:39.760
H3H3, an often-controversial
reaction and commentary channel,
420
00:20:39.760 --> 00:20:43.540
won a very expensive lawsuit that was
brought by someone they criticised.
421
00:20:43.540 --> 00:20:45.200
They were very happy about the result,
422
00:20:45.200 --> 00:20:46.740
and they shared that with their fans
423
00:20:46.740 --> 00:20:50.840
in a way that pretty much sums up
why their style…
424
00:20:50.840 --> 00:20:52.260
isn't for everyone.
425
00:20:52.260 --> 00:20:54.480
Good job, Hila.
Good job.
426
00:20:54.480 --> 00:20:57.320
[choking noises]
427
00:20:57.320 --> 00:20:59.580
[screams]
428
00:20:59.580 --> 00:21:01.980
The court even noted
that their video was transformative
429
00:21:01.980 --> 00:21:06.080
because it "responds to and
transforms the video from a skit
430
00:21:06.080 --> 00:21:10.660
"into fodder for caustic, moment-by-moment
commentary and mockery."
431
00:21:10.660 --> 00:21:14.820
The judge's decision goes into
the balancing factors of fair use in depth,
432
00:21:14.820 --> 00:21:18.960
but the most important bit
is a little bit further down:
433
00:21:18.960 --> 00:21:22.980
"Some reaction videos … intersperse
short segments of another's work
434
00:21:22.980 --> 00:21:24.760
"with criticism and commentary,
435
00:21:24.760 --> 00:21:28.580
"while others are more akin to
a group viewing session without commentary.
436
00:21:28.580 --> 00:21:35.360
"Accordingly, the Court is not ruling here
that all 'reaction videos' constitute fair use."
437
00:21:35.360 --> 00:21:40.680
It's clear that just playing a video and laughing at it
isn't fair use. It's copyright infringement.
438
00:21:40.680 --> 00:21:43.380
The border of fair use is
somewhere in the grey area
439
00:21:43.380 --> 00:21:48.460
between lazy zero-effort reaction streamers
and in-depth insightful criticism…
440
00:21:48.460 --> 00:21:51.100
but it's a fuzzy border,
and right now, questions about it
441
00:21:51.100 --> 00:21:53.980
can only be settled on a case-by-case basis
in an expensive courtroom,
442
00:21:53.980 --> 00:21:57.540
because, yeah, there is one thread
throughout all these examples:
443
00:21:57.540 --> 00:22:01.480
under the current system, it often
doesn't matter who's actually in the right.
444
00:22:01.480 --> 00:22:04.000
Even if the answer to
"Is it fair use?" is clear,
445
00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:05.920
it's actually about whether
you can afford to defend a case.
446
00:22:05.920 --> 00:22:09.620
You could be 100% sure it's fair use…
447
00:22:09.620 --> 00:22:12.740
but unless you're prepared to spend the time
and the money to actually fight that in court,
448
00:22:12.740 --> 00:22:15.600
it doesn't matter.
449
00:22:15.600 --> 00:22:18.740
Which brings us to
how YouTube worked around this.
450
00:22:23.740 --> 00:22:27.920
Back in 2006, YouTube made an arrangement
with the big music companies,
451
00:22:27.920 --> 00:22:31.980
so the big industry players wouldn't sue
this new platform out of existence.
452
00:22:31.980 --> 00:22:36.120
YouTube developed Content ID,
which scans every video uploaded
453
00:22:36.120 --> 00:22:40.080
and checks it against an enormous database
of copyrighted content.
454
00:22:40.080 --> 00:22:45.720
If there's a match, everything works
completely outside the usual copyright system.
455
00:22:45.720 --> 00:22:49.940
All those worries about synchronisation licenses
and publication rights,
456
00:22:49.940 --> 00:22:53.440
all that law, is effectively replaced
with two contracts:
457
00:22:53.440 --> 00:22:56.240
one that's private between YouTube
and the big media companies,
458
00:22:56.240 --> 00:22:58.860
and one that's in the Terms of Service
that you agree to
459
00:22:58.860 --> 00:23:02.520
when you upload your bedroom-vlogger
video to YouTube.
460
00:23:02.520 --> 00:23:05.180
There is a public list of the music tracks
that are in Content ID,
461
00:23:05.180 --> 00:23:07.400
including the current policies
from the music companies.
462
00:23:07.400 --> 00:23:10.840
There's no list of the TV shows,
or films, or other stuff that's in there.
463
00:23:10.840 --> 00:23:14.140
Mostly, the copyright owners
just put adverts on the video.
464
00:23:14.140 --> 00:23:18.660
Sometimes, they do block it entirely, but…
those policies can change at any time,
465
00:23:18.660 --> 00:23:21.260
and if you do something
they particularly don't like,
466
00:23:21.260 --> 00:23:23.160
it doesn't make you immune
from lawsuits,
467
00:23:23.160 --> 00:23:27.120
or from formal takedown notices
under a law called the DMCA.
468
00:23:27.120 --> 00:23:29.800
They're called "copyright strikes"
by YouTube.
469
00:23:29.800 --> 00:23:32.320
Those are still an option
for copyright owners.
470
00:23:32.320 --> 00:23:37.840
It's just that with very, very few exceptions,
they'll take the money from ads instead.
471
00:23:37.840 --> 00:23:40.240
Content ID means that video creators,
472
00:23:40.240 --> 00:23:44.100
unless they're being so malicious
as to attract serious attention,
473
00:23:44.100 --> 00:23:46.880
generally don't get sued
and don't get DMCA takedowns.
474
00:23:46.880 --> 00:23:50.840
They don't have to negotiate a
synchronisation license for cover songs.
475
00:23:50.840 --> 00:23:56.540
Now, some companies — music labels, mostly —
are also able to manually put Content ID claims
476
00:23:56.540 --> 00:23:59.420
on videos that
the automated systems miss.
477
00:23:59.420 --> 00:24:01.140
That is an avenue for abuse.
478
00:24:01.140 --> 00:24:03.880
And so is the manual appeals process
that's meant to kick in
479
00:24:03.880 --> 00:24:07.540
if the automated systems have flagged
something that really is fair use,
480
00:24:07.540 --> 00:24:10.520
like a review, or a brief
incidental snippet of a song
481
00:24:10.520 --> 00:24:13.240
that was playing somewhere
as you walked by.
482
00:24:13.240 --> 00:24:16.160
Often, the appeals process does work…
483
00:24:16.160 --> 00:24:18.500
but give a corporation an inch,
and they'll take a mile.
484
00:24:18.500 --> 00:24:22.140
Making decisions about fair use and copyright
is meant to be handed over
485
00:24:22.140 --> 00:24:26.220
to experienced, trained people
who can give nuanced judgements…
486
00:24:26.220 --> 00:24:28.120
but from the stories
that have come out over the years,
487
00:24:28.120 --> 00:24:31.680
it looks like it's mostly subcontracted out
to the lowest bidder,
488
00:24:31.680 --> 00:24:36.260
with enormous decision-making power
given to people whose job is just to
489
00:24:36.260 --> 00:24:41.060
run through the backlog of appeals
as quickly as possible and make snap decisions,
490
00:24:41.060 --> 00:24:45.860
knowing that very few people will
actually be able to do anything about the result.
491
00:24:45.860 --> 00:24:48.220
I've been a victim of that in the past:
492
00:24:48.220 --> 00:24:51.080
A TV channel from Thailand
took one of my videos,
493
00:24:51.080 --> 00:24:53.640
played it out without permission
in one of their big television shows,
494
00:24:53.640 --> 00:24:56.900
and then put that entire television show
into Content ID.
495
00:24:56.900 --> 00:25:00.320
I got a Content ID hit
on my original video from them,
496
00:25:00.320 --> 00:25:02.320
and that took a long time
to sort out.
497
00:25:02.320 --> 00:25:03.620
And I never found out,
in the end,
498
00:25:03.620 --> 00:25:06.080
whether that channel kept their access
to Content ID or not,
499
00:25:06.080 --> 00:25:10.040
because, yes, companies that abuse it
should have it taken away from them.
500
00:25:10.040 --> 00:25:11.780
But, of course,
if YouTube does that,
501
00:25:11.780 --> 00:25:13.900
then they fall back
to the legal default position:
502
00:25:13.900 --> 00:25:15.740
DMCA takedowns or lawsuits,
503
00:25:15.740 --> 00:25:19.040
either against the creators
or against YouTube itself.
504
00:25:19.040 --> 00:25:23.300
There are absolutely flaws in Content ID.
I am not saying it's perfect.
505
00:25:23.300 --> 00:25:25.500
There are hundreds of cases
that we could talk about
506
00:25:25.500 --> 00:25:27.340
where the system didn't work,
507
00:25:27.340 --> 00:25:29.280
and thousands more
that never got enough publicity
508
00:25:29.280 --> 00:25:30.940
for the world to actually notice them.
509
00:25:30.940 --> 00:25:33.520
There are so many edge cases,
510
00:25:33.520 --> 00:25:37.420
like the people who got copyright claims
on white noise, just on the sound of static,
511
00:25:37.420 --> 00:25:40.560
because the system wasn't originally built
to deal with white noise.
512
00:25:40.560 --> 00:25:43.820
Or the people who do in-depth
music theory analysis of songs,
513
00:25:43.820 --> 00:25:48.420
very likely fair use,
but still getting manual Content ID claims.
514
00:25:48.420 --> 00:25:50.960
But I don't think Content ID is broken.
515
00:25:50.960 --> 00:25:53.940
It's a reasonable stopgap.
It works almost all the time.
516
00:25:53.940 --> 00:25:57.740
That video of a couple's first dance at a wedding,
uploaded by the father of the bride:
517
00:25:57.740 --> 00:26:01.060
No, copyright law doesn't allow him
to upload that to YouTube,
518
00:26:01.060 --> 00:26:03.760
not unless he's got
a synchronisation license.
519
00:26:03.760 --> 00:26:06.760
But Content ID just deals with it,
and the video stays up.
520
00:26:06.760 --> 00:26:10.040
That excited fan video
from the kid in the front row at a concert:
521
00:26:10.040 --> 00:26:12.200
No, not permitted under copyright law.
522
00:26:12.200 --> 00:26:13.860
Content ID deals with it.
523
00:26:13.860 --> 00:26:16.980
The teenager making a video
compiling all the romantic subtext
524
00:26:16.980 --> 00:26:19.120
between their two favourite characters
in a show:
525
00:26:19.120 --> 00:26:21.440
No, not allowed.
It's not criticism or review.
526
00:26:21.440 --> 00:26:24.840
But Content ID deals with it,
and the video stays up.
527
00:26:24.840 --> 00:26:28.700
Without Content ID, those videos would be
taken down by DMCA copyright strikes,
528
00:26:28.700 --> 00:26:32.020
and if someone protested,
the next step is a lawsuit.
529
00:26:32.020 --> 00:26:33.580
Maybe for the uploader,
but more likely,
530
00:26:33.580 --> 00:26:35.820
the same would happen
as all those years ago:
531
00:26:35.820 --> 00:26:38.340
the big media companies
would go to YouTube and say:
532
00:26:38.340 --> 00:26:41.400
"You're allowing this to happen.
You're making money off this.
533
00:26:41.400 --> 00:26:44.080
"We're going to sue you
out of existence."
534
00:26:44.080 --> 00:26:46.840
Sadly, it's not about what's fair,
or what's just.
535
00:26:46.840 --> 00:26:51.560
It's about the arrangement that YouTube
and the big media companies have come to.
536
00:26:51.560 --> 00:26:53.960
It's not ideal,
but under copyright law,
537
00:26:53.960 --> 00:26:57.160
current copyright law at least,
I don't think there's a better option.
538
00:26:57.160 --> 00:26:59.660
And I don't want to sound
like the grumpy old man
539
00:26:59.660 --> 00:27:01.180
complaining about the kids these days,
540
00:27:01.180 --> 00:27:05.720
but yes, when I started on YouTube, 2006,
there was no monetisation option.
541
00:27:05.720 --> 00:27:09.000
Creators could not earn money
on-platform at all.
542
00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:11.500
And that was fine, because it was a miracle
that someone was offering to do
543
00:27:11.500 --> 00:27:15.960
the incredibly expensive and difficult job
of hosting video for free!
544
00:27:15.960 --> 00:27:18.280
One of the reasons there aren't
any serious competitors to YouTube
545
00:27:18.280 --> 00:27:21.800
is that it is ruinously expensive
to run a video hosting site:
546
00:27:21.800 --> 00:27:27.040
you either have to be a subscription service
or one of the world's largest advertising firms.
547
00:27:27.040 --> 00:27:28.960
A lot of folks,
particularly younger people,
548
00:27:28.960 --> 00:27:32.420
who have only joined YouTube
in the last couple of years
549
00:27:32.420 --> 00:27:35.340
have a different baseline for this:
550
00:27:35.340 --> 00:27:39.280
They think that they have "the right" to upload
long compilations of their favourite videos
551
00:27:39.280 --> 00:27:41.540
with maybe a few words
spoken between each clip,
552
00:27:41.540 --> 00:27:43.060
and make loads of money from it,
553
00:27:43.060 --> 00:27:45.620
that that is something
that they are entitled to do,
554
00:27:45.620 --> 00:27:50.000
and that any copyright owners who complain
are censoring them and putting in false claims…
555
00:27:50.000 --> 00:27:54.120
Yeah. Okay, yes. I'm the grumpy old man
complaining about the kids.
556
00:27:54.120 --> 00:27:59.300
But, under the current copyright system,
those kids are legally in the wrong.
557
00:27:59.300 --> 00:28:01.020
Maybe not morally.
That's a different question.
558
00:28:01.020 --> 00:28:03.960
But legally, they are in the wrong.
559
00:28:03.960 --> 00:28:06.240
There is an enormous distance
560
00:28:06.240 --> 00:28:09.600
between what the law says
and what the world's actually doing,
561
00:28:09.600 --> 00:00:07.220
and that is where
most of this tension comes from.
562
00:00:07.220 --> 00:00:12.340
So. How do we fix it?
563
00:28:26.420 --> 00:28:27.820
We need three things.
564
00:28:27.820 --> 00:28:29.680
We need to update copyright law,
565
00:28:29.680 --> 00:28:32.440
we need a good small-claims court
for copyright,
566
00:28:32.440 --> 00:28:35.360
and we need to shorten
how long copyright lasts.
567
00:28:35.360 --> 00:28:38.220
So, first: updating the law.
568
00:28:38.220 --> 00:28:42.880
This is a big goal, but
the entirety of international copyright law
569
00:28:42.880 --> 00:28:46.340
needs to be rewritten
to reflect what's fair in today's world.
570
00:28:46.340 --> 00:28:49.000
Everyone will have a different opinion
of what that is.
571
00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:50.900
I'm actually fairly conservative on it.
572
00:28:50.900 --> 00:28:54.380
I'm not convinced that we should
massively widen the definition of fair use,
573
00:28:54.380 --> 00:28:57.500
because every bit of freedom
you give to individual creators
574
00:28:57.500 --> 00:29:00.500
also makes it easier for big companies
to rip them off.
575
00:29:00.500 --> 00:29:03.080
But I'm not going to say
where the line should be drawn.
576
00:29:03.080 --> 00:29:06.100
It is a job for consultation
and conversation,
577
00:29:06.100 --> 00:29:10.060
where everyone is at the table,
not just the big publishers.
578
00:29:10.060 --> 00:29:15.180
And if completely rewriting
international law seems unlikely,
579
00:29:15.180 --> 00:29:17.540
then it's still possible
to push for changes.
580
00:29:17.540 --> 00:29:22.520
In 1990, one article by one judge
swayed opinion among the US legal community,
581
00:29:22.520 --> 00:29:25.160
and helped change
the most important factor of fair use
582
00:29:25.160 --> 00:29:28.280
from whether it was commercial
to whether it was transformative.
583
00:29:28.280 --> 00:29:31.960
It is entirely possible that
new publications like that
584
00:29:31.960 --> 00:29:33.580
could help improve things.
585
00:29:33.580 --> 00:29:37.120
The judge's conclusion in that article
also makes an excellent point:
586
00:29:37.120 --> 00:29:41.280
there should not be a clear
and unambiguous definition of "fair use",
587
00:29:41.280 --> 00:29:45.860
what he calls a "bright line standard",
unless we have a good standard.
588
00:29:45.860 --> 00:29:46.920
And we don't have one.
589
00:29:46.920 --> 00:29:51.640
The border of fair use has to be messy
because people and creativity are messy.
815
00:29:52.580 --> 00:05:03.860
So if fair use is going to be messy,
and if it will inevitably lead to conflict…
591
00:29:52.580 --> 00:29:56.720
So if fair use is going to be messy,
and if it will inevitably lead to conflict,
592
00:29:56.720 --> 00:30:00.180
let's make resolving that conflict
quick, fair and accessible.
593
00:30:00.180 --> 00:30:04.020
This is already starting to happen
in the United States, but badly.
594
00:30:04.020 --> 00:30:07.660
The UK has one of the world's friendliest
copyright regimes for individual creators.
595
00:30:07.660 --> 00:30:10.720
We have the
Intellectual Property Enterprise Court,
596
00:30:10.720 --> 00:30:14.120
which is mainly based here,
at the Royal Courts of Justice in London,
597
00:30:14.120 --> 00:30:16.460
and it's a specific court
to deal with cases
598
00:30:16.460 --> 00:30:19.020
about copyrights, and patents,
and trademarks.
599
00:30:19.020 --> 00:30:21.840
And that court has a small claims track.
600
00:30:21.840 --> 00:30:23.960
If you're an individual photographer
or video maker,
601
00:30:23.960 --> 00:30:26.860
you can do the research,
file the right forms, follow the right procedures,
602
00:30:26.860 --> 00:30:29.900
and issue a claim
as a "litigant in person",
603
00:30:29.900 --> 00:30:32.760
which is the fancy British term for
"without a lawyer".
604
00:30:32.760 --> 00:30:35.680
I've done it, because a major company
ripped off one of my videos.
605
00:30:35.680 --> 00:30:38.120
This court is designed to be
more friendly for individuals:
606
00:30:38.120 --> 00:30:42.220
the procedures are more relaxed,
it's almost like mediation rather than a court…
607
00:30:42.220 --> 00:30:44.160
except that,
if all negotiations fail,
608
00:30:44.160 --> 00:30:47.320
then there is a judge
issuing a legal order at the end of it.
609
00:30:47.320 --> 00:30:49.560
It is stressful. It is hard work.
You need to get all the details right.
610
00:30:49.560 --> 00:30:51.240
You should probably get a lawyer
if you're gonna do it,
611
00:30:51.240 --> 00:30:55.480
but if your job is basically
reading hundreds of pages of nerdy detail
612
00:30:55.480 --> 00:30:57.500
and summarising it into something
the world can understand,
613
00:30:57.500 --> 00:31:00.260
then, yeah, it can be done.
614
00:31:00.260 --> 00:31:02.520
It is really nerve-wracking.
615
00:31:02.520 --> 00:31:05.120
Like, most of the people
who walk into the admin building
616
00:31:05.120 --> 00:31:07.620
of one of the biggest courts in the country,
without a lawyer,
617
00:31:07.620 --> 00:31:09.520
to try and file a claim…
618
00:31:09.520 --> 00:31:12.840
They don't have the best grip on reality,
but all of them think they do.
619
00:31:12.840 --> 00:31:15.500
And there I was,
walking in, no lawyer,
620
00:31:15.500 --> 00:31:17.760
thinking I had a case,
thinking I had a grip on reality.
621
00:31:17.760 --> 00:31:21.580
Statistically, the odds weren't in my favour,
but I filed successfully.
622
00:31:21.580 --> 00:31:24.520
And the company settled with me,
they paid me to drop the claim,
623
00:31:24.520 --> 00:31:27.620
because they were in the wrong,
and they knew they were in the wrong,
624
00:31:27.620 --> 00:31:30.580
and they knew I could actually get it to a judge
in exchange for a bit of work
625
00:31:30.580 --> 00:31:33.300
and a court fee of just over £100.
626
00:31:33.300 --> 00:31:35.980
There is a plan to do something like that
in the United States.
627
00:31:35.980 --> 00:31:40.140
At the time of recording, the Copyright Alternative
In Small Claims Enforcement Act,
628
00:31:40.140 --> 00:31:42.820
the CASE Act,
is passing through government.
629
00:31:42.820 --> 00:31:44.860
Unfortunately, it has massive flaws:
630
00:31:44.860 --> 00:31:47.840
using the new small-claims track
is voluntary for both parties,
631
00:31:47.840 --> 00:31:50.540
which means that
if you want to sue a big company,
632
00:31:50.540 --> 00:31:52.680
that company can just choose
to opt-out
633
00:31:52.680 --> 00:31:55.140
and require you to
take the expensive path.
634
00:31:55.140 --> 00:31:56.520
And to quote an explainer:
635
00:31:56.520 --> 00:31:59.740
"If the losing party does not comply
with the judgment,
636
00:31:59.740 --> 00:32:03.380
"the prevailing party can bring an action
in federal court to enforce it."
637
00:32:03.380 --> 00:32:06.260
So if you actually want the judgment
to be effective,
638
00:32:06.260 --> 00:32:08.940
you may have to take
the expensive path anyway.
639
00:32:08.940 --> 00:32:13.620
In short, all the power is still with
the people who have money.
640
00:32:13.620 --> 00:32:16.980
Oh, and it means that it's now much,
much cheaper for big companies
641
00:32:16.980 --> 00:32:20.460
to try and enforce unfair claims
against large numbers of individuals:
642
00:32:20.460 --> 00:32:23.160
it's a so-called 'default judgment mill'.
643
00:32:23.160 --> 00:32:25.060
The CASE Act is not a fix.
644
00:32:25.060 --> 00:32:27.500
It's a step
sort-of in the right direction,
645
00:32:27.500 --> 00:32:30.200
but it's not great,
and it may well lead to more problems.
646
00:32:30.200 --> 00:32:33.120
There's also a wider problem
dealing with this across international borders,
647
00:32:33.120 --> 00:32:35.000
but that's a separate issue.
648
00:32:35.000 --> 00:32:38.740
Having a working small-claims process
in the United States
649
00:32:38.740 --> 00:32:42.300
would help address the massive imbalance
between the rights of individuals
650
00:32:42.300 --> 00:32:44.220
and the rights of huge corporations,
651
00:32:44.220 --> 00:32:46.320
at least on this platform,
on YouTube.
652
00:32:46.320 --> 00:32:51.200
And even if that's just in the US:
from there, the world will follow.
653
00:32:51.200 --> 00:32:55.320
So then finally:
we shorten how long copyright lasts.
654
00:32:55.760 --> 00:32:59.380
Under current US law,
if a modern work has an individual author,
655
00:32:59.380 --> 00:33:03.840
then its copyright generally lasts
until death plus 70 years.
656
00:33:03.840 --> 00:33:07.100
For works by a corporation,
it's 95 years from publication.
657
00:33:07.100 --> 00:33:09.420
There are a huge number of
complicated factors for older works
658
00:33:09.420 --> 00:33:12.220
because of the many, many changes
to the law over the decades,
659
00:33:12.220 --> 00:33:14.560
but that's a decent rule of thumb.
660
00:33:14.560 --> 00:33:17.420
And… that's too long.
661
00:33:17.420 --> 00:33:19.760
Singer-songwriter turned politician
Sonny Bono,
662
00:33:19.760 --> 00:33:24.640
the person who the Copyright Term
Extension Act of 1998 was named after:
663
00:33:24.640 --> 00:33:26.760
He believed that copyright should be forever.
664
00:33:26.760 --> 00:33:28.380
That the great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-
665
00:33:28.380 --> 00:33:30.940
great-great-great-great-
great-grandchildren of Shakespeare
666
00:33:30.940 --> 00:33:34.240
should still be able to charge licensing fees
for adapting Shakespeare's work —
667
00:33:34.240 --> 00:33:37.520
or more likely, those rights would've been sold
to a corporation at some point,
668
00:33:37.520 --> 00:33:40.820
and "Shakespeare Intellectual Property Ltd."
669
00:33:40.820 --> 00:33:44.460
would now be able to collect
license fees into eternity.
670
00:33:44.460 --> 00:33:49.920
I think that opinion is so ridiculous
as to be indefensible.
671
00:33:49.920 --> 00:33:52.500
If copyright lasted forever,
if nothing ever entered the public domain,
672
00:33:52.500 --> 00:33:54.700
then yeah, someone
would still have the final say
673
00:33:54.700 --> 00:33:57.860
on how Shakespeare
could be adapted or performed.
674
00:33:57.860 --> 00:33:59.780
Perhaps you could perform it
however you wanted,
675
00:33:59.780 --> 00:34:01.860
but only by paying
an enormous license fee.
676
00:34:01.860 --> 00:34:05.260
Little community theatres like this?
Priced out.
677
00:34:05.260 --> 00:34:08.180
Or perhaps someone would want to defend
the Shakespeare Brand Guidelines,
678
00:34:08.180 --> 00:34:12.100
and insist that all adaptations
be entirely faithful to the original text.
679
00:34:12.100 --> 00:34:14.960
So, no Baz Luhrmann Romeo + Juliet
without permission.
680
00:34:14.960 --> 00:34:17.540
No 10 Things I Hate About You
without permission.
681
00:34:17.540 --> 00:34:19.540
The Lion King?
682
00:34:19.540 --> 00:34:22.660
Very close to Hamlet, that.
You want to avoid that lawsuit.
683
00:34:22.660 --> 00:34:25.680
Making a reference to how
"all the world's a stage"?
684
00:34:25.680 --> 00:34:27.360
Pay up. Needs a license.
685
00:34:27.360 --> 00:34:28.940
And if you think that's ridiculous,
686
00:34:28.940 --> 00:34:31.900
find any book that quotes
one copyrighted song lyric,
687
00:34:31.900 --> 00:34:33.420
maybe to introduce a chapter:
688
00:34:33.420 --> 00:34:36.080
there will be an acknowledgement
somewhere
689
00:34:36.080 --> 00:34:38.740
that they've got permission
from the copyright holder.
690
00:34:38.740 --> 00:34:42.680
The point of copyright is to allow people
to profit from their creative work.
691
00:34:42.680 --> 00:34:46.400
I am not against copyright.
I rely on copyright to earn a living.
692
00:34:46.400 --> 00:34:50.920
But the works that fall into the public domain
are vital for creativity.
693
00:34:50.920 --> 00:34:53.160
And patents only last twenty years!
694
00:34:53.160 --> 00:34:54.660
Twenty years before your patent expires,
695
00:34:54.660 --> 00:34:57.060
and anyone can take your actual,
physical, real-world invention
696
00:34:57.060 --> 00:34:59.200
and just churn out cheap copies for everyone.
697
00:34:59.200 --> 00:35:02.480
If you invent something that literally
changes the world, great!
698
00:35:02.480 --> 00:35:05.340
You get twenty years
to make all the money you can,
699
00:35:05.340 --> 00:35:07.580
and after that, you will be out-competed
700
00:35:07.580 --> 00:35:09.960
by other people who can do it
better and cheaper.
701
00:35:09.960 --> 00:35:13.240
But write a song?
You get until you're dead!
702
00:35:13.240 --> 00:35:16.220
Plus your descendants get
another seventy years.
703
00:35:16.220 --> 00:35:17.960
That is ridiculous!
704
00:35:17.960 --> 00:35:20.300
And meanwhile,
all the "orphaned works",
705
00:35:20.300 --> 00:35:22.900
the obscure things where no-one can
track down the copyright holder anymore
706
00:35:22.900 --> 00:35:24.460
to ask for a license…
707
00:35:24.460 --> 00:35:26.600
Well, they can't be archived,
they can't be copied.
708
00:35:26.600 --> 00:35:28.560
They often can't be preserved at all,
709
00:35:28.560 --> 00:35:31.400
just because no-one knows
who to ask for permission.
710
00:35:31.400 --> 00:35:34.440
The longer copyright is,
the worse that problem gets.
711
00:35:34.440 --> 00:35:37.460
And I know, a twenty-year copyright term
that matches patents
712
00:35:37.460 --> 00:35:39.400
would never get through modern politics.
713
00:35:39.400 --> 00:35:41.120
When you have enormous corporations
714
00:35:41.120 --> 00:35:44.260
that earn billions from
their copyrighted back catalogue,
715
00:35:44.260 --> 00:35:47.400
it is trivial for them to spend
a fraction of that
716
00:35:47.400 --> 00:35:50.200
on lobbying to make sure
copyright doesn't get reduced.
717
00:35:50.200 --> 00:35:53.960
I would like it to be twenty years,
I would campaign for twenty years,
718
00:35:53.960 --> 00:35:56.600
but… I also know
that it's not going to happen.
719
00:35:56.600 --> 00:35:58.340
And, to be fair, it does feel like
720
00:35:58.340 --> 00:36:00.280
the people who made the songs
of the '80s and '90s,
721
00:36:00.280 --> 00:36:04.720
the songs that are still being listened to
in this current nostalgia cycle,
722
00:36:04.720 --> 00:36:06.920
they should probably be able to make
some money from that.
723
00:36:06.920 --> 00:36:10.080
So, I would suggest 50 years.
724
00:36:10.080 --> 00:36:12.840
It's an easy number, it allows
a couple of nostalgia cycles to happen,
725
00:36:12.840 --> 00:36:17.280
and it would mean that right now,
the '60s would be public domain,
726
00:36:17.280 --> 00:36:19.180
and the '70s would be on their way.
727
00:36:19.180 --> 00:36:24.040
The decades that are no longer
pop-culture nostalgia, but history.
728
00:36:24.040 --> 00:36:27.900
Pachelbel, Chopin, Beethoven: they should
already be joined in the public domain
729
00:36:27.900 --> 00:36:30.540
by Dylan and Mitchell
and Hendrix and Cline.
730
00:36:30.540 --> 00:36:33.240
Shakespeare and Shelley —
either Shelley —
731
00:36:33.240 --> 00:36:37.000
they should be joined by Lee and Heller
and Orwell and countless others,
732
00:36:37.000 --> 00:36:39.380
including the works that
no-one can trace the owner of,
733
00:36:39.380 --> 00:36:43.440
because after 50 years, you shouldn't
need to trace the owner of a work.
734
00:36:43.440 --> 00:36:46.320
You should just be able to use it.
735
00:36:46.320 --> 00:36:49.520
Anyone should be able to make
a James Bond movie by now.
736
00:36:49.520 --> 00:36:51.620
'Cause they'd probably do a better job.
737
00:36:51.620 --> 00:36:56.040
Yes, the people who have already made
ludicrous amounts of money
738
00:36:56.040 --> 00:36:59.660
would not be able to make
as much anymore, sure.
739
00:36:59.660 --> 00:37:02.960
But the artists' work, the thing they're
supposed to actually care about,
740
00:37:02.960 --> 00:37:05.560
could be enjoyed and built on by everyone.
741
00:37:05.560 --> 00:37:08.180
And the few artists from back then
who are still popular
742
00:37:08.180 --> 00:37:09.720
will be absolutely fine,
743
00:37:09.720 --> 00:37:12.640
continuing to make money from
their world tours, and merchandise,
744
00:37:12.640 --> 00:37:15.160
and public appearances, and newer albums.
745
00:37:15.160 --> 00:37:20.000
And an entire new generation
would get exposed to music and writing and art
746
00:37:20.000 --> 00:37:22.620
that might otherwise be forgotten about.
747
00:37:22.620 --> 00:37:27.240
A shorter copyright term would badly affect
perhaps a few hundred people in the world:
748
00:37:27.240 --> 00:37:30.600
the folks who created one hit song,
or one incredible book
749
00:37:30.600 --> 00:37:32.940
that is still bringing them money
decades later,
750
00:37:32.940 --> 00:37:36.340
and who are now relying on that money
as their only source of income.
751
00:37:36.340 --> 00:37:42.100
It's not many people, but yes, the very,
very, very few who fit into that category,
752
00:37:42.100 --> 00:37:43.420
it'll suck for them.
753
00:37:43.420 --> 00:37:46.360
If royalties were their pension scheme —
I mean, that's bad financial planning,
754
00:37:46.360 --> 00:37:49.380
but if they were thinking that
the one song they made in '64
755
00:37:49.380 --> 00:37:51.760
will get them through their retirement,
756
00:37:51.760 --> 00:37:53.660
yeah, it's gonna be a shock.
757
00:37:53.660 --> 00:37:56.180
I do not believe that
that's a strong enough argument
758
00:37:56.180 --> 00:37:58.940
to justify locking up
all that creativity,
759
00:37:58.940 --> 00:38:02.540
all that potential for the entire world,
for that long.
760
00:38:02.540 --> 00:38:03.880
No-one's going to stop creating
761
00:38:03.880 --> 00:38:06.260
because they only get 50 years'
or 20 years' copyright.
762
00:38:06.260 --> 00:38:09.360
Songwriters, and authors, and filmmakers,
and choreographers, and YouTube creators:
763
00:38:09.360 --> 00:38:11.800
we make things because we can.
764
00:38:11.800 --> 00:38:14.340
Because we have ideas
and we want to show them to the world.
765
00:38:14.340 --> 00:38:18.500
Not because we're thinking that
our grandchildren might, one day,
766
00:38:18.500 --> 00:38:22.800
have a chance of getting a trickle of money
from some future copyright license.
767
00:38:22.800 --> 00:38:27.800
So, when I say that YouTube's
copyright system isn't broken, I mean it.
768
00:38:27.800 --> 00:38:30.800
It's a reasonable patch,
a bit of duct tape
769
00:38:30.800 --> 00:38:33.780
holding together a system
that's somehow still just about working,
770
00:38:33.780 --> 00:38:37.020
despite being completely unsuited
for the modern world.
771
00:38:37.020 --> 00:38:38.620
Yes, occasionally it goes wrong.
772
00:38:38.620 --> 00:38:41.700
When that happens, it should be fixed
quickly and transparently.
773
00:38:41.700 --> 00:38:45.100
But the long-term solution
is not to apply another patch,
774
00:38:45.100 --> 00:38:47.200
on another patch, on another patch,
on another patch.
775
00:38:47.200 --> 00:38:51.140
The solution is to fix the system
that it's trying to work around.
776
00:38:51.140 --> 00:38:52.800
Because that's the problem.
777
00:38:52.800 --> 00:38:55.660
YouTube's copyright system isn't broken.
778
00:38:55.660 --> 00:38:57.460
The world's is.
779
00:38:57.460 --> 00:38:59.380
Alright, that's it. Remember to like,
comment—
780
00:38:59.380 --> 00:39:00.660
oh come on!
781
00:39:00.660 --> 00:39:03.720
Over on Nebula, I've got a new series.
Here's the trailer.
782
00:39:09.020 --> 00:39:11.660
I invited five people to play some games.
783
00:39:11.660 --> 00:39:13.660
I trust no one.
None of us are trustworthy.
784
00:39:13.660 --> 00:39:16.680
…in an environment designed to
slowly break their team apart.
785
00:39:16.680 --> 00:39:18.320
This is real money!
786
00:39:18.320 --> 00:39:20.980
But all they knew
is they'd be sat around a table
787
00:39:20.980 --> 00:39:24.120
trying to win real cash: $10,000.
788
00:39:24.120 --> 00:39:26.200
The vibe's changed
after that theft.
789
00:39:26.200 --> 00:39:29.640
This is a show about trust,
about loyalty,
790
00:39:29.640 --> 00:39:30.720
and about Money.
791
00:39:30.720 --> 00:39:32.760
Tom wants the chaos.
(all laugh)
792
00:39:33.760 --> 00:39:36.720
Nebula is a home for new, in-depth
and experimental content,
793
00:39:36.720 --> 00:39:38.900
and collaborations from
some education video creators
794
00:39:38.900 --> 00:39:40.620
that you may well have heard of.
795
00:39:40.620 --> 00:39:43.240
And you can get it for free
when you join CuriosityStream,
796
00:39:43.240 --> 00:39:46.140
a subscription streaming service
with thousands of
797
00:39:46.140 --> 00:39:49.540
big-budget, professional documentaries
and nonfiction titles.
798
00:39:49.540 --> 00:39:52.680
CuriosityStream is $2.99/month
or $19.99/year,
799
00:39:52.680 --> 00:39:55.300
it includes access to Nebula,
including my new series,
800
00:39:55.300 --> 00:40:00.080
and you can get a 30-day free trial by going to
curiositystream.com/tomscott
801
00:40:01.540 --> 00:40:04.240
Is he even allowed to mix
advertising and content like that?
802
00:40:04.240 --> 00:40:07.000
That is a whole other video.
803
00:40:07.000 --> 00:40:10.000
[Caption+ by JS*
https://caption.plus]
804
00:40:12.960 --> 00:40:16.100
and if some of it will
inevitably lead to disputes,
805
00:40:16.100 --> 00:40:17.800
let's make that process quick…
806
00:40:17.800 --> 00:40:20.560
I said dis-PUTES.
I didn't say DIS-putes, I said dis-PUTES.
807
00:40:20.560 --> 00:40:22.160
I said the verb, not the noun.
808
00:40:22.160 --> 00:40:25.600
It's an important distinction.
Can we try that again?
809
00:40:25.600 --> 00:40:27.540
…will inevitably lead to disputes,
810
00:40:27.540 --> 00:40:30.780
let's make that process quick,
fair, and accessible.
811
00:40:30.780 --> 00:40:32.640
I still said, DIS-putes.
812
00:40:32.640 --> 00:40:32.640
…inevitably lead to disputes—
813
00:40:32.640 --> 00:40:35.940
…inevitably lead to disputes—
inevitably lead to disputes—
814
00:40:37.560 --> 00:29:52.580
let's make a—
DIS-putes!
815
00:29:52.580 --> 00:05:03.860
So if fair use is going to be messy,
and if it will inevitably lead to conflict…
816
00:05:03.860 --> 00:05:06.260
Maroon 5's Memories
is an infuriating composition
817
00:40:50.860 --> 00:40:52.880
that uses the start of the melody of
Canon in D but never resolves it
825
00:40:54.980 --> 00:40:56.220
There seems to be—
[stammers]
819
00:40:56.220 --> 00:40:58.640
Nope. Worth a try.
Let's go back!
820
00:41:02.200 --> 00:41:06.200
[vocal warm-ups]
821
00:41:07.620 --> 00:41:08.440
Alright, how're we doing?
822
00:41:08.440 --> 00:41:09.640
Yeah, I got that on camera.
That's good.
823
00:41:09.640 --> 00:41:10.440
Good.
824
00:41:14.120 --> 00:40:54.980
Every week, there seems to be
in-a-new headline about—
825
00:40:54.980 --> 00:40:56.220
There seems to be—
[stammers]
826
00:41:24.100 --> 00:41:26.900
We bought that license
in good faith from a…
827
00:41:26.900 --> 00:41:29.380
What'd it say?
"Oh I'm sorry, we had no idea."
828
00:41:29.380 --> 00:41:31.680
Let's try it again, take…
829
00:41:31.680 --> 00:03:00.100
eight, or is that seven now?
830
00:03:00.100 --> 00:03:02.040
[screams]
831
00:41:42.660 --> 00:41:43.940
[low scream]
832
00:41:45.500 --> 00:41:46.250
[faint yell]
833
00:41:47.180 --> 00:41:48.360
[yelps]
834
00:41:49.520 --> 00:41:53.460
[long scream]
835
00:41:55.460 --> 00:41:56.980
Ooh, sorry.
836
00:42:00.700 --> 00:42:03.100
…mainly based here,
in the Royal Courts of Justice.
837
00:42:03.100 --> 00:42:04.700
No, I saw you walk into that…
838
00:42:04.700 --> 00:42:05.740
[strained] Yep!
839
00:42:07.040 --> 00:42:08.400
[groans] It's fine!
840
00:42:22.200 --> 00:42:24.700
All right, that's it, I'm out of battery
and out of patience. We are done.