The author allows that distribution of highly copyable matterial is ok to share openly or as a “trade secret,” requiring a contract giving stiff rules of security. But what most companies seem to want is a contract somewhere in between. Like, “its ok to copy my information, unless your making money from it, in which case I want a cut.” Copyright and fair use laws make this the default in most media, and if you want to change it, you can, to some extant (not so much with fair use) contract the buyer into other terms. The problem with copyright is it is slow, and manipulated by a few people, wheras contracts are per instance, and so always current. For instance, if there were a popular swing against the ownership of life and “living” matterials, or a change in concepts of life and living, future agreements would show this. But when government backs a certain position of ownership, those entities who wish to stick with that, potentially, have a much stronger position against those who wish to follow the new majority. However, the above video’s author was not arguing against law, but rather culture, and the ability of people to come to agreements somewhere between open rights, and highly restricted rights. I think the current global marketplace has demonstrated great effectiveness in executing all manner of arrangements of usage rights. The author above would need to clarify why this work is a bad idea.