So people are still coming in, but feel free to come in. Yeah, hope you're in the right place. This is JavaScript ES6, the best vanilla you've ever tasted. I am Ryan Hagerty. You can see me right there. You can also see me up on the stage standing in front of you. I'm a front-end developer, and I work for a pretty cool company called Chromatic. We're a completely distributed company. We're all over. We've got people in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania. I'm in the beautiful Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia. We mainly do Drupal work, but we do all sorts of design, development, deployment work. So check us out, Chromatic HQ. Follow some Twitter. You can find me on the interwebs at HotPizzas. That's my Twitter handle, and I have a pin tweet up there right now with a link to the demo. A repo that has all the code, all the slides, everything you need to get rocking and rolling with ES6. You don't have to set anything up, so check it out. So let's go over kind of like what we're going to talk about. We're going to do a little bit of an intro. We're going to check out kind of the history of JavaScript releases. We're going to cover ES7 before we even touch ES6. There's a reason. We're going to ask ourselves, why even use ES6? We're going to touch on jQuery, Babbel, and then we're going to dive into what you're actually here for, and all sorts of cool stuff about ES6 and how it'll make your life easier with constant let, scope, default and rest parameters, arrow functions, implicit returns, promises, classes, temperate literals, destructuring, and the awesomeness of JavaScript modules. So first off, what is ES6? ES6 is a JavaScript specification. Specifically, it's called ECMAScript 2015. Now you can go ahead and call it ES6 whenever you're talking about it, but this is kind of like its official name, and to give kind of like an evolution of JavaScript and where we've come from. So back in 1997, I was officially originally called ECMA 262, and it started in 1997, and then we have some really good yearly releases. 98, ES2, 99, ES3, and then we have a huge gap, and an ES4 was actually abandoned due to political differences concerning the language complexity, and then we have ES5 and ES6, which is what we're here to talk about. And this is a quote from one of the ECMAScript project editors, and he says, in a very real sense the completion of the sixth edition is the culmination of a 15-year effort. So the future, all right, where are we going? And the cool thing about the sixth edition is that it provides the foundation for regular incremental language and library enhancements. So what does that mean? That means yearly updates, which is pretty cool. So you're going to have every year some new features in JavaScript that are going to make your life better. So I mentioned how we're going to talk about ES7 first, so let's go ahead and check that out. So we have a couple things here. We have array.prototypes includes those originally called contains, but mood tools had a contains method, so in order to not break the web, they called it includes. And it's pretty straightforward. It just checks to see if you have something in an array. So we have one, two, three. Does it include one? True. One, two, three. Does it include four? False. We have a new exponent operator, basically replacing math.power. So three times times two is three to second power. We're going to get nine. And guess what? You did it. You've already learned ES7, which is a cool thing about yearly updates. So there's a ton of stuff in that 15-year gap in ES6, but if you get that and grasp that going forward, these yearly updates are going to be pretty straightforward to grasp and move forward with. So that's cool. But why? Why should I care about ES6? What is it going to do to make my life better? And it basically solves problems. And when you're dealing with large code bases, my opinion is that better than the purest function, better than the most elegant written code, code that is easy to read, understand, and maintain for you, yourself, and others, is more important. And ES6 solves a lot of those problems. We're having an ES5 with this. So some of the ways that it solves this is through scope, promises, this keyword, modules, parameters, classes, and more. And another reason ES6 is awesome is because it's a web standard, right? So it reflects best practices. It's been standardized. It's been through the ringer. You know it's going to be around forever because it's a web standard, so you know anything you write in it is going to work for a super long time. It's not the trendy hipster framework of the week. You know it's going to be around forever. And it's not Drupal specific. It's not WordPress specific. It's JavaScript. You can use it anywhere on the web. And that takes us to my jQuery, right? So what about jQuery in the world of ES6? And I want to say that, you know, I love jQuery, right? I'm not going to bash jQuery. jQuery is actually awesome. But I do want to contrast each of them, all right? So kind of give you like a little bit more perspective about, you know, whether or not you want to use one or the other, or even both. And ES6 and jQuery, well, they solve different problems, okay? So if you still need to support significantly older browsers, then jQuery is probably the best answer for you. If you have a super low budget site, and you're not familiar with ES6 and you need to get rocking and rolling and doing work, then jQuery is probably the best solution for you. But I do want to highlight on performance, okay? So there's a lot of big performance wins, like Source Set, okay, to give you responsive images to save you a lot of bytes down the wire. But performance is actually really great performance sites. They're actually the culmination of a bunch of tiny wins that kind of culminate into a super-performance awesome site. And the current size of jQuery 3.11 is over 90 kilobytes. So getting rid of jQuery is one way you can kind of take those small steps in having a super-performance site. And I actually went into my cache, and I saw that I had 21 different versions of jQuery in my cache. And that's just different versions. That's not versions hosted on one CDN versus another CDN versus self-hosted versions. That's just different kind of just versions of jQuery. And also when you use ES6, you're gonna have a better understanding of JavaScript. It's not an abstracted framework or library. It's JavaScript itself. And there's lots of native solutions that we've been using in jQuery for actually around for a long time. All of these have native solutions. Add class, has class, find attribute, toggle class, map. So in conclusion, probably use ES6, maybe. I know it's super hard to stop, but at the very least, I'm not telling you not to use jQuery, but at the very least, now we have to ask ourselves, should I use jQuery? Is there a justified decision for me, too? Go ahead and use it. But now, instead of saying, oh, man, thank God it's making Internet Explorer work, we should ask ourselves, should we actually use it? So let's get started, all right? Let's get started with ES6. Now you can ask yourself, well, I have some older browsers that have to support. Can I use it? And there's a site called Babble, which we're gonna talk about in depth here in a little bit, and they have a compatibility table which shows you all of the kind of features of ES6 and which browsers support them and how well they support them. You can use caniuse.com to look up specific functions. Here I'm using arrow functions, we're kind of like foundational of ES6, and you'll notice that like IE11 doesn't support it at all, and I don't know any website that, you know, can drop IE11 at this point. So the solution of that is Babble. All right? So what's a Babble? A Babble is a compiler that will transform ES6 into legacy browser ES5 code. Yes, even IE9. You can write ES6 and it'll work in IE9, which is pretty awesome. And here's an example from Babble's own website, and they can have like a little demo area for you to try yourself to see how it actually works. When you write ES6 code, and here we actually have an implicit return, an arrow function, and that exponent operator that we talked about, and we're going to go over these. But all it does is turn that arrow function into a regular function, an implicit return into a return, and that exponent operator into math.power. So that's pretty cool. And to get started with Babble, you need to use npm or yarn. I prefer yarn, but in the demo repo I use npm. I feel like more people are familiar with it. You'll need to use some type of task runner, like gulp, grunt, webpack, or if you don't even want to use a task runner, you don't even have to. There's a command line interface that Babble provides, so you don't even have to deal with that. So let's go over battle CLI really quick. So in my package.json, I have a little script here, right? Saying, alright, so when I run battle CLI, I want it to look in a node module's Babble directory. Look in the source folder, and in the out directory, put it in the disk folder. Okay, so let's check out what I have in my source folder. I have an example of an implicit return using the arrow function. And then in my command line, I just say npm run battle CLI, and it's done. That's all you gotta do. And then I have ES5 code written in ES6. And here's the compiled code. Arrow function converted. I have a return in there, awesome. But what I did in the demo repo is I used gulp. I feel like a lot of people are familiar with gulp. If you're not familiar with gulp, don't worry about it. Demo repo's got it set up for you. But this talk isn't about gulp, so I'm just gonna touch on it briefly. So I installed some packages here, gulp, gulp babble, babble preset ES215, 2015. And in my gulp file, I have a really simple task here called js, where the source folder is my JavaScript source folder, any file called JavaScript, piping babble through there, and the destination folder is JavaScript. This is js. So if I type gulp, boom, done. Pretty awesome, I got ES6 code. Now you may be asking yourself, all right, if this compiles in a different code, how do I debug this, right? That could be a problem. And the answer is source maps. Okay? So if you use source maps, you have your compiled code here, right? And the browser is running aggregated code, but that source map will help you find the original file that a particular piece of code comes from. So I have a source map here. You can see the original code I wrote. Pretty cool. So now that we got it set up and running, we've been able to history all that cool stuff, let's check out some real ES6. Okay. const n let, what some people are calling the new var. All right, so var has some problems, okay? You can update it. Here are the var dc, Drupalcon. I can say dc equals Drupalcon. When I log that dc, I'm going to get Drupalcon. You can even redefine it, all right? I have dc equals Drupalcon, dc var dc equals Drupalcon. If I log that dc, I'm going to get Drupalcon, all right? And that's kind of gross. I feel like it's gross, because if you have a giant file and with a huge scope, you may not necessarily know that something is redefining it or re-updating it down the line. So kind of going back to how it makes our lives easier by having cleaner, more readable, more maintainable code, const n let kind of solve this. With let, like var, you can update it. So let number equals 41, number equals 42. I'm going to get 42. But I can't redefine it. If I redefine the number, console log that, I'm going to get identifier number has already been declared. Let is really good for loops, right? So here I have this example loop, right? So I have var i equals zero, simple loop, and I have a set timeout, right? When I log that instead of that set timeout, I'm going to get log, I'm going to have five, five times in a row. Why is that? It's because the loops already run before that set timeout happens. But if I have let, I'm going to get what do I expect? Zero, one, two, three, four. Why is that? Well, that can be updated and, most importantly, const n let use block scope. And block scope are these little curly brackets right here. And we're going to talk about scope right after const. So just keep that in mind, these curly brackets right here. With const, you can't update it, right? So I have name ryan, name equals rai. I'm going to get an error, assignment constant variable. I can't even redefine it. const name, const name, ryan, and rai-rai. Identifier name has already been declared, like redefining let. And this is super helpful because, like I was talking about with var, when you see a const, you're signaling to yourself and other developers that this is always going to be the same within this scope. So you don't have to worry about it, like, ever changing. You know what it's going to be, which is pretty cool. But I do want to point out that const is not immutable. Right here I have an object named person with a property of name. The const of person can't be updated or redefined, but the property can't. So I can say person.name equals rai-rai, updating that from ryan. I'm going to get rai-rai, no errors. So const versus let, what should you use? And I think you should use const. Like I said before, when you use const, you're signaling to other developers that this is staying the same, makes it easier to read, easier to maintain, you don't have to worry about it. So I would use const. And that takes us to the next section, which is scope. So what's the new scope in ES6? This is all you got to know. These curly brackets right here defines a new scope. So when I have name equals rai-rai, and I log that, I'm going to get rai-rai. It's not going to give an error about redefining or updating or reassigning. If I log it outside of this scope, I'm going to have the name up here, const log name equals ryan. Now let's talk about default and rest parameters. So to check out a default parameter, this is another example to allow you to write cleaner readable code. Default. All right, here's a simple example. I have a simple function here. Log favor food. And in this parameter, I'm saying food equals pizza. And all I'm doing is console logging that food. Log favor food. If I don't pass anything into it, the default parameter is going to kick in. It's going to give me pizza. The log favor food is beer food. Pizza is not going to show up at all. Default parameter is beer food. And here is another example. Kind of a more real world example. If I want to change the body color, basically I'm saying, hey, the background color applies style onto the body of whatever the color is. But here I'm saying the default parameter is dodger blue. I don't pass anything in. The body color is going to be dodger blue. I pass something in. It's going to be whatever I pass in. This light gray right here. So let's talk about rest parameters. All right, rest parameters allow you to pass in an unspecified amount of parameters. And this is... The way you do this is through these little ellipses here in the parameter. And in ES6, these parameters are actually... these rest parameters are actually an array, which is how I'm checking length here. So when I console log numbers that length, I'm checking that array. So if I just pass in 1, I get 1. Log numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4. 4. Sweet. And that takes us to my, one of my favorite things, arrow functions. All right, arrow functions are super cool. And let's kind of check out why arrow functions are awesome. So in ES5, you know, this is pretty straightforward. You know, we just have a function, pass in a name. We're going to log that name. Log name Ryan. We're going to get Ryan. Arrow function, all we're doing is removing that function name. We're putting parameter right here, and we're using what is called a fat arrow equals greater sign. And it's the same thing. That's arrow functions. So what's the big deal with that? What makes it so cool? All right, and what makes it so cool is actually how it handles this, the context of this. And what it does is that it lexically binds this. Now, I remember when I first got started, like, I used to hate this keyword. It was so confusing to me. I was like, what is it actually referring to? The context just kept changing. It's probably because I didn't really have a good understanding of scope. But, you know, blessings go on to new developers now because they don't even have to worry about that. So let's check out an example of how lexically binding this will make your life easier. Okay. So I have some code here. I have this object. I have this listen click, right? And it's looking for an element with an ID of a button. It's adding a click event listener. And it's running this.logclick. And logclick just says, hey, anytime someone clicks this, logclick. Okay. And the important part about this is how I'm using function here. All right? If I do this right now, it's not going to work. Now, I know we could just get rid of that function and do this, all right? But I invite you to suspend disbelief for the sake of this demo because this is the important part. This kind of like creating a new scope here, right? So if I do this, it's going to say this.logclick is not a function. All right? Now, there's a couple of ways we could get on and get around this. I used to do this all the time. I used to do const that equals this and then inside that.logclick. It's a little shameful, but, you know, it works. You could use call or bind. And that's better because it was specifically made for this type of thing. And you're signalling to other developers. You know explicitly what you're doing with the context of this. So that's great. That's a cool thing with arrow functions. You don't have to worry about that, right? This will work. We have the same kind of setup here, but instead of a regular function, we're using an arrow function, and that's how it lexically binds this. It'll just keep the context of this going down the chain. So we could have arrow function after arrow function after arrow function, and it's going to still lexically bind this to its outer scope, whatever the parent of the highest-most parent object is. So sweet. All right, let's check out implicit returns. So I have a simple function here, all right? We're going to be using arrow functions from now on, and all I'm doing is taking a number and timing it by itself. But if I do this, I'm going to get undefined. Why? I'm not actually returning anything. So to kind of fix that problem, all you do is take those curly bracket scopes, get rid of them, problem solved. It's the same code except all I'm doing is getting rid of the curly braces. So I'm timing it by this and not returning anything, but it's an implicit return about those curly braces. So console log number two, we're going to get four. And that takes us to kind of like a bigger section, and that is promises. All right. Now someone could give an entire talk on promises, all right? But I'm not going to go over anti-patterns or kind of like things you can do with promises that kind of like beyond kind of like the higher level thing. What I want to do is kind of touch on the basics and kind of like maybe get you excited about promises and why they're awesome. I feel like when we're dealing with asynchronous code, you know, we have some callbacks. This data is dependent on that data. And then we go, that data is dependent on that data, and we kind of keep going and going and going.  Now, I'm guilty of this.  But like, this will actually help and you know, you can separate those functions out and make a little bit of cleaner code but still callback hell because it's difficult to read. It's difficult to understand the flow of asynchronous coding. All right? So what is a promise? And I'm going to tap Kyle Simpson right here. Kyle Simpson is a super awesome JavaScript developer. He's a great teacher. He has tons of free resources online, talks, all that. I highly recommend to check him out. So I couldn't, and his was always better. So I'm using his. And Kyle Simpson describes the idea of a promise like ordering a cheeseburger.  That receipt is like a promise.  Now you can go to the counter and they could be like, oh, here's your burger. That promise has been resolved. So we're out of burgers, so that promise is rejected. A promise is only like a guarantee about a future value. We don't know what that value is yet, but it's a guarantee that something's going to come back. So let's check out a basic promise. We have a new promise here, right? And you'll notice that, like, we have your promise, new promise, resolve, reject. Well, what's that? It's a new handler that is given two functions as parameters. It's typically called resolve and reject. And right here, I'm kind of simulating a call to set time out of one second, and then that promise is going to resolve whatever data I have. So right now it says your data. So what do you do with that? Well, then you have then. And this is how you consume your promise. Okay? So when I have your promise that then, when I have that one second fires, I'm going to resolve that data. Everything works fine. Console log, what did I get plus message? It's going to say, what did I get? Your data. So let's kind of explore this a little bit more. So I have Amazon AWS is true. So let's kind of say we're checking if Amazon AWS is up. A new promise, resolve, reject. Okay? It's true, cool. It's down. So how do we consume that promise? What do we do with that value once it's fulfilled? Well, we use then. We have the same thing. Function, what did I get? Plus message, would I get your data? Function error. Oh, no. The error message, it's down. So all together, Amazon AWS is true. All right? So it's going to go then. Amazon AWS is false. Uh-oh. It's going to reject it. Then we're going to get, oh, no. It's down. And you can even chain your promises, right? So right now we're consuming promises, and now we can actually chain them. So right here, I have resolve, reject. Result equals two. It's going to immediately resolve. It's right here, two. I'm going to take that result. Times it by two, I get four. Times it by two, I'm going to get eight. And this is a good example of how you can take asynchronous code, which might fire, you know, here or there, it's unpredictable, right? And this kind of like makes a little bit more of a linear timeline, a little bit more easier to read and maintain. Because we're saying, hey, our promise has gotten some type of data. It's a guarantee of our value, right? Once we got that data, then do this, then do this, then do that. So it's kind of like makes it more easier to read. And you can even throw an error function here. We can throw a catch. In case one of these thens somehow stops working. So we have an error function, console log here be an error. So instead of returning that new result, we're going to return a promise reject. We're just going to say, hey, reject that promise. That catch is going to run here be an error. You can even do promises that, oh, you can take an array of sites, right? So here I'm just kind of simulating some sites here. Site one, site two, site three. Promises all. I'm going to take those APIs and then for each API, I'm just going to log the API. Site one, site two, site three. And there's a catch to promises all. Because if any one of those sites fails, the whole promise is going to fail. So this could either be good for how you set things up or it could also be an unexpected result. But I felt you all should be aware of that. Let's check out classes. All right. We have classes now. Which is pretty sweet. All right, so we have a basic thing here. Class food. We have a constructor, which initializes the object properties. You know, this is not required in classes in ES6, but going here to show you, for example, we have a method called ascribe. And all I'm doing is console logging. This.name is the best food. So const pizza equals new food. This.name equals pizza. Pizza.scribe, pizza is the best food. How do we do this in ES5? All right, well, we have bar food function, blah, blah, blah. Food.prototype.describe, console log, this name is the pizza food. And down here, we kind of do the same thing. Pizza.scribe, pizza is the best food. But guess what? Classes in ES6 are just syntactic sugar. This code is actually exactly the same under the hood as ES6 classes. So nothing's really changed. It's not just classes, but not really getting kind of like true classes. It's not really a class. So let's kind of check out why it's not a true class. We have some code up here from before. We have our class food. Method describe, const pizza equals new pizza. But guess what? Pizza is not an instance, all right? It's not copying the object properties into a new object, independent of its original. Independent of food. So if I go down here and I change that method of food, even though I have pizza already up here, food.prototype.describe, food is altered. When I do pizza.describe, I'm going to get food is altered. So that's definitely something you should be aware of that we're still following the prototype chain. We're still using prototypical inheritance. It's not a true class, but we're getting there. Kind of looks like one. You can even create subclasses. Food, method of toppings, const mystyle equals new pizza, mystyle.toppings, mushrooms and onions, I like mushrooms, onions on mine.  And that refers to the class it references. In this case food. So I have super up here in the constructor. So I'm referencing foods this.name, just saying it's pizza. In the toppings method, I'm calling super.describe, so any time I say hey, pizza.toppings, I'm also going to call food.describe. So const mystyle equals new pizza, mystyle.toppings, mushrooms and onions, here's that super.describe, pizza's the best food, and then finally toppings, I like mushrooms and onions on mine. And that's classes. And the next section is template literals. Now template literals are something small, but I think are super awesome. And I hope you do too, because they're really cool. And they're definitely not as complicated. So you know how you do this in ES5, right? You got this like gross like, oh I want to put like a variable in here, so space, quote, plus space, variable, the space, quote, it's just such a pain to write, it's not a good experience. In ES6 we have embedded expressions now. So all I have to do now here is like dollar sign, curly brackets, boom, done. And you'll notice I'm using backticks here. Why am I using backticks all of a sudden? And that's because if we use actual quotes, it's going to be a literal string. We're going to get beverage up here. It's not going to be an expression. So I want to make sure to definitely use backticks, and in fact in all of my code, all my JavaScript code now I use backticks exclusively. I'm pretty sure I'm going to use a template literal somewhere. So why not make your code clean, consistent, and just use backticks everywhere? You can even add a little bit of logic into your PivotLiteral. Right here I have kind of like a little ternary, so let's check out what's going on. I'm looking for this query, a little thing that has a class of next. I'm saying hey, next link, insert a json.atml, run template. So what's template do? Well, here's the ternary. Is pizza true? I'm so sad. So cheer. Hey, pizza's true. Up here. It's going to insert ya. And I'll leave it up to you whether or not you decide you want to put logic in your templates. That's up to you, but I've run into a couple scenarios where it's been super useful, and you know, my feeling is if your decision is justified, then go ahead and do it. And that takes us to destructuring. This is probably my favorite slide on the deck, because destructuring is pretty much the lamest, boring word ever. I have some really exciting balloons happening. So let's get excited about destructuring. Yeah, all right. I like that enthusiasm. All right. So we got some variables here. Bar name one, name two, name three. Imagine if this came from some data, right? It was like a pain. Well, destructuring allows you to extract data from arrays and objects into distinct variables. All right? So what does that mean? We'll have an array here. Name one, name two, name three, and rye and rye and rye rye. Name two. Boom. It's a distinct variable. You can even clean it up a little bit. I'm having this array already declared here. Then name one, name two, name three equals names. Guess what? These are all distinct variables now. I'll log name two. Gonna get rye. You can do this with objects. Okay. I have a superhero of a property of alias and name. Const alias and name equals superhero. Alias is its own constant now. It's gonna log spider-man. You can even nest destructuring. So I have a supervillain here, right? Alias name. And then I have some nested properties here. Weaknesses. So weakness one is water. Weakness two is planning heists. Const alias. And then I have a nested destructuring here. So weakness is gonna be a distinct constant here. If I log alias and weakness, I'm gonna get sandman and water. And that takes us to my favorite section, the most awesome section, which is JavaScript modules. Okay. So we got some problems. All right. You know how like you would have you load your jQuery in a script tag.  Then you have your flex slider and it's kind of like a global namespace. And then, you know, I'm not been right out of that anymore. Not dealing with it. One minor but valid point is pollution and possible collision in the global namespace. But I want to say one of the biggest things is that there's no dependency management. Many scripts duplicate functionality that could be easily shared across an entire site. So instead of having one monolithic module, what if you wanted to break up pieces of a module into smaller modules? Right? For usability across many different scenarios of your site. And this is what JavaScript modules allow you to do. The problem is, is that browsers don't know what to do with them yet. Chrome doesn't know what to do with them. So we're gonna need some type of package manager. And here's the four most popular I think right now. We got Webpack, BrowserFi, JSPM and Rollup. We have this really cool feature called tree-shaking. And what that'll do is actually look through your JavaScript modules and see if there's anything that's actually not being used. And it will not include that in your actual bundled JavaScript. Super awesome. Way to get a little bit more performance win. But let's check out actual modules. And this is all you really need to know using them, which is import and export. Okay? And import and export are implicitly asynchronous. No code will execute until the requested modules are available and processed. So right here, check this out. Okay. So I'm exporting a constant called color change. I have this method, change color. I'm taking in color and element. And all I'm doing is saying, hey, apply a background color style of color to the element. So how do I use this? This is on a different, well, in a different file. You can import that color change from modules, color change.js, and then I can use it here. Color change, color, dodger blue, document body. It's gonna change the body color to dodger blue. You can import all sorts of modules, right? You can import several into one file.  You can import and import functions. So I'm exporting a function here, console log high, import high from modules high.js. It's gonna log high. You can import classes, objects, primitives, all sorts of cool stuff. And I can't stress enough how awesome JavaScript modules are. It's such a huge win for cleanliness and reusability. And it's really gonna, like, change the way you approach how you develop JavaScript. Because it's gonna, like, reinforce a component level-driven JavaScript. You're gonna start thinking about, okay, so I'm building this, how can I actually will this actually be useful in other parts of the site? How can I actually reuse this in other parts of the site? So it's gonna make your development experience better, and it's gonna make the work you need to get done faster. So your velocity will go up, your experience will be happier. You'll high five other developers. It'll be a great time. And guess what? We did it. That's ES6. I know it was a lot. I went through it, but we did it. It's super cool. All right. So what's next? Well, we already know ES7, so we did that. That's cool. And then ES8 is coming out, and that's gonna have some async wait functions. So the kind of recap, all right, what do we learn? We learned about constant let, about how much cooler it is in BAR. We learned about scope, the curly brackets, we learned about default and rest parameters, we learned about arrow functions, and how they kind of solve this problem. We learned about implicit returns, promises. We have classes now, but they're not true classes. We learned about template literals, how boring of a word destructuring is, and we learned about how awesome modules are.  If you feel like writing out a longer URL, there's a GitHub link. Same thing. And thank you all. So we have some time for questions. Anyone has questions? Hit me up. Hi. What should happen so we can adopt ES6 in Drupal Core? In Drupal Core? That's a great question. Because it would involve some kind of tooling, I assume. Yeah. You know, I'm not familiar. I'm not actually in the project hues of Drupal Core, so I can't really address that specifically. But I mean, I would guess it would be kind of just one, check the browser support, two, check how intertwined you are with jQuery, what places you can refactor that if you even want to. Including some kind of compiler to run that. You don't even need the compiler. You can just run the compiler code to stick those files in there. But yeah, I think it would be kind of straightforward. Just kind of like refactoring things, really. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Yeah, all right. Well, thank you all for coming. Yeah. Awesome talk.


Dear students, I welcome you in the course of leadership, emotional intelligence, and the CN making. This is module number 56 and we are going to talk about that we have to be real, we have to act with authenticity and we have to follow our four circles. Now let us see what those four circles are and how they are associated with our life. When we talk about total leadership, always remember that you have to find out your own self. You have to see that are you the same person wherever you go? It happens that we have to carry a lot of masks on ourselves in our lives. According to each circumstance, according to each environment, we make a different type of mask, a different type of orientation, we make arrangements with ourselves. As a result, most of the time, we leave our true personality, our true self behind, somewhere very far away. And we only become a combination of different scattered personality perspectives. So you have to think about whether in every place, in every matter, in every relationship, you are carrying the same context that you have adopted a different perspective in every place, in every matter and in every relationship. To investigate this, you have to talk about your four circles, your North-South-East-West. You have to talk about that what is your relationship with your work, with yourself, with your community and with your home. To elaborate on this, we have to think about relative location of the circles. We have to see that our contribution towards our self, our community, our home and our work is much less and much more. And did we keep a central position in all these aspects? Or is our position in a different context? How do we correlate all these things, all these North-South-East-West of your self? We have to be very much vigilant and we have to be very much careful when we are defining these four circles of our life. And the size of the circle would be actually showing your importance.  Whether you are more linked with your work, your work is more linked with your community and the community is having any link with your home or you are having a central position in between all these factors. So think about the relative location of your home, of your community, of your work and of yourself. And a more balanced approach can be seen in this situation as well. So you are better in a situation in which you are moving with interdependent relationships instead of independent perspectives. Dear students, if we include all these things, then we have to see how our relative importance is with other stakeholders. Our relationship with community, work, and the community is very much more important than our relative importance with other stakeholders. How is our relationship with community, work, home, and self? And is our relationship with our stakeholders the same as we have defined? Because unless and until we cannot justify this relationship, it will be difficult for us to develop our total leadership perspective. Thank you.


Carbon nanodot, CNT, based memristors have been widely studied due to their potential applications in artificial synapses, neuromorphic computing, and human sensory perception systems. CNTs can be used to fabricate memristors with excellent electrical and mechanical properties, such as high conductivity, large surface area, and high flexibility. Furthermore, CNTs can be easily integrated into existing electronic circuits, making them suitable for use in neuromorphic computing. Additionally, CNTs can be used to create memristors with tunable resistance states, allowing for the development of artificial synapses with different characteristics. Finally, CNTs can be used to develop sensing devices capable of detecting various stimuli, such as light, temperature, and pressure. This article was authored by Qing Zhang, Mohan Chen, Ye Long Pan, and others.


I have a company called Radar Research with my business partner, Aaron, who I'm going to talk about here tonight. And now, 2003, we found ourselves coincidentally after working together many years in New York at USC together, getting advanced degrees. So we were approached at the moment in their center, which is a think tank, an entertainment-related think tank in California related to USC. About producing some research focused on fashion and copyright, Aaron has spent many years looking at music. And we wanted to take a look at music and fashion. And how both of these industries, one being a copyright maximalist, the other being a copyright minimalist, how they relate to each other in terms of the creative process, but also how they differ in terms of the legal structure and the organizational structure of those two industries. So we produced this research that's published by the New York Center. And Aaron and I have spent a lot of time working together again after all those years that we started a company called Radar Research. And we consult with a variety of corporations. So that's how I ended up here talking about this topic. And I wanted to, yeah, me, apparently, Aaron was assigned to it and I was required to read any of his classes to his students. So we, I wanted to start off with a very, very correct presentation just because I know everyone in this room is very familiar with the very recent copyright law. But I'm thinking maybe not as familiar with how fashion works. So I just wanted to use some background and some context to start off the conversation. So basically what we've seen is that fashion has historically been designed to copyright protection and there's a couple of reasons for this. So it's one of the reasons, let's look at it historically. And I'm only gonna start from the 18th century. Pretty much ever since, you know, man took off his loincloth and put on something else. Fashion has been used to signify a number of social signifiers. Class, gender, position, hierarchy, religion. And you know, in the Middle Ages, if someone took a nobleman's livery, they were forced to wear this coat of arms in colors. Sumptuary laws in the Elizabethan age actually presented people from wearing the clothes of nobleman. They believed that the entire moral fabric of society would be rendered as thunder if the lower classes were wearing a clothing of the upper classes. So there's a lot of law that happened before the mid-18th century. By the mid-18th century, we had a writing of a class that could suddenly afford to buy fashion. We also had changes in textile technology. So mass production became closer to reality. In the mid-19th century, we had the House of Work, which we found it, which was essentially the first couturier, the first time that a designer, an individual, was associated with a creative product in fashion. Towards the end of the 19th century, you have mass production, which meant that middle class could buy essentially knockoffs of high-end couture. In the beginning of the 20th century, we had what were considered authorized and unauthorized production, being sold in the U.S., mainly through catalogs, a serious catalog, things like that. So we had this democratization starting to happen in the early 20th century. And we also had what we think of as the high-end of fashion become established. So Chanel, Dior, Balenciaga, all these names that we're still familiar with today were founded in the 20th century. Around 1933, there was this first attempt to really protect fashion in an organized way, and that was with the fashion originators' field of America. It basically required registrations or designs. Manufacturers had to abide by this, or they were blacklisted essentially, and the FTCs got in and said, this is illegal. This is a violation of antitrust. And by 1941, in the Supreme Court case, the fashion originators' field was dead. And then things kind of progressed along until the 1960s, and that was really where we hit a watershed moment in fashion. We had Hollywood, we had rock and roll, we had youth culture. We had all these cultural factors, something like taking over in a way that fashion was no longer a top-down. It wasn't designers in Paris or New York or Milan telling everybody what they should wear. Suddenly, the kids were all right. They knew you had this bottom-up direction for fashion, where designers were taking inspiration from the street and from kids who didn't care what designers were telling them to do anymore. And so you had this destabilization of couture, and you also had an industry that is highly stratified, but also highly diverse. It's not an oligopoly in a way that you find in other culture industries like music and movies. You have a lot of large designers, a lot of small designers, and it's an incredibly non-monopolistic industry. What that has led to is a lot of copying, a lot of knockoffs, and sometimes counterfeiting. And to address that, some of the higher-end designers have really been pushing legislation to have copyright. They have historically been protected through patents and trademark, but not copyright. And one of the main reasons for this is that fashion is considered utilitarian. It's considered functional, and functional objects in the U.S. aren't really afforded copyright protection in the same way that art or sculpture or... weirdly, the design of boats are protected in the U.S. So from 2006 on, you have multiple legislative attempts to protect copyright, and I know we're going to get into that in the discussion. But the picture says a thousand words, right? So this is probably one of the most famous examples of copying. Basically, the head designer, Glanciaga Nicholas Castillar, probably put her in his name, and I believe it was 2002, produced a vest that's the one on your right that was almost an exact knockoff of a vest designed by my man, Kai Tung Wang. He was a fashion designer and second sister. He was of tiny American descent, and he had died about a decade earlier of age-related disease. So I'm only going to bring that up because there was no one around to steal. He pretty much had license, even if it was not technically illegal. There was no...he thought...well, we don't really know what he thought, but... there wasn't a state, really, to assume that before you went after your dead Chinese-American designer. And it's almost a, you know, stitched by stitched replica of this vest. When he was found out, he was pretty offended at it. His response was, I did it, yes. And not only that, I'm very excited that people are looking for my sources of inspiration. He was not apologetic at all. He was actually quite clouted that people were actually investigating where he was getting his ideas from. When I was working on the research we were producing, we went to a man named Cameron Silver who owns a high-end vintage boutique in Los Angeles called Decades. When you see celebrities on the red carpet or at the Oscars wearing a 1930s couture dress, it usually comes from Canada. This is the man who knows his fashion. And when we talk about it, instead of the incident, it doesn't die. When Yeskia passes away, he's a vitreur who will mention two things. The bag he designed is a very famous Balenciaga bag that they are very litigious about protecting. And the kitesic scandal doesn't mean that he's not going to do it again. On your left is a vest jacket, a leather jacket that was produced by a company in the 1960s called East West Music Instruments, I believe is the name. And they were famous for producing these sort of rock and roll jackets for Janis Joughlin and a couple others. They go on eBay for anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000. But the company is out of business now. Again, there's no one there to sue. And in the middle there you have his version of it, which then got replicated by Urban Outfitters for about a $300 price point and sold out very quickly. So you have that continuum there of this vintage jacket into high-end down to the low-end. Both of which sold out. And we see it happening again and again and again. This is my first and hopefully not my last presentation I could see other that talks about Jessica Simpson, but she has a very successful shoe line. And you'll see here, it's almost, you know, a sapphire up above, a crystal and baton shoe. Her retail for, you know, about a hundred bucks. Her retail for probably about a thousand bucks. Obamka Trump. I love that it's always like non-celebrities have shoe clients. But she had a shoe a few years ago that was very similar to a Derek Lam shoe. Again, almost stitched by stitch. Kate Middleton. Everyone was, you know, so in love with her wedding dress. Until they found out that it looked very, very similar to a wedding dress by, worn by women in Isabella Orsini, who's Italian royalty, two years earlier. So these are very, very similar dresses. Another famous case. Yves Saint Laurent and Christian Louboutin are embroiled in a legal battle over the red sole. The sole of Louboutin's company is that red sole underneath the shoe. It's an instantly identifiable signifier of Christian Louboutin and he is claiming that he owns that color. That red belongs to him. And I think that... Is that trademark issue? Yeah, probably... He has to trademark this little thing. Scares me. It's more of a trial. I think the trial is over and they're deciding... They're deciding who wins here. Who owns red? And then we have another trial that's going on right now. It's Gucci vs. Guess, where Gucci is claiming that guesses shoes way too similar with their interlocking Gs, as well as the patterns and style here. So Robert doesn't let the panel and Gs themselves read things. He'll play them next time. But just a few things that we do want to think about. You know, is there a need for protection in this industry? If there is kind of balance to be struck between the need for protection and the desire to allow an industry to continue to thrive creatively, because this is an industry that hasn't really been hurt too much by a lack of copyright. And then, you know, what does make fashion a new form of cultural production that makes it just similar from the music or media journalism that we talked about earlier? And are there lessons that we can learn from what's happened in fashion and both the industry as well as the community, because those are two different things and we're talking about fashion. Can other creative industries learn from them? So I'm going to let Katie introduce herself, and then also we'll get into some of these questions. So I already introduced myself essentially when I became a tasker. I work at public knowledge and when we touch on fashion and copyrighted shoes, I tend to be a go-to person. I've been a person following the IDQPA, which I know that Ilse will talk about more in depth. I'm not a lawyer. I do outreach. This is more personal desires getting involved in this because I think that there are a lot of misguided efforts to place copyright on the fashion industry that I think would be a detriment to the fashion industry. And I don't want to see them shoot themselves in the foot. Good afternoon. I came all the way from California to aggregate you as part of our team to prevent any future discussion of IDQPA. I will start by framing what we're doing, but first let me tell you a little bit about the California industry. It's the largest in the country, surpassing an appointment in New York by about 60,000 employees. We do not make red carpet merchandise. So the stuff that you see at the Academy Awards is not made in California. What's made in California is generally what you see in the public domain, what you see in the TV shows, what you see in front of you on the street, what you see in the general retailing world is that which is coming from California. It's usually not brand-mades. We have very few major brands, but we have over 7,000 companies that employ many, many designers, and 85% of what comes through our ports is made elsewhere. So it's not a manufacturing industry as much as it is a service industry, and that goes to New York as well. That's a whole other subject, but that is how fashion works today, and it's called speed there. This is the outline. We're going to define the terminology and then talk about the new bill, and then there are some very, very current trade issues that are coming up. Trademark, patent, copyright, counterfeit, trade press. Anything you see conceivably falls in one of these five categories. Anything you see in the street. Here's your trademark. You know what these companies are. You know who they are. And if you don't and you're wearing something that has this mark on it, and it's not that company, then it's counterfeit. This is a patent. It's very rare that a patent is in the apparel business, because construction, there's nothing new under the sun. Now in this particular case, not your mother's jeans did a crisscross flap and was able to get a patent, but it is very, very rare in the apparel industry. Copyright. Now this is a little bit dicey. There are many, many restrictions of copyright in the apparel industry, and we call it vexatious litigation. You have companies that do not design anything, but they make a screen of a print that is in public domain, copyright it for $40, and then sue anyone who uses it after it's in public domain, a polka dot, a cherry, a daisy. And we have that throughout the industry. It's called vexatious litigation. But copyright refers to the pocket of a jean, not just the trademark. Also something like the Burberry plant is not only a trademark, but it's also a copyright. All those prints that were on the Ed Hardy look that is no longer part of fashion, that's a copyright. Counterfeit is illegal. Counterfeit is an issue with the U.S. Treasury Department, and these are the fakes and the reels, and they usually come from overseas, but that is a company that is going for the look and the trademark that they don't like. Now we get to a very gray area, trade dress. Trade dress is when you're looking at something you know from whom it's derived and it doesn't have a logo. The blue box of Tiffany doesn't need to say Tiffany. The bottle of Coca-Cola doesn't need to say Coca-Cola. And a Chanel jacket, although it may be a knockoff, is still considered a Chanel type jacket. That's trade dress. The problem with the Red Soul fight is that they didn't go for trade dress. And they may lose. Luba team may lose on this one because they didn't go for trade dress and they didn't define the red. They could have defined it as a whole series of colors called pantone colors that you can pick a color number, and you can trademark or use that color as your own, but they didn't do that. And by the way, it's in appeal now. Luba team already lost and it's in appeal. So we get to the new one, a new county heard from. Let me tell you the background of this. Two of Senator Schumer's constituents, Harvey Weinstein and Barry Diller, who are married to designers. Diane Furstenberg, Georgina Chapman of Marquesa decided that they had enough. They were creative geniuses and they found knockoffs. And both men supported Senator Schumer and when public in Women's Retail was saying, we have paid for this bill to be passed. I'd have to quote. The bill will is now in its fifth version. The background is that knockoffs under current law are legal. They are not considered counterfeit. They do not have the label of the originating designers. The proposed law states that a copy to be infringed may be substantially identical. Nobody really knows what the hell that means, but that's what it says. So similar in appearance as to be mistaken for the protected design with a three-year protection. Now mind you, fashion moves at the speed of ten weeks. In ten weeks it's in and it's out. That's the sequence at retail. However, and this is the big however, no registration or copyright for infringement is required. The copyright office has not changed its IT since the 70s. They have no room and no way to take on copyright, copyrights for designer brands. Don't forget, each designer makes over a hundred styles five times a year. Copyright office couldn't handle that. This law says nothing is required. Someone graduating, being graduated from the Rhode Island School of Design can say I did that first and send a letter and the game is on. There is no research available for who said what was copyrighted or what was done first. And garlic design and pattern making has been considered useful, as has been pointed out. Pattern making are useful art. There is just so much you can do to get into it, to make it fit, where are the bosoms, where do you work it, and how do you get it from a size 8 to a size 16. Now costume design is something else. One of a kind while Matthew's on share are not made for public consumption. But when you design a garment you have to make it for public consumption. Here's another useful article. Are we going to be getting a proliferation of lawsuits because the Bentley looks like the Chrysler. And this lawsuit is waiting to happen, as was shown, not only was the countess, I think she's countess, was the headdress, but it happened to have been knocked off. The wedding was April 29th. On May 9th it was knocked off by a British designer, and by May 7th it was on the cover of Women's Wear Daily. It was an accountess, but the funny thing about it is, from 1991, there it is from Brooklyn, from Kleinfelds in Brooklyn. Is that 1991 or 1991? No, 1991. What is original? What is original? And as someone who has been there, historically, I can tell you that nothing is in the way of garment design made from a pattern. Diane von Furstenberg, one of the major proponents of this build, said she created and invented the rat dress. Well, there it is in the 60s. There was hers in 1975. She brought it back in 2009. And yet Clare McCarville had it at 695, which is a sportswear tradition in the 40s. So the rat dress, in its incarnation, how do you say I did it first? Originality? The other designer that testified in Washington as to how much money he lost by having knocked off was Nancy Sora Grievous, who designed the wedding dress for the unfortunate Caroline Kennedy. Unfortunately for him, I then sent a photo along with a bold pattern from the 60s. Now, the dress in and of itself is an original. I love this phrase from Saint Laurent. Over the years, I have learned what is important in a dress is the woman who wears it. The dress is a basic slip dress on the bias. And he whipped that out in Congress and said there were 5,000 copies and I should have had a royalty. And we're saying why? We now have the third proponent in front of Congress, Vera Wang, who has made a trip to every one on the Judiciary Committee saying that her garments should be protected. Her wedding dresses should be protected. However, the new Vera Wang full coals, they had no problem knocking on friends of Shola, Fagli, Misha, and Valentino when they put her brand on shoes and handbags. Where is the substance in all of this? Is she only protected for one garment, one wedding dress, or does she want protection for everything that is in her name? And where is Fagli, Misha's a product of Omar Jacobs' protection in this? This is the process.  And his bag is 1,500 or 1,600 and the Massimo messenger was a problem for him. He brought both garments to Congress. However, the evolution of the Mulberry Alexa Bag from 2003, then you did brands of Shola and then Mulberry is back again in 2010. This is how fashion works. It's back and forth and back and forth. It's called virtualizing. And then what do we do about this, ladies, that we all see while we're having a manager? And the magazines. And there isn't a magazine that doesn't have Can You Stop the Knuckle? Is this going to be illegal? And under the way the law is written, absolutely you'll never see this again, the law passes. So the fundamental flaws of IPPA, it's now IPPA. And the reason the third P is in there is because they put in the word piracy. And they put in the word piracy so that other uninformed legislators would think, oh, we're all against piracy. But this has nothing to do with piracy. This enables designers to claim copyrights over styles that they didn't invent. They don't mean to, but they don't know that it was done before. If Frenchman claims would only target U.S. companies, there is no point in trying to sue Chinese company, Zara, Mango, H&M, Topshop, Benelton. Those are all offshore retailers. There's no point going after them. This would only be targeted against U.S. retailers and U.S. designers. The lending institutions have a problem with this. Because if something gets a letter of infringement, it comes right off the retailer's shelf. It goes right back to the manufacturer. Where's the money? And of course, judges become the arbiters of fashion taste and we've all seen what they wear under the ropes. Not to be defined. So here we have what's happening now. Just to define counterfeit piracy, the three biggest things in counterfeit are music, movies, and brand name clothing. And unfortunately, they have lumped all these three things together in consideration of future loss. However, in the case of counterfeit, 25% of the people who buy it knew it to be illegitimate. They just wanted to wear that brand. And 73% said it's easily available. Here's a situation of real versus fake. The fake of shoe says made in Australia. Ups are made in China. So in order to give it authenticity, they put the made in Australia. And it was caught in ports. And the current actions, and that's the combating online infringement and counterfeit act broke piracy. This is the target of the new bill that was just put down, the SOVA and the PIPA. These kind of websites that actually sell counterfeits. Not replicas, not as seen as, not imitations of, but actually sell counterfeits. One was stop online piracy and the other protect the intellectual property act. And the reason I say show these as part of the fashion statement is because we are concerned that we wind up in this web. Because these will try and come back before Congress as well. So now I want to conclude with another scary new issue for free trade, fair trade, and all of these other issues that you are so vehemently involved in. China has started as of August of last year increasing trade marks. It started with Castel winery, which is a small winery in London, in England. They froze the name because there was another company in China that phonetically had the name Castel. They have now frozen Michael Jordan from being a brand in China because there is a chain of retailers with 5,700 retail stores using Michael Jordan's image. And I can pronounce it, Chao Dan, is the name of the retail stores, Chao Dan with Michael Jordan's image. Now we go to Hermès. They just lost the case.  Amashí is Hermès. And now, just in ankle, Sheba's Regal. They don't recognize Sheba's Regal because the court said it was not well known in China. So whoever translated Sheba's Regal phonetically into Chinese now can use the Sheba's Regal brand. Go fight City Hall in China. We are very much concerned that this will translate into U.S. brands like Guess, like BCPG, like Land's End, like anything else. So we are telling all our people find your phonetic translation and trademark that fast. Experts agree. There are experts who agree with us. Mark Jacobs says, are you talking about fashion? Lose the word original. Ask any designer where they get their inspiration. They don't sit by a window and let it materialize. It's all about research. And Coco Chanel being copied is the ransom of success. That's the background. So we welcome the discussion and I welcome your questions. Thank you very much. So I know that we're going to be reaching the end for questions, but I actually think in the room this size it would be great to have people come up during a discussion and raise your hand and just let them know that you have a question so that this is more of a discussion and it's interactive and engaging as possible. So if you have a question, just let us know. I want to start off talking a little bit about between our two presentations we've talked a lot about not necessarily a great form of protection for fashion. Is there, are there circumstances where we need more protection for fashion design? And what would those be? Do you want me to make that? Sure. No. In the world of copyright, original art is and should be copy. But there needs to be a major change in the copyright office and they do agree with us that there needs to be a clearer definition of what is original art. Putting Sam on a daisy and being able to declare that as an original copyright print should not be allowed. At this point the copyright office you send in your artwork whether it's on the back of your gene or a print with $35 to the copyright office and you get the copyright. There is no listing there is no visual record no one knows who came before and in the case of two copyrights it's the first post block first to file. So those changes have to be made but should there be any more or should there be copyright or design restrictions on garments that will consume consumption? Yeah and this is the thing that really gets me is that I can see the perspective of fashion designers wanting more protection because there's just that visceral gut reaction of when you pour your heart and soul into this beautiful design and then you see it on the racks that forever till one for ten bucks that sucks and I can understand that but at the same time you can copyright a textile you can copyright your print that you're putting on to a piece of fabric that is copyrightable and that's not questionable Forever 21 does copy your beautiful very original print design that you can put onto a fabric that's copyright violation if it is a straight fabric you also have protection so and not to mention that honestly the person who's going to buy the ten dollar garment at Forever 21 never would have bought your piece and that's the difficulty that I run into is that I can understand the visceral reaction of wanting more protection but I just see so many so much collateral damage that a very well-intentioned well-meaning designers don't realize that they would be doing to themselves so there's been this idea that the lack of copyright and the proliferation of knockoffs actually helps the fashion industry as a whole because it accelerates the cycle of obsolescence forces, in a strange way the origins of copyright in the US were meant to inspire creativity to give ownership over design to motivate artists to continue to create and benefit from those creations and in fashion it works the opposite so there's no copyright so the design that we've made within a matter of weeks or months is already obsolete which forces this increased cycle of innovation. Is there is there any other industry that we can see that or any other situation we can see that dynamic working? Food. Comedy. With something that comes in style or out of style and that's in the food industry that's in the restaurant industry Southwestern is in the Asian fusion is in and suddenly something else is added as act. What we always say to the designers who bemoan the fact that it's in and it's interesting that everybody talks about Forever 21 because H&M, Zara, Mango, Ben Alton, they're all in this of why are we always picking on the American retailers and besides Macy's and JC's then they do it too and target. But the issue is a designer makes 50 to 75 garments a season every 10 weeks to be in front of the buying public the retail buying public and if one of them is knocked off there's a human crime does that mean that that designer is not very good? I mean if your whole line is knocked off then you have an opportunity to say piracy it's a whole other issue but if one out of a hundred is knocked off, first of all as a designer you should own it own that knockoff as just Square said, own the fact that somebody found something in you that was worthy of trend development and maybe they'll come back but if only one out of a hundred is knocked off you're not a very good designer. I'm curious because I believe fashion design because that makes it so wet I was just wondering if you had any comparison between the US industry and the French industry and also I'm curious if any American designers have ever sued in France trying to take protection of the French law? Let me give you an answer to both of those European law has two things that is not in this law one is registration it's called an RCD registered design copyright RDC and not copyright registered certificate so if you want to register your design you can register usually they don't and the other thing is loser pays that's the third rail of American law loser pays if we had loser pays we'd be all for this still because anyone who sues on originality of design wouldn't lose so that's the main big difference between the European law and our law there was a major fight in the 70s and early 80s between Ralph Lauren and again, Yves Saint Laurent Yves Saint Laurent said they did the smoking the black tuxedo the black tuxedo jacket with pants it was called the smoking sued Ralph Lauren for doing a line for line copy in his New York show won in the French court Ralph Lauren then countersued in the US court and we at the same time in the 80s because I think this in front of a major group of students showed Maulina Dietrich in the same after in 1936 so nothing is new yet but very rarely very rarely do these law students proliferate in Europe on fashion because it comes and goes there as well and my understanding with the law in France is also that there's a higher standard for to the kid to be accepted and a lot of designers in France actually ignore the law they don't understand it's not used even the fact that fashion industry is very popular and there's a lot of money being made aren't these basically ego lawsuits or ego laws to try to basically protect the ego of designers, certain designers don't really want to compete in an environment that they know exactly what the environment is before they enter into it and the fact that you have designers like Calvin Klein who probably makes more money off of underwear than he does on the high fashion because he understood that economics is that everybody is going to buy underwear so if I can get 50 cents of $1.50 more on a pack of underwear then I can care less about make or runway in France well basically the money in the business is based on the value of your trademark so it's not based on the value of your copyrights because your copyrights are only worth 10 weeks really I mean no one really is living in a print for 3 years but trademark is the thing that Klein has been out of the business for 7 years and he's making his money on his licensing of his trademark and that could be under shirts or underwear or whatever it is and that's what everybody's going for to make the value of their mark more exclusive better I won't speak to the egos of the people involved but your rights are up to you Hey, Blake Reid from that Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown I wanted to tee up something we just talked about with trademark law and other types of laws we trade dress and other things might end up being really important in terms of your success in the fashion industry but at the same time we've been talking today about the behavior in a lot of these industries so we talked this morning about journalists not being willing to do things that might upset their colleagues I mentioned comedy a minute ago there's a thing that's Joe Rogan calling out Carlos Mencia for stealing everybody's jokes you stop telling your jokes when Robin Williams comes into the room my mom is a big quilter and the quilter talk is a elaborate series of marms about what you're able to copy and what you're not that really have nothing to do with copyright in some ways so I was wondering if you could talk about the need for a law to play a role and the need for norms and how you see that shaping up in fashion in the street that was I'm glad you brought this up because when we were doing our research that was a large part of it it was the idea that any absence of copyright how effective is self-regulation and shame as a motivator we started the case of Balenciaga there wasn't much shame even though he was called out on it and even though the industry as a whole said this isn't right you need to give credit where credit is due there wasn't so much to copy he did it without he got caught he thought he would get away with it he didn't so what we found in the course of doing our research is that there is nothing new under the sun but there are certain patterns or designs that are very much associated with particular designers so Rudy Gromreich who did a plan for the Christian Dior Peplum the idea that you can knock something off you can pay homage as long as you give credit where credit is due if you don't do that that's when that self-regulating shame kicks in where the rest of the industry says no this is not right you need to at least acknowledge what we found so even though he didn't reference the person it becomes a self-regulating mechanism within that industry unless you're not allowed to Chanel twice a year takes out a full page ad in Rubensburg Daily and said we do not allow even the use of the name you can't say Chanel like jacket in a newspaper magazine we love our brand and we appreciate that you love it too but don't use it we'll come and add to you so you can take trademark all the way you can let it proliferate there's a great story that I happen to be privy to I was in China in Macau and this is they have a huge area where junk is all over the place and Oshkosh O'Gosh which was a Wisconsin company out of business for ten years and the biggest brand I saw in China in all the swathes was Oshkosh certainly wasn't done by Wisconsin people but it became so important in China that the company renewed itself in Wisconsin the children of the original owners and it's now a brand again that's how strong a trademark can be when it's just permanently brand in brains and they look at it and that is where we are right now with the internet by the way people are even knocking off American apparel and forever 21 just putting the labels in junk just so it has validity trademarks have become a valid exercise of cash that's what the internet has done be careful you don't know what you're buying and I think going back to the concept of egos and then I'll is that is that if I see a Chanel like jacket even if it's not Chanel and there's nothing written about it saying that it is Chanel like I'm still versed in the language of the fashion industry and I know it's a Chanel inspired jacket there's a sense that really you've become the most successful you can be in the fashion industry if you go when you can say oh this collection was clearly inspired by such and such and such and so you can tell that that really is more than any sort of trademark can offer and any sort of legal framework can apply and create to give that kind of value that the industry and people who follow the industry really speak a language of brands that not a trademark but a brand something feels like it's Chanel or feels like it's the lens gather you know that's why this Louboutin case is going to be such a classic case because it totally counters what's going on right now with trademark this trademark is the red soul okay didn't trademark it tried to trademark it but it's going counter to that right now it's to when we see somebody with a red soul shoe we assume they spend a thousand dollars for that shoe and at the same time if I were to see a shoe with a red soul on it and a department store and it wasn't in the ton I would go and it's trashy and I wouldn't buy that because that's a wrong call maybe I'd still think about it I wonder we think of fashion as sort of a low IP industry and of course at our there's a lot of IP in fashion in an area of low IP industry but I wonder if there are lessons that can be learned from other industries we're talking about regulations and culture or societal norms, whatever we want it to call it, is there something unique about the fashion industry that allows it to function in this way, or is this something that would be possible in other industries but for the existing legal structures? Is this explorable beyond fashion industry, or is fashion a fluke? I'm going to take this one. Okay. So, when we were doing our research, it was a comparison to using fashion. And the bottom line is that fashion as a physical good is, if I'm wearing a hat, you can't wear that same hat. Whereas music is, went from being a physical good, it went from being rival and suitable to non-rival and not suitable. So, if I'm listening to a particular song, it used to be, I was listening to this record, you have to be right next to me, listen to that same exact record. Once everything went digital, that flies out the window. Which is why the music industry is in such a jam right now when it comes to copyright maximalism. If I'm wearing this jacket, you can't wear the same jacket at the same time. And that's where there's that break. Both of those industries have very different organizational, legal, and social structures, but at the end of the day, a physical good versus a virtual good make it very, very difficult to take lessons from the world of fashion and import them directly into the world of music or movies or anything that has essentially become virtual or digital. I wish there was a better answer to that. Maybe you have one, but... Well, one of the things is diversity. There is no more diverse industry of designers than in the world of consumer products. Our industry alone in California, you'd have to translate everything into several languages from Farsi to Korean to Chinese to Japanese to bad English to Spanish. But there's such a diverse amount of designers and consumers of fashion that there's really no way to say what is the moral aspect for one because they take from each other. What is in the Latino community on the salsa dance floor is certainly not in the Korean community where one size fits all. So it's so diverse that it is a problematic situation to say you can't copy me because I'm going for a different customer. I think the issue is the person buying the Forever 21 jacket for $10, the same person is going to buy the Chanel jacket for $1,000 and $4,000. We're talking about it's not the same customer. Music, movies, video games, it probably is the same customer. We're also talking about, within media, a few highly concentrated companies in part of the vast majority of production and revenue and the fashion industry is not like that. It is highly stratified and highly diverse. And a low threshold for entry. Could be the back of your garage. Well, now we're getting a pretty low threshold for entry as well. It's far more democratized today than it was a long time ago, or not even that long ago. But, you know, when we set out to do our research, our question was that are there lessons that those industries take from fashion? And it's a very, very difficult question to answer. You know, we think that there's a lot to be learned from fashion in terms of creating an industry and a community, again, two separate things that are regulated, essentially self-regulated through this mechanism of shame on norms. But, and there is, there probably are parallels within music. You know, you have to give credit where priorities do in terms of sampling or borrowing certain ideas or certain drug lines or certain baselines, certain harmonies and certain melodies. We tend to protect those, actually, and the rhythm. We protect the harmony where we protect the rhythm. But, you know, I, it almost came down to the fact that what does this look like and what does it not look like? They have very different ways of protecting themselves. And I think the way that, knowing the background in Michael's head, how do you work with him, I think that the way this can be applied is with thinking about other industries that don't already have copyright or that have less IP. I think that, especially in Washington, and especially in the reason why we're all gathered here today is to remember the limits and exceptions on copyright. Is that sometimes? There are industries where no copyright is not a big scary thing. I think that there's a tendency to see more copyright is always better, more copyright enforcement is always better. That's the conversation that we're used to having, but we need to start also having a conversation about copyright period, sometimes it's not the answer to everyone's problems and can sometimes cause a lot more damage in the industry. And I think that copyright, or copyrighting fashion is one of the prime examples because it is a rich and diverse and successful and, you know, multi-billion dollar industry that drives a huge portion of the economy and is not, does not have copyright. And I think that that lesson is the main one. Interesting question. I think we're done with questions. Any last ones? No. I want to thank our panelists. Katie, especially for stepping in, for Nora, who couldn't be here today, who did all this, and for Elisa coming all the way from Los Angeles, like me. Thank you.


When he's not making headlines for that stuff, the country rap cowboy also officially became a homeowner in early March. Lil Nas dropped a couple million dollars on a remodeled estate in the valleys of Sherman Oaks, which is said to be his first real estate purchase ever. Not bad for a 21 year old. In these videos we don't reveal any addresses even though I've done a house tour of my own place, please do not show up at any private residences because it's not safe for anyone. Montero Lamar Hill better known to the world as Lil Nas X is a rapper, singer, internet personality and more who rose to fame with his country rap single Old Town Road. The song first went viral on TikTok in 2019 before climbing charts worldwide and becoming diamond certified later that year. Lil Nas X also came out to the public as gay while Old Town Road was topping the hot 100, becoming the first artist to do so while having a number one record out. Since the success of this tune, Nas X then released his debut album and some more singles. Most recently he released the music video for his new song Montero Call Me By Your Name which showcased the artist giving Satan a lap dance and more, which no doubt had critics and fans alike talking. Whatever is going on with Nas X and his new devil aesthetic, he still accomplished quite a bit in a short amount of time including a few awards and nominations. Among those awards Lil Nas X is also the first openly LGBTQ black artist to win a country music association award so I really don't think he cares what people think about him giving a lap dance to the devil. Lil Nas X has opened up about where he was at before his career exploded and he said he was couch surfing with friends and family while figuring out what to do next in his life. In merely two years, the young rapper changed his whole life which includes his bank account. According to Forbes, Nas X was worth about $14 million as of 2020 but I'm sure that number will only grow in 2021 with this new Montero era. Only weeks before the release of this new single, the rapper revealed that he bought his first home, a $2 million plus modern home in Sherman Oaks California and he wasn't shy to show it off on social media either.  Be sure to hit that subscribe button and ring that bell so we post a new video daily. And we're going to check out where Lil Nas X calls home aka his brand new property in Sherman Oaks. On this channel we talk about celebrity houses but if you want to know about their other lavish purchases or the latest trends in their outfits, go subscribe to Famous Fashion where myself and some other hosts are reporting on all things celebrity fashion and purchases. We actually did one all about the Lil Nas X Satan shoes if you want to know more about the controversial kicks. The most disturbing thing about these Lil Nas X Satan shoes is that they reportedly contain one drop of human blood somewhere on the souls and not the metaphorical type. As always don't forget to follow me on Instagram to chat and now let's get into this video. Lil Nas X was born in Atlanta, Georgia and moved around the state when he was a kid. As I mentioned before he made it in Hollywood he would just couch surfing and in a series of many life story videos on TikTok. The rapper also explained at one point he lived in a Dormat college and later in a hotel. It's safe to say his multi-million dollar starter home purchase is a big deal. Early last month Nas X announced to fans he's become officially a homeowner. The country rap star has taken his horse and his Porsche but he didn't move to Old Town Road. First offered back in January for 2.5 million dollars he scored this appealing property in Sherman Oaks California at a slight discount for just under 2.4 million dollars. Sherman Oaks is a San Fernando Valley neighborhood in Los Angeles that while used to be more for suburban families is growing in popularity even with celebs. Lil Nas's home is in a leafy pocket of the neighborhood and the hillside property went through a major renovation over the last four years creating a contemporary and open design style inside. The sleek home was first built in the 1950s and offers 2,580 square feet of space with four beds and 4.5 baths. The lavish details start outside with floating concrete steps over a pond with cascading waterfalls which leads you to the glassy front door. Then the oversized great room boasts wide plank hardwood flooring like much of the home and the space combines separate dining and living areas. The living room has a linear fireplace and a stone mantle, recessed lighting and all white ceilings and walls. Then we have the kitchen which Nas X quickly posed for a photo on Instagram in. There's a stretched out island, charcoal gray cabinets and top of the line appliances including two ovens and an additional wine fridge. You can easily access the outdoors through these main living spaces through a large glass door which opens to a balcony. Here you'll find amazing panoramic views sweeping over the valley. All of the bedrooms in the rapper's new home have full en-suite baths and at the moment two of them are used as a home gym and the other as an office. Lil Nas can treat himself to this stunning master suite where he has access to a private balcony and large walking closet. Not to mention the customers hatch bath features everything from a freestanding tub, rain shower, double vanity and more all decked out in marble. Elsewhere in his brand new home there's even what's called a secret room according to the listing. The features don't stop indoors either moving to the grounds of Nas X's property the wooden decks spills out towards the impressive skyline. In the back there isn't a traditional swimming pool here yet but there is a raised jacuzzi with separate pool and spa sections. Other details throughout the home include built-in speakers, a finished two-car garage, storage space, 12-foot ceilings, an exterior bathroom and a lot of grassy yard space. The old town road rapper also raved over his house buying accomplishment on Instagram and Twitter telling fans he bought his very first house. He was able to show off a handful of pictures on his fab property too, posing in the roomy bathtub and overtop the modern kitchen counters. It looks like Lil Nas finally found his very own sanctuary. He also took photos holding the keys to his new digs and posing by the white open staircase with a celebratory balloon. The Panini singer opened up a few months back about how being locked up during the pandemic was actually good for his creativity. In an interview with E! News he said, And now he has an even nicer abode to do all that in. Alright so now we've taken a look at Lil Nas X's newest and first ever home he's owned in Sherman Oaks. The young rapper definitely has a lot to celebrate with his latest purchase and all the buzz around his new single. Whether you like what he's up to or not, it's undeniable he's the talk of the town. So what did you guys think about his modern estate? I think the home is a perfect size with an open and airy space and a dreamy backyard. The only thing missing is a bigger pool and maybe a little movie theater inside. Either way, I'm a fan. I also love all of the balconies across the house that Nas X can take in the Valley Bees. Be sure to let me know what you thought about his home down in the comments. If you haven't, I'd love it if you subscribe to my personal channel. If you want to get to know me better, I'll link you my latest video and I post one every Sunday. We are staying at the Fairmonts of Banff Spring. But when we arrived, I was even more excited to find out the place is haunted. Thanks for watching. Don't forget to follow me on Instagram and let me know whose house you want to see next. I'll see you all in the next video. Bye!


Aloha, I'm Cynthia Sinclair and this is my commentary. All Americans have a duty to read the Mueller report. There are many people that are expressing confusion about the Mueller report. We have had many conflicting interpretations about the 400-plus pages of that report. We have heard Trump claim that the report exonerates him. That's not true. We have heard his Attorney General say that the report cleared Trump of wrongdoing. That's not true either. Attorney General Barr lied to the American people when he said that Mueller definitely did not consider the DOJ policy, saying you cannot indict a sitting president. Then on Wednesday, Robert Mueller finally spoke in person. That was when we learned that he did indeed consider the DOJ policy, exposing Barr's lie. Mueller went on to say that, in quotes, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. End quote. This is a central statement in his report and in his comments. The report begins with Mueller's findings on Russian interference with our 2016 election. While he did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiracy in that regard, his report also notes that many witnesses lied and evidence was destroyed. The report found that there were over 140 contacts between officials from the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. These are important facts that all Americans need to know. So how are we supposed to learn these facts? Read the report. Yes, all 448 pages of it. It is readily available online and we really have no excuse. It is our sacred duty as American citizens, especially in these times, to learn and understand what has happened to our country. In the words of Robert Mueller, and I quote, and I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election and that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Are you listening? Mahalo. I'm Cynthia Sinclair.