The Golden Calf | Abolishing Copyright Law

[@Patricia_Taxxon]

As you heard, at the end of this video I gave all of you permission to do whatever you want with my stuff. If you send it my way I might post it on twitter.

[@evacody1249]

Umm you don't understand copyright laws.

[@arandomguy9]

Hey Eric i was wondering if you could do a response video to mother's basement about Piracy, since he tries to demonize piracy. Also respond to Unique's video on Piracy since it's more of a ''moderate'' take on piracy which i feel people like you could clarify a lot more on.

[@Pinkiepied1]

Just a quick question, I dont necesarilly disagree with everything you say, I think there's already a place where copyright doesnt exist, It's called China, and while China has extremely cheap knockoffs of just about everything, it's also a race to the bottom when it comes to QC, and originality. Most chinese citizens, even the extremely nationalistic ones, will avoid chinese products if they can, and consider all western products are considered of high quality. How do you explain this market?

[@Medytacjusz]

​@@Pinkiepied1 i think that's a different issue altogether - consumer protection and standards of quality. For example the US battles often with EU over standards for food that can be traded, because the lower quality / cheaper types of food processing that is allowed in US is not allowed in EU (health reasons etc.) so they can't sell it to EU. In EU we might have better quality food (at the cost of some international trade). This has nothing to do with copyright.

[@jacobblack6707]

No real Caplisum needs no copyright and Caplisum is good not bad.

[@Joy_ffa1bd]

"but also she's a TERF" my heart skipped a beat you can't hit me with that kind of whiplash

[@jaccuse4086]

It b like dat sometimes

[@nostopit179]

It made me go “icky”

[@jillydaqueen2282]

Lol same

[@gavingrotegut4246]

iirc she made graham lineham's twitter profile picture lol

[@beanwithbacon]

TERF is a term of endearment embraced by those who choose to live in reality.

[@Nelsonhojax15]

To everyone against abolishing copyrights, I have two words for you. William Shakespeare. Shakespeare lived in a time before copyright was invented, so he was able to use a whole slew of sources and original works to create his own plays and masterpieces. He didn't invent Romeo & Juliet, he just perfected it. And today, his plays are free to use as well! For actors and directors, Shakespeare is a virtual sandbox of poetry that you can make cuts to, embellish, and play with, to create whatever you like. Copyrright would've killed Shakespeare. It strangles true genius and benefits corporate goblins.

[@Nelsonhojax15]

Smiggie Balls It's like you missed the entire point of the comment, you fucking moron. Shakespeare wasn't limited by copywright laws, and that meant he could adapt other people's ideas without paying for it. Paying to see a performance is an entirely different animal. But today, his works aren't copywrighted. So if you wanted to use Shakespeare plots or quotes, you wouldn't have to pay royalties. Are you really this dense?

[@famuel2604]

It's funny because I view Shakespeare as counter-example. Shakespeare used to have to run a whole counter-intelligence operation to stop people getting their hands on his plays before they even debuted. Rather I think the example of Romeo and Juliet shows what a good timespan 30 years after creation is, given that the source text was published 1562 and Shakespeares was finished somewhere between 1591 to 95. It sure would have been nice if he wasn't dependant on the patronage of the queen tho...

[@freedom_mayor]

@gabriel anderson clout gang.

[@RoronoaZoro-ur6hr]

Homo Rudolfensis even with Copyright laws small artists that aren’t a multibillion dollar company like Disney can’t create amazing stories like Kingdom Hearts unless they pay the rat the money to make stories like those ideas, so even using the line of reasoning for keeping copy right laws can be made for the abolishment of copy right laws.

[@harrietr.5073]

@Gabriel Anderson This is abolishing copyright law, but we're not destroying plagerisim flagging. If a big brand steals your idea plot point to plot point without remaking or remixing it you can still sue for plagiarism.

[@ota6319]

the irony of nina paley's lecture on "free culture" being unavailable on yt as it has been blocked on copyright grounds.

[@sampitman3630]

😢 i wanted to watch it

[@ITDEER]

@@sampitman3630 late reply, but you can watch it on the wayback machine

[@matteste]

And the really funny bit about that "How are the artists gonna make money" is just how all the money still only goes to the publisher while the actual creators won't see a dime.

[@havenbastion]

No longer is entitled to be paid for creativity. Creative works aren't necessarily necessary and aren't necessarily any good. Creative people are creative because they have to be, not because they get paid.

[@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682]

@@havenbastion What does it mean to for something to be necessary? Are electric lights not necessary because you could use a candle? Is good quality food not necessary because you could survive on nutrient paste?

[@havenbastion]

@@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682 Most forms of creativity aren't necessary to induce or support bc creative people don't create bc they're paid - they create bc they want to.

[@ThatGreenSpy]

Copyright has not only protected a small handful of corporate monsters, but has pitted hobbyists against one another by instilling pride within them. Fan artists block other fan artists over fan art being made of their content, which I think is pointless, barbaric and black-hearted. Their only crime is being a fan. By the way, according to the DMCA, there's no such thing as fair use.

[@christopherwashington2417]

Copyright laws also racism and also manipulating families to forced their sons or daughters who are content creators shutdown their social media accounts and youtube channels are terminated. Copyright destroys family relationships and also promotes terrorism and censorship to kill art.

[@JackSmith-ru3tv]

Beyond being a well written/spoken video, you had incredible music choices. Thanks for not just sticking lo-fi hiphop in the background and calling it a day.

[@MRdaBakkle]

As a creative guy myself I never thought of this. I definitely agree that copyright is too damn long. 70 years after the creator dies. And big business lobbies to extend it. If the work is truly great copyright should be fine extending to 10 years after it was created.

[@SwogFrog]

The public domain is functionally meaningless in late stage capitalism. There's a good reason that the only popular public domain characters and stories are from the BD era. (Before Disney)

[@davidperry4013]

They should the copyright protection on an intellectual property last 10 after publishing and charge the creator and/or publisher a renewal fee 5 percent of the revenue generated from royalties, song sales, and album sales every 2 years and failure to pay the fee should result in revocation of the copyright protection. We need to encourage all music producers to switch from copyright to Creative Commons.

[@cinmai978]

Thanks to Mickey Mose

[@Sonic12Lexi]

For me should be 28 to 50 years (if renewal, once and that’s it)

[@aaron5364]

Copyright is merely an extension of sociopathic, capitalist hoarding. Freaking infantile greed at work.

[@neversayanythingever6149]

This video has so much influence on my art. I used to feel so restrictive, not allowing myself to even try combining any other art with my own because I thought it was stealing and bad. It's crazy for how long I consciously thought, nope can't use that because its wrong! Thanks for the uncommon point of view on copyright. It has freed up my artistic expression a lot.

[@vengorge]

YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR

[@segmentsAndCurves]

You don't say...

[@LiftedStarfish]

But I would...

[@segmentsAndCurves]

@@LiftedStarfish Oh no.

[@theyellowmeteor]

Piracy is not theft. It's more like sneaking into the theater. Good points all in all though.

[@drackaris_]

Sneaking into a theater is still a form of theft, the owner staffs the place, so employees lose money if you choose to sneak into movies, the building itself has to be rented or bought which costs money, electricy etc.

[@skyleite3016]

+Drackaris Did you even watch the video you're commenting on?

[@The_Jovian]

@@drackaris_ yeah but what does one person do there that costs money? Standing in a theatre isn't charging the theatre company. Sitting in a seat isn't either. The point is that you have done nothing that actually takes the money from the hands of someone else.

[@1000g2g3g4g800999]

If anything that would be trespassing Drackaris, and some would probably argue that you're costing them because of general wear and tear, or that you sneaking in could prevent someone else from getting a seat if the place is packed, but the former's awful because you could basically apply that to breathing on the outside of the movie theater if you wanted to go there, and they don't charge you for anything if you just stand outside the ticket booth. Considering the theater still plays the movie even if no one goes to see it, it's readily apparent that it isn't about making people pay for costs they're incurring. Unless maybe you go to the second argument, and we'll also assume you can't stand in the theater too. Okay, I guess. They still aren't contributing meaningfully to the costs of running the theater or anything, they're just helping screw over someone who paid to enter (which is bad). It's sort of like how pirating using a license key generator is potentially awful because it could invalidate a key someone who bought the product had. But how often do we get to either of those scenarios? Very, very rarely I imagine.

[@jessegoonerage3999]

Piracy is theft. Its not the product thats being stolen, its the profits from that product that is being stolen.

[@LimeyLassen]

Hippity Hoppity Dismantle Intellectual Property

[@colonelweird]

I wish I'd known about this sooner. It's brilliant. One point about stealing vs copying: I believe a big reason that copying is regarded as theft is that the corporate world has poured millions into a propaganda campaign to cement that idea into people's minds, so that copying can be seen as immoral and harmful, thus justifying legal action against it. Plus this ideology distracts creators from noticing that their poverty is closely connected to being exploited by the corporations with whom they have contracts. These days creators are often very angry about their audience "stealing" their works. But I remember (because I'm old) that forty years ago it was much more common for musicians, writers, etc to be vocally angry about the contracts they felt forced to sign, which gave them little power or remuneration for their work. Neoliberalism now reigns supreme, so everyone must bow down before our corporate masters, and attack one another instead. It's a sad situation.

[@whitehavencpu6813]

Its funny, when I first heard of Anarcho-Capitalism, it sounded crazy and absurd, especially when it came to their hatred of IP laws, but now the more I get into its philosophy I realize they were right all along. Neoliberalism is cancer, a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

[@colonelweird]

@@whitehavencpu6813 Neoliberalism is a cancer because capitalism is a cancer.

[@whitehavencpu6813]

@@colonelweird I freedom is cancer then maybe, but if not, I don't see the connection.

[@havenbastion]

Knowledge and creativity are the public commons and copyright is a crime against humanity.

[@alicespages7998]

Alternate answer to "How will artists make money?": Just add socialism and they don't need to

[@bingbongjoel6581]

Alice Spages What the fuck are you taking about? You still need to make money when you live in a socialist country.

[@thrownstair]

Get rid of money then. Have everyone have their basic needs covered as a given and don’t overcomplicate shit.

[@solsystem1342]

​​@@sirzorg5728 Ah yeah, clearly everyone getting a UBI and paying for it with a progressive tax would be aweful. That definitely wouldn't stimulate the economy by making everyone sure they could afford food and housing. (Obviously the actual implementation would need to be complicated to not screw over people living in high cost areas and the like but, no more complicated than all the data we already collect through the tax system, US I mean here)

[@sirzorg5728]

​@@solsystem1342 Socialism is just organized theft, driven by the desire of adult-children to remain in a childlike state of not having any responsibilities for as long as possible. This is the fundamental motivation of the left: maximize personal 'freedom' to pursue hedonism, while minimizing personal responsibility. This is justified by the left because the looming prospect of consequences for their actions feels like a limitation on freedom. A UBI system as you suggest was tried in Scandinavia, and it failed spectacularly. Productivity collapsed, unemployment skyrocketed, and in general people stopped working. Prices went way up as well, because suddenly there were a lot more people with money trying to buy a reduced quantitiy of goods. Just like the minimum wage drives inflation, UBI drives inflation way faster. This "progressive tax" system you describe compounds to make the problem worse. Those few people who are motivated to continue to produce, despite the strong incentives to not produce that UBI creates, are severely punished for doing so. Socialists tend to not be very good at thinking beyond "baby want shiny", but if you are actually more intelligent than a particularly dull koala, then you might understand this argument: Socialism incentivizes non-productivity. Stalinism replaces profit motive with fear of physical punishment. Nazis (National *socialists*) are very similar to stalinists, except they replace the hedonism promoted by most socialists with a faux-traditionalism, and they use internal minorities as a scapegoat on which to pin the blame for the failures of their own system. Blame shifting is the most common tactic used by socialists, because it perfectly aligns with their driving moral perogative, which is shirking responsibility. This is extremely evident in socialist countries, such as soviet russia or china: local officials frequently falsify data to sweep problems under the rug, since anything else is punished severely. Look up the sparrow famine in Maoist china, and see if you can find a detailed narrative about how it was covered up, to get a good idea of how socialism tends to work in practice.

[@renaigh]

Copyright is a Closet where ideas go to die.

[@joyflameball]

And like, the last point about "how do I keep control over my art" is so silly to me, because... you don't. That's why death of the author and fandom and fics and all of that exists. You can't control how people will be inspired by your work or what people will do with it, it's impossible. Like, Anne Rice was vicious towards any fanfiction that existed of her work, sending actual legal threats to anyone who dared to write fanfiction of her books, and people really hated her for it. The only thing trying to have complete control over your art will do for you is give you a horrible legacy. I haven't read a single one of Anne Rice's books, and I've watched a single video essay about them that I don't remember anything about. The only reason I know her is because of her possessiveness over her characters.

[@42seven]

she did realize the error of her ways before she died, though not fast enough to change how people see her

[@hotelmario510]

Pirating music has, in my experience, made me MORE likely to seek out and buy recordings "legally". Others I've spoken to say about the same. The "piracy is theft" argument is bullshit.

[@username5502]

Copyright should definitely be abolished and private property and corporations should also be abolished.

[@ductoannguyen7595]

To be honest,private property should NOT be abolished,unless you can find a way to copying them.

[@nimbletimplekins7601]

Copyright should be abolished BECAUSE it's a violation of private property rights. Way to misunderstand the issue, read kinsella

[@j.e.s.m.4686]

​​​@@nimbletimplekins7601Yes. Exactly. It also caused nothing but useless arguments over "who should own this or not", People getting constantly sued for no reason other than using copyrighted characters by claiming to be stolen (which wasn't anybody's intentions because nobody wasn't planning stealing anything) and leaving/spreading fear among artists without or even giving them freedom.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

i hate that youtube doesn't let you put in a proper copyleft license on videos. i put a lot of mine up as "standard youtube license" too because the only other option is cc attribution, not share-alike.

[@LiftedStarfish]

You can dry that now, although, your can't specific which license, you can publish it under Creative Commons license. I also have started putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the videos explicitly staying what license is under (CC BY-SA 4.0)

[@sambeckettcat]

My only concern is more a result of the history of copyright, in that companies like Disney would be free to just grab whatever they want of other people’s work and give them nothing in return, major corporations having the money and influence to curtail any of the usual fallout one would expect from it, and we know their fanbases would just look the other way considering they already don’t care about the human rights abuses

[@gavinwilson5324]

Companies already do that, though. I can't afford a lawsuit against Disney. Can you?

[@mystifiedoni377]

It's pretty neat that copyright has gotten so out of hand that people willingly give up their copyright and musicians allow people to make remixes of their music.

[@NonyaBiz79]

THANK YOU! I finally found someone else who thinks copyright is shit. I also think that a good argument for abolishing copyright is to point out existing public domain works. There's a billion and one different versions of Sherlock Holmes (although *some* of his stories are still copyrighted?!), and Disney's whole brand, the giant soulless, demonic monolith that is Disney, is built off of public domain works like Grimm's fairy tales (or hey they did a mouse version of Sherlock Holmes). The cultural milestone that is Disney (but i hate them) is proof of the awesomeness of public domain. It's also worth mentioning that Disney is responsible for making copyright laws worse because they are shitty and hypocritical....Also when people make the argument that people won't make art if there's nothing protecting their IP, well...fanfiction writers, a heck of a ton of KZbinrs, people who make fan films. These people are already expending a lot of time and energy to make something for free (and it has to be free because of F---ing COPYRIGHT LAW) so clearly creativity isn't actually governed by copyright. Creativity exists beyond copyright and always will. Add to that the fact that most fanfic I've read is distinctly better than anything DISNEY has put out in years and, well, copyright is clearly shit made for shitty rich people with no talent.

[@veganmeatball6780]

I clicked expecting to completely disagree and leave a constructive but arguably hateful comment, but you have changes my outlook on art itself and how i should treat mine. Thank you.

[@ryanhovey4251]

Late to the conversation, but I will respect an artist/band even more if they allow all of their work to be streamed on public platforms. The perfect example is when Taylor Swift had the big stink over the lower profit margins on spottify than on private/premium streaming services

[@Peter-rh2gn]

Nice! Everyone CC0 everything when you can (even all the text you write). I’m now CC0ing this and all my comments for this video to the extent I have copyright in them. Signed, Peter

[@jonathankent1517]

I think the reason why copying is called theft by the people in power is because when the things they have are allowed to be copied, they can no longer use those things to gain leverage over other people want those same things and therefore exert power over them to get what they want (usually money), ergo they want to be the sole person who controls the thing they have that people want because they want to have power over other people.

[@whitehavencpu6813]

i.e they want a monopoly.

[@havenbastion]

Anything an artist 'loses ' when copyright is abolished will be compensated by access to literally millions of times more creative works, including things much better than their own.

[@timmaitland5047]

While it is easy to prove when someone rips you off, I don't think it's a great form of exposure. You've equated it in "mileage", as in the number of fans, but is any audience the right audience? A recent example is 6ix9ine's Day69 album cover, which is pretty clearly copied from a tumblr user named cryptidsp00n. We know the person who drew 6ix9ine's artwork was being redundant and the original artist got credit. But do people really give a shit about cryptidsp00n because of the media exposure? He likely got some followers, but they may have followed just to spite the person who ripped them off. But at least no longer live in the Wal-Mart CD era and albums don't get "pulled from the shelves" over shit like this, and honestly, it's a pretty good cover, even if it looks like something out of an Adventure Time extended universe. I really agree that copyright heavily disincentives crediting other peoples works. Imagine if the creator of 6ix9ine's artwork had just accredited cryptidsp00n and we all called it a day? But then, think of the perspective of a family friendly mass-appeal company like Disney. They don't want Mickey Mouse available for third party market space because they want to keep him marketable for as many people as possible. Mickey Mouse's big ass grin on a butt plug could lose a lot of potential market. However, that's pretty insulting to consumer intelligence and is an idea that sort of stems from copyright law - to think that, for example, a t-shirt of Mickey Mouse performing a bloody exorcist on Goofy is to be associated with the Disney company. An obvious misrepresentation of the characters re-contextualizes the artwork, creating something new. It would be pretty easy to see that it's a third party shirt, and even if it were to perfectly replicate Disney's style, checking the tag would quickly inform you that it's not the case. But copyright makes it so that the makers of the shirt might want to fake a Disney tag to pass it off as legit. The example I provided would pretty clearly be non-Disney but something like a simple smiling graphic of Donald Duck might not be so clear. Copiers can masquerade as the originators, Like you said, copyright law might incentivize it. Musicians can be surprisingly hostile. For example, Radiohead suing Lana Del Rey over a chord progression. A little over the top, but maybe they just wanted the credit. We live in a system where noting your influences isn't as easy as it should be. It's hiding your web of influence, as if it's something to be ashamed of. I'd rather wear my influences on my sleeve and make what I want to make. From any angle, they're laws from the 70s that need an update for the internet. Hope this wasn't too long and convoluted. Nice video.

[@Patricia_Taxxon]

This is a great comment, my video doesn't go that in depth looking back at it now and I think you provided a lot of interesting extra thought.

[@RoyalKnightVIII]

Tim Maitland wouldn't that be where trademark law is supposed to come in? But then trademark law has become what the courts have called a "mutant copyright". I think there's a lot of nuance to this convo but ultimately I agree that copyright is way too long. Is anyone really sad that the "Baum Estate" doesn't own the Wizard of Oz books anymore? What's been lost now that anyone can make an Oz book? We may never have gotten works like Wicked or even Disney's Return to Oz or that one JRPG set in Oz. At the very least life+70+ is overkill.

[@daltonbedore8396]

that chord progression radiohead sued lana del rey for? they were sued for the same previously. just a neat side note

[@RoyalKnightVIII]

Dalton Bedore ah copyright is working perfectly XD I wonder if single chords won't be copyrighted eventually. You think that's unlikely but capitalists claimed to "OWN" RAINWATER in Bolivia once.

[@movimentodoscacos]

@@daltonbedore8396 Also Robin Thicke and Pharrel Wiliams sued because Blurred Lines had a similar "vibe" to Marvin Gaye's Got to Give it Up. Despite the song having obvious bigger problems in regard to content, it's a great example of how fucked up this stuff can get, like, how do you copyright the "feel" of a song? Imagine people copyrighting using a cowbell and a four-on-the-floor type beat lmao

[@SamanthaCZimmerman]

thank you for adding your title cards to your captions and making your videos a bit more accessible 💕

[@BenPaddock]

As an artist, my one and only guiding principle is the love for the act of creation in itself. To breathe new life and new ideas into the universe. Not spectacular and ground-shakingly original ideas, but a unique expression of the inexhaustible well of human creativity. If I'm going to use material from another person's work, I do it as a sign of respect to their work and how I like what they made, and that other people should see it. The work of two (or more) people propping up a single piece of work to make it better. It's collaboration, in a way. The more, the merrier, I say.

[@evilmurlock]

Infinitely reproducible items should not be artificially limited.

[@gamertcell8425]

I don't even care if someone plagiarizes my work.. Why? 1. I'm not money hungry like other copyright holders 2. I only make stuff FOR people 3. I feel bad for suing someone. I don't care if its right. (I just made that up im not old enough anyway but if i was, I refuse to) 4. I am a freedom fighter

[@j.e.s.m.4686]

Good for you. I don't mind if anybody makes something based on a work of mine if I publish one either. I don't have control over something that happens all the time. Hope this shitty copyright law gets abolish and changed

[@ThatOneIrishFurry]

Copyright is still here because in 1790 Everything was exhaustible and so copying was inexplicably tied to stealing and that mind set was passed down through generations and now here we are

[@AdlerTCD]

how artist make money is production already, who gets money from distribution is only corporations the artists rarely get any of it

[@DustyMusician]

I remember reading about a musician who didn’t work with publishers and donated all his work to the public domain because he didn’t want other people making money off his work. After his death, a publishing company started claiming copyright on his work. If copyright is supposed to protect the little guy, it’s doing a terrible job.

[@OGAMIS]

I mean, one counter-example doesn't really make your point...

[@Broeckchen]

I agree with almost everything in this video, but I also feel like 1: this might not work under Capitalism at all since it's easy to exploit small artists there under Capitalism, and 2: the only thing I'd REALLY worry about would be that people might use my works to enhance/enable/decorate their harmful positions. That's something I'm genuinely worried about and I wonder if you have a good counter-suggestion there, because it seems like you've thought about this a lot. I have this on my mind very often since I listened to Alligatoah's "Musik ist keine Lösung" which in part comments on how his music was used by Nazis to recruit kids and teenagers, which hit him very much in the gut.

[@toatrika2443]

1. That is right. This is literally why copyright was created. People complained about not making money off of their work. However, you could argue that this is not true anymore since we now have platforms like KZbin which give even ordinary people a voice that can be heard by a huge audience. As long as you can proove that you created something, it is easy to expose people claiming it as their creation. 2. Isn't it quite dangerous to imply that certain people should not be allowed to interact with art in the same way as everyone else based on their ideology? This inevitably is followed by a discussion about who is allowed to dictate what is right and what is wrong. To which the answer is... Literally nobody can agree on the answer to that. Patricia's proposal can simply not deal with the problem you brought up, because we have no way to deal with the problem it is derived from. Copyright also does nothing to counteract this. Following copyright still allows people to use art for malicious purposes (as prooven by your example of Alligatoah (hello, fellow german)).

[@movimentodoscacos]

Sure, but copyright doesn't stop any small artists from being exploited. If a huge artist sampled any of my work and I was completely on the right but don't have the money to sue them nothing happens. I couldn't afford to sue Beyoncé even if she took a sample of my song and didn't credit it, for example. I feel like abolishing copyright would also help in the sense that Patricia proposed when she talked about her records, she would like to credit all samples but that would probably just get her sued, it would be way easier to get your credits if we were basing what we do through mutual respect and courtesy instead of legal action. I am working on some music that has a lot of sampling and I am terrified that I won't be able to release some of my best work because of some random drum break I got from a random record, even if the final result is completely different from the original.

[@sandshark2]

João Botelho sorry for being what, 5 months late? Anyways The example you gave aren’t issues with copyright. The example of not having the money to sue is an issue with the lawsuit system where the payment is high in order to exact your rights to your property properly. Secondly, thanks to the internet and the exposure of Twitter’s bigotry power, people now have a second option, which is public humiliation. If done right you can ruin someone’s career if they’ve done enough reprehensible stuff, which is mainly everyone. So if they don’t credit, simply expose them for not crediting, maybe some other stuff on twitter, getting the right community outraged, and then things will work out. Again, none of that involves copyright.

[@xXxzAAa0aAAzxXx]

@@sandshark2 If an idea can be property and only rich and powerful people can exact the rights to their property then this IS a flaw of copyright. Their point is that copyright is not protecting small artists anyway, so abolishing it won't break anything. The only works really protected by copyright law are the ones owned by large corporations and big estates. And the exposition argument was mad by Patricia in the video, so I don't really know where you're trying to get. Ot just doesn't work that way. Huge popstars steal all the time from small artists and nothing happens because they have a lot of power. If Beyoncé plagiarizes you her fans will get mad at you for exposing it.

[@sandshark2]

@@xXxzAAa0aAAzxXx Lmao it’s been a year, I’ve turned my ideas around. So I agree with you

[@havenbastion]

Eliminate copyright and you'll see a cultural renaissance the likes of which has never been imagined.

[@tvalid880]

I'm unconvinced, to say the least.

[@rory1336]

I really get this, but at the same time, I would commit a kill if a big company stole my hard work and designs and just mass produced it while claiming it as their own.

[@kablamo9999]

Once you have published your art for the world to see, you have already lost control over it. People will be affected by your art to various degrees, some almost not at all, others a lot. It will make them think, feel, see the world in a new way, and be inspired. The more popular it becomes, the more it will become part of our shared experience and public memory. You can't untangle anything from that.

[@gavinwilson5324]

YES! THIS! This is why it doesn't make sense to try to "own" ideas. Whereas tangible property can be displayed without giving away ownership, the very act of conveying an idea puts that same idea in someone else's head. It's theirs now. The only legitimate way to retain exclusive control over an idea is to keep it a secret.

[@gothicwvlff]

i was listening to opn for the first time & i recognized the song sleep dealer from this video. swag

[@TheSocialTune]

Loved the video, loved your points, glad to see your growth. Keep up the good work!

[@Patricia_Taxxon]

[@RoronoaZoro-ur6hr]

Patricia Taxxon, the abolishment of copy right laws, and art being subjective are the only viewpoints that I agree with you on.

[@LiftedStarfish]

Something else that would need to be outlawed is exclusivity contacts. They essentially create IP where there otherwise wouldn't be one. For example, say that people really wanted to redo a movie that one writer did poorly, but oh no! It looks like that every actor signed an exclusivity contact agreeing not to play that character in a film that wasn't with that particular writer! There's also of course the platform exclusive problem, which the games industry is notorious for. Sure, any windows game will run on any windows machine, which are officially ubiquitous, but what if I've got a Linux machine, or a Mac? What is Sony decided dropped a dump truck of money on the dev's door A said "hey, you can have this if you make it so your hand only works on PS5". The only way to stop THAT particular issue from happening is too mandate that all source code be open, as well as make exclusivity contracts illegal. But oddly enough, this actually applies to IP as a whole, not just copyright. I'd argue that patents are a MUCH bigger problem than copyright. Trademarks aren't that bad, but I think they should also be outlawed. Trademarks are just a kind of signature, and if somehow uses it inappropriately, trying to conceive others that they're you, you can just sue then for impersonation.

[@MirandaAdriaYT]

Not once in this video do you consider the new, upcoming, or unknown artists, in particular visual artists, who have to deal with big brands taking their artwork without permission or compensation in the design of their products. Yes, I agree that copyright law is not perfect, but abolishing it is NOT the solution. And as someone who has been a digital artist for over 20 years, and has had her art stolen MULTIPLE times, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I do not want "exposure" through someone eventually finding out that an artwork ripped off something I created, regardless of how "original" my work may or may not have been.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

how much money have you made from licensing fees or royalties on your work?

[@graysongdl]

Abolishing copyright is a belief I've had for a long time, so I'm very happy to have come across this video. I mean, I don't boycott Nintendo for no reason, now do I? Seriously, I'd sooner buy a game from Electronic Fucking Arts. I mean that. And yet there are people who think even LET'S PLAYS shouldn't be allowed. There are people who disagree with the fact that let's plays are free advertising, when I literally have a list of 12 games I never would've bought if I hadn't seen them in random KZbin videos first.

[@Jose.Eduardo.C]

Watching this in the "age of NFT's" is sooo eye opening just another wolf skin to the copyright to hide under, since now is easier by the moment to copy something, now is time to pay to prove you have it, the instutionalization of the mustang analogy.

[@rhaeven]

In wanting to financialize endlessly replicable data they have turned it into something that actually CAN be stolen, it's nuts. We want post-scarcity and these chucklefucks have manufactured virtual scarcity, possibly because of brainworms.

[@Lunam_D._Roger]

Finally, someone that speaks sense.

[@Snardvark25]

Using the music yourmoviesucks uses while talking bout copyright.. beautiful. Also nice use of blockhead... well all your music. It's wonderful.

[@caitlin3810]

I mean, I agree with some points here, especially shortening copyright so it expires within a creator’s lifespan, but as a hopeful author I think artists need to be compensated for their time as well. With authors for original works especially, commissions aren’t likely to impact them in the same way they might an artist or a musician, and relying on donations means the work has to be extremely enjoyable (because, let’s face it, a lot of people will consume media for free if they can and donate only if they love it). I think if someone consumes work that took the artist a long time to do and mildly enjoys it or just thinks it’s ok, the artist should still be compensated for lost time if they can help it. Because otherwise doing creative things would be a waste of valuable time in a capitalist system. And yeah, that sucks, but we have to cop to paying for things if we want people to have the incentive to share them

[@micraan1579]

Now, I know you will probably hate this, but here's an entirely capitalist argument for getting rid of copyright: It is very interesting to see what happens when you treat ideas as a commodity. When I take some resources, craft a commodity and give it to you, that commodity is now your property and you may do with it what you like. The same applies to ideas. When I come up with an idea and I give that idea to you by communicating it through any given medium, that idea is then your property and you should be able to do with it whatever you like. Prohibiting you doing as you please with that idea that you now own (copyright) would therefore be an infringement on your property rights.

[@luisaferreira8349]

A copyright is an intellectual property right granted by a government that gives the owner exclusive right to use, with some limited exceptions, original expressive work.

[@uknownada]

I disagree with a lot of this video. I feel it sort of works in a romanticized view of the world where most people generally are respectful of creators and the art they work on but...they're not. Most people just care about the art, not the artist. Most people won't care about the artist getting support because all they care about is the art itself. I agree that piracy isn't theft in the sense that you're not stealing the product itself, but plagiarism is absolutely theft. The product itself isn't being stolen, but the attention for it is. The recognition, the audience, the tie the artpiece has with its artist gets taken away when it's plagiarized. Especially if the plagiarism ends up being more popular than the original work. People constantly repost artwork and videos and music and such all over the internet without permission from the creator. Often times, the repost gets all the attention and the original is just silent. So people won't know where to find more of that work, and the artist will be less motivated because they're getting less recognition. Sometimes a work of art is your baby, and you don't want to see your baby taken from you. If you personally do, that's perfectly fine. I mean, not if it's your literal baby, but if you're openly encouraging people to freely share your art however they want, that's totally cool. But I think that's unreasonable to ask for other artists. I don't think Tolkein would be happy if The Hobbit was just free for everybody to use instantly. What's to stop some other guy who's more business savvy taking the book and calling it his own? What if there was a whole bunch of movies that came out based on it that totally bastardizes the book but it ends up being much more popular and overshadows its existence entirely? The public would be happy, but what about the author? The REASON why art exists is because of the artist. I feel like abolishing copyright outright could solidify art more into our culture, but it could also push the artist into obscurity. The artist becomes irrelevant. I don't see this as "pro-censorship", I see this as "protecting an artist's expression". That's not to say the art isn't more important than the artist, but I just think the artist deserves some right over their own work. Copyright law IS incredibly strict, though. I don't think 28 years was enough to protect a work, but 70 years after a creator's death is just so unreasonable. It's especially abhorrent that this no longer applies to one person, but to a whole company. There's not a single soul working at Disney that was even alive when Mickey Mouse was created, and yet Mickey Mouse still belongs to them. That's absurd. I haven't watched the second video on this so maybe most of the stuff I've talked about is addressed, or maybe it isn't. I know Patricia is VERY well-spoken in her videos and her views are solid. This video is proof of that already. I just feel totally getting rid of copyright is throwing the bath out with the bathwater. Or however that saying goes. I believe artists deserve some protection for what they create.

[@blaise931]

I make original work as a visual artist/illustrator, and I cannot emphasize how much I agree with this. How hard it is to find the original copy of a piece that has been spread around because people Liked It and reposted it a bunch of times is proof enough. Sometimes artists don't *want* people to use their work, either. Maybe copyright law seems stupid to someone like Patricia, who doesn't mind their work being utilized, but for someone like me, who has a highly personal connection to my work and doesn't want people to separate it from me by any significant degree, protection for artists is very important. I agree that people shouldn't have rights over their work if they are dead, but living people *should* have influence over their work and its usage.

[@Djoodibooti]

Screaming at the Contra reference!!!

[@kookiespace]

What exactly was the reference supposed to me? Did he call contra a classical liberal? or what?

[@brianb.6356]

@@kookiespace Not Contra herself, her Dave Rubin knockoff character.

[@neonlost]

love your music but never knew you were so based on copyright great points!

[@craig.a.glesner]

As an author/publisher who did the work I do think that I should be allowed to control my creations, I did the work or commissioned someone do work for me which I pay them for that work, so yeah pretty much disagree with pretty much everything you said here. There is one large exception, I do think we should shorten the length a copyright can be held. Personally, I'm down with copyright only being held as long as the creator is alive, once the creator dies it's fair game. Because the dead have no rights being no longer existing.

[@craig.a.glesner]

That said I also agree on the PASSENGERS being better from the woman's point of view, because holy shit that movie as it's been reviewed and described super creepy and rapey. I mean of all the people dude could wake up like you know the Chief Engineer or some other crew member he chooses pretty woman who doesn't have the skills to correct any of the problems.

[@sportsracer48]

As a copyright abolitionist since 10th grade: thanks.

[@Waaaghster]

You are my man. Everything you say is right what I am feeling.

[@amandagraven6195]

Great video! Thanks for articulating a lot of gut feelings about copyright for quite a while.

[@deciMae]

I don't think I fully agree with an abolishment of copyright; copyright protects authors from large companies taking their working and commercialising it; either against the wishes of or in competition of the small author. If copyright were abolished then small author's work getting popular it would just be ripped off by large companies, and most people would not know the small author at all. The reason why copyright makes sense to me is because it's supposed to be a protection of authors against companies taking their work without payment and credit. And I don't think that people would really take the effort to ensure everything is from the original owner as you seem to suggest. The argument that original sales are not prevented in this case I don't think is really clear-cut; many companies which are large by producing content with authors right now can (and will) just earn the same money by ripping off authors, making sure that none of the authors gain money instead of some. Of course, the current copyright system doesn't really achieve this with it's enormous copyright length and small idea of fair use, and with this implementation a lot of the power still lies with companies instead of the artists. A copyright system with a more reasonable duration (possibly depending on the type of media, around 10-20 years at most for some types of media) and an expanded and more clear version of fair use would be what I would suggest. Maybe in a different kind of economic system this requirement of power of the artist on the companies which reproduce their work is not required, but we are not in such a system and to suggest we should be is an entirely different issue. So I agree that copyright law in its current way of implementation is rather broken, but instead of just removing it altogether we should probably significantly change it instead(or completely overhaul other parts of our society). (also note that I am not incredibly well informed and can be rather stupid with these kind of things; so I probably made some mistakes interpreting your argument, sorry if I did)

[@Graknorke]

If copyright were abolished companies would have no reason to 'steal' anything. It's not like they can monetise something that has no exclusivity.

[@ThePooper3000]

Graknorke But they can monetize something without exclusivity. Imagine making an illustration for a shirt design and that you'll charge $20 for each shirt because you made it all by yourself. And some big company decides take that shirt and: * Mass-produce it on an assembly line, therefore making it cheaper to sell; * Ship it off to their stores worldwide, because they have the resources to do so and you don't; * And then sell the shirts for $5 each. People would flock to the big company's store to buy the big company's shirts instead of yours; you'd get screwed over because you have no copyright.

[@CastleBallad]

Except that already happens. With a quick google search you can find thousands of cases of illustrators who's work got stolen by big clothing companies that sell their work, and the illustrators can't do anything, because they don't have the money/time to go against a big corporation.

[@doc8782]

Merz Bro just because people rob stores despite it being illegal doesn't mean we should make robbing stores legal and some artist can do something. Even if all can't, some being able to stop it is better than none being able to stop it.

[@ThePooper3000]

Doc Damn right. Not every artists can fight back, but the ones that *can* tend to make big enough splashes and act as a deterrent so that companies think twice about violating copyright.

[@rhods23]

you are good at art and talking about it!

[@mystifiedoni377]

Just imagine if everything made before 1993 was public domain. 25 years is just as radical but just as necessary.

[@scrunglenut6222]

wow. this actually changed my mind about something. thanks.

[@jerrycook3654]

I wish you could say that to these stupid copyright holders or ip holders.

[@kewld00d93]

I was so happy when I heard Oneohtrix Point Never in this video

[@TheMouseAvenger]

Funny that I should come across this video now, as I was recently Googling the subject of copyright law, arguments for & against copyright, ideas for copyright law reform &/or overhaul, etc., etc. Very interesting, informative, & insightful video (as well as the comments section!). ^_^

[@R0DisG0D]

Just abolish capitalism and most of the reasons to have copyright in the first place become totally irrelevant.

[@thenamesnick3129]

^

[@erinmontoya1128]

Copyright is a product of people using the state to have a Monopoly on their intellectual property/idea. Blame the state not Capitalism.

[@mehowop]

+R0DisG0D copyright is anti capitalistic ( in capitalism protectionism dont exist, so in capitalism you dont have any kind of IP ).

[@erinmontoya1128]

Him Pim you can do that under a capitalist society. If there is no contract you signed that prevents you from doing so then you're free to do it.

[@erinmontoya1128]

Him Pim don't worry dude. The internet may be the best chance for artists to make their at without having to rely on the middleman. And sometimes piracy is the only way to incentivize companies to better their shitty products. Example: the anime industry in its current state.

[@gc-1982]

I don’t even care about the cons of abolishing copyright! Whether it is Marketing Damage or Theft

[@L14MA]

My comrade! I approve. But Richard Stallman needs more!

[@Recordspin]

I’ll say this: listening to Demon Days on KZbin for free didn’t stop me buying it on vinyl. It actually gave me the opportunity to try it first. Speaking of, Patricia Taxxon on vinyl: make it happen.

[@1Hawkears1]

Copyright only seems to apply to some of us. It just seems to be used to discriminate

[@SJNaka101]

What if someone straight up makes copies of someone's work and sells it? It seems like a line must be drawn somewhere. The abolishment of copyright is essentially the abolishment of capitalism within art. This doesn't exactly help the small artists unless the entire economic system is overhauled. Which im not against, I just don't think this is completely practical until bigger things have changed

[@riskyfueI]

Good vid eric

[@famuel2604]

A lot of this video hinges on the arguments a) that without copyright people would feel free to credit sources as they would have nothing to fear from legal action and b) after sources are credited people will go find more work by those sources. The two claims are contradictory, because people have something to gain by plagarising, and the original author has no legal recourse against them. We can see this with the issues around image crediting on the internet. Artists want their work shared and are often okay with it going viral, but we still see the name credit scrubbed, and people often have no idea who the original artist was.

[@Ronni3no2]

There are ways of proving you authored something at a particular time and abolishing copyright doesn't have to mean abolishing legal recourse against plagiarism.

[@gaaralee1234]

@@Ronni3no2 This does raise an interesting question as to whether it could be exploited. Our current legal system make it very difficult for poor people. In theory, a really rich person could plagarize a bunch of poor unknown artists, and none of them could have the time or resources to sue and even those who do lose because he is able to afford better lawyers? Of course, this a problem even within copyright laws, like, right now, so I suppose that's a moot objection.

[@pawnarchy]

You might not see this but it would make me really happy to see you do something about Jordaan Mason's "Divorce Lawyers: I Shaved My Head" I think you'd enjoy it :] Thank u for the eternally lovely videos, I've found my favorite music through your tracklists and of course your stuff

[@BabbleCacophony]

Isn't the creator of Pepe going after alt righters for using his character in disgusting ways.

[@graysongdl]

I was reminded of this video because of another video I watched regarding drama in the "Sonic Robo Blast 2" community where, on the official mod listings for the game, modders can decide whether others are allowed to modify their creations or not. If something's marked as an open asset, you can copy as much code from it as you like. If it's not, you can't so much as port the mod to a newer version of the game without express permission. Somehow, the irony that you can be disallowed from modifying an open source mod for an open source overhaul mod for an open source Sonic fangame made in an open source port of an open source engine is entirely lost on these people. Copyright is a direct, and usually the most common, reason for lost media becoming lost. In a perfect world, the ONLY license would be CC BY-SA.

[@BlokMaster21309]

"my hero" "also this person hates me for existing"

[@ThePooper3000]

The US's fair use is way less restrictive than fair dealing and can get you great stuff; Richard Prince is one of the reasons why I love appropriation art.

[@famuel2604]

I kind of think that Eric is predicting that we abolish copyright into a post-capitalism utopia. Like if I were a huge company I would be like great, I'll just own the things that people need to experience art, and not contribute anything to the creation of art. It's already so hard to make money as an artist with huge industries hiring hundreds of artists, and the law already disproportionately protects the rights of big companies. Like the Sita model is so hard already, and involves making a very small budget go very far. The 30 year timeframe really seems a much better model than abolishment or the current system.

[@blblblblblbl7505]

You have a good music taste and this is a good video.

[@Krypto_Dogg]

I’m going to finish this video, but my first concept of why copyright is a good thing was “hoot there it is” vs “whoomp there it is.” Hoot there it is came first and another artist was able to steal their song essentially and get away with it. I know I can just Google why they weren’t able to stop it from happening, but years later one song still was playing in commercial a few years back while the original song was forgotten about. We see counterfeiting and theft where there is motive. As well as giving away work just because people feel like it through piracy. Pirates likely profit from ads on streaming or torrent sites as well. If we lived in an economy where artists didn’t have to work for food and room and board, we’d be better off and most people would agree art should be free if they were a prized class. Now ai has been stealing labor from artists and giving it away free disguised as intelligent variation.

[@DeadManAnimations]

Great video, really love your video presentation style. Fuck Copyright

[@Medytacjusz]

Lawsuits: it's a game. For big players it's just another expense, for small players it's too expensive to even try. Whether you're right or not doesn't matter as much as your ability to play the game of proving whether you are. And fair use is something you have to prove. Whether there is a lawsuit or not is often more important than the lawsuit's result. The system is fucked up.

[@nintoforgi]

It’s a common truism that people are scared of change but I think the other side of that coin that’s just as true and maybe more bracing is that people are scared of the idea that things aren’t already working as well as they could. You see it all the time in almost every type of sociopolitical discourse to undermine the very fabric of the discussion, to try to undercut the foundation of any exchange of ideas - countries that have attempted to transition into communism have, historically, struggled, and so capitalism must be The Best We’ve Got. It’s legitimately upsetting to think about how that mental sinkhole is so vast, because i don’t think there’s anyone who’s having these conversations in good faith that doesn’t want the world to be better for virtually everybody in it other than the relative few who currently monopolize it’s power. We can only start figuring out how to move toward a better version of this world by looking those issues in the eye, whether or not we come to the table with the answers in hand already. That’s what this video makes me think of, anyway. The idea that copyright law could somehow manage to do almost nothing it was intended to do, less now than ever especially, is so hard to get people on board with, I think, because to let that idea be presupposed demands you take stock of a lot of other ugly ideas, about the dysfunction of nearly all western governments, about the way capitalism shapes our society, and about how easily we’ll accept the ideas put in front of us as long as there’s ostensible authority behind them. Like someday there’s going to be a huge annotated history of the way “piracy” was framed by people in power and, in retrospect, I think it will strike people as madness that it was ever believed to even resemble stealing.

[@samj4820]

Wait a second; this video changes every time I watch it

[@Blaineworld]

Some of my favorite works are obviously derivative, like Undertale Yellow, Deltatraveler, B3313, and Everywhere at the End of Time. These works aren’t being nuked, but my point isn’t about these specific works. Imagine how many more of these things there could be. Yes, there would be bad derivatives but I say just… don’t engage with things you don’t like. I’m not going to engage with the Mickey Mouse horror content for example. I also probably would have never discovered that I like retro games if I was not able to download them when I was 12.

[@victorianeechan]

my heart shattered upon finding out Nina is a terf :'c

[@Zelkiiro]

I heard that melody from the Death Note soundtrack. I have nothing creative to add to this, I was just making a banal observation.

[@anuel3780]

I completely agree with most of the video, but I have one small gripe. How do you make sure people credit the works? You yourself (albeit justified) don't credit your samples, so what makes you think every artist will be upfront about their sample credits? What about massive projects like Since I Left You where it's basically impossible to credit every sample? Even if the og artist comes and tells them, "hey, you used my song, can you credit me", how do you guarantee they'll, well, do it? This is really for more fringe examples, but I feel that if you don't credit the samples and there is no way to make sure you credit your samples, will it just depend off third-party sites to compile it? Will there be a system where if an artist proves a work was used, it will be credited? The exposure argument kinda falls flat in that regard.

[@elloingo]

not to mention if you pitched an idea to a big company and they turned it down only to steal it later it's far harder to prove they stole your idea than if you stole one of there's as at the end of the day your pitch isn't published but their final work is.

[@stupidass69420]

W H Y I LOVE NINA PALEYS WORK GODDAMIT PATRICIA **UgLy CRYing**

[@diazri]

Really enjoyed this, especially after writing a lot of code that piggybacks off of open source libraries & software. Curious about one thing, though: What if an artist wants to produce an artwork where the existence of only a single copy is a key part of the aesthetic experience? I'm assuming the copyright abolitionist would say something like "No such artworks should exist," but isn't that also closing off certain avenues of expression? Not sure how I feel about that yet.

[@maximusharbour3463]

Ok, I disliked pirating before seeing this but now I believe you should only pirate something if after pirating, if you like it, to promote it for free to friends/family/random people online. If you dislike it, then you should warn other people not to buy it. This way, you are promoting the art in the same or possibly higher value then buying it would, and you can also chose to discredit the art and not help the creator, something purchasing does not account for.

[@un_pogaz]

I agree with all your arguments, I really do. I just want to point out the tragic irony that today, in 2024, these same Copyright laws will prevent the creation and abuse of generative AIs that would be even more destructive to Art. Even more ironicaly not because of the AIs themselves, but because of the same hyper-capitalist companies that use this Copyright as a tool of censorship and control. Damn fuck shit. That's why Creative Common is so great: it's a copyright that protects the author's authorship, allows free distribution, all while protecting against (rare) possible abuse.

[@captainautobots]

Watching this while Totally Not Mark's channel is getting screwed over by Toei Animation. Copyright sucks.

[@ryrieee]

i love how you played vaporwave in the title cards

[@sirzorg5728]

I hate most of Nina's politics, but she's dead right here.

[@allenlark]

She said WHEN capitalism is abolished

[@YourFoxFriendYT]

The sims after copyright is abolished Sims 6 [Download] Sims 6 All Packs [Downloader] Sims 6 Grilled cheese stuff [Download]

[@IvyAlive]

I'm guessing this video is more based in some ideal dream-world than reality, because I can not imagine a fate worse than needing to rely on COMMISSIONS for a living as an artist. Talk about death of art.

[@rimut230]

the issue here is capitalism itself. and besides, a lot of artists live like that already

[@IvyAlive]

@@rimut230 Then you need to abolish capitalism before something like this can be realistically discussed. It’s possible to live off commissions, but it isn’t very common. I honestly don’t know anyone who does. It’s a quick way to burn out and doesn’t offer you any safety later in life when you can no longer produce work at the same rate.