Court Dismisses Wikimedia's Lawsuit Over NSA Surveillance

Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage

from the sovereignty-of-your-own-mind dept

Fri, Oct 23rd 2015 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

We first wrote about Nina Paley in 2009, upon hearing about the ridiculous copyright mess she found herself in concerning her wonderful movie Sita Sings the Blues. While she eventually was able to sort out that mess and release the film, she also discovered that the more she shared the film, the more money she made, and she began to question copyright entirely. She originally released the film under a ShareAlike license, promising to go after people who didn't uphold the ShareAlike parts, but then moved to a full public domain dedication and has become quite vocal in recent years about not supporting any kind of copyright and even raising some important concerns about many forms of Creative Commons licenses.

Paley has also written a bunch of posts for us, including the wonderful "Make Art Not Law" post she wrote about two years ago. Much of the material from that post appears to have morphed into a recent TEDx talk that Paley gave, entitled Copyright is Brain Damage. It's worth watching: Again, it's quite similar to her post from two years ago, but interesting to watch in a different form. While the "brain damage" claim certainly feels (perhaps intentionally) hyperbolic, she's actually making a really important point in calling it that: she notes that the entire mechanism of copyright is to cut off the flow of information, and analogizes that to a brain, noting that when information flow is cut off between sections of the brain, it's a form of brain damage. That's a somewhat extreme view to take, and I'm not sure it's one that I think is a truly fair analogy, but damn if it's not thought provoking.

I've long wished there was a better way to express how much is lost when copyright cuts off an important flow of information -- because it's obvious that it harms creative expression, artwork and innovation. But it's difficult to show what's "lost" when it never was allowed to exist in the first place. The idea of analogizing it to brain damage is a really fascinating one that does, at the very least, present a strong visual image for the kind of harm that can be done when copyright law is abused.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: brain damage, copyright, creativity, culture, information flow, nina paley

182 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 8:36pm

You have plenty of case studies for why copyright is brain damage. Look at average_joe, out_of_the_blue, Slonecker, Whatever, darryl, hurricane head, Sam I Am, and all their associated sockpuppet posts on this site over the years. To say nothing of David Lowery, John Steele, Evan Stone, Andrew Crossley, Lily Allen, Keith Lipscomb, Brigham Feld, etc., etc.

Brain damage is either the prerequisite for copyright, or the resultant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 8:57pm

Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
In https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1723375986.shtml
Masnick wrote:
But, all in all, it looks like she'll easily be able to pay off the $50,000 it cost to officially license the music (no matter how ridiculous it was that she needed to do that), and should be able to earn a nice profit from it.

That's just the music part! What about reasonable pay for the time of the apparently many who worked on it? Read the credits at end. Was all that contributed for free? It's easy when you can people to work for free. But industry does not work that way.

You try to make much of her selling T-shirts for funding, but have you ever actually considered that its plot / characters / melange is simply not popular? Every time I've looked at this perennial but unique example, I wonder WHY and HOW the hell so many people put so much effort into crap Hindu nightmare.

I doubt could ever be commercially viable. -- I'm all for art projects, wish you to give 'em away all you can, but that ain't an industry.

So. You know WHY Paley never had to worry about others "monetizing" it? Because it's not worth stealing. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

For that reason, it's a highly flawed example. And... The give it away free crowd will likely never make a real blockbuster precisely because it'd be "popular". Besides, soon as an obvious money-maker shows, it'll be locked up.

Now, what was/is her next project?
And... I'll bet that her next movie (or whatever she does next) will have a nice built-in audience as well.

For the record, I really wish Paley would find a story worthy of her efforts. Ideas ARE the difficult part. ... And if she had such, that'd almost certainly tip her into actually being for locking it up with copyright like everyone sane does, instead of playing tragic heroine in Techdirt's anti-copyright crusade.

Since you kids don't have creations of your own worth stealing, that fact proves you don't have a brain capable of understanding the ownership. The very simple basis of copyright is: I MADE IT, IT'S MINE. It's not the creators who are brain-damaged, it's you little savages.

And by the way, the rudeness started in your title, so don't now assert that I'm at fault for responding in similar terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:09pm
  
  Re: Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
  PS: just happened to hit me at right time for some fun.
  
  But everyone reasonable who thinks of commenting here should take a look at the "Make Art Not Law" link and admire how this allegedly free forum censors all opposition, even while responding to it.
  
  And, that session was blocked just in the time to write this! I'll try again in new window...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
    Seriously, Masnick, why do you go against your own "free speech" principles, and when your blocking is ineffective? You just look ridiculous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
      Yeah, he's the one that looks ridiculous. Totally not the guy talking to himself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I wrote that copyright is brain damage, and look who showed up to prove me right: the piratey-TOR-using spambot that all the trolls here worship and emulate.
        
        Copyright's best and brightest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 10:10pm
  
  Yawn
  Just when I thought this day couldn't get any less interesting ...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
  The very simple basis of copyright is: I MADE IT, IT'S MINE.
  
  You nailed it: the very simple basis of copyright is childishness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 9:34am
  
  Re: Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
  Sorry old man. That's not how the world works. You can try to stop the tide all day long, but you only end up wet and looking loke the fool you are. So save you condescending bullshit for someone who cares.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.
  "You try to make much of her selling T-shirts for funding"
  
  You criticize Techdirt for claiming that there are other ways for artists to make money in your attempt to argue that copy protection is necessary for them to make money but what your argument fails to consider is the fact that artists have hardly ever made most of their money from royalties. The overwhelming majority of their money has always come from other things like touring. So how does that support your argument that copy protection is an integral part of how artists need to make money?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:12pm

Well, she's right. Most law is abuse, not just copyright law. It's all about forcing other people to do what you want ("you" being the people who make the laws--all of which are paid for by a greedy minority).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:20pm

Pirate Artists Dont Count
Of course if you count the artists who profit from Piracy, you will conclude that Piracy is good. But thats self-evidentally NONCENSE. You must ONLY COUNT TEH LEGTITIMATE ARTISTS WHORE ARE HURT BY PIRACY! IGNORE THE INCORECT AND MISLEADING SO-CALED EVIDENCE. Then you will come to the ONLY SENSIBLE CONCUSION: OF COURSE Piracy is Bad, and MUST BE STAMPED OUT!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 9:56pm

"Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
Proves beyond reasonable doubt that it's active censoring done by just one person with admin access.

Didn't notice because the "lite" version un-censors. Use this:
https://www.techdirt.com/?_format=lite

And so, having been censored for no articulable reason, by the magic of editing off-line, here's a repeat:

Did it ever actually turn a profit? Meaning good income for all who worked on it, plus enough to live on and fund a bigger project.

In https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1723375986.shtml
Masnick wrote:
But, all in all, it looks like she'll easily be able to pay off the $50,000 it cost to officially license the music (no matter how ridiculous it was that she needed to do that), and should be able to earn a nice profit from it.

That's just the music part! What about reasonable pay for the time of the apparently many who worked on it? Read the credits at end. Was all that contributed for free? It's easy when you can people to work for free. But industry does not work that way.

You try to make much of her selling T-shirts for funding, but have you ever actually considered that its plot / characters / melange is simply not popular? Every time I've looked at this perennial but unique example, I wonder WHY and HOW the hell so many people put so much effort into crap Hindu nightmare.

I doubt could ever be commercially viable. -- I'm all for art projects, wish you to give 'em away all you can, but that ain't an industry.

So. You know WHY Paley never had to worry about others "monetizing" it? Because it's not worth stealing. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

For that reason, it's a highly flawed example. And... The give it away free crowd will likely never make a real blockbuster precisely because it'd be "popular". Besides, soon as an obvious money-maker shows, it'll be locked up.

Now, what was/is her next project?
And... I'll bet that her next movie (or whatever she does next) will have a nice built-in audience as well.

For the record, I really wish Paley would find a story worthy of her efforts. Ideas ARE the difficult part. ... And if she had such, that'd almost certainly tip her into actually being for locking it up with copyright like everyone sane does, instead of playing tragic heroine in Techdirt's anti-copyright crusade.

Since you kids don't have creations of your own worth stealing, that fact proves you don't have a brain capable of understanding the ownership. The very simple basis of copyright is: I MADE IT, IT'S MINE. It's not the creators who are brain-damaged, it's you little savages.

And by the way, the rudeness started in your title, so don't now assert that I'm at fault for responding in similar terms.

PS: just happened to hit me at right time for some fun.

But everyone reasonable who thinks of commenting here should take a look at the "Make Art Not Law" link and admire how this allegedly free forum censors all opposition, even while responding to it.

And, that session was blocked just in the time to write this! I'll try again in new window...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 10:04pm
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  I think you need help.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 10:19pm
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  Don't you ever have anything interesting to say?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2015 @ 11:02pm
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  "And by the way, the rudeness started in your title, so don't now assert that I'm at fault for responding in similar terms."
  
  If you mean the "brain damage" in the title then you might want to watch the video because the "brain damage" is part of the model she uses to explain her point of view.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tice with a J (profile), 23 Oct 2015 @ 11:04pm
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  Consider yourself flagged again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:54pm
    
    Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
    "Consider yourself flagged again."
    Why? I get that you might not share the persons point of view (I personally disagree with the person) but the person shares a view that can be discussed here. I don't see the need to flag the post.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 11:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
      I'm personally with you — I flag posts sparingly, mostly outright spam. However, it is understandable that the community tries to weed out intellectual dishonesty.
      
      In my observation, opposing views presented honestly are pretty much tolerated here. What is frowned upon is rhetorical card-shifting. For example, in the first flagged comment above the author disingenuously substituted "copyright is brain damage" with "creators are brain damaged." I'd call it "rotten red herring": this type of "argument" nullifies any grain of otherwise legitimate disagreement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
      to be fair, I'm sure like most people here we're only flagging him because that's the only substitute for a downvote button we have. We really need to change the new buttons to have a "Retard Badge" button.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CK20XX (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 1:54pm
      
      Actually, that's the thing: he shares views that CAN'T be discussed because he makes it extremely clear that he's not interested in discussion. He talks at people, not with people. He's not interested in two-way communication. It's probably better to flag him and find a worthwhile opponent instead.
      
      Meanwhile, people like Whatever tend to have a different problem: they don't try to read or understand the article and then respond with faux intellectualism, which comes off as galling to everyone else who's actually researched the subject. Both types of posters tend to easily get caught up in the mindset that they're the only people heroically crusading against a sea of ignorance, leading to a downward spiral of post quality that quickly gets kind of laughable and sad at the same time. I usually don't use the report button myself though unless insults start flying around.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 5:39pm
        
        Re:
        Also let's not forget that Whatever is a professional troll who's appeared on the site under multiple pseudonyms (horse with no name, Just Sayin', Mo Money, My Name Here) posting in support of Prenda and suing grandmothers over pornography, and got kicked off of Torrentfreak for constant trolling.
        
        There's no need to entertain him at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re:
        There's also the "stuck record" thing of "I made it, it's mine" that comes up over and over and over again despite our having refuted it over and over and over again.
        
        So no, he doesn't have a valid point of view to discuss, he's got an online graffiti tag that he sprays here like a dog marking its territory and we're all fed up with it.
        
        Repeating B.S. over and over again doesn't make it true and never will. That he can't accept this is the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Just Another Anonymous Troll, 26 Oct 2015 @ 5:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
      Paging that guy with a penguin avatar: This is why we reply to the troll-so newer users don't fall for his trolling.
      To the AC: This guy has been trolling for a long time now. He makes no insightful points, just trolling, nonsense, and insults. He's most likely a paid shill and if any of his arguments make sense I recommend psychiatric help. Most users automatically report him because his comments are abusive and trollish, and that is all they will ever be. This isn't viewpoint vs. viewpoint, this is rationality vs. insane troll logic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 2:03am
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  Yes, we're trying to censor you. Now ask yourself why.
  
  (and no, it's not because your insights are so brilliant that we can't stand your blinding truth)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 6:05am
    
    Re: Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
    It's not really censoring, more like controlling the conversation.
    
    The flagged posts can still be accessed and read and nothing is stopping those clowns from building their own site where they can control the conversation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:02am
  
  Re:
  There, you said it yourself. It's a Friday night; more people are going to have the free time to be online.
  
  You simply can't grasp the idea that no one here likes your brain-damaged drivel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  Methinks someone hit a nerve with the "brain damage" line. Methinks thou also doth protest too much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: "Flagged by the community" is a LIE! Took five minutes late on Friday night?
  "Proves beyond reasonable doubt that it's active censoring done by just one person with admin access."
  
  If you are so convinced without a shadow of a doubt that it is only one person that doesn't want to read your nonsense and everyone else is so eager to read the incoherent drivel you spout then why are you posting over here? Why not start your own blog and build your own audience? I know why, you can barely compose a coherent sentence (and it's not because English is your second or third language, it's your only language and you can barely speak it. I know many people who speak English as a second or third language and they speak it very proficiently, much better than you) yet alone a coherent thought and therefore you know that no one would be interested in what you have to say. That's why you are here instead of running your own successful blog, because no one is at all interested in anything you have to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kenpachi (profile), 23 Oct 2015 @ 10:07pm

Hi everyone!
I'll just leave this here...

and this one especially.

Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Whatever (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 2:33am

I think that Nina Paley sort of is on par with Larry Leesig, two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright. In Lessig's case, his first amendment hyperbole proved to be just that, the judges have long since thrown out his idea as legal nonsense. In Nina's case, she's never been in a situation where her "copyright is brain damage" claim can be truly challenged.

It's hard to debate much of it as well because it's vague. Does copyright stop the flow of information? Generally no, because we still discuss what is copyright anyway (did you see the blahblach movie or did you real the new so-and-so book?). A discussion of ideas and concepts doesn't require a perfect digital copy to happen. A perfect example would be this article, without listening to Nina's video, one would still have a very good idea of the content and her point of view, and could discuss them. Is any significant information lost if that video isn't available to me, or is unable to play on my mobile device at the time? The answer is not really as much as she thinks.

Moreover, one has to consider the plus sides of copyright , such as the ability for artists and creators to either get paid for their work in selling it piecemeal, or in selling the rights to it wholesale to others. Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur. It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing.

The result is what you see in the modern piracy economy, the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity, which pays far more. It's a stupid system where people pay more for a "personal appearance" of celebutards like a Kardashian than they do for a musician or writer.

Copyright is no more or no less brain dead than a whole host of other things in this world. Nina's problem I think is that she has never been on the other side with a product people widely pirate, rather she has spent her career working against the system and building her celebrity level such that she can charge to give speeches about how bad copyright is. If all that effort went instead into artistic creation... opportunity costs, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 2:41am
  
  Re:
  two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright.
  
  As opposed to the **AA, the USTR and...?
  
  The result is what you see in the modern piracy economy, the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity, which pays far more.
  
  [citation needed]
  
  Copyright is no more or no less brain dead than a whole host of other things in this world.
  
  I guess that makes it ok then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 6:51am
  
  Re:
  
  Moreover, one has to consider the plus sides of copyright , such as the ability for artists and creators to either get paid for their work in selling it piecemeal, or in selling the rights to it wholesale to others.
  
  Except for the one made celebrities by the old system, they aren't being fairly compensated, or at all, while the publishers continue to rake in the cash. (And even the celebrity ones are fairly well scammed.)
  
  Nina's problem I think is that she has never been on the other side with a product people widely pirate,
  
  It's funny, i still have yet to see it shown where a creator of a highly copied work is suffering damage from the copying. Or whichever company has the right to produce the authorized copies. Very little copying which constitutes infringement is potentially lost sales. If you are referring to actual pirates (people making money by making copies for sale, that is a whole other game which never even actually gets discussed anymore because... it isn't important enough to make the news, i guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Whatever (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    "It's funny, i still have yet to see it shown where a creator of a highly copied work is suffering damage from the copying."
    
    The damage, well... it's never easy to measure because you don't know what the potential was before the copying, or what the result is after the fact. In some cases, the copying benefits to a certain extent getting the artist or creator more known. However, there is a point I think where the artist is well enough known that the benefit is lost. It perhaps comes back at the other end of the scale (say a mega band or huge artist) who is able to turn the exposure into a very lucrative performance tour.
    
    Yet, even that exposes the problem, which is the simple act of creation is muted in favor of the search for the fame and the dollars. The system has been tilted so far off the scale that creation is harmed. Widescale piracy has (IMHO) greatly contributed to making the act of recording (new) music as a comparative waste of time and effort. An estabished artist can make more from performances and even just appearance money to show up at a club or whatever.
    
    "Very little copying which constitutes infringement is potentially lost sales."
    
    So you are suggestion that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with the milions of perfect digital copies made online every day? *citation needed* for that one!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you are suggestion that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with the milions of perfect digital copies made online every day?
      
      Have you ever thought that the decline may be due to independent artists making music available, sometimes for free, over the Internet. Visit bandcamp or Jamendo, just to name two sites, to see some of the music available outside the control of the traditional labels.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shhh, you'll break Whatever's cognitive dissonance!
        
        Weren't you listening? Because of weakened copyright, all art sucks because it's not about creativity and artistic quality, it's all about fame and fortune. However, interesting and creative artists who don't rely on copyright don't count because they aren't famous and rich — and even if they do make good money and have a big fan-base without worrying about piracy, then they still don't count because they aren't worried about piracy.
        
        The only people with a valid opinion on any of this are rich, famous artists who are also incredibly artistically talented and creative and also suffer from piracy and are strongly pro-copyright.
        
        I'm hoping he'll come join my poker game. House rules are simple: all cards are wild when they are in my hand, also he doesn't get any cards, also he's not allowed in my house.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 12:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now you've done it! He's going to start ranting about imaginary PaulTs under his bed!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Talk about misrepresentation!
        
        There are many different types of artists is each artform... some musicians are just about the music, some are just about the fame. Some do it for money, some do it for the love of music, and many are somewhere in the middle.
        
        They all have valid opinions. Some love copyright, some hate it. Some want to make a living from recording music, some want to make a living playing musiv live, and many, many others just want to make enough playing live to pay their bar bill and perhaps add some more sound proofing to the Garage they practice in. How piracy and how copyright affects each of them changes and varies their opinions. None of those opinions are invalid.
        
        HOWEVER (and a big HOWEVER) it's incredibly silly when someone like Nina craps all over copyright, and attempts to tell others how they should just give her everything for free without concern. There is no reason for someone who has created an original work to just give it up because Nina wants to make a derivative work. She is free to make her own original stuff freely available and to not charge for it, but she doesn't get to tell others how to do things when they are operating within the law and within their rights.
        
        So her opinion may or may not be right for her. It's not right for others. She doesn't have the right to tell others to give up their rights just to make her derivative works easier to make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 9:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Talk about misrepresentation!"
        
        Mirror, mirror. But going by your post history you have no qualms in enforcing your experiences over others when it suits you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2015 @ 4:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        we get your point but ots not needed in every thread. pleas!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2015 @ 10:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On the contrary, he needs a constant reminder that people are watching.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you are suggestion that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with the milions of perfect digital copies made online every day?
      
      Of course it does. It has to do with the economic reality of what happens when technology permanently decouples music from a physical format, and it will happen regardless of how hard you fight against it with unenforceable, immoral, anti-progress laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Widescale piracy has (IMHO) greatly contributed to making the act of recording (new) music as a comparative waste of time and effort
      
      This should tell you all you need to know about Whatever right here. Making music is a waste of time and effort.
      
      Hear that, musicians? You're a bunch of morons. If nobody's cut you a check, then you are wasting your time and effort doing that thing you love. Grow the fuck up and get a real job. So it has been decreed by a moron on the internet without an artistic bone in his body.
      
      Tell us, Whatever: if you have so little respect for music, and in fact appear to find it actively distasteful and inherently worthless, why do you even engage with this topic so much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 10:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The decline in sales of recorded music could just as easily be explained by the changes in entertainment consumption; for example, more people are using services like Netflix and Spotify to consume their entertainment. In addition to this, there are competitors for a person's free time and budget from other avenues, such as movie entertainment, TV entertainment, and gaming entertainment.
      
      So, attributing everything to "The Pirates" is not only a red-herring, it is actively harmful to your case. Look, for example, to The Sky is Rising reports, where both movie studios and record labels make money hand over fist. Your argument for that being higher is still a red herring, because we are not very good at identifying trends - the signs are there that the heavy leveraging of debts within Hollywood is concerning for those avenues of entertainment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - art guerrilla (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 2:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The decline in sales of recorded music could just as easily be explained by the changes in entertainment consumption;..."
        
        yeppers, exactly my situation...
        *used to* buy -not a ton of music- but some CD's regularly; hardly EVER buy any anymore (some $5 bargain bin ones every once in a while)...
        
        have NEVER (knowingly, well, there's the rub, ain't it?) pirated music, period (HOWEVER, getting to the point where it is impossible to justify NOT pirating due to the greedtard actions of the MAFIAA types)...
        
        now ? i either listen to the moldy oldies i have in my collection, download music from inertnet archive, listen to utube vids, etc, or inertnet radio...
        
        a LOT of my NON-buying decisions of music are based simply on the fact that i DESPISE the 'recording industry' (hint: 'recording industry' NOT equal to 'musicians') and their greedy overreaching and destruction of OUR culture...
        fuck'em...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 11:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The damage, well... it's never easy to measure because you don't know what the potential was before the copying, or what the result is after the fact."
      
      What I do know is that artists have hardly ever made most of their money from record labels or royalties. The overwhelming majority of their money has always come from other activities such as touring. So the 'damages' are minimal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "So you are suggestion that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with the milions of perfect digital copies made online every day?"
      
      Even when recorded music was selling that's still not how artists made most of their money. They made most of their money through other activities such as touring. Yes, the record labels made their money through recorded music but not the artists. The only difference now is that artists don't need the record labels to distribute their music to attract an audience and make money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 2:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hmm... I wonder if there's a good way to get people to show up for my concert tour? I know, how about recording some of my songs and giving them away for free so that they can become fans? Nah, that would be a waste of time. I'm sure they'll just show up because of my cool band name.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 11:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you are suggestion that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with the milions of perfect digital copies made online every day?
      
      So you are suggesting (!) that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with people having gone through replacing their vinyl with CDs, essentially buying the same music all over again, giving the industry an unrepeatable all-time high?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2015 @ 4:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      An estabished artist can make more from performances and even just appearance money to show up at a club or whatever.
      
      Then they have no need for copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Goyo (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  "Is any significant information lost if that video isn't available to me, or is unable to play on my mobile device at the time? The answer is not really as much as she thinks."
  
  Then I feel really sorry for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 7:36am
  
  Re:
  Moreover, one has to consider the plus sides of copyright , such as the ability for artists and creators to either get paid for their work in selling it piecemeal, or in selling the rights to it wholesale to others.
  
  That is the whole purpose of copyright, allowing middlemen to buy up copyrights from the creators. The problem is that this benefits the middlemen, while paying the artists very poorly. The middlemen can get away with this practice while they are gate keepers to a limited capacity production and distribution system.
  The internet allows many artists to try the approach of distributing their creations for free, and then seeking money and other support to enable them to create the next work. Those that choose this route have little need of copyright, and also have little need of traditional middlemen, they just need platforms to distribute their works, search engines to allow it to be found, and social media for their fans to spread the word. Many using this route are getting the encouragement and appreciation that keeps an artists going, and quite a few even manage to make a full time living from giving their work away and relying on fan support.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  Ah, the classic argument of "No one cares because you're indie and you're not important." Yet when someone nobody has ever heard of blames piracy despite no one knowing their stuff even exists, you're suddenly up in arms claiming everyone is downloading and killing indies.
  
  Predictable drivel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  rather she has spent her career working against the system and building her celebrity level such that she can charge to give speeches about how bad copyright is. If all that effort went instead into artistic creation... opportunity costs, right?
  
  Guess you don't pay much attention, huh?
  
  Nina found her way to her views on copyright via her efforts on artistic creation. And as far as I can tell, there's barely a moment of any day that she's not dedicating the majority of her effort to creation. She recently animated an entire intermission sequence for her upcoming movie using embroidery, in what some people are calling one of the most labour-intensive works of animation ever undertaken (and then went on to offer each of the individually embroidered frames for sale and sold quite a lot of them (how's that for creative reasons to buy, while you idiots whine about t-shirts?) alongside all the other crazy artistic quilts she makes and sells in her giant quilting lab in between animating movies.
  
  You're so desperate to tear people down and avoid processing any new ideas whatsoever that you haven't the faintest idea what's going on in the world, and it makes you sound like a) a moron and b) a bitter asshole. Seriously dude, get over it, wake up, or just go crawl in a hole and die and let the world move on without you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  "Moreover, one has to consider the plus sides of copyright , such as the ability for artists and creators to either get paid for their work in selling it piecemeal, or in selling the rights to it wholesale to others."
  
  Except copy protection laws should not be about providing artists and distributors with more abilities. They should be about promoting the progress and serving a public interest. Making it about this ability to artists and distributors is a reason it should be abolished if the effect and intent of the ability is not to serve the public interest.
  
  Your argument also fails to consider that artists have hardly ever made most of their money from record labels or royalties. Most of their money has always come from third party activities. That's not to say that middlemen can't have a role in helping to promote the music but, at least with the record labels, the overwhelming responsibility of promoting the works has always fallen on the artists themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  I think that Nina Paley sort of is on par with Larry Leesig [sic], two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright.
  
  First of all: the viewpoints of Nina Paley and Larry Lessig are not the same at all. Lessig is not a copyright abolitionist (no matter what copyright maximalists would have you believe).
  
  Second of all: Paley, at least, is convinced of her view, because copyright has directly interfered with her creation of artistic works. She didn't "convince herself," she was convinced because working within the copyright system convinced her that it was wrong. It was the copyright system itself that convinced her.
  
  Does copyright stop the flow of information? Generally no, because we still discuss what is copyright anyway (did you see the blahblach movie or did you real the new so-and-so book?).
  
  Copyright law absolutely interferes with people who are trying to utilize copyrighted works for their own creation, and/or people who are trying to utilize copyrighted works for the purpose of general dissemination to the public. And since this sort of "collective conversation" is much of which drives culture, yes, it does stop the flow of information (or at the very least, the flow of expression).
  
  It doesn't stop ordinary humans from talking about the works, that is true; it does stop ordinary humans from using the actual expressive works (by e.g. sharing a sample on YouTube). Or it would, if anyone cared whether they were infringing or not.
  
  Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur.
  
  Plenty of people want to use copyright to stop distribution. There are plenty of copyright holders who outright state, often by writing Congress, that they should have the right to stop distribution for content-based reasons. Here's just one example:
  
  Artists can, and should continue to be able to, deny a use that they do not agree with. For one, an artist should be able to turn down uses in connection with messages that the artist finds objectionable. [...]
  
  For example, Melissa Etheridge is a known lesbian and animal rights activist. A compulsory license would allow someone to remix or sample her music into a new work filled with homophobic epithets, and she could not say "no". In the same way, a compulsory license would allow someone to remix or sample music by Ted Nugent, noted gun ownership advocate, for a song promoting stricter gun control without Nugent's pelmission.
  - LaPolt Law, P.C. and Steven Tyler comment to the USPTO
  
  Were this done directly by the government, this would be called "content-based censorship."
  
  Also, the mere fact that copyright can only be licensed by those who can afford the license (however much it may be) means that copyright stops distribution. It doesn't stop all distribution, of course - but it does limit distribution to those with enough money to enter into deals with corporate rights holders.
  
  It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing.
  
  "Legal standing" does not mean "copyright." There are plenty of ways for artists to get compensated without holding the copyright to their works. Obviously, crowdfunding is one example, but even historically, the vast majority of artists did not hold the copyright to their works - think people who are work-for-hire, like graphic designers, actors, studio artists, etc. In fact, most artists have always been paid more if they were work-for-hire than if they signed away their copyrights for a commission (a.k.a. royalties).
  
  The idea that copyright gives creators a legal right to leverage against publishers is a good one, in theory, but in practice it's not as significant as people think. For one thing, even without copyright, artists would always have "first publication" rights, and those can be (and usually are) more important than their post-publication monopoly rights.
  
  For another thing, the fact that publishers (including labels, studios, etc.) are assigned the copyrights to thousands or millions of works, mean that they tend to have collective monopolies over entire markets. Aside from being destructive to artistic markets in general, this significantly reduces the bargaining power of creators within those markets.
  
  So, while copyright may give creators rights, in order to bargain with copyright assignees, it eventually makes those barganing rights nearly inconsequential.
  
  The result is what you see in the modern piracy economy, the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity, which pays far more. It's a stupid system where people pay more for a "personal appearance" of celebutards like a Kardashian than they do for a musician or writer.
  
  This is exactly what has been happening since celberety existed. It has zero to do with a "modern piracy economy," whatever that is supposed to be.
  
  Nina's problem I think is that she has never been on the other side with a product people widely pirate
  
  Nina has, and does, encourage people to pirate her product. And they do - widely.
  
  If there's anyone who has "been on the other side," it's her.
  
  If all that effort went instead into artistic creation... opportunity costs, right?
  
  Ironically, you're making her point for her. She - like many, many artists (especially professional creators) - spent far too much time considering if her use of a work is allowed under copyright law. The self-censorship, plus the multi-year legal wrangling with copyright holders, the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to license songs from the 20's and 30's, etc... all of these created "opportunity costs" that she didn't choose.
  
  It was only by completely ignoring copyright law that she was able to put that effort into artistic creation.
  
  She went over this later in the video, especially the part before she showed "This Land Is Mine." I suppose you didn't make it that far.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's also worth pointing out that contrary to what Whatever believes, people have been prevented from talking about works because the rightsholders declared copyright law to stop them talking about them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Does copyright stop the flow of information? Generally no, because we still discuss what is copyright anyway (did you see the blahblach movie or did you real the new so-and-so book?)."
    
    What about orphaned works? Orphaned books expressing people's opinions and arguments. Orphaned scientific publications. There are plenty of discontinued books that are very hard to get a hold of, the fact that they existed in the past may not even be made known to the readers of future generations. So many scientific studies that were conducted that are behind paywalls that many people can't afford to access to search through or that eventually become discontinued never to be found by many searching for something. Just look at the university system and how they have to pay a lot of money for publication subscriptions and they can't afford to pay to subscribe to all publications and get access to all information. What about all the discontinued information they can no longer have access to. How libraries have to try and preserve lots and lots of books for very long periods of time for posterity and preservation because the books and publications are discontinued. But they can't possibly store the original copy of everything so much gets lost to history. What about when textbooks become discontinued and the publishers simply create new textbooks that only change a few things and charge more forcing students to pay more for the same thing. The increased costs makes it more difficult for people to access that information. This absolutely does affect the dissemination of information and the ability of future generations to access important information and the culture of their past. It's a very tragic travesty that we allowed a few corporations to destroy the ability of society to access so much valuable information and culture by undermining the democratic process to get their way. It's not acceptable. That Whatever would support this shows his true character.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When it comes to discontinued works we have a serious problem. No shill around here with a conscience should support the idea that discontinued works should still be protected. We need some meaningful laws that allow discontinued or orphaned works to be in the public domain that resists copy protection holders from selling a few copies to themselves (or a selected person/group) or increasing the prices unreasonably so that almost no one can afford to buy it and claiming that the works are still in circulation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "hat resists copy protection holders from selling a few copies to themselves (or a selected person/group) or increasing the prices unreasonably so that almost no one can afford to buy it and claiming that the works are still in circulation."
        
        Wouldn't that come under "REASON TO BUY", I mean when Trent Reznor did something like this he was applauded around here for it.
        
        B.T.W, it's the second hand market that pushes up the price of discontinued items, and high prices usually reflect the rarity and demand of the item. Believe it or not but there are books and records out their that are known to exist only in single numbers, and all the collectors want them, and a reissue isn't gonna cut the mustard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wouldn't that come under "REASON TO BUY", I mean when Trent Reznor did something like this he was applauded around here for it.
        
        Reznor never did anything like that. Deluxe (physical) editions may have been scarce, but the art itself was always available.
        
        B.T.W, it's the second hand market that pushes up the price of discontinued items
        
        No, it's usually the near-total unavailability of discontinued items that pushes up the price.
        
        Also, reissues may or may not "cut the mustard," but they would at least make the works available again to the general public.
        
        Plus, the vast majority of out-of-print works are not available at any price; the few copies that still exist are not for sale (assuming there are any copies that still exist).
        
        It is certainly possible to put these works back into print, but that requires infringing upon copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 5:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Everything is for sale for the right price.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Says who.
        
        Many people may not even ever be aware that a work ever existed because there is little reference to it elsewhere. If it weren't for copy protection it could be archived for people to search, read, and then reference. Searching for research on something, a book in support of something, or just browsing an archive might return a copy of a specific work.
        
        When there is a very limited supply of something and a demand greater than the limited supply not everyone can access it. If no copies are in circulation then no one can access it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it is the fact that they are still protected that pushes up the price. If 100 people want a copy of the work and only ten copies exist in circulation then access to the work has been denied and censored to the remaining 90. If those works were in the public domain everyone can access them. Copy protection is responsible for their limited supply. To deny this is dishonest and shows me that you have no conscience.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ed Allen, 26 Oct 2015 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem there, of course, is the middleman greed which insists that EVERYTHING must must be kept locked up lest the
        one in a million that becomes popular after its first distribution died out escape their ability to monetize it.
        
        It is this irrational fear that somebody, somewhere, might be able to make money without them getting a big cut that
        keeps the *AA's funding large legal teams.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nina Paley is just an opportunistic fool, she is just forwarding this argument to get publicity from a sympathetic 'internet'. There are many ways she could have sourced affordable/free music, not least collaborating with a song writer. She has deliberately decided to keep banging her head against this wall, to the point where she's prepared to release an inferior film, for the sole reason that this path has generated publicity.
    
    She is not going down as one of the great minds of the early 21st century intellectual property debate. (like Jarrod Lanier)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 5:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      She is not going down as one of the great minds of the early 21st century intellectual property debate. (like Jarrod Lanier)
      
      I hope you're joking. Lanier may have had some good ideas once, but now he's essentially a technophobe. Many people have woken up to the fact that he's been wrong about pretty much everything since 2006.
      
      Some examples (from very different political points of view):
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/05/15/jaron-laniers-who-owns-the-future-what-on-e arth-is-this-guy-talking-about/
      https://c4ss.org/content/29842
      http://readwrite.com/2013/03/13/jaron-l anier-got-everything-wrong
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-owns-the-future-by-jaron-lanie r/2013/05/03/400f8fb0-ab6d-11e2-b6fd-ba6f5f26d70e_print.html
      http://angrylittletree.com/2010/01/colla boration-or-collectivism-joaron-lanier-gets-it-wrong.html
      
      I'm sure you can find more.
      
      In any case, Paley isn't trying to be "one of the great minds of the early 21st century intellectual property debate." She's trying to be an artist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 5:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I meant. like JL, as in neither Np or JL will go down as great minds.
        
        She's trying to be a crying rip-off artist (and succeeding).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I meant. like JL, as in neither Np or JL will go down as great minds.
        
        Fair enough.
        She's trying to be a crying rip-off artist (and succeeding).
        
        She's not "crying," she's coming up with solutions that work for her.
        
        Also, she produced a feature-length film that Roger Ebert rated 4 stars: " I was enchanted. I was swept away. I was smiling from one end of the film to the other. It is astonishingly original. It brings together four entirely separate elements and combines them into a great whimsical chord."
        
        If she is a "rip-off artist," then the world needs more rip-off artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And lets not forget that Hollywood was built on piracy.
        
        Heck, so many characters used are based on ancient Greek and Roman mythology. Copying and building on the works of others is the natural order of things. It's human nature to be embraced and not resisted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm pretty sure none of the Paley haters have actually watched the film. It's enchanting and highly original - and I paid money to see it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point of copy protection laws should not be to hinder your (twisted) definition of 'rip-off' artists. If you don't like her art and consider it rip off art (despite the fact that most works are built on previous works) then no one is forcing you to experience it. But posts like yours are a huge reason that I think copy protection laws should be abolished and this is supposed to be a democracy and so my vote should also count, not just Disney's and the MPAA's because they have enough money to buy politicians. The more you post the more reason you give me to want copy protection laws abolished.
        
        Copy protection laws should only be about the public. Not the artists and not the distributors. They should be about serving the public interest and promoting the progress. Nothing more.
        
        Copy protection laws should be about expanding the public domain and providing us with more works to make derivative works out of. It should encourage more derivative works not discourage it.
        
        So give me one good reason why I should advocate for the continuance of copy protection laws. Because, so far, you are only giving me reasons to hate these laws even more by making them about something other than what I think they should be used for. and, in a democracy, my opinion should also count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 5:37am
  
  Re:
  First of all, this comment should never have been reported and hidden, and I'm a little disappointed the community chose to do so just because of the name of the commenter. Report the comment, not the person making it, in my opinion.
  
  That said, some points of major disagreement:
  
  "A discussion of ideas and concepts doesn't require a perfect digital copy to happen. A perfect example would be this article, without listening to Nina's video, one would still have a very good idea of the content and her point of view, and could discuss them. Is any significant information lost if that video isn't available to me, or is unable to play on my mobile device at the time? The answer is not really as much as she thinks."
  
  It's trivially easy to see how dangerous this line of thought is if we simply up the stakes. Take, let's say, a religious text. Imagine that a religious text is controlled in some way as to make it inaccessible to the wider public. Let's say, for instance, by language. So, you may have adherents to a faith following a book of providence that they cannot ever read. This seems to fir the analogy of this article with the associated video perfectly. What you'd have is the faithful blindly following what few individuals could read the original text and interpreting it for them. That means the faithful are following the interpreters and not the text, and could never check the text against the interpreters even if they wanted to. It's trivially easy to see how dangerous a situation like this is, as we have real-world examples.
  
  Or, if you don't like the religious text analogy, make it a law that nobody can interpret due to the language it is written in. You'd have a public bound by a law that they could not themselves read or understand. It should be easy to see why that is dangerous and/or problematic as well. The point is that having the source text is paramount to understanding and learning. Censoring the source text/video/whatever deprives the public of that understanding, learning or, in the case of art, appreciation. One might argue that there is a larger case for this, but one CANNOT argue that the source material doesn't really matter, as you have above.
  
  "Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur. It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing."
  
  This is obviously not true. Musicians made a living before copyright existed. They made a living before recorded music existed. There are any number of ways for artists to make a living without relying on legal standing. In fact, in the vast majority of transactions that result in an artist making money, the law is never consulted or considered.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed Allen, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyright was put in place as a censorship tool and the publishers were to be the gatekeepers.
    
    When the Statute of Anne expired the publishers lobbied to have Copyrights start with authors but only be executed
    through a liscensed and approved publisher.
    
    All subsequent debates have trotted out this same lie but the only ones benefitting from preventing copies are the middlemen.
    
    Originally there was a limit below which courts would dismiss infringement suits so individuals were never
    in danger of charges but commercial copying for profit could
    be shut down.
    
    Current holders have borked that up by insisting that a single copy counts as $150000.00 so every copy is another
    potential lawsuit.
    
    Meanwhile technology has made copying trivial so that:
    
    scp /home/eallen/Sita.avi friend@machine.somewhere.com:Sita.avi
    
    has become a felony if the file has the wrong origin.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When the Statute of Anne expired the publishers lobbied to have Copyrights start with authors but only be executed
      through a liscensed and approved publisher.
      
      Close, but not quite.
      
      The Stationers' monopoly was what expired, not the Statute of Anne.
      
      Otherwise, you're right. The Statute of Anne was the precursor to modern copyright. It did grant a post-publication to authors.
      
      ...And then, explicitly stated through statute that the only people who would be allowed to manage that post-publication monopoly would be the Stationers company.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 6:35am

"they were all dead" :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 8:20am

Copyright's Original Purpose
Originally copyright was used a form of censorship in early modern Europe by the state. It has morphed into a state sponsored monopoly for the copyright holders. Both are wrong.

A subsidiary issue to legacy media's problems is the fragmentation that is occurring with people going on line for their content. There is no technical reason why one living the US or Canada can not view content from a Romanian, Japanese, etc. website and the reverse is also true. The is a serious loss of control of the distribution channel. Once they lose control of the distribution channel the legacy media has serious problems with making their obscene profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 24 Oct 2015 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re: Copyright's Original Purpose
  ... It's still being used for censorship.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Wing, 24 Oct 2015 @ 9:52am

I heart Nina Paley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 1:01pm

Abolish Copyright
The brain you save may be your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 24 Oct 2015 @ 3:21pm

To quote an old commercial, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." So is our culture, but that's all that parasitic middlemen want to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2015 @ 5:32pm

Skynet
It wasn't me! The robots did all by themselves!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x13ljmw_robots-playing-motorhead-s-ace-of-spades_music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:13am

"Make Art Not Law" Are you listening "CHER" ? The line of people waiting to relieve themselves on your resting place is growing. As you will probably outlive me I hope you can do something about the nightmare you and yours had a part in creating, soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tp, 25 Oct 2015 @ 3:51pm

Kinda sad video...
Very sad video. She has already quit trying to follow the rules, and instead thinks that there isn't any reason for the rules to exists. Works of art are not supposed to be reproduced endlessly, otherwise our culture is reduced to few billion copies of star wars, and no other works of art would exist. If she has problems getting her art published, she just needs to work harder, not turn to the dark side. Dark side is the tendency for criminals to ignore the rules of the law, invent their custom system, and cause huge amount of damage. Art needs to disappear eventually, to give way for new artists to get their products to the market. Only way to do that, is if everyone followed the copyright rules, and stop distributing illegal works. Once that happens, market will be full of gaps in art distribution, and new artists can utilize those gaps to get their products to the market. Publishing contracts will require that author do not use other channels for distributing the work, and once publisher stops distributing it, the work will disappear from the public, giving free slots for the next artist...

Now creating new work takes effort. Artists have tendency to use shortcuts to cut down the time required. One such shortcut is copy-pasting someone elses work as part of the new work. This shortcut is called copyright infringement. If everyone just used that shortcut, again no new art would be created, you'd see the same works of art endlessly being circulated on the internet. Popular works would get replicated thousands of times. Soon you can't find any new content, but only copies of the popular works. Now artists might be complaining that they can't get full product done, since they're specializing only one part of the process. They should be creating groups of artists, instead of doing copyright infringement. If you can't do all work alone, create a group.

See, there is solutions to all these problems. She doesn't need to supress her artistic talents to follow the copyright, instead she should just work harder, stop peeking into works created by other people, and create some new content. Mixing and matching already successful products is not the right solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  stop peeking into works created by other people, and create some new content
  
  1) Unless someone lives in total isolation, they cannot but help experiencing the works created by others.
  2) All new content that has meaning is built off of the work of others, starting with language, music conventions, drawing conventions, cinematic conventions etc. If content was completely new, starting with language etc. A totally original work, with no use of or references to existing languages or conventions etc. would have no meaning to anybody other than the creator.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 5:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
    That's the obtuse meaning of 'original' that doesn't apply here. This is about cutting and pasting whole songs into a new work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 7:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      And if all she was doing was releasing songs, that might be a good point. As it is though, the music is for setting the mood with music that people are familiar with and recognize, the real bulk of what she creates is absolutely original, unless you're of the opinion that anything created that is based off of or built upon by the work of what came before isn't 'original', in which case you'd better be calling out vast amounts of 'professional' film and music out as unoriginal too if you want to be consistent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tp, 25 Oct 2015 @ 7:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > And if all she was doing was releasing songs, that might be a good point. ... the real bulk of what she creates is absolutely original
        
        This is true. But she should leave her work incomplete, if she is not going to create music herself. This way authors of music knows who needs music, and if someone has good music available, they can create a team.
        
        Who says that the products available need to have music? Incomplete product is better than stuff that has half of it ripped from some popular product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        This is true. But she should leave her work incomplete, if she is not going to create music herself. This way authors of music knows who needs music, and if someone has good music available, they can create a team.
        
        In fact one of the versions she plans on releasing is based upon that very idea. For that version, she plans on gutting anything related to copyright, songs, perhaps even sound effects, to show people what something like that would look like. 'This is what this would be like if you took away all the parts that have been created by others, and just left what I made' basically. What it would look like if you ignored the very core of how culture spreads and grows, that of building upon, and incorporating what came before, and used just what you made.
        
        As for the second half, that would defeat the very reason for the specific songs that she chose. She's not just pulling them out of a hat, she's picking certain songs not for just what they say, but for what's associated with them. Songs that people know are more than just the music on it's own, they also bring associated memories and feelings, and that's why she includes songs that people are familiar with in her works, to add those associated bits to the creation.
        
        Who says that the products available need to have music? Incomplete product is better than stuff that has half of it ripped from some popular product.
        
        When you watch tv and/or movies, do you mute them and turn on the subtitles? A lot of them use songs and ideas from other products after all, certainly they'd be better off standing on their own, would they not? In fact with that mindset, I can only imagine that you don't care for a great many of the movies that have come out, given how many of them are based upon stuff 'ripped from some popular product'. From books, to other movies, a whole lot of them are just re-hashes of what's come before, so clearly they'd be better off just leaving that stuff out, even if there's nothing left to show.
        
        She uses music because music adds depth. Music helps set the tone, evoke emotion, and in the case of familiar music, brings the associated emotions and memories involved with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "But she should leave her work incomplete, if she is not going to create music herself. This way authors of music knows who needs music, and if someone has good music available, they can create a team."
        
        This is not why copy protection laws should exist. The more you post the more you convince me that copy protection laws should be abolished.
        
        Copy protection laws should be about expanding the public domain, serving a public interest, and giving us more works that we can freely build upon. To make it into creating this twisted world of yours is reason I think these laws should be abolished.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 7:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      This is about cutting and pasting whole songs into a new work.
      
      You said it, she created a new work.
      The question is where on the continuum from shared language to use of pre-exiting works in new works do you draw the line that defines creativity?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  Amen. It seems to me that she wants to make pretty animations but doesn't have any ideas for an original story, and so she goes to popular songs from the past and makes music videos.
  You can see her lack of ideas in those stupid cartoons that she used to publish here. As I said above, she's chosen this path as it gets her publicity, I mean she got a ted talk out of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 9:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...Not so boyo.
    It seems to me that she wants to make pretty animations but doesn't have any ideas for an original story, and so she goes to popular songs from the past and makes music videos.
    You have got to be kidding. Seriously, the last scene she showed from her upcoming film, using the chosen music and the animation told a story that would have been difficult to tell in such a poignant way in another medium. 3000 years of history told in the space of one simple song.
    
    Truly powerful. I talked to my wife about it and suggested she see that part of the talk.
    
    I would like to see if you could even achieve a minor part of what she managed to do. I'm not a fan of such but that extract struck a deep cord and I am going to be sharing it with some middle eastern friends to get their reaction as well.
    
    I'm now encouraged to see her other work "Sita sings the Blues".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  See, there is solutions to all these problems. She doesn't need to supress her artistic talents to follow the copyright, instead she should just work harder, stop peeking into works created by other people, and create some new content. Mixing and matching already successful products is not the right solution.
  
  I'm curious, do you apply that same standard to the dreck thrown out by Hollywood, or just independent creators like Nina? After all, whole bunches of their stuff is either based off of the works someone else did(pretty much Disney's entire early catalog was based upon stories other people wrote), a re-hash of a re-hash(How many 'Spiderman' films are we up to now?), or something similar.
  
  So does the 'stop building off of and/or incorporating other successful works to build yours'(otherwise known as 'how culture grows') standard apply to everyone, or only the little people?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tp, 25 Oct 2015 @ 7:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
    > do you apply that same standard to the dreck thrown out by Hollywood, or just independent creators like Nina?
    
    The dividing line is somewhere between what is your existing "experience" in creating products(which is ok), and between explicit copying of the work(which is not ok). Each author basically need to decide this question. For bigger organisations, the line is where the organisation can understand their own product -- they need to have a responsible person for every part of their product, or a subcontracting contract with the people responsible.
    
    It is true that every product has some aspects learned from previous products, half the animations on the planet are coming from mickey mouse animations in early 1900's.. But the dividing aspect of this is whether your product combines aspects from large number of products, or if it directly copies single product. Copying one word from every book in a library is better than copying all of a single book. If you can count the number of sources you have, it better be large number.
    
    But of course, the video in question seemed to include someone elses work without asking for permission and by including the whole work inside another work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 25 Oct 2015 @ 9:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      Right, let me simplify, using one of the examples I noted above. Was Disney, using the stories from others, not changing anything significant, and using the entire story, and simply 'animating' the story(written by someone else remember), an exercise of creativity, or was it merely an act of using someone else's work for their own gain?
      
      If Nina using a song, even an entire song, to add to her work is something you object to, is Disney's use of entire stories also something you object to, or is that acceptable?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tp, 25 Oct 2015 @ 9:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > using the entire story, and simply 'animating' the story
        
        well, using entire stories can be very bad, if it's considerable chunk of the work amount. Remember that copyright restrictions already begin in the copying of very small pieces of text from within whole novel. It's already copyright violation(though pretty minor), if you copy 1 sentence of a novel. So authors need to be all the time careful about where the information in their product comes from. This is constant process that authors need to do to conform the copyright restrictions. But real problems begin when you have significant amount of work copied from someone elses product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 10:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "It's already copyright violation(though pretty minor), if you copy 1 sentence of a novel."
        
        With this level of ignorance we really don't need your opinion on copy protection laws.
        
        Aside from that you completely missed the point and failed to answer the question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2015 @ 11:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        It's ironic how this thread references brain damage and we have this pro IP shill demonstrating how brain dead he is with his opinion on copy protection laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Yup, it's kinda ironic, how there's some kind of huge battle between pro IP people and the rest of the world. Also different rules must obviously apply to the different groups of people. Those ideas must be coming from some tv series, or reality shows. Those very same ideas are being pushed by big companies to the minds of ordinary people. Next week NSA is spying and governments are all evil... But no, it's like brain damage.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        So is there a point you're trying to make, or did your brain cross a wire while attempting to force your way into another convoluted backtrack?
        
        Disney used public domain material, all the time, and continues to do so. Yet you think this is perfectly fine and does not merit any criticism, despite - in your own words - claiming that "It's already copyright violation(though pretty minor), if you copy 1 sentence of a novel."
        
        On the other hand, all Paley has done is animate her own story and request to use someone else's music, and you think that warrants you shitting on her and anyone else who disagrees with you.
        
        You're either brain damaged or drunk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > you think that warrants you shitting on her and anyone else who disagrees with you.
        
        Yes, if you refuse to obtain permission before publishing your product, you deserve all the shitting you'll receive...
        
        She said like 3 times on different parts of her presentation that she didnt bother to obtain permission, and she just uses the stuff anyway -- without permission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        So Disney violated copyright according to your own definition, and that's fine?
        
        The brain damage is strong in this one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > So Disney violated copyright
        
        I cant comment on that, since there isnt any facts available indicating such problems...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        No facts, eh? So Disney's copying of elements from stories like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. for their animated versions is "isnt any facts available indicating such problems" - despite you insisting that doing so counts as "violating copyright".
        
        Yep, you're not only brain damaged, but you're shilling for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc.
        
        who you think is the copyright owner of such stories? They kinda sound like the stories are old enough for copyright to be expired...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Copyright expiration has not been an issue for people who demand money.
        
        https://torrentfreak.com/charity-forced-to-pay-copyright-police-so-kids-can-sing-071209/
        
        And it wasn't that long ago that Warner demanded money for singing Happy Birthday. (So if you've ever sung Happy Birthday at a party - congratulations, you infringed copyright!)
        
        So, once again - you see no problem with overlooking Disney's copyright violations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > has not been an issue for people who demand money.
        
        If there exists people demanding money for no reason, it's still not good enough reason to ignore the rules...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        So in your own terms, even using a slight portion of someone else's work - as long as someone is or may demand money for it - is a copyright violation, and regardless of the reason, you can't ignore the rules.
        
        Therefore by your own definitions, Disney violated copyright - so how is it you have chosen to ignore your own rules and not criticize their copyright violation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        I don't ignore my own rules. I just don't know enough of what disney may have done or what they're doing.
        
        Maybe they have enough money that they don't care about small fish like $200000 euro fines :)
        
        Or if they have the money, they can probably get a license for the stories; with their money. It's only if they fail to do it that copyright protections are invoked. You didn't consider that they might have a license for the stories?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        So if you have enough money you can violate copyright. That's your argument? And you wonder why you're called a shill. Never mind the whole debacle of Lion King copying off Kimba the White Lion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > So if you have enough money you can violate copyright.
        
        VW just moved some billions of euros to different account simply because someone found out about their emissions solution. With significant amount of money, you can do more significant stuff. It just costs money if someone finds out about it. If noone complains, its a free pass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        So what you're saying is that it's only wrong if you get caught. That's the mentality of copy protection defenders?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        In that case I should just freely infringe at will since it's only wrong if I get caught and I probably won't.
        
        Unless you mean it's only wrong if you get caught and can afford to pay the damages. Another brain dead mentality coming from IP defenders.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        err ... it's only acceptable if you don't get caught and can afford to pay the damages in case you do get caught *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Dude, you're wasting time arguing with a sad little sockpuppet who cocksucks corporations. My guess is he's Slonecker posting under a pathetic pseudonym.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "who you think is the copyright owner of such stories? They kinda sound like the stories are old enough for copyright to be expired..."
        
        Which is besides the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 6:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        I cant comment on that, since there isnt any facts available indicating such problems...
        
        Okay. Disney's very first film, which introduced the world to Mickey Mouse was "Steamboat Willie" and it was a cartoon copy of a movie that came out the previous year called Steamboat Bill Jr.
        
        And Mickey Mouse himself was a copy of a toy from the Performo-Toy company called Micky.
        
        Was that okay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        The purpose of copy protection laws should be about expanding the public domain and expanding the amount of works available to freely make derivatives from. They should not be about punishing those that copy. They should be about encouraging it. I want artists to be able to freely copy off each other and build upon each others works. I think that's a good thing. This is supposed to be a democracy. My vote should count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > he purpose of copy protection laws should be about expanding the public domain and expanding the amount of works available to freely make derivatives from.
        
        Why is it that anti-IP people like you seem to always choose the most popular works that already enjoy enough popularity as their target of what to "copy". Maybe the author of the work is already sick and tired of the popularity generated by his mistake in the 1980's to star in some well known movie? You didn't ask them if they actually want the popularity to continue, before you republished the work in a pirate site?
        
        Also shouldnt the less popular works also enjoy the spotlight. Now there's thousands of works of art that never got popular, but one poor soul that got millions of hits, and his life ruined by the popularity. And then you refuse to even ask his permission if he want more of the popularity... You should look if you can share the load better, and distribute the popularity to more works...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Wtf are you talking about?
        
        Slow down and try to spell out your argument a little more clearly, because this comment is inscrutable nonsense, and I can't even tell what your point is supposed to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        There's well known fallacy among people who don't like strong IP protections:
        "more popularity" == "better".
        
        What would happen if this assumption wasn't true for some of the authors?
        
        There could be many reasons why authors refuse to give permission to copy their work. One of them is that they don't want more popularity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        There's well known fallacy among people who don't like strong IP protections:
        "more popularity" == "better".
        
        There is? Because I've never heard it. Yes, popular acclaim of a work is something that we put forth to demonstrate that the work has value, and that people would be deprived if it was blocked off, but I've never heard anyone claim that more popularity equals better art. For one thing, there are multiple factors in popularity, such as entertainment value (which is related to but distinct from artistic value). More importantly, what does that have to do with anything?
        
        There could be many reasons why authors refuse to give permission to copy their work. One of them is that they don't want more popularity.
        
        And why, praytell, should they have that right? They of course have the right to not release their work at all - which is an excellent strategy if you don't want it to be popular. But once they've released it, they have no natural control over it whatsoever, and why should they?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > And why, praytell, should they have that right? But once they've released it, they have no natural control over it whatsoever, and why should they?
        
        The author created the work. Spent years and years of time to tweak the details to get it good enough quality. Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next. But no, end users tend to stick with the old product and never buy the new one, simply because the old crappy product is widely available and your new product is still ramping up. Author's business requires that they have the control over who distributes it and in which geographic area, under what conditions are old products removed from the marketplace. Authors deserve this right to control the lifetime of the product, simply because they spent the time to create the product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product
        
        No, it's not. It is not in any way natural. There is no physical property of the universe or biological property of human beings that even makes it possible. Information is not a physical thing, and once it exists there is no way to prevent its replication — except by the creation of artificial strictures such as copyright, which require the consensus of the rest of the world outside the creator. The time spent creating the work has absolutely no bearing in this equation. Nor does it even going in the opposite direction in the world of copyright: the copyright on a drawing made in 5 minutes is just as strong as the copyright on a novel written over 10 years — are you arguing that should be different?
        
        You are using the word "natural" but what you actually mean is "my personal subjective moral assessment of the situation, and the assumptions I'm used to based on very recent and young artistic business models that happened to exist in the era I was born".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Authors deserve this right to control the lifetime of the product, simply because they spent the time to create the product.
        
        Does "tp" stand for "Karl Marx"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next."
        
        No, nature exists outside of government. It's a government privilege and not a natural right. and the privilege should only be about serving the public. It should not be about allowing artists to limit their works. Your posts convince me more and more that copy protection laws should be abolished. This is supposed to be a democracy. My vote should count. Convince me that these laws should exist. Convince me that copy protection privileges should exist. Convince me that the government should offer such privileges that no one is entitled to receive from government. It is something the government, that is we the people, offers and a service that you are not entitled to receive from us and so far the only thing you have done is convince me that we should no longer provide this optional service.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > It should not be about allowing artists to limit their works.
        
        This position of yours is completely bogus. Authors need this right to limit their works. Consider situation where supporting the user base has some cost attached to the author, maybe they keep calling your support line for help with installing it to their computers. Or some other cost.
        
        Authors need other kind of protection too. Even one disgruntled customer can send enough messages to your support line that it prevents it from functioning properly. Frontline customer support personell need to deal with people proportional to the user base size. Large user base means huge costs to the author. If all the users didn't compensate the author, the author loses money, but never receives it from the sales of the product.
        
        Limiting the user base is essential feature of copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Authors need this right to limit their works."
        
        I need a million dollars too. The government should just give me it.
        
        Don't confuse 'want' with 'need'.
        
        "Consider situation where supporting the user base has some cost attached to the author, maybe they keep calling your support line for help with installing it to their computers. Or some other cost."
        
        What? You're not being coherent.
        
        If there is such a huge need for such 'help' the support line can charge for providing support separately and refuse to support those that don't pay.
        
        "Authors need other kind of protection too."
        
        I need a million dollars.
        
        "Even one disgruntled customer can send enough messages to your support line that it prevents it from functioning properly."
        
        Which has exactly what to do with copy protection laws?
        
        "If all the users didn't compensate the author, the author loses money, but never receives it from the sales of the product."
        
        Charge to provide support. This has little to do with copy protection laws and more to do with a coming up with a business model.
        
        "Limiting the user base is essential feature of copyright."
        
        It's not a feature it's a bug to be eliminated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Consider situation where supporting the user base has some cost attached to the author, maybe they keep calling your support line for help with installing it to their computers.
        
        You are confusing copyright with a possible follow on service. Copyright is not needed to limit support to people who pay for support. Indeed, that is the Red Hat business model, release all your software under an open source license, and charge people for support. Indeed this works so well that Red Hat supports both Fedora and Centos, by providing infra-structure and direct assistance to their development teams.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > you are confusing copyright with a possible follow on service. Copyright is not needed to limit support to people who pay for support. Indeed, that is the Red Hat business model,
        
        Copyright need to work with any kind of company, not just redhat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Your example is an example of where copy protection laws are not needed. Yet you purport to support copy protections. I can't tell if your posts are sarcasm or serious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Copyright need to work with any kind of company, not just redhat.
        
        There is no version of this where a company is somehow forced to give free service to people because it doesn't have copyright. That's just stupid. There's no connection. What are you even talking about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > You are confusing copyright with a possible follow on service. Copyright is not needed to limit support to people who pay for support.
        > There is no version of this where a company is somehow forced to give free service to people because it doesn't have copyright.
        
        The copyright is related to the size of the userbase. Copyright limits your userbase size to only paying customers, and other people are not part of the userbase.
        
        Basically there's one-to-one mapping between sales volume and user base. Piracy breaks this mapping, because it lets users that are not paying customers to use the product and services. Seeking for permission is the essential feature for making money change hands. Once you exchanged some money with the product, you have permission to use the product, and can be confident that the company can do their job in the future too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Band hardly make any of their profits from copy protection laws (ie: royalties). They have almost always made most of their money from other activities like concerts. A larger user base = more opportunity to make money. They don't lose money from infringement and neither does it cost them anything.
        
        The purpose of copy protection laws should not be to prevent non-paying customers from benefiting from works or to limit the user base to only paying customers. The exact opposite. It should be to expand the public domain so that we have more access to more free works. Posts like yours are reasons I'm convinced IP laws should be abolished altogether.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next.
        
        You are looking for rights that copyright has never provided. For example, you could stop publishing and selling your dead-tree book anytime you desire, but that will not stop secondhand bookstores from reselling your book or stop libraries from lending out your book and it most certainly wouldn't stop people from reading the copies that already exist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2015 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next."
        
        and if it's so natural that they would be in control of their works for their entire lifetime then why wouldn't it be just as natural that they not be able to sign over their works?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2015 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next."
        
        So then you disagree with authors being able to transfer their works right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Maybe the author of the work is already sick and tired of the popularity generated by his mistake in the 1980's to star in some well known movie? You didn't ask them if they actually want the popularity to continue, before you republished the work in a pirate site? "
        
        The purpose of copy protection laws should not be to prevent an artist who is sick and tired of their works from being popularized from having their works popularized. It should not be about the artist. They have no right to have the government tell us how their works should be distributed. It should be to encourage the dissemination of works and expand the public domain and encourage derivative works. Just because an artist doesn't like the fact that their works are being reused doesn't mean it should be law to prevent it.
        
        Again, you keep giving me more reason to want copy protection laws abolished.
        
        "Also shouldnt the less popular works also enjoy the spotlight. Now there's thousands of works of art that never got popular, but one poor soul that got millions of hits, and his life ruined by the popularity. And then you refuse to even ask his permission if he want more of the popularity... You should look if you can share the load better, and distribute the popularity to more works..."
        
        Again, none of this should be of concern to copy protection laws. The extent that you think 'less popular works' deserve more popularity should have nothing to do with law. That has to do with your choices of what works you wish to purchase and fund. Not law. My opinion may differ. You have no right to use law to impose your opinion on me.
        
        and copy protection laws should not be about the artist. They should be about the public only. Trying to change that is reason I want these laws abolished. I do not want laws to exist for the purpose of ensuring that one asks permission for someone else to receive more popularity. This should not be the intent of copy protection laws. If you want to ask permission that's your choice. Keep giving me more reason I think copy protection laws should be abolished.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2015 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Maybe the author of the work is already sick and tired of the popularity generated by his mistake in the 1980's to star in some well known movie? You didn't ask them if they actually want the popularity to continue, before you republished the work in a pirate site? "
        
        You don't care at all about the author and the extent that they are sick and tired of a work they released two decades ago still being in circulation and them being harassed by it. This is rather easy to prove. If you are so concerned about the author being berated over works they created two decades ago you should then be against artists being able to sign over or sell their works over to someone else. Because once those works are sold or signed over then the author has no more control over what happens to those works (even though there are some exceptions that allow authors to reclaim some works after a given period of time). My guess, you would not be in favor of authors not being able to transfer their works. You are against it. Why? Because you take the position in favor of the distributor because you don't care at all about the author and you consistently take the position in the best interests of the distributor. No one is fooled. Everyone sees right through your charade.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2015 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Furthermore I would argue that a ten times more likely, bigger, regret that authors face is that they mistakenly signed over the ability to control their works over to a record label back when they were young and naive. Now they have no more control over their works years later. A pity. Do you have any sympathy for those mistaken artists whatsoever? Should they be able to reclaim their works a decade later so they can choose if they want to either freely release or sell their works solo and then maybe freely release them later? Of course not. Your concern is not for the artists whatsoever. Only for the distributors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 28 Oct 2015 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > works they created two decades ago you should then be against artists being able to sign over or sell their works over to someone else.
        
        Distributors are getting a _license_, not a copyright assignment. You have to be fucking stupid if you give away your copyright of the work. The distributors still need permission, and if author is not happy with the distributor's contract, you just send them letter to remove the permission, and then you find another distributor. Even the most trusted persons on the planet will get rejected whenever they ask for copyright assignments. I wouldnt sell copyright to my mom, even though I trust her.
        
        > the author has no more control over what happens to those works
        
        Author can at any time remove his permission to distribute the work. And refuse to give out new permissions. (usually the contract even requires authors to refuse new permissions -- it's called exclusive licensing)
        
        The real problem is that large user base can be significant burden. This is why large companies have thousands of customer-facing people handling the volume. Small team that suddenly becomes amazingly popular is in very big trouble, because they can't handle their user base. Also if you've been successful for longer time, you might want to cut down your customer personnel -- but making your user base smaller before that is necessary. Copyright laws knows about this problem, and their solution is that you get moeny from every customer you have, so that you can build large enough organisation to handle the user base size. Long term survival of the companies depends on their ability to control how their customers use the products.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 28 Oct 2015 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Can you provide a real-world example of this whole "customer service" argument that you keep pushing? Because it sounds to me like nonsense. Scratch that, it is nonsense. I can't think of a single situation that relates to what you're saying, or any meaningful way in which copyright would effect it. Give it up, it's a terrible argument and it's not convincing anyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 28 Oct 2015 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > Can you provide a real-world example of this whole "customer service" argument that you keep pushing?
        
        Is it difficult to understand that if you have 1 million customers, you need bigger organisation to handle their needs than if you have 2 customers?
        
        To me it sounds very logical.
        
        Copyright is what makes it possible to keep that bigger organisation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 28 Oct 2015 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Copyright is what makes it possible to keep that bigger organisation.
        
        That isn't, nor has ever, been a reason for the existence of copyright.
        
        Also, there is absolutely no requirement, legally, ethically or otherwise to provide customer support for someone who hasn't legally purchased your product.
        
        If you have 1 million customers who paid for your product and 10 million who pirated it, you still only have the 1 million paid customers to worry about providing customer support for. Your whole argument seems to be based on a false premise that you would have to provide customer support for non-customers. That's a silly argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        tp, 28 Oct 2015 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        > If you have 1 million customers who paid for your product and 10 million who pirated it, you still only have the 1 million paid customers to worry about providing customer support for. Your whole argument seems to be based on a false premise that you would have to provide customer support for non-customers. That's a silly argument.
        
        This is not at all silly argument. Would you rather that companies spent their time tweaking systems that tracked the customer's purchase history, or that the companies would focus on their actual job, i.e. providing the actual content. If you have 10 million non-paying customers, the company have to spend half of their 1 million euros that they extract from their customers to tracking who actually paid for the content, and who is freeriding... Companies already have to spend too much on DRM's and other customer tracking technologies, instead of focusing their actual job. 10 million pirated copies is what causes these market failures. 10 million people user base is significantly more burdensome to handle than 1 million people user base.
        
        Pirates seem to complain when companies build DRM systems, but they don't seem to understand why those systems are needed. Those systems are needed so that the company can service 1 million people user base instead of that awful 10 million people user base.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 28 Oct 2015 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        You are making so little sense that at this point I'm almost certain you're trolling. Well done, you got us. I actually thought you were serious for a while.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        It's probably sarcasm. Or maybe it's plausible deniability ;)
        
        He's partly serious but partly so ludicrous that if he's caught in a factual mistake, an inconsistency, a lie, or a logical fallacy he can make us think that maybe he's being sarcastic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 28 Oct 2015 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Copyright laws knows about this problem...
        
        Ummm....WTF are you talking about here?
        
        Please enlighten us as to what "user base" would cause customer service problems when copyright was first enacted in the US. Dead-tree book purchasers? Dead-tree map purchasers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "Distributors are getting a _license_, not a copyright assignment."
        
        Now you're just making things up.
        
        "Labels typically own the copyright in the records their artists make, and also the master copies of those records."
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_contract
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        In the case of Youtube yes the 'distributor' (Youtube) is simply getting a license to distribute the works. In those situations yes they can remove the works at will. But in the case of movies, music, publishing, it's usually the company they work for that's getting the works transferred to them entirely. Actors, for instance, don't get to decide that a movie they were in can be later discontinued even if they later decided that being in that movie was a mistake for them. The same IP extremists that claim that artists should control their art for life because it's natural for them to want control of their art for life and perhaps those artists will later regret a work they released in the past will vehemently defend the ability of an artist to transfer their works and lose all control of them. They have no sympathy for the artist that transferred their works and later regret that they did. If their claim is that they care so much for the artists then they are hypocrites. If their claim is that they care only for the distributors then their position makes a lot more sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        and what about the regretful artist that transfers a work and the distributor discontinues it and now the artist is left in the cold not being able to do anything with their own works. Do the shills around here care at all about that regretful artist? Or will the shills simply say that the artist made a decision/agreement and have no right to change their mind afterwards? Well, the same is true for the artist that publicly released a work. They made the decision of releasing that work voluntarily and they have no right to then decide they no longer want anyone freely copying and redistributing it. But the shills around here only feel sympathetic to the artist when it's convenient to the distributor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 4:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        But real problems begin when you have significant amount of work copied from someone elses product.
        
        You don't get more significant than the entire plot, world and characters from a story, so in other words Disney and other Hollywood studios need to 'work harder, stop peeking into works created by other people, and create some new content.'
        
        Really, was that so hard to say?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Looking back up, he's basically wasted someone else's time arguing that Disney is allowed to do it, and he's entitled to sling mud at anyone else who does it.
        
        They keep churning out these brain-damaged shills somehow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      You seem to think that copyright is an innate facet of humanity, whereas art is some arbitrary thing we invented. You seem to take it as a given that copyright is immutable and correct, and the first concern of artists should be to contort their art to fit its almighty guidelines.
      
      Dude, your entire universe is backwards. The exact opposite is true. Art is fundamental, copyright is an option. If an amazing piece of art that lots of people enjoy and are moved by is in violation of copyright, that's evidence that copyright has failed, not that the art has.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        If an amazing piece of art that lots of people enjoy and are moved by is in violation of copyright, that's evidence that copyright has failed, not that the art has.
        
        That would mean I could just rip off Beatles songs all day long- as long as "lots of people enjoy and are moved by" it.
        
        You didn't think that through, did you? Like, at all?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "That would mean I could just rip off Beatles songs all day long- as long as "lots of people enjoy and are moved by" it."
        
        Why not? Copy protection laws should not be to prevent people from copying songs all they wish just because you personally find something wrong with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        That would mean I could just rip off Beatles songs all day long- as long as "lots of people enjoy and are moved by" it.
        
        Sure! More power to you. Many cover bands have had happy, long careers as local performers doing exactly that. Of course, the number of venues able/willing to accommodate such bands has been shrinking as the copyright collection societies have have been boosting their fees by hundreds or thousands of per cent... Hurray, another victory for copyright!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Cover bands? Nice deflection, but what we're talking about is someone ripping off the Beatles and selling recorded versions for profit. You're saying as long as the masses are ok with that, then tough shit for the Beatles.
        
        Like I said, you didn't think that through. Or you're just another sociopath here...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Cover bands? Nice deflection, but what we're talking about is someone ripping off the Beatles and selling recorded versions for profit. You're saying as long as the masses are ok with that, then tough shit for the Beatles.
        
        You brought it up dude. I turned it into a realistic example of something that actually happens - you, meanwhile, only have absurd hypotheticals to support your argument.
        
        Believe me, it's very clear I've thought this through far more than you, because you just get angry and stop thinking immediately. To answer your question in your silly hypothetical: yup, I have no problem with that, and "tough shit" (not actually that tough or shitty) for the Beatles.
        
        It's not sociopathic, it's a different and much more nuanced understanding of how culture works and has worked for centuries than you seem capable of grasping. And it's a view that will inevitably triumph - that already does, as unflagging piracy and sharing demonstrates - despite all your whining and flailing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2015 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        He's the sociopath because
        
        1: He believes that only his opinion counts. No one else's. We can't discuss the matter and disagree with him because that makes us all sociopaths. Democracy is not important. Only his opinion. He thinks so highly of himself and his opinion over the opinions of others because he says so and that's the final word. No one is allowed to have a contradictory opinion and no one is allowed to democratically contribute to what they think the laws should be. This is typical of sociopathic IP extremists who resort to buying politicians and secretive meetings with regulators to get their way.
        
        2: He claims that he is doing so for the artists but he doesn't care at all about the artists. Only the distributors. Artists have hardly made any money through royalties and IP, mostly through other activities. It's mostly the distributors that make money through IP laws and they are the ones mostly lobbying for these laws. Not artists. These laws don't help artists much. They help distributors and are intended for them. Yet this person, and IP extremists in general, is so selfish and dishonest that he is willing to use artists as the poster child for his own selfish agenda. I find it insulting. Why not just be honest about it and admit that this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with the artists, it has nothing to do with content quality or the public, and it has everything to do with the distributors. He knows it and no one is fooled. and he knows his dishonesty is morally wrong yet he continues his dishonesty. He doesn't care about honesty or morals. Only himself and he is willing to lie and cheat to get his way. A sociopath indeed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        While your posts are mostly incoherent and it's difficult to understand what you mean don't confuse copy protection with plagiarism. Being against copy protection law or abuse and being against plagiarism are not mutually exclusive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      "But the dividing aspect of this is whether your product combines aspects from large number of products, or if it directly copies single product. Copying one word from every book in a library is better than copying all of a single book. If you can count the number of sources you have, it better be large number. "
      
      That's your individual opinion of how you think art should be made and derived. You can choose which art you wish to consume based on that opinion. You can choose how to produce art based on that opinion. My opinion disagrees with yours. You shouldn't be allowed to use law to force your arbitrary opinion on others. Laws should not exist with the intent of limiting the extent that works are your definition of original, the extent that works are derived from one source, vs the extent that works are derived from multiple sources. Art should be a thing that people are freely allowed to build upon as they see fit. You have your criteria and standards of what you consider should be acceptable art. You can enforce that based on your decisions of what you purchase and based on the art that you create. But you shouldn't use laws to force your arbitrary standards on others. That's not acceptable and I find it unethical. Copy protection laws should not be about forcing your standards onto others. They should only be about promoting the public interest and expanding the public domain. Posts like yours give me more reason to want copy protection laws abolished. Give me a reason to want them to continue because so far the only thing you have given me are reasons to want it abolished.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 2:04am
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  Mixing and matching already successful products is not the right solution.
  
  As a programmer I disagree violently with that, as without the ability to mix and match the work of others as the foundation of a new programme, software would still be stuck in the dark ages of programming on the raw iron. Mix and match has been part of programming since the start, and pre-dates the existence of operating systems and system libraries.
  The same building on the works of others underpins all advances of human culture, and the same mixing and matching is how you build up statements in your comments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  "Mixing and matching already successful products is not the right solution."
  
  Copy protection laws should not be about preventing people from building upon the success of others. It should, in fact, encourage it. That's my opinion. This is supposed to be a democracy. My opinion, and not just Disney's, should count. After all, Hollywood was built on piracy. One of the things that makes humans successful as a species is our ability to copy the successes of others. That's the very basis of education, to learn from the successes of past researches and scientists. Laws should encourage, not discourage, this.
  
  So, try again. Give me a reason I should believe that copy protection laws should continue. Because comments like these are reasons I think it should be abolished. Comments that try to make copy protection about hindering mixing and matching and impose your arbitrary standards onto others because I see nothing wrong with mixing and matching even if you disagree. You are free to impose your arbitrary standards onto yourself. You can do so by choosing what works you wish to purchase and which works you don't wish to purchase. You can do so by choosing how you wish to create works. You have absolutely no right to impose your arbitrary standards on others and it's arrogant of you to think that those arbitrary standards of yours are somehow better than the standards of others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
    And you have no right to tell me how my work can be used.
    
    The laws you live under have decreed such.
    
    Thank god they protect me from worthless, sociopathic douchebags like yourself.
    
    Have a nice day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      "And you have no right to tell me how my work can be used."
      
      Neither do you.
      
      "The laws you live under have decreed such."
      
      I think the point of this discussion is to discuss whether the (corporate bought) laws are acceptable or should be changed. They're not to assert that the laws are OK because that's the law. Again, this is supposed to be a democracy and so we are having a democratic discussion. Your assertion that the law decreed is the law because that's what's decreed and that's just the way it is is not the voice of someone concerned for democracy.
      
      "Thank god they protect me from worthless, sociopathic douchebags like yourself."
      
      Yes, because anyone that disagrees with your personal moral convictions are somehow morally inferior. The arrogance.
      
      Laws should not exist to allow you to force your moral convictions on others anymore than they should exist to allow others to force their moral convictions on you.
      
      and these laws were not democratically passed but passed by corporate interests. They get negotiated in secrecy with corporate interests invited. They were passed because corporations bought politicians to get them passed. They were not passed in the interests of artists but in the interests of corporations. Yet it is those that disagree with you that are wrong. You think that only your opinion counts and everyone else should be subject to your arbitrary moral standards. and I'm supposed to believe you are the moral one. You are the one that's self centered, that thinks so highly of yourself and your opinion over everyone else's and cares not for democracy just because you said so, yet everyone else is the sociopath. Try again you self centered sociopath.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        The law is the law because that's what's the decreed law. How tautological.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "And you have no right to tell me how my work can be used."
        
        Neither do you.
        
        uh, yes, you weirdo, I do.
        
        So does every person. Only those that would be classified as 'slaves' would not be considered possessed of that right.
        
        You're a very sick person, and your life is clearly quite a miserable experience. Think about getting some help for yourself before you hurt others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        "So does every person. Only those that would be classified as 'slaves' would not be considered possessed of that right."
        
        Slavery is forced labor. No one is forcing you to create and publish works. You did so voluntarily. Once the works are published you then have no right to tell others what to do with them.
        
        "You're a very sick person, and your life is clearly quite a miserable experience. Think about getting some help for yourself before you hurt others."
        
        You're the one that supports corporate bought laws that are negotiated secretly and have not been democratically passed. You don't care for the artists. Only the distributors. and you're the one that's trying to wrongfully use the laws to force your opinion on others. No one is fooled.
        
        Copy protection laws should not exist to prevent your perverted definition of slavery. The most you post the more I am convinced these laws should be abolished. You are making them out to be about something other than the public interest. Abolish them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        the more you post *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      worthless, sociopathic douchebags
      
      You're the guy who showed up here with no goal other than to mock an artist and call her pathetic...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  Art needs to disappear eventually, to give way for new artists to get their products to the market. Only way to do that, is if everyone followed the copyright rules, and stop distributing illegal works. Once that happens, market will be full of gaps in art distribution, and new artists can utilize those gaps to get their products to the market. Publishing contracts will require that author do not use other channels for distributing the work, and once publisher stops distributing it, the work will disappear from the public, giving free slots for the next artist...
  
  Not to put too fine a point on it, but: you're a fucking lunatic.
  
  Do you honestly believe what you just said? Honestly? Because it's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. You're advocating for forgotten art and lost history on the basis that our rich, deep and expansive culture somehow holds back the creation of new art... WHAT?
  
  Let's take a clear example that even appears to work in your favour: Shakespeare. I have talked to people in the theatre world who think that the overwhelming favoritism towards Shakespeare in the high-end theatre scene was marginalizing newer, younger work - so do you know what they did? They wrote new plays, opened new theatres, broadened their horizons; the started creating remixes and reimaginings and parodies and critiques of Shakespeare; they sought out and found whole new artistic voices for themselves by actively trying to reject the established ideas; they dug up other historical works from other places and times and started exposing audiences to those; they kickstarted what you might call a modern theatre renaissance — all while still enjoying and engaging with Shakespeare for his undeniable value as well.
  
  What sort of perverse, passionless existence do you lead that you think the world would be better off having forgotten the works of Shakespeare or anything else from history? We as a species and a culture are blessed and enlivened by the fact that we still have the epics of Homer, the plays of Aeschylus, the saga of Beowulf, the lewd poems of the Canterbury Tales, the popular plays of Shakespeare, the novels of Dickens, the films of the early 20th century greats... And that's just one of countless rich cultural veins that connect us to each other and our past.
  
  But I suppose in your world, things like the burning of the Library at Alexandria, or the 1937 Fox Films vault fire, or the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, are all net positives for humanity. Wow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
    I honestly can't tell if his post is sarcasm or if he's serious but given some of the crazy things that IP extremists have said in the past I can no longer distinguish sarcasm from a real opinion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2015 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
    "But I suppose in your world, things like the burning of the Library at Alexandria, or the 1937 Fox Films vault fire, or the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, are all net positives for humanity. Wow."
    
    and this is another reason why IP extremists are nothing but sociopaths. One of the travesties that humans face is how little we know about our past because it's been destroyed through history. We have gone through great lengths to uncover our past. Knowledge of our past is very important to us. Yet this sociopath wishes to erase knowledge of our past for corporate gain. Lets make something very clear. This person isn't interested in erasing our past for the sake of 'encouraging the creation of new works'. That's just another one of their pathetic self serving lies. No one is fooled. They want to erase knowledge of our past and to limit who can distribute works for corporate gain. They want to do so to limit the competition that a small hand full of business interests face so that they can control the distribution of content and use that control to profit off of. They are willing to sacrifice our knowledge of our past for their profits. That's how selfish these people are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: Kinda sad video...
  Nina Paley is, at best, only marginally talented, so I imagine the window for something like that happening has long passed.
  
  She's pathetic, as are all the other copyright haters that are angry about artists being more talented than they are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 26 Oct 2015 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
    She's more talented than you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
      No, actually, she isn't :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        No, actually, she isn't :)
        
        Okay, prove it. Put a name and a body of work behind your vicious attacks and self-righteous bullshit. We're waiting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Oct 2015 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Don't kid yourself. They never own up to their boasting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 27 Oct 2015 @ 12:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
        Pretty easy to knock down an artist that sticks her neck out and talks about copyright, and then claim to be the greater artist and yet hide, presumably so your corporate masters won't ostracize you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2015 @ 10:46am

With regard to the brain analogy, it should be noted that totally unrestricted flow of "information" in the brain causes seizures that can have severe consequences. Likewise, an unrestricted flow of "information" in one direction, where one side takes more than the other, say serotonin reuptake, can cause mental disorders.

So the analogy does kind of work, but maybe not in the way she intends it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]