dunno if anyone gives a damn but if you guys are stoned like me atm then you can stream pretty much all of the new movies and series on InstaFlixxer. Have been watching with my girlfriend for the last days xD
I love her work. "This Land is Mine" is pure genius and still gives me chills though I've seen it a dozen times. "Sita Sings the Blues" is just .... well words are failing me but deeply moving and artistically powerful.
I've had 2 patent attorneys tell me the same thing, "IP is the sport of kings." If you're a rich troll, you extract tolls from others who trespass on "your" property and who can't pay to fight back.
Yes, it's a unique mixture of animation and media. The audio taken from contrasting conversations by Indians who grew up with the Ramayana and her animations demonstrating these is very cool. The rest is OK, but those few pieces make the whole thing great along with using forgotten about 20's torch songs.
Back in the 1960s, rock bands were playing and recording old blues songs from the 1930s, thirty years prior. It was no problem because at that time so much music that was thirty years or older was already public domain. Now, sixty years later, things have changed so that music that made in the 1960s is still copyrighted, and the only people making any money off of it had nothing to do with its creation.
Yeah t shirts. How bout the millions of ppl dead from large drug companies denying generics for drugs created in state universities they just obtained the rights or ppl suing on behalf of dead people for copyright. Common sense goes a long way buddy get some use what you can
I've been supporting the idea of creative commons license for several years but this approach goes even beyond! What a bright mind and what a great artist Nina Paley is! Big respect and keep on fighting the madness of cultural censorship called copyright!
thanks nina paley. one of the most important talks i have heard so far!!!! through copyright we not just censor art, we censor and inhibit communication, thinking, progression, relatioship and CULTURE !
Really awesome. Also, history shows we never needed Copyright to have culture. Copyright/Monopoly also violates actual human rights too. Hope the 'Make art not law' gets spread more!
the thing is that the big corporations will abuse their power and law to drag everybody else down, and not allow the single thing to be touch ever. Stuff isnt going to get on public domain ever for sure. they keep extending and extending the dates, specially when mickey mouse is close to get into public domain. Ironically, Disney made his entire fortune from Public domain stories, but nothing made by disney from now on, could be public domain and use in a different way by people.
+Apricity_png That's the stupidest thing i ever heard - If If artists have guaranteed money from copyright or intellectual property rights, then they will lose the incentive to innovate, create any new thing, also by mimicking and imitating good solutions. In art, we need competition, to compete with each other, not to be equal and to be artists on the same level. Really Weak, talentless artists, should be kicked out to quit and have to go get deadend jobs. It's cruel, but the world is not perfect.
@@scorpina69 He's referencing every police captain in every cop or buddy/cop film when they let the audience know that the main character is willing to do crazy things to get their "man". Simmer down.
Every time I see/hear that last SM animation I get goosebumps and tears are in my eyes. No movie ever did that to me. The art of Nina is so pure and sincere!!
I am personally against current copyright law, not just because I'm an artist, but because I think one of the most important things in society is the free-flow of culture. I think we all need to protect the ability for culture to travel as easily and quickly as possible, for the sake of culture, for people, for the world. No medical advances, no art, no anything can easily exist in any meaningful form, without the influence of other art and culture. Nationalists, like to treat culture like it arrived fully formed like a statue, and can never be improved or grown. While I think a better way to see it is like a single flower in a prairie, constantly growing, shifting and needing sustenance to evolve, or like your brain analogy.
I remember I watched a lot of YTPs when I was growing up and will still find some to watch but the copyright owners were so aggressive on those videos. It’s ridiculous that a YTP that is only 10 minutes long while the movie is an hour 30 minutes long and the YTP is so extremely altered form the original source material. That the YTP will get copyright claimed or taken down form RUclips.
Scroll forward to 14:40 to watch: This Land Is Mine. An excellent piece of Art, by a truly gifted and free-spirited Artist (in the truest sense!!). God bless you, young lady xx 🇺🇸🦅🌞🤠🙏
A license I propose for every creator: My creations can be copied and modified or simply enjoyed by the general public for non-commercial purposes. However, if you use it for profit you owe me money. I'm not working for you for free. Only kind people deserve free work. Ruthless profit-driven commercial organizations don't.
Just look at the economics and you can see that copyright cannot be valid property as it does not have natural scarcity. With property, if you take it, the other person must give it up. However, art and other forms of information are infinitely reproducible and taking it does not make the other person lose it.
And the mixing labour theory doesn't make sense with intellectual property. As what.. do you mix your labour with? Your labour is an idea... If you then came up the idea of walking forward, could you hinder everyone else from walking forward? Or if you draw a line, could you hinder everyone else from drawing one?The most simplest idea suddenly hinders everyone in crazy extents, unlike material things where the smallest labour only results in small material value, taking a small rock results in a small rock. And you're right about scarcity, there is no scarcity in lines or chords. You're neveer going to run out of chords, notes or lines, but materials you could run out of.
If you like her t-shirt and/or the "This Land is Mine" video, search for her Vimeo copy of "Seder Masochism." The version available at RUclips is missing two songs because of copyright holders' complaints. It's in her Vimeo channel.Enjoy!
She's such a wonderful animator. Like many, I also reluctantly complied with copyright, half from fear and half because I was under the impression that it would benefit the artist. I think she made a very convincing point that that's not the case. I'm still unsure though, how would artists make money if they can't have copyrights laws protecting them? Just directly, from the people supporting them? I guess, it's similar to Amanda Palmer's idea of paying whatever you can for her music.
She just reminded me of how old I am, I remember when the Exodus theme song was a hit, back in the early 60s. By the way, the first four notes of "The Look of Love" and "This Land Is Mine" ( Exodus theme song ) are the same and they didn't sue Burt Bacharach.
the copyrights having to be to 75 (now it's almost 100) years is just too far. We're not even getting books from the 1930s yet. By the time it's in the public domain - they kind of lost their value and relevance to humanity - making them practically worthless. Maybe that's what copywriters want - for things to be worthless so they can be made free. The problem iwth that is that these works don't have to be worthless - they can have value and relevance 100 years from now if they're just not blocked from view at times we most crucially need. It's the newest that's supposed to have the most cultural impact, but when it's behind a paywall many miss out - and that's why we get polarizing cultural clashes. It shouldn't be gates that rift between us all but open!
copyright should be restricted only to things somebody makes, without any patents or derivative works. If somebody writes a book, copyright limits only to that book. If I make my own sequel to that book I have right to sell it. If I make my own T-shirt with Mickey mouse I have right to sell it. If I make my own video game about Star Wars I have right to sell it. Copyright is idiotic limitation of creativity and fake way to create monopoly. Copyrights were created so that rich companies could stay rich due to monopoly they own.
It’s a play on words mixing the term sadomasochism (deriving pleasure from giving and receiving pain) and Seder (a Jewish feast that marks the start of Passover).
I love that idea about how knowledge goes in and out and creates a flow, aka. culture. And the similarity with brain cells, how they transmit information. Although I hate the current copyright laws, it doesn't make sense and are way too long. I get the point that artists might want to have control over their art as it is close connected to them, but then if you publish you work, you kind of made that idea public, more than yours alone. And I think it would be better with a smaller copyright term so that if you've written something really great and worked a lot of it you should get some reward for it. But like a 5-20 year would work I think. That would be the same as with patents which would be reasonable. But y, I still stand more on the cultural freedom side, rather than the protectionist, and I myself is a pretty creative person I'd say, wanting compose a lot of musical pieces myself.
IP, ideas, knowledge increase in value only when they are shared. Like the old economics 101 view of money -- the more money circulates, the more value it creates. So too, the more ideas circulate the more value they create for everyone both individuals and society. Copyright is, as Ms. Paley explains quite well, a complete impediment to the sharing of ideas, the evolution of culture and in fact even the basic monetary benefit that creators would like to have for themselves. I vote for more sharing (everything is built on someone else's ideas or creations) and abolish copyright legislation altogether.
I agree :) How sharing could be illigal basicly? I have a cd with music recorded from radio and you borrow it from me and you make a copy for yourself and give me my cd back. Thats sharing. Thats not illegal.
Although I agree with the part that the more information are shared the greater its value, I disagree with the comparison with money, or any other scarce resource. Scarce resources have a direct relationship with their supply and the demand of such resource. So, "the more money circulates" the less the value it has, this is what causes inflation, artificial credit injected in the economy, therefore more money = less value in said money. But yeah, since ideas are not scarce, i.e. you can share them and still retain them to infinite uses, I complete agree, the more they are shared, the greater their value.
thanks Nina for the wonderful articulation of a huge concern. individually: copyright is the point in the psyche where narcissism intersects denial. narcissism is represented by the contention that *a piece* is entirely unique and therefore belongs solely to an individual (that is impossible). denial is represented by the contention that every thought or expression IS NOT a result of the sum of all universal experience, as expressed by any individual (also impossible). both depend on refusal to acknowledge foundations and influences. both - seemingly - a cultural phantasy. collectively: copyright is the point in the our cultural ethos where phantasy and impossibility intersect.
Very interesting, but still a weird viewpoint. Copyright does indeed lead to censorship, but it also ensures that the people who create good things (or at least, create things which others then use as a jumping-off point to create *better* things) are given appropriate credit & recompense for their efforts. While it's true that we can take good things (like the music Nina uses for her animations) and create excellent, thoughtful art from them, we also don't get to take other peoples' work and use it for our own gains against their will. (This is also ignoring the fact that copyright literally just isn't about who has a right to ideas, it's about who has a right to profit, and who is profiting off of what.) If the idea you're working with is so important to create and share, what's stopping you from finding a way to express it without taking someone else's work? If their work is such a necessary foundation for your own, why would you want to use it without their consent?
This romantic idea of the artist that can make a living off royalties is nothing but a fantasy. People really don't want to believe this, they want to believe that if you are good at music you will become famous. This is absolutely not the case, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite. The best musicians of the world are completely unknown to most people. It also shows the rotten core of our music culture, namely that music is nothing but a commodity, a product to make money, that is its only value. If it doesn't make money it is not good music, it can't be or else it would be popular and make money. Most people only experience music through the playlists or radio streams, the only artists they know are top 100 charting artists. That is the only thing they know, and if you don't reach that level as a musician you have 'failed' and you don't deserve to actually be a musician.
HOT TAKE: copyright is the reason disney is making mediocre live action remakes of already good films. theyre bland, they dont have much artistic charm, and they dont even improve on the source material. the only reason theyre getting made is because disney needs to renew the copyrights of their films...as if anybody could just straight up steal the uniqueness of those properties.
Okay, let's write a law that extends compulsory copyright to other mediums, and not just sound recordings, as the law currently exists. Just file a compulsory copyright form, send it to the copyright holder, pay a statutory fee set by law, and they can't stop you. This is the law in sound recordings.
I want to be like Nina Paley! Copyright is a really tricky subject I found . As an artist with copyrights, I still get copied by big corporations, and it takes so much energy to fight it...and I'm asking myself "why bother?" All I want to do is make art, not spend my time in law suits!! But I also want to make a living from the work I love & create...but instead others are making the money, and I'm poor! AND then on the other hand I have several projects (a play & an animated movie I wrote), that may never manifest because I can't afford to use the music I want in it!! So, yeah, on one hand, I honor the musicians & want to pay them...but I don't have that kind of money...so my creativity is stiffled and I can't move forward with my vision. It's so hard... I really hate the whole copyright/TM thing...I just want to share my work (which sometimes includes others work) & do what I love...yeah Nina, I feel so stuck as an artist sometimes. So, thanks for teaching me some stuff AND I LOVE EVERYTHING YOU DO NINA PALEY! Don't ever stop!
I mean at the same time though I find it hard to say that copyright is really bad or really good Lovecraft died in pocerty because most of his works went into public domain, aka he lacked copyright
Copyright started out with good intentions. Right now, it’s hard to get behind its current regime because copyright OWNERS get more than the actual CREATORS. It disproportionately benefits the artist :/ Filmmakers weren’t able to play/sing the Happy Birthday song without clearing a hefty price tag to the copyright owners (hint: the “artists” have long died) but only recently the song has been cleared to be in the public domain. A song that people sing in ordinary life. We needed permission to have it in movies. That’s going too far.
@@AiLoveGaara I mean that calls for reform of the laws not a destruction of them. Like clearly Copyright should extend to when you die, obviously going past that is questionable
The Dark Master The Dark Master yeah I’m all for that as well. That’s why I agree that the initial premise of copyright was for the right reasons. I want a law reform that actually prioritises the artists because they are the brains of the IP. Anything that feeds into the greed of other external parties should be abolished.
That's wrong. Lovecraft simply wasn't popular during his lifetime. Copyright was 28 years *with a possibility to extend to 56* if you're still alive, which is literally more than his entire lifetime.
@@chayleaf Some of his works were popular comparatively to his others. And Author is entitled to the money generated from his creations. People who wish to destroy copyright in it's entirety are just as bad as those who hold on to it for far too long
Reduce the length of copyright back to before the Sonny Bonno Act, IIRC 28 years MAX (a 14 year extension you had to apply for on top of the original 14?) - and, maybe more controversially, retroactively apply it to works based on publishing date so that stuff that should have been public domain a long time ago can be in the PD like they're supposed to. Copyright was meant to end well within an author's lifetime. This was deliberate; an incentive to create, and to KEEP creating (continuing to benefit from temporary govt issued monopolies over the use of their work), keeps copyright a "limited time" as explicitly stated in the U.S Constitution, and gives the public domain regular, consistent updates that expands the public pool of works from witch everyone can derive elements from freely/transform into new works.
in canada, copyright belongs to the creator of the artwork, by virtue of the act of creation of the artwork. this woman's argument is a form of ad hominem. that's what post modernism and collectivism does, it implies that if you want to claim your copyright or assert it, you don't really understand "culture". see, how, if i want to assert that my original work is mine, i am "against the flow of ideas"... those who want to assert their right to their creative work are "internally censoring".
Due to the fact that everything depends on money this won't be a popular idea to those that want to make a profit... in a perfect society we would share ideas instead of horde them. As an artist, I create art for myself and have no monetary attachments because thats not what art is about in my experience and time on Earth. Thank you Nina for starting a very important dialogue about censorship through copyright.
Anon YMouse There is a huge difference between copyright and patent law. There are a huge range of cultural artefacts that remain copyrighted long after the author is dead, and there are even more cultural artefacts that no one is prepared to publish because ownership of the copyright is unknown in law. The result is the effective death of cultural artefacts, to the benefit of no one including the author. Patent law is clearer, and possibly fairer, mainly because patents are issued for much shorter durations. With regards to drugs specifically, pharmaceutical companies often seek to extend patents through clinically irrelevant changes to the molecule with small tweaks of moieties. That is not a problem, except that their marketing often heavily distorts the relative benefit of ‘new’, related drugs compared to the ex-patent generic drugs. If you’re concerned about patent protection preserving the profit motive for drug development, you should also ask how there has been massive market failure in drug development globally. Huge sums are invested in developing drugs for trivial first-world problems such as alopoecia, or drugs that need to be taken indefinitely such as statins. Comparatively little money is invested in development of anti-malarial drugs, which treat disease in the developing world, or drugs that are taken once and cure a patient, such as antibiotics. So there are much bigger questions of questionable marketing and market failure in pharmaceuticals, well beyond whether patent law contributes to real drug innovation.
w/ current Copyright laws, if an artist doesn't attach some kind of license to it, someone else can publish it, attach the copyright, and prevent the artist from legally using his own art. Drrrrrrrrhhh. So artist, at the least attach Creative Commons, w/ attribution to you work and protect yourself. Keep rocking in a free world!
+Samuel James Copyright is inherent. Even if you don't explicitly attach a copyright to something, it's there. You have to explicitly opt *out* of copyright if you want that, which is the point of the CC-0 license (not everywhere in the world has a public domain and CC-0 tries to cover the edge cases).
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
I get chills every time that land is mine scene ends. It's so good.
Powerful! ❤️
dunno if anyone gives a damn but if you guys are stoned like me atm then you can stream pretty much all of the new movies and series on InstaFlixxer. Have been watching with my girlfriend for the last days xD
@Hudson Ryan yea, have been watching on instaflixxer for since november myself :D
This has nothing to do with the video
This woman is such a perfect embodiment of the kind of substantive social & cultural progress that art & artists can actually exert onto this world.
She is brilliant and speak what most of us not dare to say.
good god, i love this woman already! now THAT'S a true hero to the artistic movement right there!
Nina paley is a real artist. Keep inspiring people Nina.
seder masochism is a beaaautiful masterpiece. thanks, nina paley! you rock!
I love her work. "This Land is Mine" is pure genius and still gives me chills though I've seen it a dozen times. "Sita Sings the Blues" is just .... well words are failing me but deeply moving and artistically powerful.
I've had 2 patent attorneys tell me the same thing, "IP is the sport of kings." If you're a rich troll, you extract tolls from others who trespass on "your" property and who can't pay to fight back.
Has anyone here actually seen Sita?
Beautiful movie
Yes - one of my favorites ever made!
Ummm, how about five, make that six, times?
I did. :3 My favorite part was the Rama is Great song. Rama does what Rama must.
Yes, it's a unique mixture of animation and media. The audio taken from contrasting conversations by Indians who grew up with the Ramayana and her animations demonstrating these is very cool. The rest is OK, but those few pieces make the whole thing great along with using forgotten about 20's torch songs.
Yes hundreds times
Back in the 1960s, rock bands were playing and recording old blues songs from the 1930s, thirty years prior. It was no problem because at that time so much music that was thirty years or older was already public domain. Now, sixty years later, things have changed so that music that made in the 1960s is still copyrighted, and the only people making any money off of it had nothing to do with its creation.
I want her tshirt!
...And she doesn't, Dave.
Yeah t shirts. How bout the millions of ppl dead from large drug companies denying generics for drugs created in state universities they just obtained the rights or ppl suing on behalf of dead people for copyright. Common sense goes a long way buddy get some use what you can
@@davidnarter8178 It's her art. She produced it. Just like the Sita movie and she made a tons of money by making it free.
It's probably a knockoff (I mean, non-copyrighted)
X2
I've been supporting the idea of creative commons license for several years but this approach goes even beyond! What a bright mind and what a great artist Nina Paley is!
Big respect and keep on fighting the madness of cultural censorship called copyright!
This woman is an amazing artist and a brilliant, clear thinker. I want her T-shirt also!
I love Nina Paley.
Always have.
She’s genius.
Absolute genius! ❤️
She's a transphobe.
@@NathanTAK even better!
@@NathanTAK fr real???
@@NathanTAK She is a woman who understands what be-ing a woman is. NinaDeiwa 😎
I just wanna say, I love Nina Paley's work
thanks nina paley.
one of the most important talks i have heard so far!!!! through copyright we not just censor art, we censor and inhibit communication, thinking, progression, relatioship and CULTURE !
Really awesome.
Also, history shows we never needed Copyright to have culture.
Copyright/Monopoly also violates actual human rights too.
Hope the 'Make art not law' gets spread more!
and then make every artist quit and have to go get deadend jobs because their not getting money for the art their creating so they give up.
the thing is that the big corporations will abuse their power and law to drag everybody else down, and not allow the single thing to be touch ever.
Stuff isnt going to get on public domain ever for sure. they keep extending and extending the dates, specially when mickey mouse is close to get into public domain.
Ironically, Disney made his entire fortune from Public domain stories, but nothing made by disney from now on, could be public domain and use in a different way by people.
"Actual human rights"
Yeah, because that's a clearly defined, noncontroversial phrase
+Apricity_png That's the stupidest thing i ever heard - If If artists have guaranteed money from copyright or intellectual property rights, then they will lose the incentive to innovate, create any new thing, also by mimicking and imitating good solutions.
In art, we need competition, to compete with each other, not to be equal and to be artists on the same level. Really Weak, talentless artists, should be kicked out to quit and have to go get deadend jobs. It's cruel, but the world is not perfect.
Tygra money isnt the point.
the fact that nobody laughed at that "as an artist intellectual property would be the only property i would ever have" at 00:58 😔
"I work alone" Paley, you're a loose canon and I'm not letting you tackle this case by yourself!
she is very capable of doing this by herself. Her work has shown that.
@@scorpina69 He's referencing every police captain in every cop or buddy/cop film when they let the audience know that the main character is willing to do crazy things to get their "man". Simmer down.
Actually, yes. She did it 😎✨
Nina Paley is my new hero!
Mine too
A brilliant heroine! Be free Nina! And she gives her work away freely too, it can be used by anyone.
Unbelievably and beautifully amazingly presented
Every time I see/hear that last SM animation I get goosebumps and tears are in my eyes. No movie ever did that to me. The art of Nina is so pure and sincere!!
the first time i ever made a donation online is to Nina Paley.
may the algorithm be with you !! 🙂
"internal censorship is the enemy of creativity" (7:30)
I believe we can support artists directly and financially without copyright.
That's how it happened for thousands of years, right? I mean, copyright was just a think like 300 years ago, or less probably.
@@henrique.campos You had trade secrets before copyright
@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster Trade secrets isn't on art regards tho
I agree! Copyright is also responsible for all of the fanbases to be so toxic.
Wow Nina, so great to see you back in full form! Love this, keep up all your excellent work!
Love you, Ken
I think this lady is fabulous!!! I agree with her!
great woman and amazing artist...I am speachless
I am personally against current copyright law, not just because I'm an artist, but because I think one of the most important things in society is the free-flow of culture. I think we all need to protect the ability for culture to travel as easily and quickly as possible, for the sake of culture, for people, for the world. No medical advances, no art, no anything can easily exist in any meaningful form, without the influence of other art and culture. Nationalists, like to treat culture like it arrived fully formed like a statue, and can never be improved or grown. While I think a better way to see it is like a single flower in a prairie, constantly growing, shifting and needing sustenance to evolve, or like your brain analogy.
She’s one of my favorite artists.
I remember I watched a lot of YTPs when I was growing up and will still find some to watch but the copyright owners were so aggressive on those videos. It’s ridiculous that a YTP that is only 10 minutes long while the movie is an hour 30 minutes long and the YTP is so extremely altered form the original source material. That the YTP will get copyright claimed or taken down form RUclips.
Your animated video at the end was sooooo well done, and of course the music made its impact ever so much stronger. Great job, Nina!
Scroll forward to 14:40 to watch: This Land Is Mine. An excellent piece of Art, by a truly gifted and free-spirited Artist (in the truest sense!!). God bless you, young lady xx 🇺🇸🦅🌞🤠🙏
A license I propose for every creator:
My creations can be copied and modified or simply enjoyed by the general public for non-commercial purposes.
However, if you use it for profit you owe me money. I'm not working for you for free. Only kind people deserve free work. Ruthless profit-driven commercial organizations don't.
Happy birthday Nina 5/3/2024
Just look at the economics and you can see that copyright cannot be valid property as it does not have natural scarcity. With property, if you take it, the other person must give it up. However, art and other forms of information are infinitely reproducible and taking it does not make the other person lose it.
And the mixing labour theory doesn't make sense with intellectual property. As what.. do you mix your labour with? Your labour is an idea... If you then came up the idea of walking forward, could you hinder everyone else from walking forward? Or if you draw a line, could you hinder everyone else from drawing one?The most simplest idea suddenly hinders everyone in crazy extents, unlike material things where the smallest labour only results in small material value, taking a small rock results in a small rock. And you're right about scarcity, there is no scarcity in lines or chords. You're neveer going to run out of chords, notes or lines, but materials you could run out of.
Tobbeh99 How do you respond to people who use drug research as an argument for patents?
Right on. right on.
I LOVE SITA SINGS THE BLUES!
HOW DOES THIS ONLY HAVE 1000 VIEWS?!!
share it ;)
PREACH! copyrights have to die!
I LOVE HER ANIMATIONS SO MUCH
If I had been in that audience I would've been the only one cheering and clapping when she said "Sita Sings the Blues".
If you like her t-shirt and/or the "This Land is Mine" video, search for her Vimeo copy of "Seder Masochism." The version available at RUclips is missing two songs because of copyright holders' complaints. It's in her Vimeo channel.Enjoy!
Amazing work, well done!!!!
Thank you very Much Nina Paley! eye opener!
She's such a wonderful animator. Like many, I also reluctantly complied with copyright, half from fear and half because I was under the impression that it would benefit the artist. I think she made a very convincing point that that's not the case. I'm still unsure though, how would artists make money if they can't have copyrights laws protecting them? Just directly, from the people supporting them? I guess, it's similar to Amanda Palmer's idea of paying whatever you can for her music.
Nina: and this is what copyright freedom can do-
PROCEEDS TO SHOW ANIMATED MASS GENOCIDE
I love Nina.
That ending scene though. Damn.
Thank you for your creation. Thank you for your life.
She just reminded me of how old I am, I remember when the Exodus theme song was a hit, back in the early 60s. By the way, the first four notes of "The Look of Love" and "This Land Is Mine" ( Exodus theme song ) are the same and they didn't sue Burt Bacharach.
BRILLIANT!
the copyrights having to be to 75 (now it's almost 100) years is just too far. We're not even getting books from the 1930s yet. By the time it's in the public domain - they kind of lost their value and relevance to humanity - making them practically worthless. Maybe that's what copywriters want - for things to be worthless so they can be made free. The problem iwth that is that these works don't have to be worthless - they can have value and relevance 100 years from now if they're just not blocked from view at times we most crucially need. It's the newest that's supposed to have the most cultural impact, but when it's behind a paywall many miss out - and that's why we get polarizing cultural clashes. It shouldn't be gates that rift between us all but open!
so it looks like Nina will be fine if i copy her work and sell it and keep all the money for myself, right?
Yeah!
You NAILED it! Copyright/intellectual property creates collective insanity.
Great Nina !!, your art, your thoughts ,your presence !!👍👍🦋🦋
copyright should be restricted only to things somebody makes, without any patents or derivative works.
If somebody writes a book, copyright limits only to that book.
If I make my own sequel to that book I have right to sell it.
If I make my own T-shirt with Mickey mouse I have right to sell it. If I make my own video game about Star Wars I have right to sell it.
Copyright is idiotic limitation of creativity and fake way to create monopoly.
Copyrights were created so that rich companies could stay rich due to monopoly they own.
economy is about freedom and creativity. Copyright limits that freedom
and create monopoly for rich to stay rich........
@YT C.S.K.S can i join the pirate crew? ;D
she's amazing!
Seder-Masochism is incredible btw. Just bought that shirt she's wearing.
It’s the video project she’s talking about. Highly recommend looking it up, it’s what the last clip is from
It’s a play on words mixing the term sadomasochism (deriving pleasure from giving and receiving pain) and Seder (a Jewish feast that marks the start of Passover).
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS AMAZING VIDEO :D
I love that idea about how knowledge goes in and out and creates a flow, aka. culture. And the similarity with brain cells, how they transmit information.
Although I hate the current copyright laws, it doesn't make sense and are way too long. I get the point that artists might want to have control over their art as it is close connected to them, but then if you publish you work, you kind of made that idea public, more than yours alone. And I think it would be better with a smaller copyright term so that if you've written something really great and worked a lot of it you should get some reward for it. But like a 5-20 year would work I think. That would be the same as with patents which would be reasonable. But y, I still stand more on the cultural freedom side, rather than the protectionist, and I myself is a pretty creative person I'd say, wanting compose a lot of musical pieces myself.
IP, ideas, knowledge increase in value only when they are shared. Like the old economics 101 view of money -- the more money circulates, the more value it creates. So too, the more ideas circulate the more value they create for everyone both individuals and society. Copyright is, as Ms. Paley explains quite well, a complete impediment to the sharing of ideas, the evolution of culture and in fact even the basic monetary benefit that creators would like to have for themselves. I vote for more sharing (everything is built on someone else's ideas or creations) and abolish copyright legislation altogether.
I agree :) How sharing could be illigal basicly? I have a cd with music recorded from radio and you borrow it from me and you make a copy for yourself and give me my cd back. Thats sharing. Thats not illegal.
Although I agree with the part that the more information are shared the greater its value, I disagree with the comparison with money, or any other scarce resource. Scarce resources have a direct relationship with their supply and the demand of such resource. So, "the more money circulates" the less the value it has, this is what causes inflation, artificial credit injected in the economy, therefore more money = less value in said money.
But yeah, since ideas are not scarce, i.e. you can share them and still retain them to infinite uses, I complete agree, the more they are shared, the greater their value.
This is a great argument for limiting copyright to maybe 10 or 20 years.
5-20 depending on the category.
This is inspirational.
There's such a thing called compulsory licensing in Copyright Law though. I think exploring that angle would have worked. Great presentation still.
AWESOME!!
So Powerful
“When everything is copyrighted, nothing is”
She makes good points.
When the Roman Emperor commissioned the Aeneid did the finished work belong to him, the emperor, or to Rome?
The more that money is involved in a work of art, the less that art is worth. Money has a reverse-Midas touch.
Love this. All of this.
thanks Nina for the wonderful articulation of a huge concern.
individually:
copyright is the point in the psyche where narcissism intersects denial.
narcissism is represented by the contention that *a piece* is entirely unique and therefore belongs solely to an individual (that is impossible).
denial is represented by the contention that every thought or expression IS NOT a result of the sum of all universal experience, as expressed by any individual (also impossible).
both depend on refusal to acknowledge foundations and influences.
both - seemingly - a cultural phantasy.
collectively:
copyright is the point in the our cultural ethos where phantasy and impossibility intersect.
good point :)
How is it narcissistic to think one can create art
Very interesting, but still a weird viewpoint. Copyright does indeed lead to censorship, but it also ensures that the people who create good things (or at least, create things which others then use as a jumping-off point to create *better* things) are given appropriate credit & recompense for their efforts. While it's true that we can take good things (like the music Nina uses for her animations) and create excellent, thoughtful art from them, we also don't get to take other peoples' work and use it for our own gains against their will. (This is also ignoring the fact that copyright literally just isn't about who has a right to ideas, it's about who has a right to profit, and who is profiting off of what.)
If the idea you're working with is so important to create and share, what's stopping you from finding a way to express it without taking someone else's work? If their work is such a necessary foundation for your own, why would you want to use it without their consent?
Eliminate the middlemen and then see how useless copyright is.
Completely useless
Nick Saunders middlemen is necessary.
@@edstar83 sadly, many will not listen to you, just call you a nahtzee
Book Recommendation: Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig
This romantic idea of the artist that can make a living off royalties is nothing but a fantasy. People really don't want to believe this, they want to believe that if you are good at music you will become famous. This is absolutely not the case, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite. The best musicians of the world are completely unknown to most people.
It also shows the rotten core of our music culture, namely that music is nothing but a commodity, a product to make money, that is its only value. If it doesn't make money it is not good music, it can't be or else it would be popular and make money. Most people only experience music through the playlists or radio streams, the only artists they know are top 100 charting artists. That is the only thing they know, and if you don't reach that level as a musician you have 'failed' and you don't deserve to actually be a musician.
I admire Nina Paley
HOT TAKE: copyright is the reason disney is making mediocre live action remakes of already good films. theyre bland, they dont have much artistic charm, and they dont even improve on the source material. the only reason theyre getting made is because disney needs to renew the copyrights of their films...as if anybody could just straight up steal the uniqueness of those properties.
Okay, let's write a law that extends compulsory copyright to other mediums, and not just sound recordings, as the law currently exists. Just file a compulsory copyright form, send it to the copyright holder, pay a statutory fee set by law, and they can't stop you. This is the law in sound recordings.
What's with the audience. Her talk is so funny and nobody's laughing?
This might be my favorite TED talk so far!
+NEXUS-6 I see you subbed to wikileaks and ron paul, that explains your opinion of this video.
+OmegaBlue69 Awe, you're a little touched. Aren't you? Bless your heart.
@@OmegaBlue-gb5bu and what do you make of that point?
I want to be like Nina Paley! Copyright is a really tricky subject I found . As an artist with copyrights, I still get copied by big corporations, and it takes so much energy to fight it...and I'm asking myself "why bother?" All I want to do is make art, not spend my time in law suits!! But I also want to make a living from the work I love & create...but instead others are making the money, and I'm poor! AND then on the other hand I have several projects (a play & an animated movie I wrote), that may never manifest because I can't afford to use the music I want in it!! So, yeah, on one hand, I honor the musicians & want to pay them...but I don't have that kind of money...so my creativity is stiffled and I can't move forward with my vision. It's so hard... I really hate the whole copyright/TM thing...I just want to share my work (which sometimes includes others work) & do what I love...yeah Nina, I feel so stuck as an artist sometimes. So, thanks for teaching me some stuff AND I LOVE EVERYTHING YOU DO NINA PALEY! Don't ever stop!
system needs a huge overhaul, from the grounds up.
Information wants to be free:
Information wants to be paid:
Therefore information is broke.
I mean at the same time though I find it hard to say that copyright is really bad or really good
Lovecraft died in pocerty because most of his works went into public domain, aka he lacked copyright
Copyright started out with good intentions. Right now, it’s hard to get behind its current regime because copyright OWNERS get more than the actual CREATORS. It disproportionately benefits the artist :/
Filmmakers weren’t able to play/sing the Happy Birthday song without clearing a hefty price tag to the copyright owners (hint: the “artists” have long died) but only recently the song has been cleared to be in the public domain. A song that people sing in ordinary life. We needed permission to have it in movies. That’s going too far.
@@AiLoveGaara I mean that calls for reform of the laws not a destruction of them. Like clearly Copyright should extend to when you die, obviously going past that is questionable
The Dark Master The Dark Master yeah I’m all for that as well. That’s why I agree that the initial premise of copyright was for the right reasons. I want a law reform that actually prioritises the artists because they are the brains of the IP. Anything that feeds into the greed of other external parties should be abolished.
That's wrong. Lovecraft simply wasn't popular during his lifetime. Copyright was 28 years *with a possibility to extend to 56* if you're still alive, which is literally more than his entire lifetime.
@@chayleaf Some of his works were popular comparatively to his others.
And Author is entitled to the money generated from his creations.
People who wish to destroy copyright in it's entirety are just as bad as those who hold on to it for far too long
15:59 Only just realised he said "Take my hand-" and had his hand cut off.
9:22 the clip complies with copyright law because its a short clip. Also because it's about the clip and used in and informative manner.
love your art !!
OMG...This last clip brought tears to my eyes. Thankfully it took Holly Jolly Christmas out of my mind.
Brothers and sisters in MIND !
+ awesome end clip showing we should live in PEACE !
...finally...
So it **is** possible to add a video to RUclips and explicitly state that it contains Copyright Violations(tm) and still have it be uncensored? Cool.
Reduce the length of copyright back to before the Sonny Bonno Act, IIRC 28 years MAX (a 14 year extension you had to apply for on top of the original 14?) - and, maybe more controversially, retroactively apply it to works based on publishing date so that stuff that should have been public domain a long time ago can be in the PD like they're supposed to.
Copyright was meant to end well within an author's lifetime. This was deliberate; an incentive to create, and to KEEP creating (continuing to benefit from temporary govt issued monopolies over the use of their work), keeps copyright a "limited time" as explicitly stated in the U.S Constitution, and gives the public domain regular, consistent updates that expands the public pool of works from witch everyone can derive elements from freely/transform into new works.
WORD!
in canada, copyright belongs to the creator of the artwork, by virtue of the act of creation of the artwork. this woman's argument is a form of ad hominem. that's what post modernism and collectivism does, it implies that if you want to claim your copyright or assert it, you don't really understand "culture". see, how, if i want to assert that my original work is mine, i am "against the flow of ideas"... those who want to assert their right to their creative work are "internally censoring".
Due to the fact that everything depends on money this won't be a popular idea to those that want to make a profit... in a perfect society we would share ideas instead of horde them. As an artist, I create art for myself and have no monetary attachments because thats not what art is about in my experience and time on Earth.
Thank you Nina for starting a very important dialogue about censorship through copyright.
Awsome one :)
I don't love her art, but I like her spirit.
Brilliant and true.
sophrapsune How do you respond to arguments for patents by citing drug research and development?
I didn’t cite drug research and development.
Perhaps you should reframe the question.
sophrapsune You agree with her, so I'm wondering how drugs would get funded if there were no copyright or patents.
Anon YMouse
There is a huge difference between copyright and patent law.
There are a huge range of cultural artefacts that remain copyrighted long after the author is dead, and there are even more cultural artefacts that no one is prepared to publish because ownership of the copyright is unknown in law.
The result is the effective death of cultural artefacts, to the benefit of no one including the author.
Patent law is clearer, and possibly fairer, mainly because patents are issued for much shorter durations.
With regards to drugs specifically, pharmaceutical companies often seek to extend patents through clinically irrelevant changes to the molecule with small tweaks of moieties. That is not a problem, except that their marketing often heavily distorts the relative benefit of ‘new’, related drugs compared to the ex-patent generic drugs.
If you’re concerned about patent protection preserving the profit motive for drug development, you should also ask how there has been massive market failure in drug development globally.
Huge sums are invested in developing drugs for trivial first-world problems such as alopoecia, or drugs that need to be taken indefinitely such as statins.
Comparatively little money is invested in development of anti-malarial drugs, which treat disease in the developing world, or drugs that are taken once and cure a patient, such as antibiotics.
So there are much bigger questions of questionable marketing and market failure in pharmaceuticals, well beyond whether patent law contributes to real drug innovation.
sophrapsune I know about those failures, but I don't know how eliminating patents would help with those failures.
w/ current Copyright laws, if an artist doesn't attach some kind of license to it, someone else can publish it, attach the copyright, and prevent the artist from legally using his own art. Drrrrrrrrhhh. So artist, at the least attach Creative Commons, w/ attribution to you work and protect yourself. Keep rocking in a free world!
+Samuel James Copyright is inherent. Even if you don't explicitly attach a copyright to something, it's there. You have to explicitly opt *out* of copyright if you want that, which is the point of the CC-0 license (not everywhere in the world has a public domain and CC-0 tries to cover the edge cases).
...and this is exactly why scihub is the greatest thing ever conceived in this age.
Groundbreaking, truly radical proposals worth pondering