Copying Is Not Theft: Against Copyright Tyranny (by Nina Paley)

[DarkprinX2500]

the only ones who benefit from IP are huge disgusting corporations

[Nielsio]

@DarkprinX2500 Don't forget the government. Both through enforcement of IP, but also with IP they get a lot more taxes than without IP.

[onelineproof]

The laws don't make sense. They were made a long time ago and no one ever bothered changing them because those who are in power are very comfortable with it. Regular people don't notice this because what they hear from the media (part of those in power) is something totally different. But sooner or later, with the growth of the internet, these laws will change. I hope sooner.

[majeric]

I think this is a really interesting talk... I am curious about one thing though? Could creative projects that cost a lot of money to produce exist? Movies and/or video games exist? They often require thousands-millions of dollars to produce? It would seem a bit of a shame if we lost Pixar or Studio Ghibli.

[Panpiper]

@majeric Yes, they will exist, though in much smaller quantities, made by virtue of governments extorting money from the people in order to fund projects that meet with government approval. Other than that, there will be YouTube videos, and the like. But if this philosophy takes full root, it will spell the end of 99% of all professional art, like movies, television programs, computer games, et al.

Not my idea of utopia.

[MarkoKraguljac]

@majeric

Most (most) video game/movie producers today are nothing but whores trying to please as big audiences of preprogrammed drones as possible. They call it business. It sure is, the oldest business. Their video games cost more and more because they (among each other) actually compete only over technical aspects. Realism is becoming scary (good) but stories and ideas beneath haven't really left kindergarten. -continued-

[MarkoKraguljac]

@majeric -continued- If its up to industry, difference between kids and adults is that adults have one additional interest, namely - porn. Its insulting. I dont know how old are you but I remember times when new games really broke boundaries and were fascinating immensely (for their time).

About movies, check out Blender Foundation, their software and demo projects (Sintel, Elephants dream...) and you will see that it is possible to create, even in this sick closed-loop modern slavery.

[Panpiper]

I used to create as many as 15 works of art a week, which were sold on the web. Nowadays though with absolutely rampant piracy, where I used to be able to sell 100-200 copies, now I can sell five. That does not even come close to paying my capital costs, let alone my labor. End result is nowadays I produce absolutely nothing. There is now an infinite 'scarcity' of my new art. (The details are irrelevant, there is no mechanism whereby I can continue to support myself with 'my' art.)

[Panpiper]

Copyright violation is not theft, it is a crime of trespass. If I come in to your living room to use you nice plasma screen, say while you are not there so I am not bothering you, I am still committing a crime if I do so without your permission.

If I invest my labor and capital to create a thing, that thing belongs to me. Just because it is easy for you to copy it, does not change the fact that without my investment, "it would not exist". You do not have the 'right' to it's existence.

[ericfontainejazz]

Wow! So you are Nina Paley!!! Love your cartoons!

[TokyoFreeze79]

Good video. Thanks for the upload

[volunteersimplicity]

Intellectual property violates material property. Nobody can own my stuff just by inventing or discovering a new way of organizing it.

[SunBeamsan]

Great video!

[Gettinghitonattheban]

Without copying and "stealing" ideas music would not exist. At all.

[paulvahur]

Nina is WINNING! :-D

[JackofOneTrade567]

apparently obama wants to make streaming a felony. is this in anyway related to your cause? thoughts?

[wood9670]

I bought an apple and used my magic box to replicate the apple and give it to my poor neighbors. I therefore am guilty of stealing from the farmer, who was deprived of absolutely nothing, and ought to be thrown in a cage.

I never really got the logic of intellectual property.

[TehBANN3D]

@wood9670 I assume this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum, except you can patent apples, so it doesn't really work.

[wood9670]

@TehBANN3D, well the point is no one was deprived of anything. Decreeing death threats for copying something is illogical to me.

[TehBANN3D]

@wood9670 What death threats? The government doesn't even actively enforce IP. IP is only enforced by litigation brought by a 'damaged' party.

If property law ought to only be enforced to the end that violating a norm entails the deprivation of its use by the 'owning' party then whenever you leave your home, someone should be able to inhabit it while you are away, as long as they don't damage or remove anything inside, because they wouldn't be depriving you of anything.

[wood9670]

@TehBANN3D, I'll accept that analogy because I am still trying to justify privacy rights. However, I would question the plausibility of someone finding their way into my locked home without the intent of stealing from me.

And yes its a death threat. If I do not submit to the court proceedings men with guns will attempt to either imprison me and/or seize my property. These men with guns will necessarily be the police, if I resist arrest I will be killed.

[TehBANN3D]

@wood9670 A slippery slope doesn't merit equality. And by that standard, all forms of property and jurisprudence are death threats. For instance, if you trespass on someone's lawn, they might ask you to leave. If you refuse, they may try to forcibly remove you, or ask someone else to. If you resist that, it may result in a physical confrontation and they may end up killing you. Furthermore if you damage someone's property or commit fraud against them, they may file litigation against you [...]

[TehBANN3D]

@wood9670 You may refuse to attend the court proceedings, and the court will end up ruling against you and will either fine you or find some other way of forcing you to compensate the damaged party, which, if we follow the 'slippery slope of refusal' is nothing more than a death threat. Property norms, regardless of their origin require a threat of violence to enforce, else they have no method of being established.

[MaikUniversum]

@wood9670 lol neither did I. great comment.

[Panpiper]

@wood9670 The logic is, "What if there were no apples?"

[wood9670]

@Panpiper, I purchased my apple. Its my property, I can do with it what I want. I can resell it, eat it, use the seeds to grow my own tree, or use my magic box to replicate it.

If you are saying that being able to copy a product disincentives producers from producing then I say fine. Either producers will be more altruistic or social stigma will develop to condemn product replication.

In either case, the fact remains that no one's property was violated. No one deserves to be legal sanction.

[Panpiper]

@wood9670 And I have stopped creating new things for you to copy. All those 'apples' shall now never exist. The very existence of those apples, owe's it's self to my investment of labor and capital. Their existence, the 'idea', is my property, not the thing itself. That is why it is called 'intellectual' property. I do understand that this is inconvenient for pure anarchists. But that does not give you the right to declare the product of my labor and capital to be the common heritage of mankind.

[PsYychH0]

@Panpiper

So lets say that you invented the "apple". Does that mean that without you the apple would have not existed? I beg to differ, if it's needed... it will be invented.

And how did that apple come to be in the first place? We're you your own creation and product, or was it countless things and inventions made by other people who helped you on your way to creating the apple? Was it the man who first controlled fire? Was it the one that found uses for electricity?

[PsYychH0]

@Panpiper

Or was it the one who taught you how to read and write?

One thing is for sure... no one held a gun to your head to do it.

Rest assured, the world will go on without your apple and it's nonexistence. Ideas cannot be property, it's ridiculous to think that no one can be allowed to think what you thought first. Or that they can't, that's a hell lot of self-importance, most likely very much unwarranted.

[patrickcorliss]

@wood9670

You say "Either producers will be more altruistic or social stigma will develop to condemn product replication."

In fact, there are many possible consequences. Think about pirated music. Producers can develop low cost mass distribution channels or improve their anti-copying mechanisms or both. They could also try more persuasive marketing techniques or even civil actions in tort for "passing off" etc.

As you suggest, there are legal, moral AND economic implications.

[AlexanderLee1]

@wood9670 You're missing the point entirely. The farmer didn't invent the apple, so he would have no claim on your copy of it. But on the other hand, someone who writes a book owns the idea that he produced. You can't copy his book because you would be stealing the product of his mind.

[wood9670]

@AlexanderLee1, Look, I oppose the initiation of force. The only way you can enforce intellectual property laws is to ASSAULT peaceful people. If you're the originator of an idea & want it to remain solely your own then don't share with ANYONE. If you choose to do so & want its dissemination limited then you contract with ppl with this understanding. If they violate the contract then you can seek restitution from THEM but you have no right to assault the people they shared the idea with.

[wood9670]

@wood9670, also, my analogy still holds. The apple represents a portion of the farmers time, energy, and intellectual exertion. The apple would not exist without it, he created it.

When I replicated the apple I have deprived him of nothing. He was compensated for the portion of his labor he gave me in the form of the apple. The apple is mine now & I can do with it what I'd like. He might not like but that does not mean he is justified in imprisoning me or aggressing against me in any way.

[swu880]

@AlexanderLee1

nobody can "own" an idea. theres nothing to own. ideas dont even meet the criteria for real property. Do you even know the 3 imperative criteria of all real property?

Lol. Do you even know the purpose of property? knowledge? the market place? I would suggest that you actually closely study some good economics- go read Adam smith's "an inquiry into the wealth of nations".

read also Mises' "Human action" and Rothbard's works

No one has a claim of exclusive ownership on ideas

[swu880]

@swu880

This is implicitly due to the very existence & fuition of knowledge. If u think that knowledge can be exclusively owned, then u are not only absurd, but crazy, disugusting & obscene to say the least. Who the hell owns the exclusive knowledge of the wheel? of the notion that "2+2=4"? of the very existence & knowledge of oxygen?

I suggest after reading all the aforementioned works, watch the vids on IP

/watch?v=kI5AyeFK5Bo&feature=m­fu_in_order&list=UL

[swu880]

@swu880

/watch?v=Q2HWqGB5D-c&feature=r­elated

/watch?v=GpTHWRy-Kc0&feature=r­elated

I highly doubt that u understand what innovation really is- how it exists & how does it come about. These vids help to address that

/watch?v=Tsp-p1L9wuQ&feature=m­fu_in_order&list=UL

/watch?v=tGUV79yuZ5A&feature=p­layer_embedded#at=14

/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY&feature=p­layer_embedded

And i also suggest u actually research "who invented" the cotton gin. hint- it aint no Eli Whitney!

[swu880]

@swu880

/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY&feature=p­layer_embedded

watch?v=Tsp-p1L9wuQ&feature=mf­u_in_order&list=UL

/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY&feature=p­layer_embedded

watch?v=Q2HWqGB5D-c&feature=re­lated

watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0&feature=pl­ayer_embedded