Title card reads: The Golden Calf
First, it was a confusing two minute long video with a misleading title and no script.
Next, it was an only halfway related singular section in an unrelated video about another topic entirely.
Now, I'd like to compile all of my arguments for the abolition of copyright law into one convenient package,
So I can make a final push for getting copyright abolitionism into the mainstream.
In this video, I will be parroting many points originally made by Nina Paley, the face of copyright abolition,
as well as some of my own points.
Now, Nina's a genius filmmaker.
Her film "Sita Sings the Blues" is a pretty good case for abolishing copyright law just on its own.
But she''s also a TERF, which is disappointing.
So I'll be the face of copyright abolition instead.
Also, the points I make pertain to our current economy.
When capitalism is abolished, copyright's gonna be REALLY useless, but it's also useless now.
But first, what is copyright?
(because apparently I still have to explain this to some people)
Title cards reads: Part 1, Some Background
Title card reads: 1|1 What is Copyright?
Copyright law was enacted in the United States in the year 1790,
by a bunch of evil masterminds with the intent to kill art.
I mean, they say on Wikipedia that it "tries to encourage the creation of art and culture
By rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights"
but I think that's another way of saying they were trying to kill art.
I think it's the dialect.
Anyway, the idea was that for a period of 28 years, all artistic works would be completely controlled by the artist who made them,
unable to be distributed in any way, by anyone else, without the author's permission.
It also protects works from having derivative works made out of them.
A "derivative work" would be like a cover of a song or an adaptation of a novel.
But apparently 28 years wasn't long enough, somehow.
So since then, copyright law has applied for longer and longer.
And now, as of 1978 I believe, works enter the public domain 70 years after the date of the author's death.
I'm not even being that controversial when I say this is kind of overkill.
So that's where we are now: Every creative work is now only sellable by the creator,
for around twice as long as they'll be alive.
Yay.
Title card reads: 1|2 What is Fair Use?
Fair Use is a goddamned honeypot.
I'll get to it later, but I'm mentioning it here because I know some people watching this
still think it's the bastion of freedom of artistic expression. It's not.
Lay off the comment section.
Okay, now we can get into why copyright law was an awful, awful idea,
and why it needs to be abolished right away.
Title card reads: 2|1 Originality is Subjective
Honestly, this is the simplest and strongest argument here.
It's obvious when you think about it: Everyone is going to find a different degree of newness in a work.
Remember all that debate over whether vaporwave music was plagiarism or not?
For some people, "420" is just slowed down Diana Ross,
but to other people, it's an original piece of music.
And as it is with all artistic discussion, both sides are valid.
A bunch of idiots who don't know music theory seem to think One Direction ripped of The Who.
I think they're full of shit, but that's my opinion.
But you know who can't say whether a piece of art is original? A fucking judge.
Yeah, let's just take that actually interesting discussion, and have it pigeonholed through a courtroom.
No thought, no artistic involvement, just let the gavel hit the desk and erase anything that doesn't meet the checklist.
Title card reads: 2|2 Nothing is wholly original anyways.
"All creative work is derivative"
That's the title of this nice little animation on Nina Paley's "Question Copyright" YouTube channel,
where a bunch of statues dance around to a tune that, very amusingly, samples royalty-free music.
I don't believe the ultra-cynical view that nothing is original, period,
but I do believe that it is impossible for a work to be without influence.
Nina Paley describes it like a family tree.
"Sita Sings the Blues" is the artistic daughter of Annette Hanshaw and the Ramayana.
Annette Hanshaw is the artistic daughter of early jazz and blues.
The Ramayana comes from ancient Hindu art and culture.
It's a huge, beautiful web of influences.
Everyone adds their own originality to the forward momentum of art.
And if nothing is original, everything is original,
and if everything is original, copyright law is just another form of censorship.
Title card reads: 2|3 Copyright is Censorship
Now this is where I'd like to get all the classical liberals on my side,
or really anyone who stands for freedom of artistic expression.
Derivative art is constantly restricted from being used for commercial purposes,
just because a judge said it wasn't original enough.
There are a billion remixes, adaptations, covers,
all sorts of derivative works that haven't even been considered,
because of the absolute nightmare that it is to gain rights to that stuff.
You can't see this as anything but censorship.
A lot of people were disappointed with the Harry Potter films.
Why aren't we letting anyone with a budget take a crack at it themselves?
Everyone thinks that Passengers would have been better from Jennifer Lawrence's point of view.
So why can't we see it?
I thought that a minimal cover of "Beauty and the Beast" would fit really well in my moody pop album about queer sexual awakening,
and now I have to be fearful of being smited by the kingdom of copyright itself.
I'd love to sell all my albums and EPs physically, but right now I can only sell these.
You might call me a fool for infringing on copyright,
but I don't think I should be punished for making my records as good as I could make them. Capiche?
So there's my case. That's why we've got to get rid of copyright,
or at least severely shorten its length.
But I've heard a couple of arguments against this idea.
Title card reads: 3|1 How will artists make money?
This is the biggest concern I see from a lot of people.
How would an artist be able to make a profit if anyone can just redistribute their work for free?
Well, my hero Ms. Paley has a very informative talk on the subject,
but if you don't have an hour, then I'll summarize it here.
So how do you make money off your art in a copyright-free utopia?
Well, how do you do it now? You spread it to as many eyes as possible.
Nina is very clear that more than half of her respectable profits she's made off her film is from donations,
and she credits her profits to "Sita Sings the Blues" being a free film,
not as in "free beer" but as in "free speech"
"Sita Sings the Blues" was allowed to flourish through the internet like a moss,
in ways that wouldn't be possible if there was a price tag on it.
She treats selling DVDs like selling bottled water: The water is free, but the plastic is not.
When you buy "Sita Sings the Blues" on DVD, you're buying the convenience,
the pretty packaging, the opportunity to put it on your shelf.
It's an alternative to just printing it yourself.
She also has this idea of putting a special, official sticker on copies of the work that directly support the artist,
so fans can know where their money is going, and support their favorite people,
although she doesn't mention that most of her success is probably due to her just being genius.
"Sita Sings the Blues" is just so unique, funny, and oddly emotional
that it would have spread even if it wasn't liberated by Creative Commons.
Maybe she's just humble, but I think she knows.
And to contribute a point of my own, I think that artists will still be paid for commissioned work in the future.
In that case, you're directly paying for a musician's time and creativity
instead of just copying something they've already made.
It's labor like any other labor.
Title card reads: 3|2 How can you justify stealing someone else's work?
This argument is used to discredit sampling, but we've already discussed this.
They say that when you sample something, you're piggybacking off of someone else's work
Well yeah, I didn't sample Joanna Newsom on "Blush" to make people think I'm a good harp player.
I did it because I thought it would sound good.
And just to be clear, that EP is a piece of crap, but it's at least a little bit better for having that harp part in there.
Deciding to include it in the first place was my idea, and I should be credited for it, along with Joanna.
But this is also used as an argument against piracy.
And to that, I'd like to show everyone a song and animation by my girl Nina.
[Upbeat jazz music]
Copying is not theft
Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more
That's what copying's for
Copying is not theft
If I copy yours, you have it too
One for me and one for you
That's what copies can do
If I steal your bicycle, you'll have to take the bus
But if I just copy it
There's one for each of us
Making more of a thing
That is what we call copying
Sharing ideas with everyone
That's why copying
Is fun
Title card reads: Song & Animation: Nina Paley
Title card reads: Arranged and Record by: Nik Phelps
Title card reads: Vocals: Connie Champagne. Engineered by Adrian Wong
Title card reads: QuestionCopyright.org
Wasn't it great that I could just let the song play, instead of awkwardly parroting the exact same points?
Anyway, if the subtlety and nuance of that short film was lost on your somehow,
Nina is essentially saying that you can't steal an inexhaustible resource.
Again and again, I see people saying piracy is analogous to taking a Mustang right out of someone's garage
but that simply is not the case.
When someone illegally downloads your music, you still have it.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
It isn't even necessarily a lost sale.
These metrics of "lost profits" don't account for
people who wouldn't have never gotten to see the work at hand if it was behind a paywall,
people who wouldn't have bothered if they had to pay upfront, and instead choose to donate afterwards,
people who can't afford the work, but spread it to people who can,
people who wouldn't have even heard of the work if they hadn't come across it on their torrenting software.
Copying is not theft.
Title card reads 3|3 What's to stop people from plagiarising my art?
Well, technically nothing.
One day, someone's going to rip your work off wholesale and sell it under their own name.
After you find it, however, it's easier than ever to prove you were the original author,
and soon the plagiariser will face widespread ridicule and you will have gained a thousand new fans.
Your mileage may vary.
Wait, doesn't that go against everything I've said?
Well, no it doesn't. To copy and to plagiarise are two very different things.
A torrented copy of an album will contain the artist's name.
The uploader will be under no pretense that the work is theirs.
But also, the way it works now doesn't stop shit.
In fact, copyright law disincentivizes the attribution of sampled works.
My more daringly infringing albums don't credit their samples because it would be a red flag.
Anyone could just show them to the artists I sampled, and it would be done.
I'd love to show you the sources for the more obscure stuff, but it's really not in my best interest.
Although I acknowledge that sampling Deadmau5 wasn't the best way to avoid being sued.
[Ambient electronic music]
I honestly don't know what the fuck I was thinking when I made that album.
I was sixteen. Give me a break.
Title card reads: 3|4 Why don't you just buy the rights? (And what about Fair Use?)
That's a good question. Simply put, I don't want my art's right to existed put in the hands of someone else.
I could offer to pay a million dollars, and they could still refuse.
And even if it was a sure sale, aren't you then saying that the only people who deserve to make derivative art
are the people who can afford it?
That's kinda discriminatory.
Okay, now we can talk about this.
Fair Use? I call it fairly useless.
Fair Use is a clause that allows certain limited usage of existing material to not be considered infringement.
The actual rules surrounding Fair Use are completely fuzzy,
and claiming Fair Use is an absolute crap-shoot.
Usually it just comes down to whether the work is "transformative" or not,
which we've already shown is completely arbitrary.
Also, guys, it doesn't even fucking apply in every country.
Canada, ahem, the UK, ahem, Australia,
Most countries have an even whimpier version of Fair Use calling Fair Dealing,
the meaning of which is dependent on country.
So no, Fair Use isn't a "get out of infringement free" card like everyone says it is,
especially if people keep on buying rights to be safe, instead of claiming Fair Use,
the clause is just going to dwindle.
Title card reads: 3|5 Why shouldn't I control how my art is used?
There is a scary amount of people who want to keep a deadlock on every idea that comes out of their heads.
If you've been following me thus far, this is terrifying.
If I have had any hand in letting you see the artistic merits of derivative works,
this can't be seen as anything other than Stalinist levels of censorship.
No, you shouldn't control how your art is used.
You should have no say over who is or isn't able to be inspired by your work.
No one should have any right to put a stopper in the pipeline of artistic evolution.
And that, my viewers, is why I'm giving the entire world
permission to remix, cover, recontextualize, and redistribute all of my music.
My album's are free to download on my BandCamp. Go nuts.
Because I hope for a world where ALL art is free.
Not as in "free beer", but as in "free speech"
Because art is the Lord, and copyright is the golden calf.
[Wondrous acousmatic music]
Title card reads: The Golden Calf
[Music slowly fades out]
Closed captioning provided by Acting NT