ChardokDec 2017Strongly recommends
CGP Grey also did a fantastic video on the history of copyright and Disney's constant involvement. ▶ this video
in “How the US Pushed Sweden to Take Down the Pirate Bay” · View on HN
Copyright: How It Went Wrong
Copyright: How It Went Wrong on HackerTube: recommended by 4 Hacker News commenters across 4 separate months, 2012–2020.
CGP Grey
Open on YouTubeexplainer · dated
CGP Grey's five-minute animated explainer on how copyright terms grew from 14 years to life plus decades. It uses Disney and Star Wars examples to argue the system has gone wrong.
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN shares it as a short summary of why copyright length matters and the history of Disney-driven term extensions.
- people recommended it
- 4
- separate months
- 4
- strong recommendations
- 1
- discussed on HN
- 2012–2020
“CGP Grey also did a fantastic video on the history of copyright and Disney's constant involvement.”
What HN commenters said
9 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
aestraDec 2013Recommends
It isn't just about "stealing." Allowing works to enter the public domain actually encourages more works to be created. People are free to remake and remix works in the public domain. Think: A REAL lot of old Disney movies (Alice and Wonderland, Jungle Book, Pinocchio...) Pride and Prejudice with Zombies That Romeo and Juliet movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and guns. A Christmas Carol in play form (it lends itself really well to live theater, I suggest seeing it!) West Side Story (inspired by Romeo and Juliet) Clueless (based on Jane Austen's 1815 novel Emma) The anime/manga Lupin III was inspired by the French gentleman thief Arsène Lupin, created by Maurice Leblanc. Japan didn't enforce copyright at the time of its creation but the Leblanc estate got mad once Lupin started being sold in North America. Some foreign releases changed his name as a result. In 2012, Leblanc's original Arsène Lupin entered the public domain in France See this video for a different perspective: ▶ this video Also read the copyright clause in the Constitution! [link] Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is the goal and purpose of copyright, as written by the founding fathers, not "financial
in “What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014” · View on HN
uchaJul 2013Recommends
Copyrights are a deal passed between society and authors to encourage creative production. If they create something new, they can live off it for sometime until their copyright expires. Extending copyrights years after the author's death may serve a corporation or their children that can live on that rent but fails at establishing an incentive for creation. This video by CGP Grey summaries the problem pretty well ( ▶ this video )
in “Why does Amazon have more books from the 1880s than the 1980s? Blame copyright” · View on HN
mtgxDec 2012Recommends
Watchi these videos, and hopefully you'll understand why having 14 years for copyright is not the same as 30 or 100 years: ▶ this video [link]
in “There Is Never a Need to Justify Sharing Culture and Knowledge” · View on HN
MaxBarracloughApr 2020Cites it
No, that's not it. The reason is that Disney lobbied to have the copyright term extended to prevent Mickey Mouse entering the public domain. This is despite that Disney was essentially built on public domain works. This isn't how copyright was meant to work. [link] CGP Grey on copyright: ▶ this video
in “Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]” · View on HN
andersonvomJan 2016Cites it
The so-called "myths" the author highlights are more like fallacies than actual facts. He briefly touches some points related to copyright and claims that that's all there is to it. > Myth #5. Artists Feel Restricted by Copyright Remixing works under copyright means you need the author's permission to do so, usually by paying royalties. This would be fine if copyrights ended at some point. Currently, in the US, they last way past the death of the author. > Myth #4. Copyright Harms the Public Domain He mentions The Little Prince as if all works are really popular. There are tons of works that are not popular, their authors don't even care about them anymore or are dead or companies have gone bankrupt, and remain under copyright. This makes it illegal for people to make copies and keep these works alive. Access to such usually also requires payment and what's affordable for some may not be so affordable for others. > Myth #3. Copyright is an Attack on Artistic Freedom He only mentions the freedom of the original author. Indeed, their freedom is not touched. Everybody else is hurt, though. Nobody else can express their artistic freedom on works under copyright without permission (which usually means paying royalties, but can also be impossible if the author doesn't approve the derived work). > Myth #2. Copyright Costs Consumers Nobody argues that authors need to be compensated for their work. How much is "fair" is a whole different story. Should they keep being compensated 25 ye
in “What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2016?” · View on HN
Show 3 more comments
slackaJan 2013Cites it
These draconian laws like DMCA, SOPA, and copyright extensions that pushed though by the RIAA and MPAA are suppressing our creativity ▶ this video and are destroying our cultural heritage. [link] To top it off, their outdated business model leaches most of the money from the artists. [link] Copyright needs to be reformed. Some changes that I'd like to see are: * Abolish the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. * Intellectual property should be taxed like real property. [link] It is an asset with a value, right? If you no longer make enough to pay your taxes on it, it goes to the state to dispose of. * Copyrights are supposed to be an incentive to create. One that lasts unto your grandchildren are a dis-incentive, because not only are you not creating any more once you are dead, neither are your descendants. Copyright should last half a working lifetime (20 years), to encourage people to continue to create. * Someone who makes copies without permission should pay a fine, but it should be at the regular royalty rate for the item x copies made. So upload a song, it's iTunes price x number of downloads, with perhaps a factor of 3 penalty to discourage doing it, not $150,000 per copy. If you care about copyright reform, you can donate money to the EFF or at least sign this petition urging reform. [link]
in “'I Have a Dream' Posted in Defiance of Copyright for Internet Freedom Day” · View on HN
jshowaJan 2012Cites it
One of the major problems is copyright. The copyright laws have gotten so out of hand in this country that things still retain copyright long after the creator is dead. Back when it was first issued, it use to be only 28 years in 1710, but it has just increased and increased... I mean, what good is money if your dead? Does the media industry really need to make more than billions and billions of each year? And its not like they're that original, they release old films and books countless times and you're telling me its impossible to turn a profit in 28 years? It's ridiculous ▶ this video
in “SOPA lives—and MPAA calls protests an "abuse of power"” · View on HN
shawnAug 2018Joke
Just like Disney did with Alice in Wonderland, right? ▶ this video "And now you, dear filmmaker, want to come along and want to make your own version of Star Wars: A New Hope? For shame! That's like stealing food right out of George Lucas' mouth."
in “Snap’s Drop in Active Users Could Signal a Social Media Peak” · View on HN