CGP Grey
4 HN recommenders · recommended in 9 months, 2012–2020
5:10 · Aug 23, 2011
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.
HN shares it as a short summary of why copyright length matters and the history of Disney-driven term extensions.
9 comments from Hacker News
CGP Grey also did a fantastic video on the history of copyright and Disney's constant involvement. this video
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
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 )
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]
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