The Golden Calf

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


Eric Taxxon : As you heard, at the end of this video I gave all of you permission to do whatever you want with my stuff. If you send it my way I might post it on twitter.

Plaskiz : Removing copyrights would have similiar effect to removing patents, it would simply kill any research&development, because why bother spending millions if not billions to get an edge on the competition if they will simply be able to copy your work and sell it as their own? Can anyone answer this? Why spend 500million employing thousand people to develop a game when you can just wait for someone else to do it then sell it as your own? I get the sentiment as an artist, it's not a big deal to sample and such I think it should be allowed, that's why the conversation should be more about limiting copyright rather than just abolishing it.

Decimae : I don't think I fully agree with an abolishment of copyright; copyright protects authors from large companies taking their working and commercialising it; either against the wishes of or in competition of the small author. If copyright were abolished then small author's work getting popular it would just be ripped off by large companies, and most people would not know the small author at all. The reason why copyright makes sense to me is because it's supposed to be a protection of authors against companies taking their work without payment and credit. And I don't think that people would really take the effort to ensure everything is from the original owner as you seem to suggest. The argument that original sales are not prevented in this case I don't think is really clear-cut; many companies which are large by producing content with authors right now can (and will) just earn the same money by ripping off authors, making sure that none of the authors gain money instead of some. Of course, the current copyright system doesn't really achieve this with it's enormous copyright length and small idea of fair use, and with this implementation a lot of the power still lies with companies instead of the artists. A copyright system with a more reasonable duration (possibly depending on the type of media, around 10-20 years at most for some types of media) and an expanded and more clear version of fair use would be what I would suggest. Maybe in a different kind of economic system this requirement of power of the artist on the companies which reproduce their work is not required, but we are not in such a system and to suggest we should be is an entirely different issue. So I agree that copyright law in its current way of implementation is rather broken, but instead of just removing it altogether we should probably significantly change it instead(or completely overhaul other parts of our society). (also note that I am not incredibly well informed and can be rather stupid with these kind of things; so I probably made some mistakes interpreting your argument, sorry if I did)

gatekeeper501 : This is what destroys your argument in a moment. Say you create a media. You have to 'advertise/distribute/support' this media. If anyone can copy you, anyone with a bigger budget will be able to 'advertise/distribute/support' it better than you can. You can write the best fairy tale ever written. Walt Disney can copy it word for word and then advertise/distribute/support it far beyond what you can. If you thought Disney is a monster now, wait until they can just yank something directly and put a price tag on it. (Thought they have still because their abuse of power, but that is a whole other matter...)

The Reviewer : Why do you disable your audience from seeing your video ratings?

The Social Tune : Loved the video, loved your points, glad to see your growth. Keep up the good work!

Rhods_ : you are good at art and talking about it!

Jaxmith : Beyond being a well written/spoken video, you had incredible music choices. Thanks for not just sticking lo-fi hiphop in the background and calling it a day.

theyellowmeteor : Piracy is not theft. It's more like sneaking into the theater. Good points all in all though.

Spite Goblin : #DefendTrickleDown

Kamila Kołodziej : Calling her TERF is nasty of you, she is not transfobic. This is her statement: "A few years ago, when I shared this article about Caitlyn Jenner and another one about Rachel Dolezal, many angry liberal friends called me “transphobic,” and told me to “educate myself.” They apparently didn’t know I had spent many years deeply involved in various queer scenes in San Francisco, and had trans friends, and was gender dysphoric myself (it resolved in my mid-20’s, which is not unusual.) Since I couldn’t “educate myself” much more on trans people and queer theory." Please call out people who are real danger for trans people - agressive men. Not women who have slighty different opinion than queer theory preaches.

Non AutomateData : Every single human expression ever expressed was build upon other human expression how in earth can someone just not see that? I totally think voluntary contribution is the way to transition between f ca pital$m and a really awesome human society not yet to be seen.

Eric Taxxon : I think you're making a really good point here. I was skeptic first, but now I realise that copying is not theft.

Noah Black : I'm broke but why don't you have a Patreon yet?

WaveGunner232 : Pardon me if I make an error about how this works, but wouldn't this type of abolishment disincentivize big corporations to even exist in the software world? They would still exist sure, but at the scale of a google with that amount of ability to make a change? It seems like the system you're presenting would put hundreds upon hundreds of people out of jobs. Perhaps I'm not being clear though, so let me present a hypothetical. The copyright laws that exist today are totally abolished. However, a company like Adobe for example still wants to sell the creative cloud. They build out their products and sell each of them in the same way. One clever software developer, however, has an idea. This developer cracks adobes software and starts an entire company out of stealing their products at a one time fee with far lower costs. How can Adobe protect themselves from this? Even if this company is considered terrible people would still probably use it because it's so much cheaper. There are even real world parallels of practicality overwhelming morality. G2A, for example, has suffered hard on a moral level because of their terrible business practices, but still turn a profit and can sponsor people. How could any individual feel safe selling a digital good? Copyright effects more than just art, it affects any industry that cannot sell its goods multiple times (I struggled on how to word that last statement. Also, when I say sell multiple times, I mean in the way a supermarket sells various oranges). How could any of these companies turn a profit? How could a capitalist economy work with that amount of loss of work? Essentially what I'm asking is how do you avoid killing all technology-based corporations that sell software?

L'Etre Supreme : I don't 100% agree with total abolition (under Capitalism, once that's gone 10000000% yes) but a SEVERE shortening would be good. Most money is made immediately at publication and then dwindles. So copyright should reflect this. A 1 year copyright would probably be the most appropriate period. The only peole this would really affect are products which are really succesful, in which case they already made tons of money, and art which has a spike in purchases after a year. But if there was a spike the only people who are selling would be the artist since if it was unsucceful in the beggining no one would care enough to sell it.

Ray Cesmat : It’s a common truism that people are scared of change but I think the other side of that coin that’s just as true and maybe more bracing is that people are scared of the idea that things aren’t already working as well as they could. You see it all the time in almost every type of sociopolitical discourse to undermine the very fabric of the discussion, to try to undercut the foundation of any exchange of ideas - countries that have attempted to transition into communism have, historically, struggled, and so capitalism must be The Best We’ve Got. It’s legitimately upsetting to think about how that mental sinkhole is so vast, because i don’t think there’s anyone who’s having these conversations in good faith that doesn’t want the world to be better for virtually everybody in it other than the relative few who currently monopolize it’s power. We can only start figuring out how to move toward a better version of this world by looking those issues in the eye, whether or not we come to the table with the answers in hand already. That’s what this video makes me think of, anyway. The idea that copyright law could somehow manage to do almost nothing it was intended to do, less now than ever especially, is so hard to get people on board with, I think, because to let that idea be presupposed demands you take stock of a lot of other ugly ideas, about the dysfunction of nearly all western governments, about the way capitalism shapes our society, and about how easily we’ll accept the ideas put in front of us as long as there’s ostensible authority behind them. Like someday there’s going to be a huge annotated history of the way “piracy” was framed by people in power and, in retrospect, I think it will strike people as madness that it was ever believed to even resemble stealing.

Frosty : Good video! This is so succint and gives all the major arguments as to why copyright is just. Abysmal for art. And I'm gonna show it to some of my art friends for sure! Thank you for taking up the mantel as face of the copyright abolitionist movement since Nina's a terf (Yuck.)

Fish Toe : Good vid eric <3 only complaint is that sometimes title cards lingered a bit. Best video I've seen on the subject for sure

gkinfinity : Excellent video!