I think that Nina Paley sort of is on par with Larry Leesig [sic], two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright.

First of all: the viewpoints of Nina Paley and Larry Lessig are not the same at all. Lessig is not a copyright abolitionist (no matter what copyright maximalists would have you believe).

Second of all: Paley, at least, is convinced of her view, because copyright has directly interfered with her creation of artistic works. She didn’t “convince herself,” she was convinced because working within the copyright system convinced her that it was wrong. It was the copyright system itself that convinced her.

Does copyright stop the flow of information? Generally no, because we still discuss what is copyright anyway (did you see the blahblach movie or did you real the new so-and-so book?).

Copyright law absolutely interferes with people who are trying to utilize copyrighted works for their own creation, and/or people who are trying to utilize copyrighted works for the purpose of general dissemination to the public. And since this sort of “collective conversation” is much of which drives culture, yes, it does stop the flow of information (or at the very least, the flow of expression).

It doesn’t stop ordinary humans from talking about the works, that is true; it does stop ordinary humans from using the actual expressive works (by e.g. sharing a sample on YouTube). Or it would, if anyone cared whether they were infringing or not.

Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur.

Plenty of people want to use copyright to stop distribution. There are plenty of copyright holders who outright state, often by writing Congress, that they should have the right to stop distribution for content-based reasons. Here’s just one example:

Artists can, and should continue to be able to, deny a use that they do not agree with. For one, an artist should be able to turn down uses in connection with messages that the artist finds objectionable. […]

For example, Melissa Etheridge is a known lesbian and animal rights activist. A compulsory license would allow someone to remix or sample her music into a new work filled with homophobic epithets, and she could not say “no”. In the same way, a compulsory license would allow someone to remix or sample music by Ted Nugent, noted gun ownership advocate, for a song promoting stricter gun control without Nugent’s pelmission.

• LaPolt Law, P.C. and Steven Tyler comment to the USPTO

  Were this done directly by the government, this would be called “content-based censorship.”

  Also, the mere fact that copyright can only be licensed by those who can afford the license (however much it may be) means that copyright stops distribution. It doesn’t stop all distribution, of course – but it does limit distribution to those with enough money to enter into deals with corporate rights holders.

It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing.

“Legal standing” does not mean “copyright.” There are plenty of ways for artists to get compensated without holding the copyright to their works. Obviously, crowdfunding is one example, but even historically, the vast majority of artists did not hold the copyright to their works – think people who are work-for-hire, like graphic designers, actors, studio artists, etc. In fact, most artists have always been paid more if they were work-for-hire than if they signed away their copyrights for a commission (a.k.a. royalties).

The idea that copyright gives creators a legal right to leverage against publishers is a good one, in theory, but in practice it’s not as significant as people think. For one thing, even without copyright, artists would always have “first publication” rights, and those can be (and usually are) more important than their post-publication monopoly rights.

For another thing, the fact that publishers (including labels, studios, etc.) are assigned the copyrights to thousands or millions of works, mean that they tend to have collective monopolies over entire markets. Aside from being destructive to artistic markets in general, this significantly reduces the bargaining power of creators within those markets.

So, while copyright may give creators rights, in order to bargain with copyright assignees, it eventually makes those barganing rights nearly inconsequential.

The result is what you see in the modern piracy economy, the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity, which pays far more. It’s a stupid system where people pay more for a “personal appearance” of celebutards like a Kardashian than they do for a musician or writer.

This is exactly what has been happening since celberety existed. It has zero to do with a “modern piracy economy,” whatever that is supposed to be.

Nina’s problem I think is that she has never been on the other side with a product people widely pirate

Nina has, and does, encourage people to pirate her product. And they do – widely.

If there’s anyone who has “been on the other side,” it’s her.

If all that effort went instead into artistic creation… opportunity costs, right?

Ironically, you’re making her point for her. She – like many, many artists (especially professional creators) – spent far too much time considering if her use of a work is allowed under copyright law. The self-censorship, plus the multi-year legal wrangling with copyright holders, the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to license songs from the 20’s and 30’s, etc… all of these created “opportunity costs” that she didn’t choose.

It was only by completely ignoring copyright law that she was able to put that effort into artistic creation.

She went over this later in the video, especially the part before she showed “This Land Is Mine.” I suppose you didn’t make it that far.