You're viewing a single thread.
I am hard side eyeing everyone who are pro abolishment of IP laws. You are either mindless consumers who have never spent time and effort creating anything yourselves your entire lives, or you haven't thought this through.
I hope for the latter.
How do you explain the vast wealth of free software and entertainment media created by both professionals and hobbyists alike? How do you explain the profitability of games and movies when any of us can pirate a copy with little effort? Why is it possible to sell copies of public domain books when we have libraries?
When software and entertainment is created for people to use for free, that is a deliberate action from the creator. They can't do that every single time, but they can do it once in awhile if they please.
I am a professional artist and I sometimes draw things for free for other people because sometimes I decide it is worth it for me to do that. It is kinda like doing volunteer work. You don't get paid, but it gives you something back either socially or ideologically etc.
But I am pretty sure that the people who create free software and entertainment either aren't working full time in software or entertainment and get their money from an unrelated job or they decided to do one for the community inbetween orders. They would not do this all the time if they were financially dependent on their skills and products giving them food on the table. I don't think you would give your own services away for free all the time in the name of community spirit. But once in awhile, is fine. Then it is an agreement you made woth yourself, that you have given a work to the community for free and therefore you don't care about IP.
When it comes to games and copying, well, people have copied media for ages and no matter what you say, it does affect profitability. Musicians can't earn any money on their music. They earn money on merch and when they are on tour. Nobody buys their music anymore because they can just download it for free online. I can't speak for games as I'm not a gamer, but with movies I personally prefer to buy a physical copy of the film rather than downloading movies in poorer quality than what I would have been able to get on bluray. I don't know, but I can imagine people still buy games to get the best quality and maybe enough people want to financially support the developers to make sure that they can still produce good games than they want to make copies and share them. If games ended up being copied to the same extent thst music does, I think you would start to see an effect on the market because making games would no longer be financially possible. In fact, the gaming industry bubble did burst a few years ago and I know a lot of developers who can't find jobs. Similar in animation. And it is not like any of these creators lived good beforehand either. A profitable game, I doubt is profitable in the way you think it is. It is my personal experience from being both part of and a spectator in the industry that the success of any creation is largely smoke and mirrors. People are extremely poor and companies go bankrupt all the time, especially in recent years. Maybe part of it is because people decide to copy a game for free rather than buy it, maybe it is bigger than that, but people don't really value art nowadays because they don't see it as art, but as content that they can mindlessly consume and get easy access to. It should be easier than ever for artists to earn money with how much art people consume, but the opposite is true. If artists have their intellectual property taken from them as well in the landscape we already have, then that will be the death of the art career. We have so little already. If we can't even keep domain over our own creation, then what is the point?
I don't understand your argument about public domain books. Public domain refers to the material no longer having a living creator who can profit from their own work. People can sell public domain books but that money goes to the publisher who probably did a lovely new edition of an old book with pretty covers.
I don't know what you mean. The money from a sale of a public domain book won't financially support the author.
If we talk about a living author who owns their IP and their book is available in the library, then I still say the same thing I did before, that the library doesn't sell the books, nor do they take ownership of the IP. The book market also has other problems than public libraries. The problems they face is that no one reads anymore, but that is a different discussion.
I've created lots of things. The moment I finish creating it, I sign over my IP rights in exchange for money for food, and never have a right to it again.
Without IP law, the thing I created would at least be in the commons where I can still legally use it.
(I agree with your point, some IP law could be better than none. But I'll assert that a total void of all IP law would be better than what we have now.
And we need to theaten to void it all, to get the current rights holders to negotiate. Frankly, I don't think they will. I think we need to void all IP law and then encourage the next generation to create some new IP law after we starve our current billionaires.)
(All this is in spite of my objection to being on the same side of any argument with Jack Dorsey. I have no illusion that his motives are pro-social.)
Voiding all IP law would cause a huge loss in the creative community.
If people can no longer pay their bills by creating then they stop creating and work. If I can't pay my bills by writing a book or creating art and selling it (because I don't own what I create), then I stop doing that and get a job at Walmart. Why dump years and your heart and soul into a great book just to have it distributed for free and be poor. Creating would become a pure luxury.
Voiding all IP law would cause a huge loss in the creative community.
I agree. I wouldn't be in favor of "burn it down" if I thought we could negotiate better terms with our current IP oligarchs.
If people can no longer pay their bills by creating then they stop creating and work.
I'll still be available to do creative work. It wouldn't change my current work-for-hire efforts.
Very little valuable IP is held by actual creators, today.
Why dump years and your heart and soul into a great book just to have it distributed for free and be poor.
Are you an actual published creator, or a temporarily embarrassed future billionaire? Is there a version of success for you that isn't just selling to a big IP company to get enough money to retire? That's what it looks like, to me. The peak of my possible success would be to write something that threatens/tempts the big IP holders enough to force them to buy me out. If I don't take the buy out, they eventually bury my thing with their advertising power.
I don't really disagree with you. I'm actually in favor of keeping and fixing IP laws, if that's possible.
But I believe the IP laws we have now only serve our billionaire employers. So, as a creator, I won't fight to keep our current IP laws.
I agree. I wouldn’t be in favor of “burn it down” if I thought we could negotiate better terms with our current IP oligarchs.
So since we can't save it, we just burn it down? The legal system isn't doing so hot either, should we just get rid of laws? I mean rich people can break then and regular people can't, should we just get rid of them since we can't fix it right now?
I’ll still be available to do creative work. It wouldn’t change my current work-for-hire efforts.
I don't know what kind of work you do, but it would impact many. You can't show drafts, you can't present mock-ups, etc, because they can just take those. You could make art for someone saying they will pay and then they don't. You could get a refund, but they just copied the art and it's theirs now.
This also harms people who in literature especially. They don't own the book they write. And for anyone to appreciate it, they also have the ability to give it away for free. But I guess since it doesn't impact you, it's somehow not a problem?
Very little valuable IP is held by actual creators, today.
This may be true, but guess how they lost that IP? They sold it. They owned it and were able to sell it to a bigger company that could run away with it. Without IP the selling part goes away, they just take it and run away with it. I mean come on, how do you think authors make money?
Are you an actual published creator, or a temporarily embarrassed future billionaire? Tell me you don't understand empathy without telling me. You made it very clear before by the "it won't impact me" statement, but this is just next level. Because I and many other can see how this will cause damage, that means nothing because we've not been personally impacted?
But that falls apart when I have actually created and sold software. I have created IP. And I've had actually to defend my personal IP from a previous employer.
Is there a version of success for you that isn’t just selling to a big IP company to get enough money to retire? That’s what it looks like, to me.
What? You're just making up a scenario in your head. If you can sell your IP to company and live comfortably for the rest of your life while they do all the heavy lifting and you get paid while people enjoy what you create, how is that some big loss? Because you want all the money? Sure, then self publish, it's an option. Start a small LLC, people do it, stop acting like it's the only way forward.
The peak of my possible success would be to write something that threatens/tempts the big IP holders enough to force them to buy me out. If I don’t take the buy out, they eventually bury my thing with their advertising power.
I mean, false. This is just wrong, people have created companies, brands, book series, etc. This just seems like you have decided you have no chance so you don't try and want to tear down the system so you can get yours.
I personally fear that if such a decision was passed, we would see big companies find loopholes and exceptions and/or they would make their profit entirely by stealing from creators without compensation or acknowledgements.
You want to hurt the big companies so badly you're willing to saw the branch they, you and everybody else sit on just so you can see them fall.
I doubt the big companies will be the ones who will feel threatened into negotiations if IP laws were abolished. They would flourish with their businesses and the AI tech bros would have field day making billions by stealing from all of us.
Your utopia is every creator's nightmare.
I believe it would be darker than mere loopholes. Corporations would probably both protect their own IP and steal each others' IP through militant means. Like, Cyberpunk 2077 could become reality.
No. Militant means aren't needed when no IP exists, especially when we use the same force we're discussing to enforce the "no IP" issue to enforce the "not trade secrets" rider that goes along with it. IP is a blight and are shouldn't be a job. The commercialization of art is forcing you to excuse millions of preventable deaths because you don't also want to address the issue that we allow people to work far longer per week than is natural or right. If you were still surviving on 20hrs of labor a week like all of humanity did pre capitalism, you wouldn't be bitching so much about your art being stolen because art would return to a leisure pursuit for you where it should be.
You're being fucked so hard you've completely lost sight of what's important and it's allowing you to justify genocide by withholding access to lifesaving drugs because you want to make money off a drawing
Your utopia is every creator's nightmare.
I didn't say "utopia". We need IP laws. But since we continue to let Disney (and other mega corporations) dictate the entire terms of engagement - we need to bring "burning the whole thing down and starting over" into the list of options under consideration. It's the only way to bring Disney back to the bargaining table, at minimum.
Edit: A more practical approach would be to disolve every company that has engaged in an illegal merger (most large US companies). But I think that's actually harder to accomplish, today, than voiding all IP law. It's a better option, if we can swing it. The necessary laws are already on the books, they're simply un-enforced.
Why on earth does every interpretation you have start with the assumption that people advocating for the destruction of IP are not also simultaneously arguing for the destruction of any company who could find a workaround? You're approaching this from the silliest angle ever. The person you're arguing against doesn't exist. Anyone who is truely against IP also wants any company who is currently profiting off of IP to be destroyed along with it
It's such a weird take. Also, "creator" shouldn't be a job. Nothing that isn't critical to human survival should be part of the monetary system. Art should only exist for arts sake and everyone should be afforded enough time to pursue it fully without worrying about survival
No IP + universal income is the only moral way forward
Exactly, people don't actually think about this. They just think "I get stuff companies have" and not "no one will write books anymore." If creative people can't make money by creating, they do something else. Why make music, books, art, when doing so becomes a financial drain.
Imagine a world where you created a hit story online. Well a big company could make that a book, sell it and you see nothing. If it got big they could sell merch, which you would see none of. Big companies, by having manufacturing and distribution setup, could steal any idea at any point and put it into the machine. This would be a nightmare.
This is exactly what would happen.
I'm a creator myself and it is already hard enough to get jobs - not even well paying jobs, just jobs. Now we are competing with AI and then you're telling me that people here on Lemmy agree with these wolves about abolishing IP laws, which means my hard work and intellectual property that I have spent countless hours on developing, is now up for grabs for anyone out there who is bigger and richer than me?
I seriously don't believe people have thought this through, or they are lying about being creators themselves.
But I guess the "I got mine" mentality is all over the internet. Even here, lol. No one cares as long as they think it doesn't affect them personally. Ladidah. How did that go for the American farmers who voted for Trump because they thought it would help their farms?
Yep, this is Trump's Tariffs all over again.
And if this happened, people would cheer as they got all this stuff for free, without realizing that they just killed the future of creativity.
The irony is people want this to happen because they see companies as greedy. When in fact, this move itself would be incredibly greedy and feed the corporations that people are trying to rail against.
And all these free movies and software are only "free" until they find a way to enforce logins and always online BS for everything. Big companies won't just give up their IP, they will fight this and find a way to hoard.
But people with tuberculosis in the third world would get to live. Decent trade off. No actually, the only good option. Anyone who even brings up art when discussing IP (much less defends it in the discussion) is a coddled narcissist with no perspective
So art is pointless because people are dying? This is silly. We can destroy the creative nature of our society to save some people, sure. Ignoring the ripple effect that has and lives it would impact, how far do you take that? Is losing the right to freedom of speech ok if it saves lives? This would have massive down stream effects and actuall results in more harm.
Did you ever consider the ability to make and sell these, then transport? Did you consider the fact that as new deseases emerge that there will be no incentive for a company to invest in finding a cure or vaccine? No, because people just want to virtue signal.
No. Before the industrial revolution participating in art wasn't something you did to make money, it was a prerequisite to a full human existence. Art isn't a job art is humanity. Art isn't pointless, art is the point. I'm not arguing against art. I'm arguing against "creator" existing as a social function or identity. Look into the concept of commodification. You'll learn a lot
I'm saying that people shouldn't "be able to live" off of art the same way they shouldn't "be able to live" off breathing and further.
I am ignoring the ripple effects on people's lives because those effects only hit them as far as they have allowed themselves to participate in the selling off of their humanity.
And no. It doesn't extend to free speech because free speech isn't an argument solely used to prop up a system that shouldn't have ever existed at all.
Art is not pointless, but it shouldn't be something you buy or sell. Many things we buy or sell today are the same. Art is not unique.
But the argument that an artist in the Netherlands keeping their job because otherwise they'll starve is a justification for a child in Sierra Leone dying of tuberculosis when the person paying for the art has the ability to give the artist food and the child medicine is evil. And make no mistake, that person is you.
IP abolition is one single part of a much larger reform we need, and anyone who is arguing against it is missing the forest for the trees. That is my argument.
Wanting artists to be able to be paid for their work obfuscates the much larger, actually important issue that they'll starve in our society without their art. That is evil.
No. Before the industrial revolution participating in art wasn’t something you did to make money, it was a prerequisite to a full human existence.
Why say something that is so easily disproven. In ancient Greece, artists were paid by the government to build temples and other public buildings in Athens. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, works of art were commissioned by patrons and made to order. There are tons of examples of people doing it for money and as their sole job. You are %100 wrong here. Like without a doubt.
It calls into question everything else you've said and how honest you're being. My take away from this comment is either you're lying or ignorant on the topic. Either way you don't seem able to have this conversation. Either way I'll address your points. But I'm not interested in a conversation where the person on the other side is presenting false statements like facts and arguing in bad faith. I can debate conflicting opinions all day. But your need to toss in ad-hominem attacks, calling me evil because I disagree, and present false statements further undermines your stance. You are not interested in a discussion, you are interested in yelling at and insulting someone about why you think they're wrong. That is so next-level close-minded.
Art isn’t a job art is humanity. Art isn’t pointless, art is the point.
Cool, and how does that person making art eat? We live in a world where food costs money. Hell, art supplies cost money. As much as you want money not to matter, it does. You sound privileged af after reading your whole response, honestly.
Look into the concept of commodification. You’ll learn a lot
Yes, I learned about this way back in college. It's not some new or crazy idea. It's not even a bad idea, it has help society throughout many points in history.
I’m saying that people shouldn’t “be able to live” off of art the same way they shouldn’t “be able to live” off breathing and further.
Art is something you invest time and money and resources into. Breathing is not. This doesn't make any sense. I can breathe while working a 9-5.
I am ignoring the ripple effects on people’s lives because those effects only hit them as far as they have allowed themselves to participate in the selling off of their humanity.
Just writing off tons of people because they are doing what they ned to survive? Really? And you call me evil?
Well, that is extremely close-minded. Lets do a little thinking.... Without IP, big pharma won't be interested in investing millions into a new vaccine, so I guess everyone who dies from the lack of that vaccine is their own fault because they sold their soul. Or you spent your life on your masterpiece of a book and want to make money off your life's work, because you know, you want to eat and want money to live and enjoy life.And no. It doesn’t extend to free speech because free speech isn’t an argument solely used to prop up a system that shouldn’t have ever existed at all.
Have you never seen politicians? Have you ever read a history book? Words and hate speech, covered by freedom of speech, has lead to many deaths. But I guess they don't matter somehow.
Art is not pointless, but it shouldn’t be something you buy or sell. Many things we buy or sell today are the same. Art is not unique.
But I'm sure the artist wants a house to live in. Who is making that house? They want to eat. How are they getting that food. You seem to live in a fantasy land where everyone has unlimited time and money to just create and be happy with creating, no bills, no real world to worry about.
But the argument that an artist in the Netherlands keeping their job because otherwise they’ll starve is a justification for a child in Sierra Leone dying of tuberculosis when the person paying for the art has the ability to give the artist food and the child medicine is evil. And make no mistake, that person is you.
Sure, call me evil because I can see the harm it will do. That's easier than having to think about what I said and consider the fact you might be wrong. But if I'm evil then you are the literal devil. That kid who wants that tuberculosis medicine, how do you think we got that medicine? A company invested millions to research it. So when the next disease comes around and it's killing millions and no one is willing to just burn millions to find a cure because they have no IP, those deaths will be because of people like you. You have this childish mindset that after IP is gone everyone will magically have meds in their hands and everything will be perfect. No, you're just as dumb as you are evil. New diseases will come up, no one will invest in curing them because they will lose money, and people will die. The difference between me and you is I can see more than 1 month into the future on how this would effect things.
IP abolition is one single part of a much larger reform we need, and anyone who is arguing against it is missing the forest for the trees. That is my argument.
I agree we need reform. But I would say anyone arguing that we don't need IP is naive. They benefit from it every day while saying it should be destroyed. Which now that I think of it sounds like every republican. Not calling you one, just funny how that works out. No surprise that people with money are the ones wanting it gone. Ever think why the rich want this? Is it because you think they're trying to be good people? Or maybe, just maybe, they realize how they will get even more money and power while selling a fantasy that people eat up. This is just like how people eat up the idea of tariffs without even understanding what they are. That's you.
Wanting artists to be able to be paid for their work obfuscates the much larger, actually important issue that they’ll starve in our society without their art. That is evil.
Yes, they shouldn't have to do art to survive. But your solution would just kill art all together. Because a system is broken is not a reason to remove it entirely, it's a reason to fix it. You just seem to have this pipe dream of a world where everyone can just do art whenever for free and no one ever has to worry about money. That sounds great, but it's a fantasy. I live in reality, please join me.
Sure, call me evil because I can see the harm it will do. That's easier than having to think about what I said and consider the fact you might be wrong. But if I'm evil then you are the literal devil. That kid who wants that tuberculosis medicine, how do you think we got that medicine? A company invested millions to research it. So when the next disease comes around and it's killing millions and no one is willing to just burn millions to find a cure because they have no IP, those deaths will be because of people like you. You have this childish mindset that after IP is gone everyone will magically have meds in their hands and everything will be perfect. No, you're just as dumb as you are evil. New diseases will come up, no one will invest in curing them because they will lose money, and people will die. The difference between me and you is I can see more than 1 month into the future on how this would effect things.
Prove it cunt. Show me a single fucking time in all of human history where people didn't try to cure disease because they couldn't make money. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You buy dumb shit like this hook line and sinker. You're an idiot who thinks they're smart and it's killing children. There is absolutely zero evidence proving anything about IP is responsible for any disease cure. There are no actual studies proving it because it is an absolutely ridiculous proposition to say altruism doesn't exist. But you're so fucking braindead at this point you actually believe it
No. IP does not improve the healthcare system in any way. Spreading these lies is why I called you evil. Because they're the reason children are dying. You're correct I am also evil. Our body counts are identical. I just have the human decency to feel shame about it.
And there it is! Finally! You entered a discussion of theory: a discussion on what the ideal is. A discussion where no one is talking anything about the mechanics of getting there and you decided to completely ignore that and start talking about "compromises" and "reality" as though it made you smart to completely miss the discussion actually taking place.
No, I will not "join you in reality" (i.e. Talk about policy) because we are not discussing policy, we are discussing theory. That is what was posted, that is what everyone around you is talking about.
The question posed is "what should be?" You don't get to pretend that's a discussion of what is and walk away like you made a point.
Also, no shit the ancient Greeks paid for art. I wasn't making a claim about the Greeks. I said before the industrial revolution as in "just before the industrial revolution" and no, even then it wasn't perfect. But both that and the Greek system was a completely different beast to what we have today and you know it!
Stop being a smug asshole and actually engage with the discussion or fuck off. Nothing you are saying is relevant to the actual discussion. I'm advocating for a completely different social structure and you're saying "but that wouldn't work under our current system"! It's not a compelling argument, it's the whining of a child who is choosing not to comprehend what's being said because it makes you uncomfy
Absolutely. We will see a scenario where the big companies readjust to the new market while everybody else loses.
This reminds me of the mocking of unions that I witnessed happening a lot online a year or two ago and I was so fucking confused how normal everyday people who didn't own big companies could poopoo unions and call it commie shit.
In my country, we have a proud union history that has secured the rights of workers for generations so it was very bizarre to me to see - mostly Americans - mock unions as a concept.
i think it's more likely that everyone would race to the bottom to make the cheapest Marvel, Pokémon, Disney, Star Wars, Harry Potter spin offs, merch and content they could.
Patents are also how you kill electronic vehicles for 15 years.
I think if you said "major reform" like use it or lose it, mandatory licensing, and any other number of sane overhauls...sure, but the point is to destroy the broken system we have today.
The problem for me is that if you abolish copyrights it means your creation can be used for any reason without permission.
Maybe you don’t care if somebody downloads your music for free to listen to or uses it in their goofy TikTok dance video.
But, no copyright also means the most terrible person on the planet can use your song at their political rally. They can use it as a backing tracks for ideals you do not agree with. A major corporation can use it in their advertising campaign. They can even straight up sell your creations as their own for profit.
Without the protection of copyright, artists, authors, musicians, video content creators, etc. have no say in how their work is used.
All you described is happening WITH copyright and even enforced by it.
Without the protection of copyright, artists, authors, musicians, video content creators, etc. have no say in how their work is used.
Copyright owner is not author. Publisher(disney, EA, Ubisoft) controls everything and author has no say in it. Often authors in order to discuss their works and show portfolios have to pirate their own work(e.g. The Owl House). So copyright protects inability of artists, authors, musicians, video content creators, etc. have no say in how their work is used.
That's one of the least worrying aspects of abolishing copyright for me. but then again, the whole "control what others do with your creation" never sat right with me in the first place. I tend to fall into the "property is theft" line of reasoning.
With regards to profit sharing in particular, well, I think copyright law is a paltry, dirty bandage that covers up the festering wound of for-profit art. At the very least, the wound needs to be cleaned and the bandage changed.
Exactly. There are so, so, so many different ways that no IP laws can backfire severely and in ways that people don't think about. The scenario you just used, I hadn't even thought of, but yes! I would HATE for something I created to be used to promote ideologies or products I am vehemently against.
Don't care. Don't like what you created existing? Don't make it. You're using "but muh art" to prop up a system which is needlessly killing people by denying them access to information which would save their lives. Your art doesn't matter. The concept of IP is evil
I have spent time and effort creating things myself. Still think ip law is not entirely accomplishing what it should, which is protecting the interests of people producing intellectual works, preferably while they can still reap the benefits of said work and are not financially/socially stable. It seems it's basically working backwards, great for inheritors to make millions by doing nothing except owning some IPs but terrible at protecting the people who actually need it.
I also know a few people holding some important patents, and I guess the patent system is alright in comparison, at least in France, since it did actually protect their work while also allowing others to use it fairly and improve on it.
There is definitely room for improvement when it comes to IP laws, but abolishing them entirely is not the win some people think it is.
Only because you don't think big enough. The company that could "change their strategy to get around it" should be torn down with the IP law. Art shouldn't be a part of this discussion. Art shouldn't ever = food. Anyone trying to uphold a society where it does has already lost the plot
I get that you see no value in art, but I thoroughly disagree with your views on that subject. You and i could have had an interesting discussion on how IP laws affects medicine but I'm not gonna have that with you since you are exactly the kind of person who has zero respect for people who make things.
You've completely missed my point. Art has massive value. You're the one who is so limited you only think in terms of commercial value. IP is wrong. It has no basis in reality. Art should only exist for the sake of itself, not it's resale value and people should not have to produce art to live. The way we construct our society where art has commercial value is perverse. You're right. We can't have a genuine discussion because we do not value human life equally. But I'm not the problem here
For the record I am an artist myself. I'm simply not disgusting enough to participate in such a vile system and call myself good. Either art exists to be shared and is owned by no one, or it exists for yourself and others "can't* take it. Anything else is unnatural abuse of your fellow man and using that abuse as your excuse to kill the poor is disgusting
Pretend we could have had an actual discussion all you want, you were never going to approach this subject with an open mind.
Swedish (For the user name)?
I think you should have rights but not like it is today with stupid 100 years after authors death.
You can also protect the creation, without having laws banning people using it. Like if you buy a painting in france, you can't burn it or "disrespect" (sorry, can't find a better word) it.
Yes, there are definitely room for improvement when it comes to IP laws but that is a completely different discussion from the one about abolishing IP laws entirely. One discussion is constructive and aims toward a more fair system, the other is Trump-anarchy which will only ever benefit the ones who have money and power while it will screw the rest of us over.
Also, not Swedish. I just love Astrid Lindgren.
See ya in Nangilima!
Dude, it wasn't until I was in my 20s that I realized that the last shot of the movie adaptation was a shot of their gravestone in the real world. Until then I had been so severely in denial about the implications of that, that I just didn't register it.
I'm telling you, I was bawling on the floor.
Ya, that film wasn't really "barnvänlig" ...
I think it is so so beautiful. Both the film and the book. It is one of the most beautiful and compassionate children's stories about death that I have ever known. As a kid, it sure did comfort me to think that if something were to happen to me or my family members, we would meet again in Nangijala.
I think one of the most heartbreaking things I ever saw in a graveyard was a gravestone for an infant that said "Vi ses i Nangijala".
I also recently discovered a radioplay on youtube based on Astrid's book and I listened to all of it and even though I'm not fluent in Swedish at all, I fucking loved every second of it. The voice acting, the music and the sound effects are absolutely stellar. If you haven't listened to it, I highly recommend it. I'm guessing you are Swedish yourself or at least able to understand Swedish!
Hah yeah I'm swedish and that film was kind of traumatic for a whole generation 😁 I mean I was like seven years old and only understood the death metaphor and so on not really consciously I guess, as for the non-metaphorical deaths those we understood 100% !
She wrote so many books & films for children that were very profound, and good!
Yeah. It's a masterpiece and in my opinion, one the best stories she ever wrote. Which says a lot, because she almost only wrote brilliant works.
I always describe her as Scandinavia's JK Rowling (only a thousand times better) when I explain to non-scandinavians what she means to us. I know I am obligated by law to clown on Sweden, but there are a couple of areas where the swedes are superior and Astrid Lindgren is one of those areas.
Also, happy Easter and I hope you have a wonderful Spring, my friend ❤️
Thank you and might you go and live in Sweden one day!