Forum - View topic
NEWS: Japan's Law Penalizing Downloaders, Criminalizing Ripping Goes Into Effect


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dan9999



Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 648

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:43 pm Reply with quote
dtm42 wrote:
In this day and age, if people like a free work that was put on the internet by the creators they will gladly pay for it.

Bands have released their albums online for free and then accepted donations from people. No slimy middlemen, no distribution lines, no having to burn CDs, no fuss or bother, maximum amount of people exposed to the band's work, and goodwill to the band from grateful fans. And it isn't just bands that are doing it - some authors are releasing E-books for free. Even ad-supported free 480p CR streams aren't that profitable in and of themselves, so you could argue that Anime is kind of included in that as well.

The rationale behind this seemingly crazy decision is that most people will just leech and never give back, but the small percentage of people who do pay will be enough for the content creator to make a profit. Three reasons. The costs of manufacturing the product in the first place was very low. Almost all profits go back to the band rather than middlemen. Finally, if something is free then a lot of people are going to consume it (far more than if it was thirty effing dollars), and a small percentage of a lot of people is still a sizeable number.


I agree mostly, except that only a small percentage would pay, not true, I firmly believe it would be the majority that will pay, there would be a percentage that would not but many will at some point while many simply can't, because taking out those that will not even if they can, probably many here are first world countries citizen no?, but the world is bigger than that, many times we believe everything is easy and circumstances are the same from anyone, like the comment about I import so can you and all the talk about credit cards and the like!!

So heartless and tactless to rub it on other that you have the means to do so, many really cannot and dunno about you but I am not so heartless as supporting the idea that if you cannot pay for some entertainment that makes your live a little more happy then screw up, I will never support that immoral idea. Sorry but can't.

I firmly believe a real creative mind (not just in for the money) would want to make a living form their creations, nothing wrong with that but that this same creative mind will also find infinite joy in people getting to know, enjoy or love their creations, sorry this might be just some dream or idealism from my part but I really believe a real artist will have joy seeing people enjoy his/her/their works even if some of them cannot pay. I am not naive and know many of nowadays artists only care to make money and be famous Sad

Anyway, to resume the idea, I believe if convenience and availability issues are really resolved then most people will pay, as prove just see the itunes, steam, netflix, crunchy, many of the people that download/upload are the very same ones using those services, what those that tell you? People wont pay or only few? No, people than can will pay if they have availability and convenience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GWOtaku



Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 618

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:36 pm Reply with quote
dan9999 wrote:
So heartless and tactless to rub it on other that you have the means to do so, many really cannot and dunno about you but I am not so heartless as supporting the idea that if you cannot pay for some entertainment that makes your live a little more happy then screw up, I will never support that immoral idea. Sorry but can't.

I firmly believe a real creative mind (not just in for the money) would want to make a living form their creations, nothing wrong with that but that this same creative mind will also find infinite joy in people getting to know, enjoy or love their creations, sorry this might be just some dream or idealism from my part but I really believe a real artist will have joy seeing people enjoy his/her/their works even if some of them cannot pay. I am not naive and know many of nowadays artists only care to make money and be famous Sad


So everyone is entitled to limitless entertainment and in your mind, opposing that is "heartless". But if creators and others involved in the industry get adamant about getting compensated for their hard work, that's most likely selfishness overpowering their creative spirit as opposed to a simpler desire to put food on the table and being enabled to create more?

If you want to be taken seriously on this stuff, I highly recommend reexamining your contrasting attitudes on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 576
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:39 pm Reply with quote
dan9999 wrote:
@Kikaioh

You are getting too much into the terminology really, its beyond the point because you understand well where this talk on monopoly comes from.

The monopoly refers NOT to the companies themselves and/or their products, it refers to COPYRIGHT, that IS the monopoly whole industries shares in order for them to be the only ones to shine, in order to prevent free competition.

If you go to google and search you will find why many refer to copyright as monopoly = copyright monopoly.


From my experience, the use of "monopoly" in these copyright discussions basically comes from a false premise. The logic goes like this:

A. Monopolies are bad.
B. Copyrighted works are monopolies. (<--- the false premise)
C. Therefore, copyrighted works are bad.

The problem is that copyrighted works aren't considered economic monopolies, and whatever sense in which they can be called monopolies is universal to any product that's sold. It's usage here only serves to carry irrelevant stigma into a discussion on copyright.

The media industry is traditionally considered an oligopoly, not a monopoly --- that's because there are a handful of large competitors providing differentiated products on the market. If you try to use "monopoly" to describe a person's exclusive control over a copyrighted work, then you're not using "monopoly" in the economic sense --- you're using it in the more common parlance, such as to say that you have a monopoly over your own clothes, or a monopoly over your personal computer. Economic monopolies refer to singular control over a commodity market, not over a specific copyrighted work or product brand. Otherwise, we'd say that McDonald's has a monopoly over the Big Mac, or that Nike has a monopoly over the Air Pegasus --- every company would have a 'monopoly' over its specific product lines, which is a superfluous and misleading usage of the word 'monopoly'. In order for such companies to truly be economic monopolies and "prevent free competition" as you put it, they would have to be the sole provider of a commodity --- i.e., McDonald's would have to be the only company selling fast-food hamburgers, and Nike the only company selling athletic shoes. Akira Toriyama certainly isn't the only person selling manga (the commodity in this discussion), so it isn't correct to say that copyright is a state-granted economic monopoly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dan9999



Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 648

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:58 pm Reply with quote
GWOtaku wrote:
dan9999 wrote:
So heartless and tactless to rub it on other that you have the means to do so, many really cannot and dunno about you but I am not so heartless as supporting the idea that if you cannot pay for some entertainment that makes your live a little more happy then screw up, I will never support that immoral idea. Sorry but can't.

I firmly believe a real creative mind (not just in for the money) would want to make a living form their creations, nothing wrong with that but that this same creative mind will also find infinite joy in people getting to know, enjoy or love their creations, sorry this might be just some dream or idealism from my part but I really believe a real artist will have joy seeing people enjoy his/her/their works even if some of them cannot pay. I am not naive and know many of nowadays artists only care to make money and be famous Sad


So everyone is entitled to limitless entertainment and in your mind, opposing that is "heartless". But if creators and others involved in the industry get adamant about getting compensated for their hard work, that's most likely selfishness overpowering their creative spirit as opposed to a simpler desire to put food on the table and being enabled to create more?

If you want to be taken seriously on this stuff, I highly recommend reexamining your contrasting attitudes on this.


And nice dodging my previous reply to you, its amusing many of you simply take what you can somehow argue or question.

But I leave my previous question to you again, since you comfortably skipped it:


Whats important for you, for a creator to prosper, have real ownership of his/her/their work and have the liberty to exploit it? or for the middlemen = industry, that only happen to have the money to get even richer?

As if its not clear to you yet, I DO NOT BELIEVE in you so called industry, for me its rotten to the core, I believe in the other hand in real creators, the real creative minds behind entertainment, and that they are entitled to be compensated in ways that are fairly to them and fans alike, making easy to access all information, with flexibility involved looking for ways that make it easy for people to enjoy what they like, YES EVEN THOSE THAT CANNOT PAY upfront for 60-100-$$$ dollars discs/merchandize/concerts/etc, since you simply lack the ability to see my point, there I explained to you, one of those ways is the usual ads between other ways included those you and me cannot even imagine yet but that does not mean they cannot be done just become we are incapable of coming with methods and ways that work for most if not for everyone (those that buy discs, those that don't, those that only buy merchandise, those that are in countries that get no love from ndustry, etc.)

@Kikaioh

Like I said, you are going to much into terminology, the COPYRIGHT LAW itself its the monopoly, as I told you go check around to see why and the reason behind it, they will be better than what I can explain in short words here and better than what I can come up with anyway, its too much for you and me to discuss this here and all cold in terminology, its not a false premise, what is a monopoly?, how a monopoly work? That is one of the key elements why we refer to copyright (THE LAW) to monopoly...

A monopoly basically prevents competition, free competition and actively crushes any of it, copyright law works in the same sense hence why if you look around you will see people refer to it as copyright monopoly.

https://www.google.com/​search?​pws=​0&​complete=​0&​num=​20&​filter=​1&​newwindow=​1&​hl=​en&​format=​os&​safe=​off&​q=​copyright+​why+​is+​a+​monopoly

Really, check an see why and see if you agree or not, like mentioned, I am not o posed to discuss it but I believe you are really looking too deep into terminologies and hard cold book definitions.

I still cannot see then whats your point at all, so lets assume its not a monopoly, what do you call it then?, in the first place do you agree that this law prevents free competition and its there not for the creators but for distributors, for the middlemen...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 576
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:35 pm Reply with quote
dan9999 wrote:


@Kikaioh

Like I said, you are going to much into terminology, the COPYRIGHT LAW itself its the monopoly, as I told you go check around to see why and the reason behind it, they will be better than what I can explain in short words here and better than what I can come up with anyway, its too much for you and me to discuss this here and all cold in terminology, its not a false premise, what is a monopoly?, how a monopoly work? That is one of the key elements why we refer to copyright (THE LAW) to monopoly...

A monopoly basically prevents competition, free competition and actively crushes any of it, copyright law works in the same sense hence why if you look around you will see people refer to it as copyright monopoly.

https://www.google.com.mx/​search?​hl=​es&​q=​copyright+​why+​is+​a+​monopoly

Really, check an see why and see if you agree or not, like mentioned, I am not o posed to discuss it but I believe you are really looking too deep into terminologies and hard cold book definitions.

I still cannot see then whats your point at all, so lets assume its not a monopoly, what do you call it then?, in the first place do you agree that this law prevents free competition and its there not for the creators but for distributors, for the middlemen...


If you read my post carefully, you'll see I mention that the media industry is traditionally considered an oligopoly, not a monopoly. You'll also recall that I make a sharp distinction between economic monopoly and monopoly of exclusive possession --- the latter is closer to how we treat intellectual property similar to tangible private property, and is the only real usage that makes sense in this discussion.

Can you please explain to me why you think that copyright prevents free competition? There isn't a single entity that controls any given media market, nor have I heard of content-creators in recent years complaining of monopolistic competitor market practices. Your statement is in-and-of-itself puzzling.

Also, most of the search results provided in your link are from individual bloggers or commentators, not necessarily impartial institutions of merit or good repute. As I previously stated, "monopoly" is often brought into these conversations for the sake of carrying with it the unwarranted and unrelated stigma that "monopolies are bad, so copyright is too" --- in that sense, it's not surprising to find that most references to copyright as a monopoly are from biased individuals and critics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clyde_Cash



Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 268

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:37 pm Reply with quote
Spotlesseden wrote:
this has nothing to do with freedom. lol

This is already illegal in US. people who download copyrighted material got fined for big amount all the time. I had a friend in college got catch once for downloading music and movie is a prove.

lol @ people who think they should allow to get copyrighted material for free.


Those lawmakers obviously have no clue that this is no longer the pre-Internet days. We're entitled to the content if we want it, when we want, and how we want. It's not like we're robbing stores--people are just downloading and ripping. There's no harm in this. If they want to pay, that's what merchandise is for--where the real money is made. But if you just want the content, the price of the smell of food is the sound of money. One's enjoyment is enough.

Hence, this law violates our basic freedoms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charred Knight



Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 3023

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:42 pm Reply with quote
The problem is that the competition in this case are guys who simply copy a guys work, puts it up for free (or possibly for a small fee) then reaps in money for very little work. Meanwhile the creator has seen little money for the work he does, and has either gone bankrupt or simply stopped creating.

Then goes who downloaded the work without paying bitch about how only little innovation or variety exist.

You complain about how evil publishers are while celebrating people who have no role in the creation of something making all the money.

Also you demonize publishers when publishers are some of the main reasons why stuff exist.

Look at Bayonetta 2, the game couldnt have been made because neither Sega or Platinum Games had the money to complete it, but Nintendo came in and put up the money to have Platinum Games make it for the Wii U.

Dragon's Crown by Vanillaware was having problems being made but Atlus (maker of the Persona games and publisher of Odin's Sphere) came in and offered to help by becoming the new publisher.

You imagine a world in which you can make triple A Games with 100,000-3 million dollars when they cost 30-100 million to make. It cost 300,000 to make a an I-phone game with 3 people.

You need the middle man because the middle man performs a service (they are the ones who pay for advertising, the developmental cost of the game, or the budget of the movie) unlike say a certain website with the initial MF.

Of course then there are the companies who not only publish the games but develop them at the same time (as I mentioned earlier Atlus develops the Persona series as well as publishes it).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 576
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:51 pm Reply with quote
Clyde_Cash wrote:
Spotlesseden wrote:
this has nothing to do with freedom. lol

This is already illegal in US. people who download copyrighted material got fined for big amount all the time. I had a friend in college got catch once for downloading music and movie is a prove.

lol @ people who think they should allow to get copyrighted material for free.


Those lawmakers obviously have no clue that this is no longer the pre-Internet days. We're entitled to the content if we want it, when we want, and how we want. It's not like we're robbing stores--people are just downloading and ripping. There's no harm in this. If they want to pay, that's what merchandise is for--where the real money is made. But if you just want the content, the price of the smell of food is the sound of money. One's enjoyment is enough.

Hence, this law violates our basic freedoms.


I couldn't disagree with you more. Basically you're saying any creative content that's easily reproducible should be available to anyone and everyone for free, regardless of what the content creator thinks. An author basically has no ownership/control rights to their creation under that premise, and it becomes a situation where we turn every artist into the proverbial musician on the street, playing for free and banking on the charity of his audience to support himself.

This line of thinking also sets a bad precedent, because it's a model that only encourages merchandisable works to be created. It also undermines the amount of work and money that's required to create the content that people enjoy these days. The smell of food referred to in your analogy ought to be the trailers and reviews of a work, not the full meal itself (i.e., the creative work). It's like asking Starbucks to give its coffee away for free, and hope to make a return on investment/profit off of coffee mugs and t-shirts. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dtm42



Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 12655
Location: NZL

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:54 pm Reply with quote
I think the biggest problem that pro-copyright people have is that they want to insist that there is only one profitable business model. But we know there's more than one.

I already gave an example based on music, so let's now think about it in terms of computing. Microsoft charges people to purchase an OS and then offers servicing for free, whereas some of the developers behind Unix-based OS give away the OS for free and then charge corporate clients to service it. Both models keep their respective developers chugging along. Funnily enough though, the various incarnations of Windows are crap and annoy lots of users, but they do make Microsoft lots of money. Whereas say Ubuntu is very secure, regularly updated, easy for the consumer to customise, and only makes the parent company a little bit of money (which isn't surprising because Ubuntu is free).

My point is, the 'traditional' method results in an inferior product that mainly benefits one company, whereas a non-traditional method results in a superior product that financially benefits lots of people (because they didn't have to pay).

Kikaioh wrote:
As I previously stated, "monopoly" is often brought into these conversations for the sake of carrying with it the unwarranted and unrelated stigma...


Just like "what about the content creators?" is often brought into the conversation to try and make it seem like every alternative to the traditional model is a bad one that's going to put every musician and author out on the street.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
Chagen46



Joined: 27 Jun 2010
Posts: 4233

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:00 pm Reply with quote
DTM: That's not true and you know it. Windows 7 doesn't have that many problems and only annoys those who don't know jack about computers. Linux isn't much better, and all UNIX OSs are worthless to computer gamers like myself.

Call me when Battlefield 3 has a native Linux version, then maybe I'll jump on board.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dan9999



Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 648

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:10 pm Reply with quote
@ Kaidou

I already posted here in this very topic multiple times in good detail my reasoning and even how I envision a free competition world without copyright, refer to my previous post here that will answer your question, heck just check previous page to this, I wont simply repost anything again and repeat myself again and again. Of course its not like how I see it its the absolute truth and way or only way it should be, you care free to disagree or not, but really, I have posted all I have to say honestly.

Sorry but with you last post you make it clear you don't have all the info to really discuss this, here on this very site you have stories about couple mangaka fighting their publisher because they want more power and more right to them, check previous page if you want names.



@ dtm42 Agree with you, sorry but many of you pro-copyright people lack vision, as dtm42 said you think only one business model is the way too go and creator can only make money via copyright,

For you nothing is wrong, Draconian laws are welcome, criminalizing internet user/sharers is ok, that your beloved middlemen keep 90% of profits and authors surrender their rights to them all is fine, for you the middlemen are essential, nothing can work without them, how narrow minded your views are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dtm42



Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 12655
Location: NZL

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:17 pm Reply with quote
Chagen46, you are pretty naive.

Do you know why Unix-based OS cannot natively support playing high-end games? Because the game developers don't write games with Linux in mind. Doesn't matter how good the OS is, if a game isn't compiled to run on said OS then it won't run (see last paragraph).

And why do the game developers not support Linux? Because Microsoft used the money it receives from morons who buy a copy of Windows at $149.00 and used it to pay off or outright threaten companies so they stay away from Linux. In the early days it even ensured that rivals' programs would simply not work when run on Windows, which is just shocking. This anti-competitor behaviour has earned Microsoft plenty of fines over the years (usually from the Europeans as America's corrupt as heck) but it has also effectively stifled (if not outright killed) many of its competitors.

And sure, Microsoft might not do that kind if sh*t so much anymore, but Linux is now stuck in a catch-22. It needs good programs (like good games) to attract people to switch over from Apple or Microsoft, but it needs lots of users to attract the developers to Linux to make those games. That's not Linux's fault, it is just a victim of past Microsoft actions. You are blaming the wrong party.

Linux is perfectly capable of playing Battlefield 3 or any other game, but you need to compile your own code (or have a boffin do it for you). There are teams of dedicated dudes out there working to port various games over to Linux. I am also happy to say that I've noticed more game companies in recent times offering support for Linux, so there is hope. Last I heard, Steam (the program which distributes the Half-Life and Elder Scrolls series) is close to releasing a beta version for Linux, which is great news.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
dan9999



Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 648

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:25 pm Reply with quote
If you guys want want to see all the crap around the world that is done thanks to your beloved copyright and beloved middlemen= publishers I would recommend you to read sites like http://torrentfreak.com/​ (no ti does not has torrent, is a copyright-related exclusive news site) or techdirt at least.

You guys really need all the facts before you defend pure evilness and rotten schemes.

Quote:
Also you demonize publishers when publishers are some of the main reasons why stuff exist.


The main reason is creature minds, period. That why you have stuff, your middlemen only happen to have the money and give you stuff to makes them more money, they don't care about you or me or fans.

I don't oppose investor or middlemen as long as the control and rights to the work remains with the creator and the profits are shared fairly with the creators and fans around the globe respected and paying fair prices too with availability and convenience for anything and all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charred Knight



Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 3023

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:53 pm Reply with quote
dan9999 wrote:
If you guys want want to see all the crap around the world that is done thanks to your beloved copyright and beloved middlemen= publishers I would recommend you to read sites like http://torrentfreak.com/​ (no ti does not has torrent, is a copyright-related exclusive news site) or techdirt at least.

You guys really need all the facts before you defend pure evilness and rotten schemes.

Quote:
Also you demonize publishers when publishers are some of the main reasons why stuff exist.


The main reason is creature minds, period. That why you have stuff, your middlemen only happen to have the money and give you stuff to makes them more money, they don't care about you.

I don't oppose investor or middlemen as long as the control and rights to the work remains with the creator and the profits are shared fairly with the creators and fans around the globe respected and paying fair prices too with availability and convenience for anything and all.


You basically just conclude that every publisher is Activision. Yes there are a few people who are in it exclusively for the money. In my experience that's also pretty rare. Its also true that a lot of piracy sites are also in it for the money. Do you really think that MF honestly gives a crap about Oda? Or even manga in general? No, the guy who owns it saw money in making a website that steals from not only mangaka but even fan translators and did it. I talked to a guy who '"works" for MF, no one is paid and the guy who owns it collects everything.

What do you think is going to happen once the market for big name production collapses? Who do you think is going to give you your precious manga in mass quantity? Who is going to advertise for the mangaka? Who is going to pay the mangaka?

You? Are you going to do it? Do you have the money to pay several people to make 18 pages of comics a week?

Why do you think no webcomic comes even close to the output that a weekly manga does? The reason is because they don't dedicate themselves to their webcomic the way a mangaka does. A mangaka doesn't have time to advertise a website or to even run a website like a webcomic does.

You demand that publishers give you respect? I don't respect people who don't respect me or try to belittle my accomplishments so why should the publishers be any different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 576
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:23 pm Reply with quote
dtm42 wrote:
I think the biggest problem that pro-copyright people have is that they want to insist that there is only one profitable business model. But we know there's more than one.

I already gave an example based on music, so let's now think about it in terms of computing. Microsoft charges people to purchase an OS and then offers servicing for free, whereas some of the developers behind Unix-based OS give away the OS for free and then charge corporate clients to service it. Both models keep their respective developers chugging along. Funnily enough though, the various incarnations of Windows are crap and annoy lots of users, but they do make Microsoft lots of money. Whereas say Ubuntu is very secure, regularly updated, easy for the consumer to customise, and only makes the parent company a little bit of money (which isn't surprising because Ubuntu is free).

My point is, the 'traditional' method results in an inferior product that mainly benefits one company, whereas a non-traditional method results in a superior product that financially benefits lots of people (because they didn't have to pay).

Kikaioh wrote:
As I previously stated, "monopoly" is often brought into these conversations for the sake of carrying with it the unwarranted and unrelated stigma...


Just like "what about the content creators?" is often brought into the conversation to try and make it seem like every alternative to the traditional model is a bad one that's going to put every musician and author out on the street.


I actually don't have any problems with discussions on better business models (marginally demonstrative and truthy as they tend to be Laughing). My bigger concern is with artist rights ---- I think it's ultimately up to the artists and rights-holders to decide how and under what circumstances their works are made available to the public. I just don't believe in forcing authors to give up ownership of their creations for the sake of perceived entitlement.

dan9999 wrote:
@ Kaidou

I already posted here in this very topic multiple times in good detail my reasoning and even how I envision a free competition world without copyright, refer to my previous post here that will answer your question, heck just check previous page to this, I wont simply repost anything again and repeat myself again and again. Of course its not like how I see it its the absolute truth and way or only way it should be, you care free to disagree or not, but really, I have posted all I have to say honestly.

Sorry but with you last post you make it clear you don't have all the info to really discuss this, here on this very site you have stories about couple mangaka fighting their publisher because they want more power and more right to them, check previous page if you want names.


Are you referring to me...? I'm not Kaidou, but I'll assume that's me since no one else here has a similar name. Laughing

I've read through your "free competition" posts, but you don't explain how there isn't free competition already --- you just give your 'vision' of a free competition world, which is more of a "free-of-publishers" world. You mention how artists complain about their publishers, but I don't see the connection between that and the idea that publishers are killing free competition --- that seems to be more a case of authors complaining their publishers aren't giving them a fair shake.

The thing is, a person can make a comic, song, book, etc. and put it out on the internet without interference from major companies/competitors. There are lots of online resources, such as Lulu, Zazzle, AdSense, Paypal, etc. from which a person can generate revenue streams for their creative works. So how exactly is the creative-content industry making it impossible for content-creators to self-publish? You make it sound as though the industry is somehow using monopolistic tactics to prevent Penny Arcade and AVGN from existing, and yet... somehow... they do exist.

I've studied copyright off and on for almost a decade now, so your constant claims that "I don't have all the information" to discuss this issue make me raise the proverbial eyebrow, as the saying goes. Not to mention, Torrentfreak isn't exactly a paragon of impartial reporting when it comes to the topic of copyright. TBH, the more you talk, the more it seems like something isn't quite right upstairs --- there's a certain lacking self-awareness/sagacity to your posts (whether it's calling me Kaidou, the strange meter to your writing, the various grammar/spelling mistakes, the constant claims to people not being open-minded or "seeing the big picture", and the almost blind devotion to your ideals) that gives me the impression that you're either very young, or not terribly... perspicacious...? (I'd use a more common word, but I think it'd sound rude Laughing)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group