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 10:19 pm Reply with quote
@Charred Knight

Putting words in my mouth again, quote one time I am defending cyberlockers please. Yet the system itself its not bad and all would be good if creators would be compensated but hat is another story..you know like what happened with beloved crunchyoll many members here love and are so proud and quick to point to legal streams, it would be fine if sometimes some of you were to be humble and accept its because "evil scum pirates" started it and broke the laws and someone had the vision to take advantage of this situation instead of criminalizing that this opportunity, yet limited one, became a reality.

Imagine how many thought whoever suggested jumping in with pirates and unite views and strengths instead of war and punishment.... eh Kikaioh (my apologies, go it right now?) that he/she/ was totally nuts and had severe issues upstairs! By no means I cam comparing myself of course.

So some of you cannot imagine changing things 360 degrees, fine, the pocket money creators get is fine, the world would crumble if the middlemen lose power an control, the end of the wordl no? fine, so more copyright, more criminalization, full scale war against evil internet that is killing entertainment industries, draconian laws around the globe, making people lose rights in favor of private corporations. screw the people they are not important!, lose all kind of privacy to have big brother see that I don't download anything... FINE

Its so wrong to want middlemen stop with their ripoff schemes, having them share only 10% to the creator, its so bad that many of us want them to innovate and change business models, its so damn wrong that we want fans to be respected and not seen as mere pawns that make you money, IS IT SO WRONG REALLY? Is it so wrong that many of us are yelling to the publisher we want your product make it easy for all to access "your" content and let us pay you? Instead being ignored and greeted with harsher laws and excuses to implement innovation and doing away with obsolete business models... IS IT SO WRONG REALLY?

Kikaioh you fail to see and understand my views and I yours, nothing wrong with that, you insult me at the end fine, many share my opinion and many yours, and sorry about he grammar but I wont polish and pay too much attention to some casual discussion in a random forum with random users that wont generate any important results, its its been very enjoyable and informative to say the least, which its why we have wasted too much time with this.

Lastly its the industry that has to earn my respect not the other way around, never. And that entertainment industry as a whole has been hard at work to make the contrary happen.

I've said everything I have to say.


Last edited by dan9999 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 531
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:34 pm Reply with quote
dan9999 wrote:


Kikaioh you fail to see and understand my views and I yours, nothing wrong with that, you insult me at the end fine, many share my opinion and many yours, and sorry about he grammar but I wont polish and pay too much attention to some casual discussion in a random forum with random users that wont generate any important results, its its been very enjoyable and informative to say the least, which its why we have wasted too much time with this.

Lastly its the industry that has to earn my respect not the other way around, never. And that entertainment industry as a whole has been hard at work to make the contrary happen.

I've said everything I have to say.


Augh well, I don't mean it to sound like an insult in the end, it just seems you have a very stream-of-thought approach to this discussion that doesn't come across as particularly.... measured? ...maybe acute? It's hard to put my finger on it, LOL, but I don't mean offense by it.

Anyways, I won't fault you for wanting to bow out at this point, it's been a lengthy talk and I've at least appreciated your politeness so far (and for not blowing a gasket as people are often wont to do Smile)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dan9999



Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 648

PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:01 pm Reply with quote
Kikaioh wrote:
dan9999 wrote:


Kikaioh you fail to see and understand my views and I yours, nothing wrong with that, you insult me at the end fine, many share my opinion and many yours, and sorry about he grammar but I wont polish and pay too much attention to some casual discussion in a random forum with random users that wont generate any important results, its its been very enjoyable and informative to say the least, which its why we have wasted too much time with this.

Lastly its the industry that has to earn my respect not the other way around, never. And that entertainment industry as a whole has been hard at work to make the contrary happen.

I've said everything I have to say.


Augh well, I don't mean it to sound like an insult in the end, it just seems you have a very stream-of-thought approach to this discussion that doesn't come across as particularly.... measured? ...maybe acute? It's hard to put my finger on it, LOL, but I don't mean offense by it.

Anyways, I won't fault you for wanting to bow out at this point, it's been a lengthy talk and I've at least appreciated your politeness so far (and for not blowing a gasket as people are often wont to do Smile)


Nah, well, I had to defend myself there lol, but no real offense taken, this kind of discussion are most enjoyable.

I am indeed passionate with this because I honestly cannot like what the entertainment industry has done for the past 10 years or more, all that arguably started with napster and then war with the internet and the control of it, the many unscrupulous and upfront illegal acts and forcing us the people to lose our rights (I don't necessarily mean downloading, just to be clear, if you are up-to-date with current events you know what rights) in favor to them, really, no, I cannot have sympathy and agree with their wrong ways when the root of the problem is an issue of availability and convenience and since that in itself means the industry losing control and power that can (and already is) shift to the people they don't want to innovate instead pushing new laws.

Ok, here I go again, I am stopping because its a never ending cycle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scineram



Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 305
Location: Budapest

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:29 am Reply with quote
Polycell wrote:
What kind of harebrained moral right expires?

The right to be taken care of by your parents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Polycell
Thread KillerThread Killer


Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 3103

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:56 am Reply with quote
@Kikaioh:
A) The market-share based definition of "monopoly" is entirely irrelevant here, even if I didn't hold it to be meaningless.
B) Trademark is a different area of law that's not under discussion, but how is me throwing together a washer out of random parts and claiming it's a Maytag not fraudulent?
C) Copyright law grants the holder a monopoly on products with certain characters, text, video, etc. If you must have a commodity analogy to comprehend, image if one company had a monopoly on regular salt, another had a monopoly on iodized salt while yet another had a monopoly on sea salt. That most monopolies are extremely broad by comparison doesn't change a copyright's essential character.
D) My usage of "moral right" is hardly unprecedented. Like A, that it's gotten an extraneous legal meaning is of no relevance.
E) All your rights stay after you're dead, passed on as part of your estate(just like copyrights, except those expire).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charred Knight



Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 3018

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:20 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.


The problem is that there is a limited number of ways to make an anime, tv or video game profitable.

Say Marvel makes the avengers for 200 million then spends 200 million dollars advertising it. Then they put it out for free on Youtube instead of charging ten dollars at a theater,

Marvel loses hundreds of millions of dollars, and the film division shuts down.

But wait what if they put it up for a torrent instead, then Marvel still loses hundreds of millions of dollars and the film division is still shut down.

You really think Funimation is rolling in money because FMA: B was watched by hundreds of thousands of people on youtube. They maybe made a couple hundred dollars per video.

It cost slightly more to make a big budget CGI film or an anime then it does to get your friends together and record an album.

You see people who make entertainment as some kind of charity that exist for your benefit and your benefit alone.

If you think that the traditional model is ruining anime, manga, and movies, then why don't you change it instead of yelling at people in the entertainment industry that they are doing it wrong.

dan9999 wrote:


Its so wrong to want middlemen stop with their ripoff schemes, having them share only 10% to the creator, its so bad that many of us want them to innovate and change business models, its so damn wrong that we want fans to be respected and not seen as mere pawns that make you money, IS IT SO WRONG REALLY? Is it so wrong that many of us are yelling to the publisher we want your product make it easy for all to access "your" content and let us pay you? Instead being ignored and greeted with harsher laws and excuses to implement innovation and doing away with obsolete business models... IS IT SO WRONG REALLY?


Then the creators need to put up 90% of the cash for a movie. Who do you think was hurt by John Carter more? Disney which lost at least 84 millions of dollars or Andrew Stanton who is working on Finding Nemo 2?

Here's a hint before John Carter Andrew Stanton worked on Finding Nemo. John Carter did not effect his life at all while Rich Ross is out of a job.

Also I would understand it more if your piracy didn't also hurt the creators you claim to love. It's nearly impossible to get funding for anime now because it's only doing well in Japan now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hellfish



Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 286
Location: Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:50 pm Reply with quote
Vata Raven wrote:


And why download the damn movie? Why not rent it or legally stream it? There is no need to illegally download anything, not in this day and age.


The only way I can stream in my country is by crunchyroll and that is it all. There is netflix but is incredibly limited, and to rent first there needs to be dvds available, which in anime is rare. I get most of my series by importing.

USA ways to get anime ≠ other countries way to get anime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 531
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:33 pm Reply with quote
Polycell wrote:
@Kikaioh:
A) The market-share based definition of "monopoly" is entirely irrelevant here, even if I didn't hold it to be meaningless.

If it's irrelevant, why do you continue to try and use it?
Polycell wrote:

B) Trademark is a different area of law that's not under discussion, but how is me throwing together a washer out of random parts and claiming it's a Maytag not fraudulent?

What does this have to do with the discussion? I brought up Maytag as an example of a brand of differentiated product available on the market --- Maytag isn't the only company that produces dishwashers, so it's not a monopoly. Similarly, Akira Toriyama isn't the only artist producing manga on the market, and therefore doesn't hold a monopoly. For some reason you want to insist that Akira Toriyama holds a monopoly over Dragon Ball in the same way that Maytag has a monopoly over the Jetclean Plus brand of dishwashers --- it's an improper usage of the word "monopoly", because neither of the two holds a monopoly over any commodity being discussed.
Polycell wrote:

C) Copyright law grants the holder a monopoly on products with certain characters, text, video, etc. If you must have a commodity analogy to comprehend, image if one company had a monopoly on regular salt, another had a monopoly on iodized salt while yet another had a monopoly on sea salt. That most monopolies are extremely broad by comparison doesn't change a copyright's essential character.

Again, you're blurring the lines between economic monopoly and monopoly of exclusive possession. If we went by your usage of monopoly then EVERY company would have a monopoly over their specific brand of product. McDonald's would have a "monopoly" over the Big Mac, Levi's would have a "monopoly" over the 501 Original, and Spielberg would have a "monopoly" over E.T. Your usage isn't just superfluous, it's misleading --- you intend to invoke the negative stigma associated with economic monopolies, but then claim you're not using the market definition of the word, but then continue to insist how it still applies in a market setting. You're twisting the word to fit the way you want it to, rather than the way it's supposed to be used.

You might have been right if were you talking about patents (which can be a state-granted monopoly over a commodity), but it's not correct to use with copyrighted works. The various media industries have been considered oligopolies for a long time now, and there is no shortage of economic resources that continue to suggest this.
Polycell wrote:

D) My usage of "moral right" is hardly unprecedented. Like A, that it's gotten an extraneous legal meaning is of no relevance.

I don't mind your personal usage of "moral right", so long as you realize its legal meaning exists, and may be what first comes to mind when people hear you say it. Your usage of "monopoly", however, is simply wrong.
Polycell wrote:

E) All your rights stay after you're dead, passed on as part of your estate(just like copyrights, except those expire).

I didn't realize my right to vote passed on with my estate, along with my right to bear arms and my right to petition. Rolling Eyes I'm glad my kids will get to use them when they reach their 40's! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dtm42



Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 12325
Location: NZL

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:58 pm Reply with quote
Charred Knight wrote:
The problem is that there is a limited number of ways to make an anime, tv or video game profitable.

Say Marvel makes the avengers for 200 million then spends 200 million dollars advertising it. Then they put it out for free on Youtube instead of charging ten dollars at a theater,

Marvel loses hundreds of millions of dollars, and the film division shuts down.

But wait what if they put it up for a torrent instead, then Marvel still loses hundreds of millions of dollars and the film division is still shut down.

You really think Funimation is rolling in money because FMA: B was watched by hundreds of thousands of people on youtube. They maybe made a couple hundred dollars per video.

It cost slightly more to make a big budget CGI film or an anime then it does to get your friends together and record an album.


Of course I wasn't thinking those sorts of business models. I wasn't advocating that at all. If you want this discussion to remain civil you will stop flat out lying.

Charred Knight wrote:
You see people who make entertainment as some kind of charity that exist for your benefit and your benefit alone.


So nice of you to know me better than I know myself.[/sarcasm]

Charred Knight wrote:
If you think that the traditional model is ruining anime, manga, and movies, then why don't you change it instead of yelling at people in the entertainment industry that they are doing it wrong.


It's not my job to change the world. This argument of yours is so typical from people who insist on defending things that shouldn't be defended. You are trying to shift the moral impetus onto me, but it won't work.

Charred Knight wrote:
Also I would understand it more if your piracy didn't also hurt the creators you claim to love.


Piracy does not automatically equal harm on a micro level, because each illegal download is not automatically a lost sale. On a macro level piracy does hurt, but only for those companies who refuse to change with the times. People are still willing to fork over big bucks for merchandise of their favourite bands. Movie studios no longer have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing, they can use social media to get the message across at a fraction of the cost.

Charred Knight wrote:
It's nearly impossible to get funding for anime now because it's only doing well in Japan now.


This makes no sense. If it is doing well in Japan now (and thirty new shows for the Fall season is not bad), then why is it hard to get funding? And heck, the second season of Chihayafuru being greenlit sinks your case hands-down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
Polycell
Thread KillerThread Killer


Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 3103

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:26 pm Reply with quote
I swear; I keep trying to get out and this guy keeps pulling me back in.
Kikaioh wrote:
Polycell wrote:
A) The market-share based definition of "monopoly" is entirely irrelevant here, even if I didn't hold it to be meaningless.

If it's irrelevant, why do you continue to try and use it?
I DON'T. The only meaningful definition of "monopoly" is the state-granted privilege of being the sole legal provider of something. That is the definition I use.
Quote:
Polycell wrote:

B) Trademark is a different area of law that's not under discussion, but how is me throwing together a washer out of random parts and claiming it's a Maytag not fraudulent?

What does this have to do with the discussion? I brought up Maytag as an example of a brand of differentiated product available on the market --- Maytag isn't the only company that produces dishwashers, so it's not a monopoly. Similarly, Akira Toriyama isn't the only artist producing manga on the market, and therefore doesn't hold a monopoly. For some reason you want to insist that Akira Toriyama holds a monopoly over Dragon Ball in the same way that Maytag has a monopoly over the Jetclean Plus brand of dishwashers --- it's an improper usage of the word "monopoly", because neither of the two holds a monopoly over any commodity being discussed.
Again, YOU ARE CONFLATING COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Quote:
Polycell wrote:

C) Copyright law grants the holder a monopoly on products with certain characters, text, video, etc. If you must have a commodity analogy to comprehend, image if one company had a monopoly on regular salt, another had a monopoly on iodized salt while yet another had a monopoly on sea salt. That most monopolies are extremely broad by comparison doesn't change a copyright's essential character.

Again, you're blurring the lines between economic monopoly and monopoly of exclusive possession. If we went by your usage of monopoly then EVERY company would have a monopoly over their specific brand of product. McDonald's would have a "monopoly" over the Big Mac, Levi's would have a "monopoly" over the 501 Original, and Spielberg would have a "monopoly" over E.T. Your usage isn't just superfluous, it's misleading --- you intend to invoke the negative stigma associated with economic monopolies, but then claim you're not using the market definition of the word, but then continue to insist how it still applies in a market setting. You're twisting the word to fit the way you want it to, rather than the way it's supposed to be used.
Once more, trademark is different and more connected to fraud. Could I ethically sell something I made as a Big Mac? Yes, assuming I made it to the same standards. Could I ethically claim it was a McDonald's Big Mac? No, that's fraud.

As for "monopoly", as I told you last time we got into this, THE TERM WAS COINED TO DESCRIBE STATE GRANTS OF PRIVILEGE. The definition you keep trying to claim as the sole real one is something the antitrust folks came up with to hijack the negative stigma.
Quote:
You might have been right if were you talking about patents (which can be a state-granted monopoly over a commodity), but it's not correct to use with copyrighted works. The various media industries have been considered oligopolies for a long time now, and there is no shortage of economic resources that continue to suggest this.
Once more, I've claimed each work is a unique product. You've yet to rebut the proposition and I'm pretty sure even most copyright proponents would agree with it.
Quote:
Polycell wrote:

D) My usage of "moral right" is hardly unprecedented. Like A, that it's gotten an extraneous legal meaning is of no relevance.

I don't mind your personal usage of "moral right", so long as you realize its legal meaning exists, and may be what first comes to mind when people hear you say it.
It's perfectly clear what I meant from context; you're just being willfully obtuse.
Quote:
Polycell wrote:

E) All your rights stay after you're dead, passed on as part of your estate(just like copyrights, except those expire).

I didn't realize my right to vote passed on with my estate, along with my right to bear arms and my right to petition. Rolling Eyes I'm glad my kids will get to use them when they reach their 40's! Laughing
Voting is a privilege, granted by the state(and selecting the personnel of the state hardly makes sense to talk about from an ethical standpoint). You and your kids, fo course, have all the moral right to own a firearm as a TV.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Animehermit



Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 908
Location: The Argama

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:35 pm Reply with quote
This law is bad news for the internet, not just in Japan, but for the world as well. This sets a nasty precedent and is morally bankrupt. There are better ways to fight piracy than to flat out make it illegal and start throwing kids in jail. Piracy has always been a service issue, if make the content available in a way that's easy for the majority of the audience to obtain it, people will pay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GWOtaku



Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 598

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:59 pm Reply with quote
dan9999 wrote:



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 understand what your opinions are, which do not get more convincing as you condescendingly repeat them as if others cannot comprehend them. I reject your premise and your hardcore anti-industry ideology that seems to generally categorize most who work in it as shamelessly greedy one-percenters as ill-informed and ludicrous, so we have nothing further to say to each other.


Last edited by GWOtaku on Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TitanXL



Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 4032

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:12 pm Reply with quote
Rukiia wrote:
Because nobody wants/cares about the show? No demands for it = no interest = no legal streams. There isn't even a thread discussion for it here on the Anime page.


From what I can find, there's not a thread for One Piece either; and the Naruto thread barely anyone posts in. I guess those shows have no demand or need to be streamed either? Using a random forum to judge interest is a terrible idea. For the record, I'm aware of Gon too.

Either way, it's a bad justification to deny that piracy is the only way to watch the big chunk of shows that aren't streamed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charred Knight



Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 3018

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:29 pm Reply with quote
dtm42 wrote:


Of course I wasn't thinking those sorts of business models. I wasn't advocating that at all. If you want this discussion to remain civil you will stop flat out lying.

Charred Knight wrote:
You see people who make entertainment as some kind of charity that exist for your benefit and your benefit alone.


So nice of you to know me better than I know myself.[/sarcasm]

Charred Knight wrote:
If you think that the traditional model is ruining anime, manga, and movies, then why don't you change it instead of yelling at people in the entertainment industry that they are doing it wrong.


It's not my job to change the world. This argument of yours is so typical from people who insist on defending things that shouldn't be defended. You are trying to shift the moral impetus onto me, but it won't work.

Charred Knight wrote:
Also I would understand it more if your piracy didn't also hurt the creators you claim to love.


Piracy does not automatically equal harm on a micro level, because each illegal download is not automatically a lost sale. On a macro level piracy does hurt, but only for those companies who refuse to change with the times. People are still willing to fork over big bucks for merchandise of their favourite bands. Movie studios no longer have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing, they can use social media to get the message across at a fraction of the cost.

Charred Knight wrote:
It's nearly impossible to get funding for anime now because it's only doing well in Japan now.


This makes no sense. If it is doing well in Japan now (and thirty new shows for the Fall season is not bad), then why is it hard to get funding? And heck, the second season of Chihayafuru being greenlit sinks your case hands-down.


Chihayafuru is being made because it has a manga, that's why most anime is made, if the manga sells well than the anime continues to promote the manga.

Industry people have repeatly stated that they camt make anime like they did in the 80's and 90's anymore. Now everything depends on a comittee and that means that you have to either be based off of a well known property, appeal to Otaku, or simply have merchandise to the point of being a toy commercial.

When the anime boom happened money flooded in and studios like Gonzo experimented with anime, and created some really original ideas. Now that money is nearly gone, and there's no interest in trying to go outside the box from executives.

Here's what production IG says in the matter. http://www.kickstarter.com/​projects/​production-​ig/​masaaki-​yuasas-​kick-​heart

You're not actually saying anything, your just yelling at people that they are doing it wrong,

"The Other way" is just some excuse to pirate by claiming that the publishers, and studios are doing it the wrong way and should do it "The Other Way"

Of course the people who promote "The Other Way" either promote something that couldnt come close to covering the cost or in your case doesn't actually suggest anything at all.

You mention that studios do wasteful marketing but social marketing doesnt have the reach that televisions give you. You mention that people can make a ton of money on merchandising, but that will lead to stagnation as the only thing that could get made is stuff like Transformers or The Avengers.

"Got to include this in the movie so the toy will sell well"

You claim that "The other way" will create superior products but you haven't explained how. This is an anime forum I don't care about Linux, Windows or music I want to know your idea on how to improve anime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kikaioh
Space CowboySpace Cowboy


Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Posts: 531
Location: Antarctica

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:38 pm Reply with quote
Polycell wrote:
I swear; I keep trying to get out and this guy keeps pulling me back in.

LOL Laughing if you want out, all you have to do is stop responding, no one is forcing you back into the discussion (except yourself Wink).

Polycell wrote:
The only meaningful definition of "monopoly" is the state-granted privilege of being the sole legal provider of something.

Isn't Burger King the sole legal provider of their brand of Whoppers? Or Lenovo of their brand of ThinkPads? Your definition of monopoly is so broad as to imply that everything that's for sale is a monopoly, including private physical property. Why do you think the modern definition is market-based and deals with commodities?

Polycell wrote:
YOU ARE CONFLATING COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Conflating...? I'm talking about differentiated products available in a given market. What makes you think the usage of "monopoly" is dependent on whether a good is trademarked or copyrighted? "Monopoly" is supposed to describe whether a business holds singular control over a commodity market --- I'm not aware as to how being trademarked vs. copyrighted changes the use of the word.

Or thinking it another way: Maytag has a state-granted privilege to be the sole legal provider of JetStream dishwashers on the market. So by your own definition, isn't Maytag's line of JetStream dishwashers a monopoly?

Polycell wrote:
As for "monopoly", as I told you last time we got into this, THE TERM WAS COINED TO DESCRIBE STATE GRANTS OF PRIVILEGE. The definition you keep trying to claim as the sole real one is something the antitrust folks came up with to hijack the negative stigma.

From my understanding, monopoly was originally used by Aristotle to describe a merchant who had cornered the market on olive presses. Laughing The definition I'm using is certainly the more common mainstream usage, and well-adopted by modern economists (not just the antitrust folks you've referred to). As I've said before, if you want to use monopoly in the sense of exclusive possession, that's fine --- but I'm against conflating it with the modern economic sense of monopoly, as it's misleading and only obfuscates the discussion.

Polycell wrote:
Once more, I've claimed each work is a unique product. You've yet to rebut the proposition and I'm pretty sure even most copyright proponents would agree with it.

I have rebutted your proposition already, but maybe you're not familiar with some of the esoteric wording I've used. I've mentioned before that "Monopoly" isn't used in the market sense to describe singular control over 'unique products' --- it's used to describe singular control over 'commodities'. Economists actually make a distinction between differentiated products and commodities (both are different types of products).

Polycell wrote:
Voting is a privilege, granted by the state(and selecting the personnel of the state hardly makes sense to talk about from an ethical standpoint). You and your kids, fo course, have all the moral right to own a firearm as a TV.

Voting isn't a right? I guess the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments ought to be reworded then, huh? Laughing In any case, you still haven't addressed how a person still has the "right to vote/bear arms/petition" after they've passed away, or how those rights pass on to their estate.
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 6 of 7

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group