Forum - View topicNEWS: Toei Animation Sues 869 BitTorrent Users Over One Piece
|
Goto page Previous Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
agila61
 Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
No, "might makes right" was the previous position where, in the segregated states in the lunch counter case, the lofty declaration of the "rights" of business owners to decide who they served was used as part of the system to oppress black people and maintain them in a condition of second class citizenship. The "might makes right" position on copyright was before copyright was granted to the creators of works, when any publisher could freeload off the creativity of any artist or author without constraint. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61, your statement on copyright is historically problematic. Copyright monopolies were originally granted for the purpose of censorship and were given to publishers(1), not to authors. Even when copyright was granted to authors, it was not given to prevent the freeloading of publishers but to allow for a limited time incentive to produce, and was much shorter in term than it is today.
I disagree with the founders on that, but at the very least it was not nearly as expansive as it is today. For one thing there were not international treaties so there were many works distributed that were by British authors. Contrary to what expectations might be, it was not uncommon to publish books in America first despite this, and in some cases authors made more money going this route even though the size of the audience was about the same at that time.(2) As for the argument you present about the segregated states, I don't see how your argument is substantive. You are just labelling the segregated states differently to suit your purpose. I pay a lot more taxes to the Feds than I pay to my state or locality, yet much of what they are involved with I dislike, and that which I do like would prefer to see done privately because I think monopolies are inefficient. I ultimately agree that the segregated states were acting under "might makes right" but this isn't a difference between them. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_monopolies (2) Boldrin and Levine Against Intellectual Monopoly pg 25 http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Alan45
 Village Elder Posts: 9839 Location: Virginia |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
@Polycell
You miss my point. Of course there is good and bad government. Syria being an example of bad at the moment. However the only places where there is no government is where there are no people. You don't get to choose the "no government" option. All you can do is cope with the one you have and hope it is good. And by coping, I include participation and change. In the absence of good government you have no rights at all. Citizens in Syria are being murderded just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is why the US is proud to be a "nation of laws". In the absence of law, might erases right. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
zaphdash
 Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
agila, I think we're just going in circles now, so rather than quote your entire post point by point, I'm just going to (try to) keep this as brief as possible and with minimal quotations.
First of all, I know that my characterization of market behavior is oversimplified, but I think there is a dearth of information to address the various factors that would complicate it. We can speak from our own experience, or from that of people we know, or we can speculate idly about the various advantages and disadvantages of the various legal and illegal sources of media and try to weight them appropriately, but there just aren't any hard facts to support any of that -- at least I don't have them, and if you have them you haven't put them forward in this thread. I've stripped it down to such simplistic terms because that very basic model of behavior is the only part of this discussion that is not really in question, even if a more accurate model would require substantially tweaking it to account for various other issues. Despite the oversimplification, I think it's still a basically reliable model because revenue actually is falling, which is powerful evidence that the core assumption (many people will not pay for that which they can get for free) is being borne out. I don't see your point that legal distribution is growing as being particularly significant, when revenue as a whole is falling. Second, you assert that there "certainly aren't more illegal downloads of anime now than in 2008"; I don't know if there are any reliable statistics that track illegal anime downloading, but unless you have those stats, I don't think there's any reason to suppose that it happens less now than it did in 2008. If Crunchyroll has 70,000 subscribers like you said, that means more people downloaded the illegal Crunchyroll rip put out by a single group of a single episode of Bleach than CR's entire membership. The truth is unless someone has studied this and there are good statistics out there, we don't really know how many people were downloading in 2008 and how many are downloading now, but we know revenue is falling. (incidentally, if we're talking only about anime, my "millions" may be an overstatement, or at least I said it with all illegal downloaders in mind -- I'd guess probably at least a million people have downloaded anime at some point, but I don't have any stats to back that up, and anyway "have downloaded at some point" is different from "continue to download regularly," which I haven't really got any way of knowing)
I think you've misunderstood me -- if you're one of those who chooses to pay for something you could get for free, you are one of "those people."
This is true and I don't think we are in disagreement at all on this point. Where the disagreement arises is in how much overlap we see between the total audience and the "market" (ie people who will buy). In the long term I don't believe there will be enough of an audience in-market to keep these companies afloat.
This is a fair point, it's true that with lower costs companies can remain profitable on lower revenue, but are industry profits actually up? It doesn't sound like it to me, but a cursory Google search didn't yield any actual cold, hard data, just blog posts and news articles, most of which are several years old (but not especially reassuring for the industry).
I don't need studies to counter those that show pirates buy more media than the general populace, because whether or not they do doesn't bear upon my viewpoint. I don't think buying a legitimate copy of something you already downloaded makes the two separate products. Either one could stand in for the other. I don't consider personal satisfaction or moral security to be a defining characteristic of an episode of One Piece to make the illicit version an intrinsically different product from the legal one.
In what way is a Mercedes a very different product from a BMW? I don't know what criteria we're using to determine "very different products" in this thread, but market elasticity is the most significant tool to make the legal determination, and I suspect that the elasticity of substitution between Mercedes and BMW is probably quite high. The fact that not many people would want to own both of them actually suggests that this is true. While at first blush this may not necessarily square with the answer I gave Xanas above, cars (and, really, any physical product) present a fundamentally different case from digital media. I generally can't illegally acquire a free Mercedes at near-zero risk, nor am I likely to pay $40,000 for a BMW out of some magnanimous desire to "support the automotive industry" or make my theft right without actually returning the car or paying for it after having done so; moreover, even if I do follow through on this improbable sequence, the "industry" has still suffered tangible loss because I still have the stolen car. On the other hand I can illegally acquire an episode of One Piece at near-zero risk, and at no cost to Toei or Crunchyroll or anyone else, and if I then spend fifteen or twenty bucks on a DVD or buy a Crunchyroll subscription or something, they've made all the money they would have made had I not downloaded, without having lost anything. I'm not really sure what bearing this has, though -- did I say something you specifically disagreed with, where the reason I got it wrong is that I didn't acknowledge substitution? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
NeumanProductions
 Posts: 110 Location: Appleton, WI |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
I am suprised to see where this conversation has gone since I last left.
I'm simply going to hold true that streaming is fine downloading free for keeps is not. At least give the companies the option like FUNimation does on both youtube and its own site. Of course people download so they can set-up fansubs but in truth (considering that's what sets up the licensing potential due to people actually seeing the series and causing hype) you only need a few fansubs, not to the extent that people who actually do download, download. Crunchyroll is indeed a good medium for this if they work directly with the parent companies in some cases. Some, not all. Just one cent this time. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Assume for the sake of this argument that there is no state apparatus there to enforce it for you, so if you had to personally enforce your rules would you be willing to do it Neuman?
And by enforce I mean if others refused to comply with it, to what extent would you be willing to go before you gave up? If someone else finds this an interesting question feel free to answer. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
To the best of my knowledge, I cannot get it for free. I've just now googled "free anime streaming Android App Roku Channel" and all the relevant hits refer to commercial sites, mostly Crunchyroll and Hulu. You keep claiming that the service I am paying for is available on the internet for free. So: where? For the rest of this, declining revenues and profits now would be expected from a range of scenarios ranging from a complete market collapse over the next five years to a restoration of net revenues to 2003 levels five to ten years from now. Evidence that would be expected under a scenario is not evidence against that scenario. That's why I set aside the rate of decline in physical media sales. According to the most recent JETRO report, reported on here at ANN, ICv2 estimates quoted here, the 2002 peak was a gross Home Video market of $415m, down to $200m in 2010. That is in line with a recent ICv2 estimate of 2010 DVD sales at $160m to $200m. So that is a decline of gross sales by 52%-62% over eight years. Net revenues will certainly not have dropped that far, since distribution costs are greater in B&M than they are in the online ordering channel, but conservatively, suppose that they have lost 50% of their net revenues from physical media. Suppose that they lose another 50% over the next five years, putting physical media net revenues at 25% of their 2002 peak. Let's be generous and assume net revenue is 20% of gross market sales. That means net revenues of $83m dropping to $32m~$40m, and the scenario above dropping to about $16m to $20m. So the muddling "through" scenario would be looking to digital distribution to generate $16m~$20m in net revenues. In April, 2010, FUNimation claimed 8m views at Funimation.com for March, Crunchyroll replied that they had 21m views, FUNimation replied that they had 50m+ views over all their 160 channels combined. That is a combined annual pace of about 852m views. OTOH, most of those are ad-streaming and at 2010 video ad-streaming rates, most of the ad revenue is going to pay for bandwidth and royalties, so in 2010, that is 852m views at a net revenue rate, optimistically, of $0.00/view, which would be carry the 9, gazinta uhhh, about $0. If rising ad-revenues brought that to a net revenue rate of $0.01/view, that becomes $8.5m, instead. That leaves $7.5m to $11.5m to make up. 70,000 subscribers at about $50/year would be $3.5m in gross revenue. If that were to grow to 200,000 Crunchyroll subscribers and 200,000 Funimation subscribers (some overlap, some shouting "sub" "dub" at each other), that would be $20m. If it was 20% net revenue, there's $4m. That leaves $3.5m to $7.5m to make up. Can digital downloads make up $3.5m to $7.5m? Well, if it can't, but the other two sides played out that way, that would reduce but not eliminate the series that could get dubbed, but the industry itself would clearly survive. If it can, that leaves us in 2015~2018 back to where we are right now. Assuming, that is, that the Japanese industry survives, but survival of an international localising industry is always predicated on the survival of the entertainment industry is it localizing. Indeed, the industry localizing Hollywood movies for Japanese release is similarly predicated on the survival of the Hollywood movie industry and its platoons of yellow bellied surplus suckers. OK, so there's a muddling through scenario. it specifies physical distribution revenues dropping to $100m. But if the sales are sliding toward $100m, that is a decline logistic, which picks up speed then tapers off. If the digital sales are growing toward the kind of levels in the scenario, that is a growth logistic, which grows exponentially, until it starts to taper off. Add the two together, and a substantial sag in revenue in the first half of the transition is what is expected. The thing about growth logistics is that you work out that the growth logistic has passed the exponential growth stage and is starting to approach the mature market niche when it happens. You rarely know how long the early "breakout" period of explosive growth is going to last. And then, in some rare cases which, however, together dominate the economy, the early breakout is followed by multiple later breakouts, each tending to be less explosive but each with more dollar impact because they are are growing from a large established base (consider the 8bit PC boom to the 16bit PC-DOS boom to the GUI PC boom to the Enterprise Network boom to the Internet connected device boom). I never said that the market can't possibly be heading for collapse. I am, however, saying that the argument that it "must be" heading to collapse because it relies on selling what is already available for free is not just oversimplistic, but doesn't hold up when subjected to closer scrutiny. ___________________ Sidenote:
That was not replaced by the modern institution of copyright by accident or happenstance. The modern institution of copyright was fought for and won.
Repeating essentially the same thing in different words is not actually support for a "it was not" statement. The public interest in preventing the freeloading of publishers was because it discouraged the creation of original works. What artists and authors were fighting for is not contradicted by pointing to the argument that they used to win their fight.
Term is entirely irrelevant to issue at hand, since copyright would apply to this work on on any reasonable terms. This is One Piece, not Mickey Mouse.
The US Constitution is not what gives government the right to establish copyright ~ it only establishes it as something that can be established on the federal level. Without the Constitutional provision, it would be a state level power, unless the Supreme Court found that it was a proper power of government under the interstate commerce clause. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
But they didn't actually win their fight with an argument, and the publisher didn't get significantly weaker in the relationship despite the difference for most authors. To quote a great playwright whose works were substantially edited and enhanced after his death (1), this change was "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
It's odd to suddenly narrow discussions scope like this when we just went a few hundred years back in history. My statement was not made purely in this context. But if you agree with shorter terms, there isn't a reason for me to bring it up on those grounds. Do you?
Oh I agree with this, why would you think differently? I don't think anyone has the right, that's been my point this entire time. (1) http://mises.org/daily/5803 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Article 1, Section 8 allows the right of the Legislative branch to promote the sciences and useful arts, commonly referred to as copyrights and patents. Congress has and always will establish this right. In recent rulings held by SCOTUS, it has been repeated it is the responsibility of Congress to define copyright as the Judicial branch has no right to do this due to the provisions set forth of the checks and balances system. SCOTUS may rule in favor of current definitions which may be "gray area" (aka Fair Use), but when this is not the case, SCOTUS will always defer to Congress the final resolution of the case. Which, for the record, has not been done to date. State copyrights do exist, but they can not be enforced due to the ridiculously broad federal reach of current copyright and patent laws. In regard to your JETRO data analysis to support your position, it's flawed because the analysis fails to take into account the elements which lead to your very position. The JETRO data includes sales of Pokemon and Dragonball DVDs. Due to their popularity during peak years of anime sales, their impact was tremendous. Over the years, it's far more reasonable to assume falling revenue was the result of the wane in popularity of these two titles on their own. While these titles may still sell, their numbers are nothing as they were years ago. This can be confirmed by noting the market value of FUNimation has significantly dropped. This can not be a coincidence. During the years Dragonball had the highest sales numbers of FUNimation's entire catalog, the worth of the company would also rise because of it. Higher sales means higher revenues. As it stands, we do not have an accurate picture of the anime market sales without the removal of these two very influential titles. Should this ever occur, I'm more than confident we'll see a sales chart which emulates what we currently see. I'll go even further to state the sales would be less than current numbers. To further this assumed position, the anime market in North America has not seen a return of such title sales since the wane of Pokemon and Dragonball. While some titles will sell exceptionally better than others, there's no mistaking the numbers aren't as they were. Even if streaming was not available, these sales would not restore. Not only has the original demographic grown and moved on, today's market is no longer fixated on long-running series as a means to entertain themselves because there is no longer a captive audience. The internet has, truly, affected every business on earth because it has changed the rules. From brick and mortar sales to filing taxes, the way business is run today is the result of distribution of transactions at the speed of light. Provided, of course, the right of the government doesn't try to screw it up again. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
zaphdash
Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
I'm not claiming the service you pay for is available for free, I'm claiming the content you pay for is, and per my side discussion with Xanas, I consider these to be fundamentally the same product, differences in distribution notwithstanding. We've already agreed that these different modes of distribution do carry their own respective advantages (and, I'd add, disadvantages), and we've already agreed that some people will pay for one when the other is free, for whatever reason, whether moral, perceived convenience, or any other. Our difference here is whether there are enough of these people to support the entire industry -- I don't believe there are, and whether I'm right or wrong about that, your argument above doesn't even address the point. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by hammering on this same thing over and over again. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of quibbling over hypothetical numbers, "supposing" and "assuming" different scenarios, so moving on...
What is the actual profitability of the anime industry right now? You're right that I don't know how long CR's early growth period will last, but anime is a niche market to begin with and revenues have dropped precipitously across all the digital media industries. Have profits in this industry remained stable, or even risen? I am asking this question honestly, not rhetorically, because like I said before, I haven't found straightforward and up-to-date data on this myself. It's my impression, from news articles and blog posts, that the industry is hurting. This is not due entirely to illegal downloads (and I never claimed otherwise), but a niche market can't exactly afford to give away its product to a significant portion of whatever audience it does have. As far as I can tell the "closer scrutiny" to which you're subjecting my argument here is based entirely on hypothetical numbers such as those earlier in your post. "Suppose net revenue is x% of gross sales, suppose sales decline by y% over the next few years, suppose streaming ad revenue rises by z cents per view," and voila, now there's....a smaller shortfall than the one predicted by the made up numbers, and maybe hopefully it can be overcome but if it can't then there'll still be an industry that's just smaller and with less selection. This isn't scrutiny, this is a story. And anyway, what happens when we get to 2015-2018 and this smaller industry is no longer bringing over as many shows as it used to? You didn't even attempt to address this, but the answer seems more or less pretty obvious: the audience shrinks further. Now I cancel my Crunchyroll subscription because they no longer have what I want to watch (kind of like the 800,000 people who canceled Netflix in Q3 2011, as I touched on a few pages back) and Crunchyroll has less money to bring over even fewer shows still. This doesn't go on and on until Crunchyroll has zero subscribers, but it does potentially go on and on until Crunchyroll is insolvent, or until it finds that it can make more money serving a different audience. I can't say with utter certainty that this is what happens, but I doubt these are waters Crunchyroll wants to test. Edit: response to Xanas moved to PM, where it belongs |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
However, your original claim is that the anime industry must look to generate the majority of its revenues from channels other than distribution, because revenues from distribution cannot be sustained in the face of illicit distribution. However, except for the music industry, the transition away from heavy reliance on selling media as a good and to monetizing it as a service is a transition to what a couple of decades ago were considered to be the norm. And that is not just visual media. Consider the traditional economics of newspapers. The subscribing newspaper buyer paid for the paper and ink and paperboy. The newsstand buyer paid for the paper and ink and newstand operator. The advertisers paid for the content. Now, the family selling the boys bike in the garage in the classified section did not pay for the Middle East bureau because they wanted to, but because the newspaper classifieds was the only real place to put it, and similarly for the big department store advertising its big President's Day White Sale ~ but the rise of eBay and Craig's List and similar seems to have been driving a stake in that business model, since the seller of the boy's bike in the big city no longer has to subsidize the Middle East bureau of the big city paper to advertise it. The Newspaper business model was a fit to its technology, and in particular the tremendous scale economies in print publishing. Observing that the underlying technology has changed and so that business model must be replaced does not, however, on its own automatically imply that it is impossible to develop business models that generate revenue from distribution services given the opportunities and limitations of the new distribution technology.
So, basically, you do not believe there are sufficient numbers, and discussing whether there are sufficient numbers is off the table. That is, on what basis do you (a) come up with your idea of what a threshold for "enough numbers to sustain the industry" would happen to be, and (b) once conceding that there will be some demand for distribution services, where do you come up with the estimate of how much it is going to be? Once you concede there will be "some", then "there won't be enough" is a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. "None" is qualitatively "not enough". "Some" is or is not enough based on how many it is and how many "enough" is. Laying out a range of scenarios and what-ifs is really the only way to get empirical traction on the claims that you are making: different pieces of evidence will tend to support or counter different scenarios, and the range of scenarios that fits the available evidence is what the evidence points to. It only becomes an internet forum rabbit hole if someone attempts to argue which of a range of plausible scenarios fitting the evidence "is the right answer" and that all the other plausible scenarios fitting the evidence "are the wrong answer". Since the publicly available evidence will rarely leave only a single scenario standing, those who feel the emotional need to have a single answer are forced to peer and parse for information that just isn't there.
Now FUNimation is privately held, so doesn't have to report profits. The complex of companies constructed out of what was once ADV are all privately held (as ADV was), so they don't have to report. Viz Media is a wholly owned joint venture of two Japanese publishers, and Japanese stock exchange corporate reporting requirements permit far more obscurity than the American SEC does. I believe Media Blasters is privately held ~ given that they were forced to abandon their former business model and move to substantially more reliance on freelance work, we can assume that their profits were declining, but we won't have direct info. Aniplex USA and NIS American are wholly owned subsidiaries of Japanese companies. Nozomi is just the name of RightStuf's production division. Since RightStuf's LinkedIn entry does not include an exchange trading abbreviation, I presume they are privately held. So good luck with that obtaining of direct profit information. These are all privately held companies or subsidiaries of Japanese companies.
The ICv2 and JETRO figures make it clear that the industry has suffered from a dramatic collapse in gross market volume. And it couldn't be otherwise, with the collapse of several of their most important Brick and Mortar retail outlets over the past five years, with Borders only the most recent of the casualties (more important for manga than for anime, but still an important B&M channel). And that decline in gross market sales has got to hurt. The standing question is therefore "has it bottomed out". Evidently, if it has bottomed out this year, then the industry can survive on its present basis. If it hasn't, then either it has to continue downsizing, or else some other revenues have to take their place. Your original claim implies that these other revenues cannot conceivably be from digital distribution. I haven't seen sufficient evidence in support of your claim, either on whether it is going to bottom out, and if so at what level, or on what the prospective revenues from digital distribution may be, to support the claim. A representative of FUNimation claimed in general terms in their most recent annual ANNcast that their revenues from physical distribution are roughly stable and their growth in revenue comes from other distribution channels. But that fits an increase in FUNimation's market share in a declining market as well as the physical media market decline bottoming out.
The numbers How much of the audience of a niche industry is getting it without an accompanying direct or advertising payment is neither here nor there for what the industry can afford. The non-market audience doesn't directly cost the industry anything. And some part of that audience will also buy copies of the media they download, to have and display a physical embodiment of one or more particular favorites~ I'd expect likely more in the torrent download segment than the leech streaming segment, since that segment is selecting for a video quality and for those who view a permanent copy as a benefit rather than a drawback. That's another reason I'm dubious about this move by Toei.
You are telling a story, in which the evidence only supports one likely outcome. So to back up that story, you have to show how the evidence you are appealing to is incompatible with alternative scenarios.
But why would shrinking physical distribution revenues hurt the ability of Crunchyroll to simulcast shows with rising digital distribution revenues to apply to the task? You've conceded that digital distribution revenues are rising (though obviously from a small base level), and Crunchyroll is already profitable. So what is the fit between the facts available and the scenario you are painting? Given the figures that Crunchyroll cited in 2010, it does not need to grow its total audience to see strong growth in revenue over the next five years ~ its existing viewership is a pool for it to sell subscriptions to, and CPM rates for streaming ads are projected to rise over the next five years, as demand rises faster than monetized streaming views for sale in the ad market. ValueIs estimates its ad-revenue value at $961,320. And at the same time, the range of services it offers for streaming to different devices is already greater than the illicit distributors can offer, and it continues to grow ~ that ValueIs estimate is for the Crunchyroll.com site, and excludes ad-streaming to Android and Apple apps and on its Roku channel, Now certainly what you sketched out could happen, but I don't see how it fits as a normal outcome of current trends from the available information. Past experience teaches that new markets tend to follow a growth logistic, growing at an exponential rate until the market ceiling starts to be relevant and the growth rate slows down ... commonly with a bit of overshoot and correction. Past experience teaches that declining markets either collapse and disappear or experience a decline logistic, with accelerating volume of decline at first and then the decline slowing down as it approaches the new lower market ceiling ... commonly with undershoot and recovery. Note that I didn't set out a scenario of "physical distribution settles in at $200m indefinitely", or "physical distribution recovers to $300" ... because while lots of things are possible, those scenarios are a poor fit to available observations of market trends. However, a decline to $100m in physical distribution revenues fits every bit as well to the observed decline to this paint as a decline to $0. ____________________ Sidenote:
Which is exactly what I said: the Constitution does not create the governmental power to grant copyright protection, it just specifies that it is a federal level power.
So, you are saying that we won't get back to 2002 sales levels. This somehow contradicts my argument, which nowhere suggested anything about getting back to 2002 sales levels. I don't see any contradiction, so I'll assume that you are arguing at some elevated anime fan level that a mere academic cannot hope to follow. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
NeumanProductions
Posts: 110 Location: Appleton, WI |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Also, if there were no state apparatus to do the enforcing the owner of the property would take different precautions. The old west had everyone carry a gun, to a strong entent of the law not being present/enforced there. This was to protect the people but the big problem is technology, so even to those who buy the DVD/Blu-ray they can easily download it. So in that sense it just would be a really hard thing to handle with or without the state. But that's why we have the state anyways, otherwise people would be a little more concerned about other things than releasing an anime. However, I concede that there are certain losses that are made in any business that must be expected...especially in this business. Ones that just aren't worth the hastle to enforce but it doesn't make them that fair to the authors of what is being sold. My advice is just in a sense of keeping the market thriving enough that companies are willing to take the gains with minimal losses. Events like these that spawned this discussion are there to keep the thought of "Big Brother" over your shoulder a bit. As you can see, most events like this kinda drop out of the courts to a certian extents, where most charges are dropped, but it just makes someone think. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group