Forum - View topic

Hey, Answerman! - Portmanteau-Related Tomfooligans

Quote:

And honestly, I refuse to believe that most of the money goes to them. Show me some numbers, sources.

I've seen one claim it directly. It'd be unlikely they would lie about that, since if they do the information will slip out someday.

I know that Hulu pays 70% to the rights owner for its big content partners, and this source says they average 60% to 65%, but smaller content providers may go down as low as 50:50. The anime share between the license holder and the original rights owner is not disclosed there, for one thing because they are focusing on Hulu's overall business model and for another thing because that it independent of Hulu.

TheAnimeNetwork, I've seen no information on their online revenues, and they are privately held so there is no need for them to release that info.

So its by no means conclusive proof that would hold up in a court of law, but on the other hand if you just refuse to believe it barring irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the way you've set up the burden of proof shows that its \not really about evidence, its about something internal.

And I do feel like denying them a living if I judge their creations to be, you know, bad, or average honestly, if it doesn't go more than that, if I don't get excited by it at all, I don't see why they would deserve my money.

But you can't just get "the exceptional stuff and only the exceptional stuff", the real world doesn't work like that. 90% of everything is crud ... unless the 100% is produced, including the 90% that's crud, the 10% that's good does not exist.

I'll presume that you are among the small minority in whatever field you are in to earn your money that is exceptional, but the majority of people are average ... for most people, if the source of their income imposed the same standard of having to be far above average, there'd be no money to spend on entertainment in the first place.

You're essentially suggesting that it is wrong to pirate because it is dangerous to do something that's wrong. Do you see how that takes for granted the very idea you're seeking to prove?

Again though, were talking about instances where piracy is not harmful.

So, would I be correct in assuming then that this is simply your gut feeling or natural inclination on the matter? I'm trying to get to the bottom of what reasoning supports this view of yours. You sort of seem to be indicating that you really don't have a reason for feeling this way. It's simply how you feel and that's all there is to it. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Like buying used/pre-owned items. I'm still technically buying the legit goods, just the money is not going into the pockets of the people that ruined my perception of them in the first place.

No, I'm saying you can't necessarily see the harm. It's not for you to say there is no harm because you admit there is harm.

It was a trick she had used on many-knock one brick out of the wall to try to sell her faith thru, but I wasn't buying.
You are trying the same thing & I'm not buying

If we get away with one thing, then we might look to get away with other "unharmful" lawbreaking.
I see no hole.

Many people see drugs as a victimless crime. As someone who sees drug users every day, I can tell you that is totally wrong.I have a 23 yr old I'm playing with now who has destroyed his kidneys with his illegal drug use. A co-worker got to close a file on a 25 yr old cocaine user who died from a heart attack. These people have family who are impacted by their lives. Most lack income, so are on the government dole for their medical treatment. Yet drug use is still usually perceived as victimless because they are doing it to themselves.

You are saying it's ok for fansubbers/a friend to leave the door to someone/the creator's house unlocked at night so you can sneak in to read the material-you aren't removing/stealing it because you will buy it when it is released- even though you know there are others entering the house to see it who will not buy it & even people who used to buy, but hey, they found out about the open door, so they're going to use that money they spent buying this stuff on other stuff. It's not stealing.The items remain on the property But I'm saying the people giving access lack the right to decide to give you access in the first place. They & you are making decisions for others you have no right to make And there is the harm. You're putting your selfish desire/need to feed your addiction over the free will of the proper owner.

Basically still an unsatisfying amount, and all streaming websites, you know, those who apparently "pay back the most" or something.

I'm not really clear what this means. Are you saying that I can't see the harm where as you can? Or are you saying nobody can see the harm but we should still assume it's there? I'm also not sure where I admitted there was harm. I admitted there was in some cases. I also agreed those cases were wrong. I have always maintained that in other cases (the ones I am addressing) there is no harm. Can you clarify what you are talking about here?

Come on now. Let's not start with this. Nobody is forcing you to participate in this conversation. Yet you're choosing to do so anyway. You're 'selling' your viewpoint every bit as much as I am.

Okay, now this is a real, substantial and well thought out line of reasoning. I agree largely with what you're saying here. Fansubers have to know that a lot of people are going to use their uploads to avoid paying and putting it up there anyway is akin to is directly enabling that. However, you're slightly misstating my claim. I'm not saying that what fansubers do is okay. I'm saying that since they're going to do it regardless, I might as well take advantage of it. I'm not the one unlocking the door. I'd love to keep it locked but it's too late for that. Someone has already opened it and threw away the key. That being the case, there's really nothing I can do so I might as well take advantage of it (so long as I don't do any further harm in the process).

bob51 wrote:

Basically still an unsatisfying amount, and all streaming websites, you know, those who apparently "pay back the most" or something.

If half or more of gross revenue to the original rights owner is "still an unsatisfying amount", then obviously your whole line of argument about what fraction the author's get of what you pay is only flimsy excuse making.

There's a reason that the beginning of miserable spells miser.

This is the problem, but the bottom line of my statement. Some people get to violate the law, but others can't? You can't say that. Who are you or anyone to decide what they're doing is ok?

It's either ok for everyone or it is not ok for everyone.

I'm not cooking the books, creating boundaries that seem to make my position more valid.

It is breaking the law so it is a violation & it violates the personal rights of the copyright holder which is the greater evil in my book-you are putting your rights ahead of another who realistically has a superior position to have a say in this situation.

As someone outside the Catholic faith, that whole confession thing has never made sense to me. I was taught if one sinned, one repented & sinned no more, yet the whole process of confession seemed to allow for pre-planned sin because one can sin with a planned out (confession).

It's not "Everyone born on odd days can speed while the rest have to obey the speed laws." If it is OK for some people to break the law, then everyone should be allowed to decide whether they can violate a law.

As someone outside the Catholic faith, that whole confession thing has never made sense to me. I was taught if one sinned, one repented & sinned no more, yet the whole process of confession seemed to allow for pre-planned sin because one can sin with a planned out (confession). The idea one can buy a couple anime titles on dvd to make up for downloading isn't equal or balanced.

And violation and respect are not moral considerations?

This is the same basis by which we judge virtually every other act as moral or immoral. I mean, let's take murder for example: In most cases, it is almost universally agreed that murder is wrong. However, in some cases, such as instances of self defence most people would agree that murder may be justified.

Look, you're acting like this is a totally foreign concept but it's not. This is the same basis by which we judge virtually every other act as moral or immoral. I mean, let's take murder for example:

In most cases, it is almost universally agreed that murder is wrong. However, in some cases, such as instances of self defence most people would agree that murder may be justified. So one murder may be wrong but another may not be. This of course does not mean that it's okay for some people to murder but not for others. This is simply a case like many many others where the morality of an action may vary by the exact circumstances.

Why? Unlike with confession, any potential damage from the action (not paying the owners for the content) has been balanced out. You have paid for the content. How is that not balanced?

Well...since when is respecting everyone's wishes something you're morally required to do?

I think doing no harm is a moral requirement. I think there are some other rights you're morally required to not violate. Just saying that it's wrong to pirate solely because the creators don't want me to pirate though? No. I don't see that as sufficient. Do I like it when people don't respect my wishes and don't do what I want them to do? No. Do I think they're morally wrong for doing so? Of course not.

...
I believe my introduction to the concept of Catholic confession was Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother. ... I assumed in Sherlock Holmes, the idea the bad guy could kill somone, confess, & it was ok was humor, but I have since met many people-catholic & otherwise who seem to feel sin is sin. Stealing a pen will send one to hell as easily as murder which is insanity to the thought process I was brought up on. ...