Forum - View topic
Hey, Answerman! - Portmanteau-Related Tomfooligans


Goto page Previous    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
bob51



Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 17
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:07 am Reply with quote
agila61 wrote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


Quote:

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.


Why not? I've seen Gainax produce a lot of shows I enjoyed, a lot more than the average studio, why not other studios? And of course not! I am quite an average myself!

EDIT: Need to take some bbc classes~


Last edited by bob51 on Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CCSYueh



Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 2707
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:02 pm Reply with quote
ikillchicken wrote:
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?

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

I had a Jehovah's witness on my front porch when I was 16 read me a single scripture from the New Testiment which made it sound as though Jesus was encouraging stealing. Knowing this could not be the case, I gave the answer framed in the context I assumed it belonged which flabbergasted the woman. 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,
Human nature is such if we get away with something, we'll probably do it again & again. Not always, but each time makes it easier to do it another time. 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.

ikillchicken wrote:
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?

My mother was raped when she was 15 or so. I grew up in a household where doors were always ALWAYS locked & triple-checked.Mom would have dad drive back every once in awhile to check to be sure if she could not clearly remember locking the door. I have always religiously locked doors.
My mother-in-law lived with us for a time who had a fear of fire. She would leave the door unlocked so I would have to lock it. She would even unlock the door after I had locked it for the night. To me, it was 10 seconds to unlock the door & escape the fire were we to have one.
So flip your perspective.
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.

Quote:
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.

Buying used product isn't part of the picture dude.
That's "garage sale". If you buy something & are done with it, you have the right to get rid of it by whatever means you wish. If you can find someone to pay you for it, fine.My husband ran a re-sale business for awhile & at that time, one was allowed to have 6 garage sales per year & not pay tax because the assumption was you are selling at less than you paid, thus taking a loss. After 6, they assumed you were a business & you had to report sales/pay taxes, etc.
Do you pay full price on a used item? Usually not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
ikillchicken



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 7272
Location: Vancouver
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:27 pm Reply with quote
CCSYueh wrote:
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.


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?

Quote:
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


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.

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


Okay, and I agree. It may lead to more unharmful lawbreaking. None of that is a problem however because it will still be unharmful.

Quote:
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.


All of which is a potentially legitimate argument for why drug use is not harmless. None of which applies to piracy. Hence it is not a valid argument for why piracy (in some instances) is not harmless.

Look, I understand where you're coming from here. You obviously hear a lot of bullshit excuses in your line of work as you've described at length. It seems like you're making the jump from 'these things people say are harmless crimes are actually not' to 'all things people say are harmless crimes are actually not.' That's just no a sound line of reasoning though.

Quote:
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.


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).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
agila61



Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 3213
Location: NE Ohio
PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:03 pm Reply with quote
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CCSYueh



Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 2707
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:58 am Reply with quote
ikillchicken wrote:
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?

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? Most criminals out there, as I have pointed out, believe they have a "good reason" to violate the law, so saying some people are ok to violate while others arent' is the wrong idea. It's either ok for everyone or it is not ok for everyone.
If you have a marijuana rx, you can go to the designated clinics & get your marijuana. If you choose to go to the dealer down the street because he's closer doesn't make you ok to do so because you have that rx. You are feeding the illegal underground ecomony by shopping from a criminal who sells to anyone-children & adults alike-who lack that rx.
Quote:

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.


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.

ikillchicken wrote:
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).

It can be stopped, though. It might be hard, but if the owner, having discovered that door has been left unlocked, or maybe a better idea would be even that multiple keys have been distributed, can do whatever to stop it/lock their door. To continue to violate the will of the owner of the property is wrong & the excuse "Everyone's doing it" doesn't work in any court I know of.
It's not harmless because you are putting your selfish desire over the rights of another. That is just so flagrantly violates all concepts of property rights. The right to lock one's door to protect one's possessions is really what's being violated here.
You may see no harm going into your neighbor's house to take a nap while your neighbor is at work, but if you lack that person's permission, it is not right even if you've done no harm to anything while you were there. Even if you clean the sink before you leave, thus providing a service. You are there without pemission.
Frankly it is a violation. I've had my vehicle broken into in the past. Nothing major taken, but the feeling of someone in your stuff is hard to describe. It's a violation, almost like a feeling one was raped. It undermines one's sense of security & alters one's perspective of humanity for awhile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
bob51



Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 17
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:51 pm Reply with quote
agila61 wrote:
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.

Isn't there a sage option? Tired of bumping threads for this argument actually, but uh, nope, I find it rather insulting that you call my opinion flimsy excuse making, really.

Quote:

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


I thought we agreed on you dumbing things down for me!

"agree to disagree", is that what they call it? I'm suggesting that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ikillchicken



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 7272
Location: Vancouver
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:42 pm Reply with quote
CCSYueh wrote:
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?


Well then how can I decide anything? How can I decide which legal actions are moral and immoral? I mean, surely there are some things that, though technically legal, you would consider wrong. Don't I have to use my own judgment to determine what I should and shouldn't do? Why is that different than in this case?

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


Why? This kind of absolute view makes no sense. Especially given that you acknowledge that there are exceptions. As you said, there are cases where pot is legal. Doesn't this right there show that what is acceptable may vary based on the exact circumstances? And if that's the case, doesn't it make far more sense to examine the circumstances instead of simply assuming that the law is perfectly in tune with what is and isn't right? I mean, you'd have to agree that the law is not infallible right? There are something things that are legal that maybe shouldn't be and vice versa. If nothing else, the fact that the law varies by country demonstrates this. Downloading is actually legal in Japan as I understand it. Does this mean that it is okay to pirate if you live in Japan but not if you live in the US? Morality varies by geography? That's a pretty questionable notion.

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


Yeah, actually you are. Look at your pot example. You said it's okay to use pot if you get it through legal means. That seems to me to make your position a lot more valid than if you simply declared outright that it is never okay. Why is it acceptable for you to say 'It's not okay to smoke pot except when it's not illegal'. Yet I apparently can't say 'It's not okay to pirate except when it's not harmful.' I may draw the boundary at what is harmful where as you draw it at what is legal but we're both drawing boundaries just the same.

Quote:
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.


I don't know. I can see where they might not like that but is it a violation to such an extreme that it can be called immoral? I'm not really convinced. I can see making the argument that the respectful thing to do would be to not download. I don't know that you're morally required to show such respect though. Especially in the cases where talking about. It seems to me that what the rights holders really have an issue with is people not paying for their work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
LordRedhand



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 1472
Location: Middle of Nowhere, Indiana
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:10 am Reply with quote
Because a law has to apply to every one or not at all in this case copy right should be respected in all cases not just the ones you like or think are worthy. (Note this does not stop you from disagreeing with what the work says, because you have the right to that as well as the right not to buy something if you think your getting a bad deal, but it ends when you think you have a right that violates another persons rights.)

And violation and respect are not moral considerations? What school are you arguing under? As those are pretty strong basis' for the philosophy I argue from. Condensed it's do you like feeling violated? If the Answer is no, than you do not violate others. And I believe the yes answer fail universality section of the philosophy that I argue from (i.e. it has to apply to everybody, you can't make exceptions for yourself or others) Do you want to be respected? If yes you respect others rights and again you don't make exceptions to who is or who is not worthy of respect. Even if you disagree with them they are worthy of your respect and you should honor their rights (But again you can also express yourself as well if you feel a disagreement with what they are doing, again line is drawn when you violate their rights)

Much like the scanlator/artist who say that their own art work should be paid for, they give a compelling argument as to why you shouldn't, as what makes their works better that their rights should be respected where the works that they scanlate are not worthy of that respect?

Or another way of putting it what makes you and your situation so different that you can infringe upon the rights of others even though under normal circumstances they shouldn't be?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CCSYueh



Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 2707
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:41 am Reply with quote
You want medical marijuana in California? I know people who paid a doctor $500. They also have to get a county card for another $175. And if it's my clients? The judge probably still tells them no way.
The dif being a doctor claiming the client needs it for their health. Thats the idea behind prescriptions vs over the counter. Some stuff anyone can buy at the drug store while other drugs are regulated & can only be released thru a doctor.
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.
So no-"good downloaders" who buy some product do not have more of a "right" to download over a leech who never pays or the ones who have abandoned paying.
In this world we all have the ability to decide for ourselves what laws to keep & which to break.
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
fuuma_monou



Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 1623
Location: Quezon City, Philippines
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:59 am Reply with quote
CCSYueh wrote:
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).


How did Catholicism get dragged into this? Like this debate needed to get any more religious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ikillchicken



Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 7272
Location: Vancouver
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:09 am Reply with quote
CCSYueh wrote:
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.


Okay...but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying some people can pirate and some people can't pirate. That would be unfair. I'm saying everyone can in some situations and nobody should in others. It's not the individual that must vary but the conditions under which they commit the act.

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.

Quote:
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.


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?

LordRedhand wrote:
And violation and respect are not moral considerations?


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
agila61



Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 3213
Location: NE Ohio
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:04 am Reply with quote
ikillchicken wrote:
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, what is the point of the copyright laws? Why put into the hands of the creators of original works the right to allow or forbid the copying of their works, for their lifetime and for their heirs for a certain period of time after their death?

The intention is to encourage the creation of original works, by making it possible for more creative works to have economic value. It is, in other words, a promise made to creators of original works, before we ever know whether that original work will be something that anybody is willing to pay to copy.

That is the difference between "killing in self-defense" and "I decided that there was no economic harm done by trampling on the creators rights". Society does not make the promise, "the law will protect you from being killed, even if that killing was to defend someone else from your attack". Society does make the promise, "I will protect your rights to permit or forbid copying of your own creative work, even if its a worthless piece of shit that nobody wants to pay to copy".

With respect to the question in this particular edition of Hey Answerman, the question is what lines should fans draw for their own behavior.

That line might be set where staying on "this" side of the line leaves you confident to be doing the right thing.

The line might be set where where habitually crossing to the "other" side of the line makes it highly likely to be doing damage to the industry.

One thing, though, is that the line should be simple and clear: Mankind is the Rationalizing Animal, and as soon as its opened up to complex exceptions, balances and offsets, it very quickly stops being a line and starts being a sack full of excuses and rationalizations for misbehavior.

I take is that CCSYueh's line might be "obey the law and buy the stuff you like and want to support". That is quite simple and following it leaves you certainly doing good for the industry.

I offered the two rules of thumb to avoid all ad-supported sites that distribute bootlegs and to avoid all bootlegs of titles and series that are licensed in your country.

What those two rules aim to do is to help a supporting fan separate themselves from the plague of locusts that are threatening the financial viability of the industry. Follow the rules, and maybe some of the things you do are wrong, but at least your behavior won't be responsible for killing off the industry.

At present I am trying to stay on this side of CCSYueh's line, but on the other hand I live in the US, with the wealth of ad-supported and inexpensive subscription legit streaming anime available, and a wave of similar manga access on the way. If I move to the Democratic Republic of Congo, I am not sure that I would always stay on this side of CCSYueh's line, but I certainly could stay on this side of the lines that I suggested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CCSYueh



Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 2707
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:22 am Reply with quote
ikillchicken wrote:
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:

Wow. And you refuse to accept my examples as not applying.
THis is why Catholic popped up. I believe my introduction to the concept of Catholic confession was Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother. When I was brought up in the Mormon church, the idea of varying degrees of sin/wrongdoing were very much a basic root--we believed Adam & Eve were given 2 orders in the Garden of Eden & had to break one to fulfill the other. 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.
It was one of the freaky things in older anime. We have the theme of repentance-that the bad guy who has done evil can repent & become a good guy while in anime we see Vegeta condemned for all the evil he's done even though he has done good.
So I think my issue on this thread has been I see & speak to people who see no WRONG in downloading. I don't have any control over others to make them stop downloading, but at least accept you are doing a "wrong" thing & this is one of the rules in life you are ignoring.
ikillchicken wrote:
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.

In most cases one is tried by a jury of one's peers who decide if one did indeed kill in self defense. Humans are emotional. It's like for a long time DA's didn't prosecute parents whose kids died when they weren't in a car seat because more often than not the jury would let the parent off as having been punished enough.
However, no one judges downloaders as to whether it is valid for them to download, so as you dismiss my examples, this one is rather outside the realm. It's more the Speeding example I've been using & that's again-you know you were doing 100 in a 65 mph zone. It doesn't make you a monster, but you are not innocent.
ikillchicken wrote:
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?

Because most of the downloaders use that little "I buy what I like" meaning there are titles they watch & do not pay for because they didn't like them so it isn't balanced.
Plus, as I have repeated, they do not have permission in the first place.
There is a marked difference between an author posting something on the net for everyone to see & a person in no way connected to this author outside of the bond of being a fan posting the author's latest book on the net. The fan is disregarding the right of the author, butting their own desires above that of the rightful owner of the property.
ikillchicken wrote:
Well...since when is respecting everyone's wishes something you're morally required to do?

Because that's what keeps society going?
Aren't many of our laws enacted to protect various rights? Noise ordinances protect neighbors who want to sleep at night from those who want to blast their music out after 10 pm.
Indeed it seems the number of laws grows in proportion to those who believe their rights supercede the rights of others such as said noise ordinance. Common courtesy would suggest to most one's band should not practice with speakers set at 11 after a reasonable hour, but people seeing no harm weed-whacking at 6AM on saturday when the rest of us are sleeping in are what made that a law on the books.
ikillchicken wrote:
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.

THis is what I have been saying.
YOU have to make the decisions for YOU. If your decision seriously impacts another, the law steps in, but I really don't see cops on your doorstep hauling you off for downloading. It's like when everyone's speeding-the cops can't catch everyone
But the mere idea that because YOU see no harm in downloading & may or may not do it does not change the legal stance that it is a violation of the law & you are saying your rights take precedence over the rights of the owner of the copyright.
Which is also what any criminal breaking any law does.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:03 pm Reply with quote
Actually the Catholic Catechism states "all sins are not equal in the eyes of God". there are two degrees of sin. One is called Venial sin, basically sins of misdemeanors, lying, knicking sweets from a shop, something that breaks the Ten Commandments but not very strongly. I was taught by the church doctrin before Vatacan 2 in the 60's that changed a lot of this, but the rule was if you died with only Venial sins unabsolved your soul couldn't go to heaven, but didn't go to hell either. That's what Purgatory was for.
Then there is the Mortal sin. That is for the stronger sins the one's that some are called felonies in civil law. These get your soul on the express train to hell, thoses at Purgatory station please stay on the inside of the yellow line as the express passes through at speed thank you.
However, both can be absolved if confessed before an ordained clergy of any level, at anytime in one's life right up the moment of death. So even though you were sentenced to death, for mass murder, your soul would be allowed into heaven by absolution of that sin via confession.
BTW. No one has to guess what the Catholic Church believes in, or stands for as it's all in the The New Advent for anyone to read, especially its encyclopedia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agila61



Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 3213
Location: NE Ohio
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:18 pm Reply with quote
CCSYueh wrote:
...
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. ...


Not that I'd have ever taken classes on the Catholic catechism, and normally the Wikipedia is not the strongest source, but when the original source is Sherlock Holmes, perhaps the Wikipedia Machine is up to that competition. According to the Wikipedia Machine, there is a distinction in Catholic dogma between mortal and venial sins, where mortal sins have to be a grave matter, committed in full knowledge, and with deliberate and complete consent. Thems the sins that sends you to hell ... Venial sins may make you receive your punishment in Purgatory, but delay rather than prevent entry into Heaven.

One might confess a mortal sin and a fellow Christian (including a priest) might pray that one is forgiven, but aint no guarantees ~ as the cliche goes, sometimes when one prays, the answer is no.

But as far as copyright infringement, I'd expect it'd be a venial sin unless one was directly engaged in activity that on its own caused massive losses to companies in the industry (as, by comparison, petty theft is venial but substantial theft that does substantial harm may be mortal).

And that's just one example from one sect of one religion ~ how things are supposed to go in the Orthodox communions, for the Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Assemblies of Christ and etcetera and etcetera ... let alone the various sects of all of the major world religions ... I do not think it is all that relevant to go into in ANN. Unless of course its a manga/anime with heaven and hell and purgatory and all of that, which would bring it more directly into the frame.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous    Next
Page 10 of 11

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group