Forum - View topicNEWS: New Survey: Reactions to Geneon
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||
Sorry but it's actually a lot more true of manga. Although CCSYueh has sort of missed the reason why. They do both have fairly equal collection value, but most people also prefer to read an actual physical manga book. They don't like reading scanned pages online. However with anime, you're getting the exact same thing. I suppose you have to watch it on your computer screen instead of TV but then you might watch it there anyway plus you can always burn it to DVDs. The differences are far greater with manga. |
||||
Fallout2man
Posts: 274 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||
While that IS a possible goal that'd ultimately have a very weak net effect on the piracy situation. Look at the case of MGM v. Grokster. It established the same sort of precident here in the USA, Grokster was illegal because its creators were seen as encouraging illegal activity. This did nothing to stop the creation or use of file sharing software, it simply required a slight change in business practices. Strategically the most effective goal would be to change the law to classify linking to or providing information to find the same as making available copyrighted works. This is what the USA does already and that's why all the major BT hubs I'm aware of are operated in other countries. |
||||
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||
Fallout2man -
I wasn't suggesting that putting one big-mouthed bozo from TPB in the dock would have any real or lasting effect on file sharing - I was just explaining why what he said was significant. Had he kept quiet, the Swedish legal case against TPB would be rather weaker. Frankly, even if the entire EU (and the other, non-EU, Council of Europe nations) adopted the US laws you describe, the hubs would simply move to Russia or somewhere else. You're never going to convince me that sites like TPB are in the right but I long ago accepted that my side has already lost the war. It's not about winning anymore - it's about slowing the rate of the collapse in the hopes that somebody can come up with another way of doing business before there is no industry left to save (or, more likely, no industry left worth saving given the grot they'd have to put out in order to monetise a free-to-view anime market). |
||||
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
Eh, perhaps, though I still think that the number of people who read scanlations and also buy the physical manga because they enjoy paper is not so much larger a group than the people who read scanlations and buy manga because they feel they need to give someone, somewhere, some money for it.
that's a rather gloomy outlook. The solution is a lot simpler than you imagine. If the industry keeps doing the same things they've been doing, then of course they're doomed to failure. It's like trying to fight a war by piling bodies into a closed positon in which the enemy can simply mow them down without stop. If the industry doesn't WANT to collapse then they must change their policies to match the situation on the ground, by both sides of the pacific working out deals that will get anime into the hands of American consumers within weeks of its Japanese release, at the very least for viewing, if not for owning, and they must be made available at a reasonable price. US Channels like NBC stream shows same-day all the time, why can't anime be handled the same way? I'm not saying the logistics of this are necessarilly easy to work out, just that they MUST work them out, no matter the cost, because the ONLY alternative is implosion. |
||||
Jih2
Posts: 403 Location: East coast |
|
|||
I'm not sure that I believe this idea that somehow if the legit DVDs of a series are available in North America very close to the Japanese release that fansubs will stop. I think this would definitely increase the cash that licensing companies in North America receive but i don't think it would necessarily stop fansubs. This is all hypothetical but I think we can all agree it won't stop fansubs. Further more, I think this has more to do with what series get licensed by R1 companies and that they obviously need to see what the fanbase likes and what it thinks should be licensed. Of course that's probably not going to happen and there's always situations like Haruhi where no one buys it even if they love it.
I'm sorry if someone already brought this up but uploading and downloading film and music is illegal according to the MPAA's website and the RIAA's website. Is anime any different? If this has already been answered please don't answer that question. Thanks! |
||||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
|||
This is a very excellent question that really gets to the heart of the issue. So I don't think that even if its something that has been rehashed in discussion before, it's not a problem to bring up again. Most fansubbers and downloaders think that they are outside the realm of what the MPAA and RIAA are trying to do and their primary focus which is domestically produced movies and music. But the concept behind their fight applies to ANY sort of artistic medium: the creators and producers of said medium should be compensated for their effort by the people who use their product. Anime is a commercial product, even though you might not view it as just that; you may be the biggest fan and appreciate it with all your heart (like I do), but I also understand that in order for it to exist a consumer / producer relationship MUST exist. Edit: adjusted the confusing wording in the last sentence above. Edit II: @ Ohoni your scenario in your post responding to mine was a little incorrect. Once an American licensor pays the necessary fines and completes all the requirements, it no longer has any financial obligation Japanese companies. ALL of the revenue from sales of R1 DVD goes to the American companies, which can be used to pay for expenses and invest in more production or licensing. Of course Japan still can intervene in production and may require additional compensation, which may or or may not lead to a more authentic or enjoyable product for the U.S. but they have a right to have some say in how their creation is being adapted. I don't think the anime industry in the U.S. would have ever got off the ground if a portion of the revenue from VHS and LD sales had to be given to Japanese producers. Remember the Japanese animation industry thrived on it's own well before U.S. companies started popping up interested in bringing shows to American audiences. Last edited by P€|\||§_|\/|ast@ on Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
MokonaModoki
Posts: 437 Location: Austin, Texas |
|
|||
See pages 6 and 7 of this thread. |
||||
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
I don't think anything would stop fansubs, and I don't think that's a worthwhile goal to pursue. It serves nothing. The only goal that the US and Japanese companies should pursue is to make as much money as they can off of their product, and the way to do that is to present it in a way that is as competative as possible with the state of fansubs today.
My point was that if you buy a US DVD then a portion of that money goes into covering the debt they incurred covering the liscensing fee that they'd previously paid to the Japanese company, and in return, to cover the fees for their next project. It doesn't go back directly to the Japanese company, but it does in spirit, in the bigger picture. The money you spend on US anime IS shared with the Japanese company, just in advance, not after you make the purchase. I do think that in future it should go directly back to the Japanese, based more on aftermarket profit sharing, rather than upfront liscense buys. |
||||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
|||
Hmm, interesting. That might involve some complicated PR at first like Goodpengin explained in the other Talkback thread about Fansubbers (btw check that one out too, some meaty related discussion there). I'd go further to say that distribution handling could be entirely left out of the hands of U.S. companies. The only thing they should do is packaging, presentation, ADR and voice over production and final pressing. That would remove the need for up front licensing costs and more start-up companies could produce (adapt) anime for the North American market again. But would U.S. companies give up that level of control that the currently surviving ones are barely struggling to even hold onto anyway? |
||||
Ohoni
Posts: 3421 |
|
|||
If not then I wouldn't mind if they all went under tomorrow. Clinging senselessly to a doomed marketing strategy earns them nothing. An why would they even deserve control over anything, waht they do is being done by college kids in their basement, free of charge and in a fraction of the time. It's the Japanese and Koreans that do all the real work.
|
||||
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher Posts: 10426 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
Actually, a portion can, and often does, go directly to the Japanese licensor. License fees are often a mixed flat rate (or advance,or guaranteed minimum) and a revenue or profit share. Due to the instability of the market lately, fewer R1 companies are offering the flat/minimum/guarantee, so the Japanese companies only get their share of the sales. In other words, every DVD you buy probably directly results in more money in the licensor's pocket, and therefore more budget for their next anime. -t |
||||
calawain
Posts: 192 Location: New York, NY |
|
|||
The website of the MPAA and the RIAA are not reliable sources for an objective look at the law. They are industry trade groups and will accordingly give you the version of the law they are arguing in the courts right now. I am not making a judgment on whether they are right or wrong because I haven't read their statements, but don't go there for what the law really is. Also, I wouldn't rely on wikipedia copypasting or any statute citing that people do here on this forum either. Your first day in law school you learn that a word in a statute can mean something completely different then what your dictionary says it does =) |
||||
MokonaModoki
Posts: 437 Location: Austin, Texas |
|
|||
Crazy true. And I've included a spectacular example below of this below.* But law school probably also clarifies that the wild variances of meaning from statute wording is generally created either by actual enforcement practice or by a body of case law establishing such effects Neither of which exist for the question 'is downloading anime illegal in the US?' That said, do you have anything to indicate that 'to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies' can ever NOT happen when digitally downloading (given the following definition of 'copies' in the statute itself)?
* Way way way off-topic, but this example comes from the Texas transportation code where they failed to define the word 'arrest.' The effect upon the rest of the country has been enormous. The intended result of the law as written: a police officer who stops (arrests) anyone for a generic traffic violation in Texas is only permitted to issue a notice to appear in court (ticket), unless the person stopped refuses to sign the ticket or demands to be taken before a magistrate. However, the officer is required to issue that notice to appear if the violation observed is either speeding or driving with an open container alcohol. For anything else, the officer may choose to let them go. So, the purpose of the law as written was to explicitly limit police authority to interfere with the freedom of people for minor traffic violations, as long as they sign a ticket agreeing to appear in court. Implemented enforcement: every peace officer in Texas has long believed that they can take you to jail ( by incorrect definition of arrest) for any traffic violation except speeding or driving with an open container of alcohol (for which they believe you can not be 'arrested'). They believe this because no one ever told the police that stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation actually is the arrest for the purposes of the transportation code under Texas law. Therefore, they interpreted as they found most... beneficial. This misinterpretation is taught in every police academy in the state, and is reproduced in 'handbooks' used by most magistrate courts. Fallout: in March, 1997 in Lago Vista, Texas, Gail Atwater was taken to jail by a police officer for a violation of the Texas law requiring seat belt usage. Details available here. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The courts decision hinged upon wording in the Texas Transportation Code that said that officers were authorized to effect arrests for any observed violation of the code. Previous Supreme Court rulings had well-established that a stop for a traffic violation constituted a seizure/arrest long before this case (if you aren't free to leave, you are arrested). Even so, based on this authority to 'arrest' violators, the Supreme Court ended up deciding that it is not unreasonable for a police officer to jail a person for any offense, even if the offense only carries a maximum punishment of a fine, and even if the laws of their state only permit them to issue a ticket. Screw downloading, that is why I'm a libertarian. |
||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group