Forum - View topic

NEWS: Japanese Panel Pushes Ban on Illegal Downloads Forward

Zac already said it best, yea I actually agreed with him, which is somewhat rare, which you have repeatedly argued with till your blue in the face.

Every time someone has made a point you have tried to make a counter point that shows only your views and/or beliefs, but not a fact of law...period. If that isnt blatant enough of a reason to give you pause, nothing will.

But go ahead, amuse me some more, I'm bored at work, i got all day.

And aren't you arguing with your beliefs yourself? To hell if you agree with Zac or not, the man can be wrong.

I wonder how amusing it is under that bridge of yours.

Steel Angel, it seems you believe that I think it's not illegal? I haven't been saying that. My arguments have been about morality, not legality. I have been arguing what I think the law should be, not about what it is. I am very aware that what I do by downloading fansubs, etc. is illegal.

Given that the current laws haven't curbed such infractions, how does it become a moral issue "all of a sudden" when the current laws are disregarded, and new ones are made to try to rectify the situation?

One would have to have morals to bring them up wouldn't they?

At this point the laws are already an inconvenience, and not just an inconvenience but one that costs money if I want to be legal. I have to do something illegal (use DMCA violating programs) to watch in the operating system I want to, or I have to pay for a copy of windows (that I don't want) despite the fact my OS is perfectly capable of playing the videos.

Proposed laws are much more severe than the DMCA and have further reaching effects than that.

It's not an issue "all of a sudden." Even if the laws were not revised or changed I still disagree with the laws that exist in the here and now. The only reason you might think that this is a sudden thing on my part is that there aren't any threads talking about our opinions on current laws. Let me be clear, I find the DMCA, current copyright terms, and the fines/etc. all completely out of wack without any modifications in the future. This is why I don't want new laws added, the ones that already exist are screwed up as it is in my opinion.

I'm not denying that they have morals. My disagreement is over what those morals are. I can agree with some principles but not others. When people say "artists should be paid for their work" I agree strongly with that. When someone goes on to say that artists should have the right to demand whatever they want, I am inclined to disagree. I believe copyright should exist only as a law to cover commercial distribution, and I don't think it should go beyond that. When it goes beyond that there will always be a desire to make new laws which infringe upon personal freedoms (such as the ability to choose the device/operating system/or software I want to use). In cases like this, it goes even further to possible invasions of privacy since this download ban will require monitoring of what people do on the internet.

As was brought up by other posters, it is highly unlikely if your property or said assets were treated as you have treated others, would you have the same view considering you would have had to work to create them. Some would call that hypocrisy. Can we prove you'd act one way or the other, obviously not, at least until you were to release something of merit and try to earn money off of. The world may never know.

If people wern't breaking the law to begin with, they wouldn't have reason to invade more and more privacy to try to catch those whom are would they. It really is a vicious cycle isn't it.

I know you disagree with my morals, but to say that I have none because I break yours is nonsense. Your morals say that breaking any law is immoral, so what about truly unjust laws? Is it immoral to break the law if the law demands that you do something with which you take moral issue? If the law requires you to kill someone that you do not want to kill? Keep in mind that things like sodomy are illegal in many states, do you think that people who have certain types of sex are immoral solely because it's breaking the law? I don't even think you really believe what you are saying when you say words like this.

When I copy something illegally I don't make the original have no value. Your point is entirely invalid because it's based on a false premise . If illegal copying made these things worthless then you'd not buy them either. And I certainly wouldn't buy them since I condone that activity (to some extent).

"Unfair" advantage? Why is it unfair? Because they didn't spend money employing me? Everything that exists in this day and age is ultimately based off the work of people that came before. Is it unfair that this is true? I'm sorry but I just don't follow this. Anyway I said I'd prefer that the company be fine with making it open source and sharing it freely. There are companies that do this, and I think it's wrong to say they are giving "unfair" advantage to their competitors. No, instead, they are simply leveling the playing field and encouraging competition in areas other than technology or software.

I think ethereal things have variable value, depending on the situation. This is shown by my previous example, where I referenced the fact that TV broadcasters aren't exactly paying 25$ per 4 episodes per viewer. As for the value being dependent on who created the ethereal thing, I'd disagree with that. I think you believed this because I said it was wrong to lie about creating something you did not. The reason that this is wrong in my view is not because it violates my "ownership." It violates the truth, and it is harmful to society to be paying the wrong people for work that others have done. The reason for that is obvious, it does not allow the work to continue when one supports the non-responsible group. That's the reason I have a problem with commercial bootlegging.

Depends on how you define "anyone who needs it." Many who would want to learn how to use it for educational purposes cannot afford it. Sometimes people don't have money for the college courses and such to get the cheaper versions. If you are talking about businesses then I think you are probably right. Anyway, I support open source software for pretty much everything. The only exception I'd make would be gaming software, since it's similar to anime. But even that I think can sometimes benefit from open source (I very much support ID software and John Carmack because of their re-releasing source under the GPL after a few years).

-Considering current laws are not dissuading people from such actions (including you), what did you expect them to do? Make the laws more lenient? Common sense says other wise. Now will the newer laws be any more upheld, your guess is as good as mine.

-I wasn't questioning their morals. I was questioning yours. How can one with out morals of a subject question the morals of a subject. The lack of morals is shown because you show a lack of adherence for the law. Whether one agrees with a law or not, breaking them of course would be viewed as immoral. So how do you bring up a moral opinion on something which you have shown to not have a good moral view on? And you wonder why i was amused?

In other words you disagree with capitalism or maybe even the laws of supply and demand then? You don't like how a copy right holder can charge what they want after all, so that means you don't like capitalism. As was brought up by other posters, it is highly unlikely if your property or said assets were treated as you have treated others, would you have the same view considering you would have had to work to create them. Some would call that hypocrisy. Can we prove you'd act one way or the other, obviously not, at least until you were to release something of merit and try to earn money off of. The world may never know.

-If people wern't breaking the law to begin with, they wouldn't have reason to invade more and more privacy to try to catch those whom are would they. It really is a vicious cycle isn't it.

Tell that to all of us who aren't possibly not going to see the end of various Geneon titles like Kyo Kara Maoh, Shonen Onmyoji & Saiunkoku because we don't download & Geneon has pulled out of the American market apparently over htis non-issue to you. Yes, you & other downloaders HAVE done me damage.

I also don't really believe the tastes of downloaders match the tastes of those of us who do buy or sales would be better. I want to see Meine Liebe. I want to see Angelique. Obviously not enough people download these titles so the licensees don't believe there's an audience. I have no interest in Melancholy of Haruhi, unlike hundreds/thousands of downloaders. I believe downloaders are skewering the licensing process.

It really depends on the company you work for & what you're talking about. We've all heard of the Disney animators who banded together to make their own title back when (All dogs go to heaven? What title was it? Like in 1980) The animators said in intervies they made sure they didn't work on the project on their breaks. not did they use any Disney supplies to make the film so Disney couldn't claim the product. Back in the 80's when I actually read American comics, any characters or work one did for Marvel or DC belonged to them so many artists saved their best & brightest. In the mid-late 80's we saw a few independant companies pop up where the rights to the characters remained with the artists so they could bring these characters to life. Yes, their sales were probably miniscule compared to what they might have sold thru Marvel or DC, but they had control over their characters.

Wordplay.
Because YOU want to view the item you're downloading, you believe you have some sort of "ownership" yoiu do not possess. The owner of that item hasn't givven permission to the fansubbers to offer those fansubs/downloads. Their desire to "share" these items doesn't constitute ownership, either.

I don't see where wnyone who has any right to the product has said "sure, fansub Code Geass so thousands of people can view it without pauying me any of my just due royalties. I don't care about the royalties". That makes it a stolen item.

Why do you think Museums charge more for those traviling exhibits? Because they can make more money? I've always seen the original owners of the exhibits are the ones demanding so much for the show, thus the need for an extra charge. It's like $25-$30 to see the "Bodies" exhibit in La Jollla. It sounds interesting, but I don't want to pay it. My desire to see it doesn't give me the right to walk thru the box office without paying because it's there anyway. My not paying for it doens't violate any copyright because I'm not stealing any of the preserved bodies so the paying customers can't see them, right?

How is my desire to see "Bodies" but not seeing it because I don't want to pay $30 any different from fansub downloading?

My understanding for all the plays my daughter has been in in schools was they had to have all the copies of the script in original form-they can't just buy one & make a bunch of copies.
I've heard of people in schools who made Harry Potter plays who, to be safe, asked permission of JK Rowling's reps.

How does this reflect on anime? You saying schools NEED anime so badly they shouldn't have to pay for it? Anime is that important to education? Making the students read War & Peace is no longer necessary? Red Badge of COurage? Huck Finn?
I really can't think of any anime with a meaning/moral that a good teacher can't locate in existing literature the students don't need to download.

Anime is entertainment. There really is no NEED to download it. How does the desire to see it justify not paying the owners?

Xanas: "I say copyright violation isn't stealing"

Anime company like Gonzo: "We paid the workers to write the stories & animate it. We own it. We haven't said anyone could put it on the net for free. We own the product we worked on & nothing in the user-end agreement gives you the right to view it outside the market we've already contracted with"

Wordplay. Manslaughter. Murder-victim's still dead.
Theft. Burglary. Copyright violation-owner's rights have been ignored.