Forum - View topic

NEWS: Japan's Law Penalizing Downloaders, Criminalizing Ripping Goes Into Effect

Kikaioh you fail to see and understand my views and I yours, nothing wrong with that, you insult me at the end fine, many share my opinion and many yours, and sorry about he grammar but I wont polish and pay too much attention to some casual discussion in a random forum with random users that wont generate any important results, its its been very enjoyable and informative to say the least, which its why we have wasted too much time with this.

Lastly its the industry that has to earn my respect not the other way around, never. And that entertainment industry as a whole has been hard at work to make the contrary happen.

I've said everything I have to say.

dan9999 wrote:

Kikaioh you fail to see and understand my views and I yours, nothing wrong with that, you insult me at the end fine, many share my opinion and many yours, and sorry about he grammar but I wont polish and pay too much attention to some casual discussion in a random forum with random users that wont generate any important results, its its been very enjoyable and informative to say the least, which its why we have wasted too much time with this. Lastly its the industry that has to earn my respect not the other way around, never. And that entertainment industry as a whole has been hard at work to make the contrary happen. I've said everything I have to say.

Augh well, I don't mean it to sound like an insult in the end, it just seems you have a very stream-of-thought approach to this discussion that doesn't come across as particularly.... measured? ...maybe acute? It's hard to put my finger on it, LOL, but I don't mean offense by it.

Anyways, I won't fault you for wanting to bow out at this point, it's been a lengthy talk and I've at least appreciated your politeness so far (and for not blowing a gasket as people are often wont to do )

What kind of harebrained moral right expires?

I think the biggest problem that pro-copyright people have is that they want to insist that there is only one profitable business model. But we know there's more than one.

I already gave an example based on music, so let's now think about it in terms of computing. Microsoft charges people to purchase an OS and then offers servicing for free, whereas some of the developers behind Unix-based OS give away the OS for free and then charge corporate clients to service it. Both models keep their respective developers chugging along. Funnily enough though, the various incarnations of Windows are crap and annoy lots of users, but they do make Microsoft lots of money. Whereas say Ubuntu is very secure, regularly updated, easy for the consumer to customise, and only makes the parent company a little bit of money (which isn't surprising because Ubuntu is free).

My point is, the 'traditional' method results in an inferior product that mainly benefits one company, whereas a non-traditional method results in a superior product that financially benefits lots of people (because they didn't have to pay).

Kikaioh wrote:

As I previously stated, "monopoly" is often brought into these conversations for the sake of carrying with it the unwarranted and unrelated stigma...

Just like "what about the content creators?" is often brought into the conversation to try and make it seem like every alternative to the traditional model is a bad one that's going to put every musician and author out on the street.

Its so wrong to want middlemen stop with their ripoff schemes, having them share only 10% to the creator, its so bad that many of us want them to innovate and change business models, its so damn wrong that we want fans to be respected and not seen as mere pawns that make you money, IS IT SO WRONG REALLY? Is it so wrong that many of us are yelling to the publisher we want your product make it easy for all to access "your" content and let us pay you? Instead being ignored and greeted with harsher laws and excuses to implement innovation and doing away with obsolete business models... IS IT SO WRONG REALLY?

And why download the damn movie? Why not rent it or legally stream it? There is no need to illegally download anything, not in this day and age.

@Kikaioh:
A) The market-share based definition of "monopoly" is entirely irrelevant here, even if I didn't hold it to be meaningless.

B) Trademark is a different area of law that's not under discussion, but how is me throwing together a washer out of random parts and claiming it's a Maytag not fraudulent?

C) Copyright law grants the holder a monopoly on products with certain characters, text, video, etc. If you must have a commodity analogy to comprehend, image if one company had a monopoly on regular salt, another had a monopoly on iodized salt while yet another had a monopoly on sea salt. That most monopolies are extremely broad by comparison doesn't change a copyright's essential character.

D) My usage of "moral right" is hardly unprecedented. Like A, that it's gotten an extraneous legal meaning is of no relevance.

E) All your rights stay after you're dead, passed on as part of your estate(just like copyrights, except those expire).

The problem is that there is a limited number of ways to make an anime, tv or video game profitable.

Say Marvel makes the avengers for 200 million then spends 200 million dollars advertising it. Then they put it out for free on Youtube instead of charging ten dollars at a theater,

Marvel loses hundreds of millions of dollars, and the film division shuts down.

But wait what if they put it up for a torrent instead, then Marvel still loses hundreds of millions of dollars and the film division is still shut down.

You really think Funimation is rolling in money because FMA: B was watched by hundreds of thousands of people on youtube. They maybe made a couple hundred dollars per video.

It cost slightly more to make a big budget CGI film or an anime then it does to get your friends together and record an album.

You see people who make entertainment as some kind of charity that exist for your benefit and your benefit alone.

If you think that the traditional model is ruining anime, manga, and movies, then why don't you change it instead of yelling at people in the entertainment industry that they are doing it wrong.

Also I would understand it more if your piracy didn't also hurt the creators you claim to love.

It's nearly impossible to get funding for anime now because it's only doing well in Japan now.

Polycell wrote:

A) The market-share based definition of "monopoly" is entirely irrelevant here, even if I didn't hold it to be meaningless.

If it's irrelevant, why do you continue to try and use it?

Polycell wrote:

B) Trademark is a different area of law that's not under discussion, but how is me throwing together a washer out of random parts and claiming it's a Maytag not fraudulent?

What does this have to do with the discussion? I brought up Maytag as an example of a brand of differentiated product available on the market --- Maytag isn't the only company that produces dishwashers, so it's not a monopoly. Similarly, Akira Toriyama isn't the only artist producing manga on the market, and therefore doesn't hold a monopoly. For some reason you want to insist that Akira Toriyama holds a monopoly over Dragon Ball in the same way that Maytag has a monopoly over the Jetclean Plus brand of dishwashers --- it's an improper usage of the word "monopoly", because neither of the two holds a monopoly over any commodity being discussed.

Polycell wrote:

C) Copyright law grants the holder a monopoly on products with certain characters, text, video, etc. If you must have a commodity analogy to comprehend, image if one company had a monopoly on regular salt, another had a monopoly on iodized salt while yet another had a monopoly on sea salt. That most monopolies are extremely broad by comparison doesn't change a copyright's essential character.

Again, you're blurring the lines between economic monopoly and monopoly of exclusive possession. If we went by your usage of monopoly then EVERY company would have a monopoly over their specific brand of product. McDonald's would have a "monopoly" over the Big Mac, Levi's would have a "monopoly" over the 501 Original, and Spielberg would have a "monopoly" over E.T. Your usage isn't just superfluous, it's misleading --- you intend to invoke the negative stigma associated with economic monopolies, but then claim you're not using the market definition of the word, but then continue to insist how it still applies in a market setting. You're twisting the word to fit the way you want it to, rather than the way it's supposed to be used.

You might have been right if were you talking about patents (which can be a state-granted monopoly over a commodity), but it's not correct to use with copyrighted works. The various media industries have been considered oligopolies for a long time now, and there is no shortage of economic resources that continue to suggest this.

Polycell wrote:

D) My usage of "moral right" is hardly unprecedented. Like A, that it's gotten an extraneous legal meaning is of no relevance.

I don't mind your personal usage of "moral right", so long as you realize its legal meaning exists, and may be what first comes to mind when people hear you say it.

Polycell wrote:

E) All your rights stay after you're dead, passed on as part of your estate(just like copyrights, except those expire).

I didn't realize my right to vote passed on with my estate, along with my right to bear arms and my right to petition. I'm glad my kids will get to use them when they reach their 40's!

And nice dodging my previous reply to you, its amusing many of you simply take what you can somehow argue or question.

But I leave my previous question to you again, since you comfortably skipped it:

Whats important for you, for a creator to prosper, have real ownership of his/her/their work and have the liberty to exploit it? or for the middlemen = industry, that only happen to have the money to get even richer?

As if its not clear to you yet, I DO NOT BELIEVE in you so called industry, for me its rotten to the core,

Because nobody wants/cares about the show? No demands for it = no interest = no legal streams. There isn't even a thread discussion for it here on the Anime page.

Of course I wasn't thinking those sorts of business models. I wasn't advocating that at all. If you want this discussion to remain civil you will stop flat out lying.

Charred Knight wrote:

You see people who make entertainment as some kind of charity that exist for your benefit and your benefit alone.

So nice of you to know me better than I know myself.[/sarcasm]

Charred Knight wrote:

If you think that the traditional model is ruining anime, manga, and movies, then why don't you change it instead of yelling at people in the entertainment industry that they are doing it wrong.

It's not my job to change the world. This argument of yours is so typical from people who insist on defending things that shouldn't be defended. You are trying to shift the moral impetus onto me, but it won't work.

Charred Knight wrote:

Also I would understand it more if your piracy didn't also hurt the creators you claim to love.

Piracy does not automatically equal harm on a micro level, because each illegal download is not automatically a lost sale. On a macro level piracy does hurt, but only for those companies who refuse to change with the times. People are still willing to fork over big bucks for merchandise of their favourite bands. Movie studios no longer have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing, they can use social media to get the message across at a fraction of the cost.

Charred Knight wrote:

It's nearly impossible to get funding for anime now because it's only doing well in Japan now.

This makes no sense. If it is doing well in Japan now (and thirty new shows for the Fall season is not bad), then why is it hard to get funding? And heck, the second season of Chihayafuru being greenlit sinks your case hands-down.

I swear; I keep trying to get out and this guy keeps pulling me back in.

The only meaningful definition of "monopoly" is the state-granted privilege of being the sole legal provider of something.

YOU ARE CONFLATING COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

As for "monopoly", as I told you last time we got into this, THE TERM WAS COINED TO DESCRIBE STATE GRANTS OF PRIVILEGE. The definition you keep trying to claim as the sole real one is something the antitrust folks came up with to hijack the negative stigma.

Once more, I've claimed each work is a unique product. You've yet to rebut the proposition and I'm pretty sure even most copyright proponents would agree with it.

Voting is a privilege, granted by the state(and selecting the personnel of the state hardly makes sense to talk about from an ethical standpoint). You and your kids, fo course, have all the moral right to own a firearm as a TV.