Forum

Daemonblue wrote:

It's kind of interesting you brought up live performances with music, seeing as artists make ~4x from lives as they do from CD sales (chart here, couldn't find it on one of the many other sites it's on so I googled it ><

But that wasn't always the case, was it? I thought back in thge day I was attending concerts (80's) the bands toured to death to sell lps, t-shirts & posters.
For some god forsaken reason I woke at 1 this morning & caught Colbert talking to a Native American author (2 am--no way I'm remembering any names) who has taken a stand to not allow any of his books to appear on Kindle with the reasoning once one's works hit the internet, the author's rights are gone--the works are pirated. (He joked as a Native American, he's wary of White Men's deals)

Daemonblue wrote:

In the end though copyright is an evil, but it's a necessary evil, but only necessary until it gets to the point it becomes a detriment to society, and then it's just evil. Sadly, it is getting to the point where it will become a detriment unless something is done.

Why is copyright evil?
Does ANYONE really need to be able to draw Micky Mouse in their stupid online comic without Disney's permission? Make your own rat, for god's sake. I can see the point of protecting Mickey's image because God knows he's a childhood icon & there are far too many jerks out there who feel the need to make adult jokes out of such characrters (Like the christmas light display I saw 10 yrs back where someone provided the Pink Panther with a crankshaft. Yeah you, as an adult, can laugh, but the Pink Panther is for kids & really doesn't need a crankshaft except in you closet.)

Quote:

The point is, we live in a world of legislated chair-renting. The concept of OWNING a thought ('intellectual property') is outright bonkers, and too few people question it.

But these aren't THOUGHTS, dude.
A thought is "It's hot"
If Joe Blow comes up with an idea & creates a device to combat the heat, he can patent that device so others can't steal it. The device might be concrete, but the thoughts that created them are not.
Are you proposing no one own anything? Doesn't everything start out as thought, thus owning anything is outright bonkers?

"I'm bored" is a thought.
A 500 word story conceived to entertain someone else is a work as concrete as that air cooling system. God knows one can find any number of fan fics free on the net-some good & some absolute drivel. BUT if you can find someone to pay for that drivel, go for it. It is a series of thoughts someone has carefully worked over to tell an event so if an author chooses to charge for this tale because the author has a certain amount of skill in the telling, who the hell are you to buy a copy & post it on the net ofr others to read for free?
I can see loaning stuff to FRIENDS. F-R-I-E-N-D-S. But posting something at a share site knowing total strangers can download it--you're willing to go to jail for that? It's breaking a law & they know they are breaking the law & can face these punishments. The number one answer I get when I ask my felons why they did it (I only ask on the incredibly stupid crimes or when they whine about what they've been ordered to do) is "I didn't think I'd get caught". What the hell has happened to people? There is ALWAYS the chance of getting caught & having to do the time. How stupid is it to be willing to go to jail for total strangers just for the bragging rights to posting an anime on a sharing network? Some of my clients whine about friends who never get caught. Fine. Those guys are either way better at it or have the best luck in the world. The guys that get caught have worse luck.
And if you are doing this because you don't believe it's a good law (civil disobedience), then you are supposed to expect to have to do the time for ignoring the law because your being arrested on a stupid law is supposed to wake up everyone to the injustice of it. And if no one is outraged, obviously society holds the law as proper & you are wrong.

strawberry-kun wrote:

It's definitely a bad thing. Why do you think most believe that it isn't?

I'm not speaking for most, but for myself. It's a very, very bad thing when these revenue and profit expectations are attached to a business model the market is changing.

ikillchicken wrote:

Well then 'millions' are fools with a vastly inflated sense of self entitlement who fail to grasp the basic concept of investment of time and effort.

If you're going to debate, it's best you don't insult those who are doing what you and others are advocating by supporting the industry legally.

You assumed those millions I referred were all downloading pirates. You forgot to account for those who stream legally and no longer buy merchandise (DVD).

Quote:

You can try and split hairs but ultimately it always works the same with any creation.

I'm not trying to split any hairs. I'm just trying to understand why many of you are defending actions like this when, logically and financially, it makes no sense.

Quote:

Yes that's called renting.

No, it's not. People don't pay the furniture maker a cut of each chair rental fee simply because he designed it.

Quote:

Why should he not have the right to market it as he see's fit?

No one is challenging this "right", but instead, question why they're using an exaggerated market value when the market dictates it's no longer wanting to pay the amount they're asking.

We may not be "forced" to pay for it, but we are most certainly forced to pay their asking price, which many feel is too great for an infinite supply. A copy of a song shouldn't cost $1 nor should a copy of an anime episode cost $1.99.

This isn't because it's not what we don't want to pay, it's what economics says we shouldn't have to pay.

Quote:

Seriously?

Very serious. Now I'll explain, but you'll have to forgive me since I'll be using data from 2007.

North America spent $2.8 billion in anime goods, of which only $316 million attributes itself to DVD sales.

Breaking this number down translates into approximately 18,666 episodes of anime at $150,000 each (1,436 thirteen-episode series).

I have no memory of ever seeing 1,400 titles delivered to us in a single year. That equates to over 100 per month.

I now this math isn't fair, as it doesn't compensate for the salaries of employees, etc, but really look at the numbers.

Now throw in the sales figures from other countries.

I'm sorry, but from a logical standpoint, piracy doesn't seem to be harming any industry except one: The DVD industry.

But this is expected when the market is changing its desired format. They've done it many times before, from VHS to DVD and LPs, cassettes, and CDs to MP3s.

If anything, technology has always improved sales once the businesses adjusted accordingly.

However, it always comes after the suing, political pressure, and copyright law changes which history shows to be futile and unnecessarily expensive.

Since copyright was mentioned, there's one important element which the entertainment industry completely ignores: after every single copyright change to protect a business model at the time, every change has failed to protect these models.

Copyright was never designed to protect revenue or profits. It wasn't designed to be a welfare system. It's only purpose was to establish a creation to an owner. In fact, there was a time the owner actually had to apply for the copyright to establish this connection.

From what I'm reading, many are defending the artist's rights but not realizing buying DVDs isn't doing a damn thing for the artist.

$316 million doesn't lie when compared to $2.8 billion. That's not even 10% of anime's total revenue, or less than 10 cents for every dollar made.

Someone who spends $24.99 for a body pillow, but doesn't pay to watch the series, is a pirate?

I'm confused why people can't see what's wrong with this.

CCSYueh wrote:

If Joe Blow comes up with an idea & creates a device to combat the heat, he can patent that device so others can't steal it.

You're conflating patents (a system of temporary monopoly on NOVEL physical devices to promote continued research) with copyright. Stop that.

edzieba wrote:

CCSYueh wrote:

If Joe Blow comes up with an idea & creates a device to combat the heat, he can patent that device so others can't steal it.

You're conflating patents (a system of temporary monopoly on NOVEL physical devices to promote continued research) with copyright. Stop that.

Why stop it? What makes a patent more morally just than a copyright? Why is it okay for a pharmaceuticals firm to monopolize the production of a life-saving drug, but not okay for an animation studio to expect that its series not be pirated?

Furthermore, if anime is so without value and trashy and commercial and worthless, why pirate it? There's a great deal of effort being exerted in justifying why it's morally permissible, nay, morally defensible to pirate something which is apparently not worth even $0.99, which most people have lost in their couch cushions.

Furthermore, I suspect you haven't even read that Cory Doctorow article. He finds a problem with broadcasters claiming ownership of a ceremony held on the 60th anniversary of a WWII raid. He's right: it is absolutely ridiculous for a broadcaster to own the reproduction of a ceremony they had no part in creating. But you're going even further: you seem to personally believe that a mangaka has no ownership of their creation at all, and deserves absolutely no say in how it is to be reproduced or sold. The article provides absolutely no answers to how art is to be produced without any revenue to live off of.

Cosplaybunny wrote:

Why stop it? What makes a patent more morally just than a copyright? Why is it okay for a pharmaceuticals firm to monopolize the production of a life-saving drug, but not okay for an animation studio to expect that its series not be pirated?

Any why vice-versa? Neither is a reasonable outcome.

Quote:

you seem to personally believe that a mangaka has no ownership of their creation at all, and deserves absolutely no say in how it is to be reproduced or sold

I have said nothing of the sort. I have stated that legislating limitations on duplication of information is ridiculous. I have not said that an artist should not make any money from their work. Sweeping reformation of copyright laws, and making money from creative works, are in no way mutually exclusive.

Okay let's try it another way then, what gives you the right to their works? and who has the right to distribute said works, the audience or it's creator?

As if I'm reading your thoughts correctly an artist or group of artist (or "label") should have the right based the fact that they created it and copyright law is where that right is coming from, not some other force unless you wish to tell me what it is specifically.

But conflict occurs then doesn't it if you hold the above true, in that the 11 arrested here are neither the creators nor the right-holders (in copy-right you can sell your rights to a work to if you want) so what is giving them the right to do so? Seem to me less of a right and more of a power in that they can do so with technology, a brute seizing power more than anything, one that is not theirs to have. And if you are familiar with morals, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it, as there are a lot of things a person can do, but only few of them are should do's.

so if you believe that the creators have the right to distribute their shows as they see fit, these 11 arrested here should be punished as they infringed on their rights and in part infringed on ours by assuming a position that only through force, and one not rightfully given.

Unless of course you can show me this fine model that you speak of?

edzieba wrote:

Cosplaybunny wrote:

Why stop it? What makes a patent more morally just than a copyright? Why is it okay for a pharmaceuticals firm to monopolize the production of a life-saving drug, but not okay for an animation studio to expect that its series not be pirated?

Any why vice-versa? Neither is a reasonable outcome.

Quote:

you seem to personally believe that a mangaka has no ownership of their creation at all, and deserves absolutely no say in how it is to be reproduced or sold

I have said nothing of the sort. I have stated that legislating limitations on duplication of information is ridiculous. I have not said that an artist should not make any money from their work. Sweeping reformation of copyright laws, and making money from creative works, are in no way mutually exclusive.

If I assumed incorrectly, I apologize. However, if you can endlessly copy information, you have an infinite supply. Where is the money to be made? How does the artist make any money at all? Is it the government who pays him, or the church? Or does he find some firm that feels no need to earn a profit, and they pay him?

I had no idea I was so extreme when it comes to copyright. I believe in fair use, have no problems with mash-ups, AMVs, fan fiction or doujinshi. I think it's ridiculous Disney can sue you for using Mickey Mouse. But I cannot understand why it's okay to take someone else's work, make countless copies, and just give it away. There is no way to make money when you compete with that.

You forget that this is the internet where these anime fans want this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGsQ5n9Qu0A

or in short a museum where nothing really changes.

Joke on them kinda.

As what they are seeking to preserve is destroying it in a way.

It's like people only do things because they get paid, and that's just really sad.

walw6pK4Alo wrote:

It's like people only do things because they get paid, and that's just really sad.

No, it is more like some people do what they love and get paid. If they didn't then they would have to do something else to get paid. And whatever time they had left over they could work on what they love. Do you really want Satoshi Kon working 40 hours in a kitchen the same time he is making a film just so he can eat, sleep and pay rent? What kind of crap society would that be?

Most people try to eventually find a job where they are happy and can make money at the same time. Not just famous people. What do you want to be when you grow up? Then go do it.

DranzerX13 wrote:

It would be really interesting if companies like TV Tokyo, Fuji TV, or TV Asahi could create a Live TV streaming website for people outside Japan, to show their content either raw or english subbed. Something like this would be awesome. I would love to actually watch TV Tokyo on air legally outside Japan. If something like this were to happen, it would cost of course but i'd be okay with that. Not just that, then I guess some people would stop downloading raws and distributing them.

TV Tokyo already does this, almost. A whole bunch of their anime shows are on crunchyroll.com an hour after they air: http://www.crunchyroll.com/publisher/TV_TOKYO

Cosplaybunny wrote:

However, if you can endlessly copy information, you have an infinite supply. Where is the money to be made?

Simple: don't make money from copies. Make money in other ways. Copying data is free, so don't even bother charging for it unless you can provide something special (early access, simultaneous on-line and OTA broadcasting, automatic downloads of episodes as they become available, etc). However, a nice artbox is not copied easily, so charge for that instead. Charge for a version properly mastered (not a dodgy IVTC, not capped from composite, etc) on DVD or BD, but sell it just above cost, and make the image file available for anyone to burn themselves. If you cannot afford to or do not have the skill to master a disc (etc), run a competition for it with a signed picture or the like as a prize.
In short, sell physical products instead of ephemeral ones, even if those physical products are derivatives of a primary ephemeral one. Don't bother trying to stop people producing copies, it's an impossible task: simple make it pointless to bother copying in the first place.

edzieba wrote:

Simple: don't make money from copies.

edzieba wrote:

Charge for a version properly mastered (not a dodgy IVTC, not capped from composite, etc) on DVD or BD, but sell it just above cost, and make the image file available for anyone to burn themselves.

This is trying to make money from a copy and is basically the "pay what you want" method which is proven not to work. (See the World of Goo sale.)

edzieba wrote:

In short, sell physical products instead of ephemeral ones, even if those physical products are derivatives of a primary ephemeral one. Don't bother trying to stop people producing copies, it's an impossible task: simple make it pointless to bother copying in the first place.

As it is, people aren't buying the physical value add copies because the pirated copies exist. Expensive value-add is the Japanese model which is proven to not work in the US. (And that's going straight back to how it was 500 years ago when the few funded the arts of the many.)

How does any of the above make it pointless to copy? It just legitimizes the mass piracy as the people who aren't spending money to begin with because they don't want the value add are now getting their stuff without any risk.

bayoab wrote:

This is trying to make money from a copy and is basically the "pay what you want" method which is proven not to work. (See the World of Goo sale.)

Or proven to work stunningly well in other cases.

Quote:

As it is, people aren't buying the physical value add copies because the pirated copies exist.

No, they're not buying them because they don't want them. A lot of people don't want a physical copy at all. Those who do want them, will pay for them. Those who don't, won't.

PetrifiedJello wrote:

Quote:

Why should he not have the right to market it as he see's fit?

No one is challenging this "right", but instead, question why they're using an exaggerated market value when the market dictates it's no longer wanting to pay the amount they're asking.

Okay, you evidently totally disagree with the poster I was responding to. As such, your arguing with my counterpoints from your own reasonable perspective is essentially a pointless and circular waste of time.

Daemonblue wrote:

It's kind of interesting you brought up live performances with music, seeing as artists make ~4x from lives as they do from CD sales (chart here, couldn't find it on one of the many other sites it's on so I googled it ><

And although technically anime can't be "performed" live it can still be released in only theatres. Sure, it's not exactly the best way to show anime, but that doesn't change the fact that there are several theatrical releases every year. In the end though copyright is an evil, but it's a necessary evil, but only necessary until it gets to the point it becomes a detriment to society, and then it's just evil. Sadly, it is getting to the point where it will become a detriment unless something is done.

Could you try and follow the conversation a little bit better? I didn't bring up music. The poster I responded to did. I was explaining why it's not analogous. Also, being that this whole conversation is regarding that posters opposition to the concept of intellectual property, yes you could show it in theaters but so could anyone else. It's not going to solve anything.

edzieba wrote:

The point is, we live in a world of legislated chair-renting. The concept of OWNING a thought ('intellectual property') is outright bonkers, and too few people question it.

Your analysis is wrong. Nobody owns the thoughts themselves. As you said, that would be dumb. You are free to think about mickey mouse all you want. You just don't have the right to actually make a cartoon featuring him. Furthermore, anime (the topic at hand) is not even a thought. It is a physical representation of thoughts.

edzieba wrote:

I have stated that legislating limitations on duplication of information is ridiculous. I have not said that an artist should not make any money from their work. Sweeping reformation of copyright laws, and making money from creative works, are in no way mutually exclusive.

Why is it ridiculous? Why is it you feel you should have the right to do as you please with something another person created just because it can be duplicated?

edzieba wrote:

No, they're not buying them because they don't want them. A lot of people don't want a physical copy at all. Those who do want them, will pay for them. Those who don't, won't.

But that's the gaping hole in your idea. Most people don't want that. Sure, you can generate a bit of revenue off this but if the actual show offers no value whatsoever then how much benefit is there really in an official release? It's shiny packaging. Especially if it's legally and morally acceptable to just file share instead, how often are people really going to shell out for the DVD? Some will but not even close to enough to offset the sizable cost of actually creating the anime.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: 11 Arrested in Japan for Uploading via Share Program

That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime: The Ways of Monster Nation Manga Ends Due to Artist's Health

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Dips to #3 in 4th Weekend, SPY×FAMILY Film Debuts at #5 at U.S. Box Office

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

The ANN Aftershow - What Anime Should You Watch Part 2 (Spring 2024)

Classroom of the Elite Season 3 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Nintendo Indies Showcase 2024

Forum - View topicNEWS: 11 Arrested in Japan for Uploading via Share Program

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: 11 Arrested in Japan for Uploading via Share Program