Forum - View topicNEWS: Toei Animation Sues 869 BitTorrent Users Over One Piece
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TitanXL
 Posts: 4036 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
US is the key thing here.. Precure is big in Italy and other countries, but these R1/simulcasts tend to be US region only.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
agila61
 Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
And even if Crunchyroll is able to top-up their MG for regions outside of North America, clearly the foundation of their MG offer has to be the streaming market they expect in North America. Indeed, all it would take would be one prospective physical media or narrowcast licensor to let it be known that they rather it not show up on Crunchyroll first, and it'd be highly likely that Crunchyroll's offer would be left on the table. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
binarymutant
Posts: 29 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Facebook will never replace email. (imho)Streaming is horrid. [buffering...]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Since a "free stream" is free because the actual video is hosted somewhere else at a video hosting site, often with some cryptic label to hide the the video from coming up in an on-site search ~ the quality is limited to the quality of the video hosting site. There is a reason why the complaints about the quality of the subscription streams uses torrent downloads (with all of their other negatives in terms of ease of use) as a comparison ... because the leech streaming sites struggle to keep up. And of course, the link can still be sniffed out and a C&D sent to the free video hosting site, so the streaming site is subject to a constant stream of episode take downs that volunteers have to replace with fresh uploads. And of course, if the video hosting side is taken down for being too blatant about catering to bootlegs, they have to shift to a different one. And even if they developed a Roku channel, once legit owners complained, the channel would get taken down. And also there is no incentive for them to offer a Roku channel, because it takes away the banner and click through page advertising, and the reason they can't afford to host the videos themselves is because they are locked out of the streaming ad market. Similarly, even if they had an Apple iOS app, it would not live for very long in the Apple appstore, so it would be limited to jailbroken Apple hardware. Don't confuse being used to something with actually being convenient: the test of which is more convenient is which is more convenient to novices. I guarantee you that the getting the Crunchyroll app up and running on an Android or iOS device or on a Roku channel is easier than getting started torrent downloading files. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
zoid9000
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed CR had an article on this with more information, yet they cite ANN as the source.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2012/02/09/toei-files-lawsuit-against-869-internet-pirates-of-one-piece For one, they have a breakdown of the IP defendants by state and secondly they say this:
Which is inconsistent with what ANN reported:
Does anyone know who is right and where this information is coming from? I've googled the case, but couldn't find anything about the IPs or motion for leave. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
zaphdash
 Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
I think I must have skimmed over the rest of the sentence or something because I literally only remember reading that it's a pain in the ass to "chase down torrents," but I see now you did describe the whole downloading process. In any case, to get into an argument about which method is "easier" is really to miss the forest for the trees -- the fact still remains that millions of people illicitly download things every day. I don't even know which American anime companies are still in business at this point -- ADV is gone, Pioneer/Geneon is gone, Bandai is closing up, I guess Media Blasters is still around but downsizing seriously, etc. Is there anyone in this business doing particularly well right now? FUNimation seems relatively strong, but like I said before, I don't follow the anime industry that closely. I'm not saying all these companies have folded or are struggling because of downloads alone but it's not unreasonable to wonder if maybe correlation really does equal causation (or at least, some causation) in this case. This, for instance, is a little bit old now (but it's the best I can find through 30 seconds of googling, which is about the maximum amount of effort I'm willing to put into an internet argument), but it paints a pretty dire picture of the industry and includes a direct appeal from the CEO of Bang Zoom (which, if memory serves, spawned a pretty monstrous thread on these forums, although one I didn't bother to keep up with) to stop downloading anime. What we've been seeing in the anime industry over the past few years is no different from what we've seen in the music and movie industries as well -- increasing downloads and decreasing revenue, even in the face of an increasing number of legal ways to get ahold of media.
My argument is not meant to be that streaming holds no advantages over downloading, but that free distribution will trump paid. I never particularly meant to focus specifically on torrenting, but this particular case is about bittorrent, so I guess I inadvertently gravitated in that direction. I think we've somewhat talked past each other here (which I'll get into more below); the discussion has become a bit confused because I've merely responded to points as you've brought them up instead of reorienting toward my original argument, which was never meant to be about bittorrent vs. streaming, but about free vs. paid. I have a bad habit of responding to anything that's said to me in which there appears to be a point of contention, which allows the person I'm talking to to fully control the direction of conversation, causes me to defend ancillary points that don't necessarily even matter to me (in this case, bittorrent vs. streaming), and ultimately forces the discussion to drift subtly off topic (I guess it's probably for the best that I didn't want to become a lawyer after I finished law school). I apologize for that, so I'm attempting to set the record straight here and much moreso below.
I don't think Crunchyroll "cannot" work, I think paid-access streaming sites cannot save entire industries that attempt to restrict access to products that are readily available absolutely free. Crunchyroll clearly does "work" within its own sphere, as it's profitable and growing. As you yourself pointed out in an earlier post, Crunchyroll as an international licensee wouldn't be expected to singlehandedly keep Japanese production companies afloat, so focusing specifically on it may not be helpful, but hulu, for instance, is not going to save the broadcast networks if they can't figure out anything else.
You're not understanding my position correctly, but that's probably forgivable since these posts are getting far too long and the central points can become muddled when you get too bogged down on point-by-point analyses. My original post way back several pages discussed the survival of media companies in general. Given that this is an anime site, I suppose it's fair for you to try to narrow that down to just the part that's specifically relevant to this site (and maybe it was my fault for ever having broadened my argument beyond just the scope of the site), but I believe that subtle difference in topics is where the seeming contradictions lie. I will try to clarify as best as I can here. A rational actor in the marketplace will attempt to acquire whatever it is he wants to acquire at the lowest possible price. In the case of digital media, the Internet has made that price zero. Yet the digital media companies, because their livelihood depends on it, have persisted in trying to charge money for that which can be acquired at no charge (albeit through illicit channels). This model is untenable. This is my basic thesis. Of course, it isn't really quite that simple, because many people are willing to pay a premium to stay on the right side of the law, I think generally out of a sense of morality, but probably there are some who do so to avoid the risk of getting caught (I don't personally know anybody who has ever taken this miniscule risk seriously, but I don't doubt that there are some such people out there). Convenience is also something that must factor into "cost," although I don't believe it's such a huge component that it should have hijacked the whole discussion like I've allowed it to so far. I suspect, without any sort of survey or statistical evidence behind me but only logical reasoning and basic economics, that the majority of users of legal services like iTunes, hulu, and Crunchyroll, are people who are willing to pay a premium to stay legal; some may also appreciate the convenience, for reasons you've already outlined. However I don't believe that the legality, convenience (I believe you have really overstated how difficult it truly is to watch something illegally), and other advantages of these legitimate streaming services are game changers. You disagree, looking to the success of Crunchyroll as evidence to support your view. I look instead to the falling revenue of the media industries collectively. When you talk about anime specifically, Crunchyroll represents a somewhat special case that doesn't necessarily fit in with my general argument, and the reason for that is as you've previously stated, and as I repeated earlier in this post: Crunchyroll is just an international licensee. Crunchyroll has had success so far, and it may continue to have success. It's "too early to tell" whether Crunchyroll and other sites that duplicate its model may be able to keep the American anime-importing business afloat. This is where the argument has gotten confused, and like I said above that's probably my fault for talking about more than just what you were talking about. My central point is that new models of distribution-based revenue do not address the central problem that there is already an alternative model of free distribution in place. This is not necessarily the end of the world for a mere licensee, which has only to cover its licensing fees, not the actual cost of producing the work itself. In the short term, Crunchyroll may survive, it may even thrive, but that won't save the industry as a whole if production companies' profits are being undercut by free distribution of their work. In the long term, those production companies, if they haven't figured out how to solve the problem some other way, will react by charging Crunchyroll, one of their remaining reliable streams of revenue, higher and higher licensing fees. This will squeeze Crunchyroll's margins unless Crunchyroll raises its prices accordingly. As Crunchyroll raises its prices, it will lose some of its subscribers. We've seen exactly this process unfold with Netflix in the past year or so. Movie industry revenues have been falling, Netflix has been wildly successful, and as licensing contracts have come up for renewal, companies have demanded a lot more money. Netflix lost some of its marquee contracts, like Criterion and Starz, and all those movies will disappear from its streaming library when the existing deals expire. It also split its DVD and streaming services into separate products, effectively hiking its rates. This all happened over the summer. In the third quarter of 2011 Netflix announced it had lost 800,000 subscribers -- what a shock. If you want to make money off of distribution, you must be able to monopolize distribution. The media companies recognized this as far back as the Betamax case and probably even earlier than that, but as long as bootlegging still required that physical copies be made, the scale remained pretty small, so it wasn't a major problem (it was still a problem, though). Now the Internet has thoroughly smashed the distribution monopoly. Lawsuits like the one at issue here represent attempts to rebuild the monopoly, but you and I several posts back already appeared to come to an agreement that that isn't a realistic goal. If the distribution monopoly is gone for good, media companies will need to find their revenue somewhere else. But this is not a really rapid process, so ventures like Crunchyroll may have success for now, and maybe even for a while into the future. Crunchyroll may grow and have great success and eventually get bought up and merged with some other service, essentially live out its entire life, before Toei and Sunrise and whoever else actually become insolvent. But they will eventually become insolvent if they can't change the current trend and find new revenue streams other than through product distribution. Christ I really don't think I have time to keep writing mammoth posts like this so I hope this clears some things up and maybe we can start to either find some common ground or agree to disagree or something. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
zaphdash, I can't see this argument going too many places because you aren't really offering anything in terms of alternative models of payment to distribution that agila61 is going to accept.
I say this because my argument ended on the same note, and because I couldn't describe precisely how these would allow the existing industry to function at current levels it was not possible to reach an agreement. Unfortunately, the problem is where you place the onus or the need for proof. And for agila61, the burden is on you to prove that alternative systems can work, while you obviously think it is the opposite because you see the current system as doomed to fail. I am curious whether you agree with me that licensed/official downloads is a different good from those which are not to many/most people. I believe they are different to most people because pirates buy more official/licensed media than the general populace. It cannot be said among this group that they aren't willing to torrent, because they already do. I think pirates agree with the "moral" sensibilities of the anti-piracy crowd more than they recognize. agila61, I would like it if you would read my PM reply to you that I sent earlier. My only problem with your PM to me is that you stated my position as though I were a positivist when I am definitely not. I disagree entirely with the notion of "implementing" a new system or "stripping" rights, as the problem I have with the current system is that it is implemented (meaning that it is a top-down approach that is managed by the state as contrasted with voluntary action). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The Crunchyroll article has additional information that the ANN article does not, so the reporter may have a source of information in addition to the ANN article here. Also note that the ANN article says that a Discovery Motion was granted Oct. 5, and the Crunchyroll article says that a Motion for Expedited Discovery was filed on October 5. IANDL, but from various legal blogs, there is not necessarily any contradiction here ~ Discovery can drag on as parties negotiate the terms under which information is to be disclosed. under Expedited Discovery the court orders firm deadlines for responses to specific types of actions, and so there's less room to drag your heels based on claims such as commercial secrets. I don't know the procedure, but from the outside it wouldn't be surprising if someone would first file for Discovery, and then if it is granted, to then seek to get hard and fast deadlines on the process. Then you've got a fallback to the Leave to Take Discovery if the Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery fails. Its the ability to subpena ISP's for the identities of account holders that is critical in all of this. The pretext is, "we have reason to believe that some members of this swarm of 870-so are from DC, but we need to get account holder information to be entirely sure whether these 3 are, and these 866 are not." |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
But that in and of itself does not imply that commercial distribution is infeasible. People illicitly download movies, and yet people pay to watch movies in the cinema, and pay to rent physical media from Netflix and Redbox, and pay to stream movies from Netflix, and watch movie free with advertisers paying on Crackle, or Hulu, and even, the most puzzling at all when the "free trumps paid" rule of thumb is converted into a dogma, pay to watch television shows and anime and similar with ads in them on Hulu Plus.
Off the top of my head, FUNimation, the Sentai/Section23/TheAnimeNetwork/Seraphim complanyplex when ADV restructured (often known as "neo-ADV" for convenience), Viz Media, Aniplex, NIS and Nozomi are the ones that seem to be in business with no obvious market-side risks of collapse ~ though of course the biggest is suing the second biggest for $8m over the way that the second biggest got out from under a commercially insane licensing deal. I'm tired from class, so I'm probably forgetting one or two. As far as how well they are doing, FUNimation in recent ANNcasts say that their DVD/BD business is basically steady and growth is basically coming from digital media. Most of neo-ADV is tightlipped on how they are doing, and even the most informative of ANNcast interviews of someone from TAN left things quite vague.
The struggling is clearly the result of the drastic collapse of the North American market for anime on physical media. The arguments on how big a role downloads play in that are endless, which is not surprising given that the CBO concluded when they examined the issue for media in general, the best evidence available on the question is ambiguous. But as far as I understand, that is a long stretch from the claim that you are making, which is unless the North American industry can find a way to generate over half of its revenue from some form other than many ways to generate revenue from distribution, it is doomed to collapse. That is: the argument over the impact that downloads have had is whether they have contributed to a contraction of the commercial distribution market. What you are arguing, instead, is that they are on track to contribute to the extinction of the commercial distribution market. That's what I find extremely dubious. The fact is that its pretty much the same illicit means of distribution on hand today as it was in 2008. And yet, in that time, digital distribution has grown substantially. So the "free trumps paid" does not seem to be happening ~ in 2008 you could gain access to fansubs of the majority of anime series currently broadcasting in Japan, by bittorrent or by leech streaming, in anywhere from a day or two to a week or two after broadcast. "Free" was "trumping" paid every day of the week and twice on Saturday. And commercial digital distribution has expanded since then on multiple fronts. Which, it "free trumps paid" worked as an automatic law of nature, doesn't make any sense. What makes more sense to me is to claim that bootlegs have their advantages and disadvantages, like everything else, and its more likely that there will be persistent niches for both bootleg distribution and commercial distribution than that either will drive out the other. Also, as far as I can tell, Xanas is saying we are having the same discussion as he and I had, regarding his advocacy of the abolition of copyright. Are you advocating the abolition of copyright? If you are, I apologize for not reading more carefully, since I had completely missed that. Anyway, to your core thesis:
My core response is that "the internet" has not in fact made the price of each quality of service of interest to every segment of the anime audience free. Its one thing to say, "you can, somehow, get that for free", and quite another to say, "you can get that for free as conveniently and with the same quality of service for the services that you value". I've read what different subscriber members of Crunchyroll say about why they subscribed and whether they think its worth it, and while some cite an interest in supporting the industry, that is by no means the sole reason cited and quite a number cite entirely self-interested reasons. As just one case, if I want to have media streamed to my Roku channel, I can do it myself, or I can pay someone to do it. And doing it myself is not free: it may not require a cash outlay, but it requires an investment of time and effort to get set up, and an ongoing investment of time and effort to stock the media. If I pay someone to do it for me, then I just point the control at the Roku box and its there. The digital media itself may be available for free via illicit distribution, but services that are provided on a DIY basis are not free. People in markets for both goods and services in many societies and many economies have been willing to pay for someone else to perform a service rather than performing itself on a DIY basis, because "DIY" is an expenditure of time and effort, even when it involves no expenditure of cash. As far as the destruction of opportunities for commercial media by bootleg distribution on the internet, there is clearly a market diversion effect due to the availability of bootleg content ~ but the long-standing counter-argument has been that there is also an audience formation effect, which leads to a claim that some portion of the new audience ends up engaging in some commercial transactions. Now, obviously both effects are in action, and the argument is over whether the net effect is positive or negative. But that is a bystander argument: as far as that argument goes, whether it is a positive contribution to the market or a negative loss to the market, that's just part of the current market environment, and companies have to learn to live with it. However, when the quality of service point is taken on board, the net effect is no longer something that is entirely beyond the commercial enterprise's ability to influence. It can both reduce the market spoiling effect and increase leverage from the audience formation effect, by offering as part of its distribution services that bootleg distribution on the internet cannot match. This is part of the foundation of my long-standing argument that it is likely a strategic mistake to focus too much effort on bittorrent distribution of anime at this point in time. Leech video streaming viewer are self-selected to prefer the anime cataloged for them, and made available to them on demand from a variety of platforms. Bittorrent downloaders are self-selected to be willing to engage in substantially greater investment of DIY effort in stocking and consuming their anime media. And at the same time, the leech streaming anime viewers are also self-selected to tend to prefer ephemeral streaming access ~ sometimes at substantially degraded video quality. The bittorrent crossload anime viewers are self-selected to tend to prefer persistent digital media. Now, point 1, it is my impression that the commercial firms are clearly better positioned at the present point in time to deliver streaming anime than to deliver downloads. And in particular it is positioned to offer a choice between lower quality ad-supported streams and higher quality subscriber-access streams. So the differential cost versus leech streaming anime streaming is lower, and therefore the hurdle of additional perceived benefit is lower. And point 2, the streaming viewers are already pre-selected to prefer a higher level of service provided to them, so would seem to offer greater potential for finding additional services that they would be willing to pay for or accept advertising in return for receiving. And point 3, its a lot cheaper and easier to degrade the quality of service offered by the most readily found leech streaming anime sites than to degrade the quality of service offered by the most readily found bittorrent downloads. Now, if Toei wants to spend its profits from selling toys on a possibly fruitless effort to protect its IP from bittorrent distribution, that is of course their prerogative, but I am skeptical that it is the correct focus to take at this point in the evolution of commercial digital distribution business models. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
It's not necessarily the same but it seems similar. Even if he doesn't support complete abolition of copyright he doesn't seem focused on using it as the core method of payment due to his arguments against payment tied to distribution, and in that way we agree at some level. I think he may make the point too strongly against payment tied to distribution though as my expectation has been we would still see a good measure of that because I do truly believe people value official/licensed copies more than those which are not because they want to support what they value and believe in doing it this way. Perhaps he would still keep an anti-bootlegging law or something along those lines, but moving in that direction is still a progress towards the same goal in my opinion. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The fact that I didn't see the similarity is why I posed the question. The fact that I expect that might get a clear answer from zaphdash is why I posed it to zaphdash. I mean, you're the one that denies that you want to strip rights from creators of original works while at the same time saying that you want to make that "voluntary", which is just another way of saying the same thing. For example, if it is "voluntary" whether or not shopkeepers can exclude customers on the basis of race, then that is granting shopkeepers the right to discriminate on the basis of race, and denying the members of the group being discriminated against the same rights to be served that are enjoyed by other members of the community. Given the libertarian double talk of denying that you are saying something only to repeat it in a nicer sounding way, I don't expect to get a straight answer from you, and so didn't pose the question to you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The quotes around voluntary are odd to me, so can you please define voluntary as you see the term? You never have a "right to be served." If you have a "right to be served" this means you have a right to compel other people to serve you, which is to say that they are enslaved to your rights, for this is what it means when to have an obligation that you didn't choose to take on. Your use of "granting" in reference to the right to discriminate is bizarre. Discrimination is something even you personally do every time you pick a friend or a spouse or make clear any kind of preference through your actions. I don't find discriminating based on race to be a good thing, but that doesn't provide to me the right to advocate using force against others to prevent their freedom of disassociation. It seems common among positivists to leap to the conclusion that those who aren't in agreement with their philosophy must support racism, piracy, drug use, etc., even when others explicitly say they don't support these things. It's as though this viewpoint can only withstand debate as long as you assume your opponents are dishonest villains who hate people.
What you call double talk is your misrepresentation of my position. There is a distinction between being permissive and being supportive, and there is a distinction between being using force and threats of force and using non-violent means to correct behavior you disagree with. For example, in the case of racism I would encourage everyone I know and would myself engage in not going to establishments that were engaged in racial discrimination. I would not want to be involved with a bank giving loans to businesses that were expressly racist. For an example more in context, I do not buy bootlegs even though I oppose copyright law because I prefer to buy official/licensed material and I disagree with people trying to make money when they are providing little to no additional value and the prices of official/licensed material are reasonable. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Alan45
 Village Elder Posts: 9832 Location: Virginia |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Sorry, there is a "right to be served". It is established by law.
There is a difference between public and private association. With regard to your friends, you can pick them on any basis you want. However, when a shopkeeper opens a public place of business he has accepted the obligation to serve the public without descrimination in several statuatory areas. You are not "enslaved", you chose this when you opened your business to the public. It is simple, if you don't choose to serve everyone, don't open your business to the public. You probably won't make much money, but, hay, you can't have everything. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Alan45, obviously I question the legitimacy of these kinds of laws, so your argument amounts to circular reasoning if it rests on that. Also, I only replied to it because agila61 brought it up but if you want to go further on this really big tangent I would suggest doing so via PM.
Last edited by Xanas on Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
zaphdash
Posts: 620 Location: Brooklyn |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Millions of illegal downloads + falling revenues + fundamentals of economics and marketplace behavior all together paint a bleak long-term picture for commercial distribution. I would separate cinemas from most of the rest of these, because in some ways cinemas to represent a continued monopoly on distribution -- for one thing, not all new releases leak right away. Often when they do first leak, it's in the form of shoddy cam rips. Furthermore the cinema itself presents an experience that many people enjoy unto itself that can't be duplicated at home. Even so, box office revenues have been falling, which is particularly troubling when you consider the weak economy (cinema receipts are often countercyclical, so movies do better when the economy is worse). Re: Netflix, hulu, etc, I've never said these services can't be profitable, in fact I've acknowledged as much on several occasions. But annual box office receipts alone utterly dwarf Netflix's annual revenue, without even considering home video sales, licensing, merchandising, etc etc etc. Netflix and other pay streaming services appeal to a certain niche that is willing to pay for something that they can get for free, for any number of reasons. But the big picture is that revenues are dropping. To point to individual services that are making money is just obfuscation -- some parties are getting bigger and bigger slices, but the pie itself is shrinking. This applies to the next part of your post too, so in the interest of saving time and space, I won't actually quote it just to repeat myself in response. When you say that "free trumps paid doesn't actually seem to be happening," that's just patently false. Anime companies, movie studios, record companies, all the media industries are making less money in 2012 than they were making in 2002, which was less than they were making in 1992 (well, probably not in anime's case), which was much more than they were making in 1982.
Of course it makes sense. There are intervening factors which ensure that not every single person will steal something just because they can (look at virtually everyone in this thread, particularly some people making passionate arguments about how artists should be paid for their work and the picture I'm painting isn't how things ought to be); before legitimate streaming options developed, many of these were the people who were continuing to buy DVDs (and maybe still do even now). Is this group big enough to keep everyone in business? My supposition is that it is not.
I don't know specifically what Xanas said in the discussion you're mentioning, but I wouldn't necessarily say I advocate abolishing copyright, although it's probably fair to say that I am pretty resigned to the reality that copyright may effectively be a thing of the past. This might be a good time for me to make clear, in case you or anyone else following our discussion might be confused, that I don't necessarily think that anything I'm describing is good, it's just the way it is (at least in my estimation). I think artists should be compensated for their work just like anyone else, but I don't see any practical options to curtail unauthorized copying of that work; to the extent that "copyright" literally refers to "the right to copy," my position is probably more that technology has, for better or worse, already eliminated this right, rather than that we as a society should eliminate it. As to the last part of your post (which I won't quote, since it's even longer than my own ridiculously long post): I don't see that I disagree with your analysis that much in theory. But I feel that your analysis is far too grounded in theory. I feel like in this whole discussion you've downplayed what I see as the single biggest point on which my argument rests, the one I keep hammering on over and over again: all of these industries are making less and less money, even in spite of offering more and more digital options. The only legitimate point of contention here is where the floor might ultimately be. I'm pretty sure, without big changes, it will ultimately be insolvency, because I don't see Crunchyroll bringing in enough money to support the American import industry, I don't see Netflix bringing in enough money to support the Hollywood studios, I don't see hulu bringing in enough money to support the broadcast networks, and so on. I don't see it because we already have all of these things and revenues nonetheless continue to shrink. I don't think the anime industry or any other industry is necessarily doomed to fail, but I do think they will fail if they don't uncover new sources of revenue.
Well, this is the big problem the companies themselves are facing: what alternative model could be adopted? I don't know, but neither does Viacom or EMI or Toei.
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here -- like is an MP3 that I download off iTunes a different good than an MP3 of the same song that I download off a torrent? I think that's a dicey question, but if I'm understanding you correctly, I think we're on different pages. It seems to me that your argument is that these MP3s are different products because a pirate will download the illegal MP3 and still buy the song on iTunes as well. I don't agree with that. In a general sense, I would say that the content of the download determines what the product is. This illegally torrented episode of One Piece is, in my opinion, essentially the same product as the legal stream. Where the issue gets muddled is when you consider the specific advantages and disadvantages of different formats, of course, but also if you're only comparing legitimate download to illegitimate download, as in the iTunes example, the inclusion of features like DRM. For instance, I have never bought anything off iTunes because I don't like the DRM limitations. I usually (illegally, yes) download music, and if I like what I've heard, I am one of that increasingly small core of consumers that will still go out and buy a CD. Given that DRM influences my buying decisions, it might be fair to consider the iTunes download a different product from either the illegal download or the legal CD. But the problem with this is that it doesn't provide any sort of universal definition of "product," it is inherently subject to the preferences of each individual consumer. In any case, I don't necessarily think the inverse argument, that if I get both the iTunes MP3 and the illegal one, they must be different products, holds much water. People buy duplicates all the time. Probably the silliest example is when DVDs come out with different slipcovers, and collectors want to own each one. I don't consider the same movie in the same format to constitute five different "products" because it came with a variety of slipcovers and some people want to own them all, yet this seems to me to be the logical extension of this line of reasoning. In any case, I would say generally, as I did above, that the content usually determines the product. So while I do think it can get pretty fuzzy sometimes, I think my basic answer would be no, an illegal download and a legal download are not inherently different products.
I think there will still be a place for distribution-based revenue for a long time, because you do have that core that undeniably is willing to pay, and because we collectively are still conditioned to believe we're "supposed" to pay to consume most media (even if so many people don't bother anymore). I don't think the media industries can survive on distribution-based revenue forever, though.
I haven't got strong feelings about this either way. Ideally "bootlegging" would no longer represent a drain on revenue, so such a law would be pointless. But we're obviously still a long way away from that when we struggle to even begin to articulate an alternative revenue model.
This is getting far, far off topic, but unless a mod shows up to tell us to shut up, I feel compelled to take a shot at it anyway. The problem I have with libertarianism is that at its base it is about protecting privilege and denying rights to others. There's a huge difference between "discriminating" between which people you'll be friends with and discriminating between which races you're going to allow into your shop or your restaurant. It doesn't strike me as a particularly strong defense to say "oh, well, I'm not personally racist, I just don't think I have the right to tell others they can't engage in racism in the public sphere." According to one Pew poll I've seen, self-identified libertarians are overwhelmingly male (67%) and white (85%). Why is that? Because libertarianism at its core is about stripping away government programs that largely benefit other groups, reinvigorating the white male socioeconomic hegemony that existed before and still persists in somewhat (but not very) weakened form today. That's not to say all libertarians are actually racist. When you say you're not personally a racist, I don't doubt you. I don't even know for sure that you're a white male, you may be one of the 33% of libertarians that are women and/or one of the 15% that aren't white. Regardless of the demographics of Xanas as an individual, the enablement of institutionalized racism is the ultimate result of libertarian policies carried to their logical conclusion. The error in your argument above is in conflating a "right to be served" with enslavement. Libertarian arguments that hinge on "enslavement" have basically become the new generation of Nazi comparisons. If I go into a restaurant that has opened its doors to the public, I do have a right to be served, not an unlimited right but not a right limited by my race, gender, etc. You as the server/restaurateur haven't been "enslaved" -- you're being paid for your service, and you can refuse me service on various legitimate grounds if they are appropriate, and in the most extreme case you can simply quit your job or close your restaurant or whatever. (full disclosure: I am a white male so I'm not terribly afraid of actually being the victim of discrimination)
It's true that there's a distinction between permissiveness and support, but it doesn't seem to me that there's a very stark line between "permitting" behavior that by its definition will deny rights to some, and being the one who actually denies those rights. It's all well and good for you to "encourage everyone you know" not to go to racist establishments, but the fact remains that the huge majority of libertarians are members of the hegemonic in-group who won't be affected by racial discrimination anyway. You're pushing a policy that will produce tons of losers, none of whom will be you. It doesn't matter that you're a libertarian but not personally a racist, because libertarianism and racial discrimination are part and parcel as long as there are those who would use your "permissiveness" to actually engage in racism. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group