Actually Using Crunchyroll . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
people, I figured nothing can clarify things better than actually
using it. So, here it is, an actual link, and some descriptions of
what to expect, based on two of my own sessions:
The shows I saw were episodes of Hayate no Gotoku's second season,
and Natsu no ARASHI! First, a nice selection of episodes, complete
with brief descriptions; then each episode has further selections of
resolution (SD, 480p, 720p, HD, H.264, though this varies) to
accomodate varying computer speeds, or specific browsers. What you
choose varies on whether you value picture quality over smooth
animation, or on how powerful your rig is. Before each show there is
an obligatory commercial (that ad revenue); I've seen commercials for
Axe Dry, Honey Nut Cheerios, and an interactive ad for Clorox wipes
(might've been Lysol), all very legitimate companies.
Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses. Far from killing
anime, this is a huge shot in the arm; like Hulu is the future of
television in general, it looks like Crunchyroll is the future of
anime.
Here's a list of "Simulcast" anime:
- Kasaan - Mom's Life
- Ristorante Paradiso
- Naruto Shippuden
- Gintama
- Hayate no Gotoku!!
- Shugo Chara!
- REBORN!
- Chi's Sweet Home/Chi's New Address
- Natsu no ARASHI!
- Saki
- Shangri-la
- Time of Eve
- Kurokami the Animation
- La Corda d'Oro
- Aoihana
- Charger Girl Ju-den Chan
- Yokuwakaru Gendai Maho
- Kanamemo
There's also quite the selection of classic anime, and J-Drama.
So, for those who may have been afraid to jump in for whatever
reasons, I hope this has eased those fears; feel free to jump in, and
enjoy the ride!:
--
- ReFlex76
Warewolf
news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com:
> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses. Far from killing
> anime, this is a huge shot in the arm; like Hulu is the future of
> television in general, it looks like Crunchyroll is the future of
> anime.
The only problem that I have with Hulu, at the moment, is its 'Americans
Only' policy - they will not allow *ANYONE* outside the US to view the
videos that are posted there.
(Not that YouTube is all that innocent either) }X^�
You could try to use 'tailoring of advertisements' as an excuse/argument
but the fact of the matter is that the last site that tried it - Sho.com -
died a quick and deservedly painful death.
You don't **EVER** punish surfers for visiting your web site if you want to
survive in a freebie-glutted online world. ~~}:^(
Signed,
Warewolf
who is still waiting for those Whirlgirl episodes to get a proper
(re-)release
Derek Janssen
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com:
>
>> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
>> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses. Far from killing
>> anime, this is a huge shot in the arm; like Hulu is the future of
>> television in general, it looks like Crunchyroll is the future of
>> anime.
>
> The only problem that I have with Hulu, at the moment, is its 'Americans
> Only' policy - they will not allow *ANYONE* outside the US to view the
> videos that are posted there.
And if they're watching it on a PS3, they won't allow *them* either. :(
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Blade
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com...
> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses.
As much as it utterly pains me to defend the troll, I will point out the
same thing he has:
Crunchyroll is a legitimate company in the same way an ex-mafioso is a
"legitimate businessman". Their legitimate company status is based on
leveraging their illegal and immoral previous business (receiving ad money
for fansubs and releases they had no rights to). You cannot divorce the two,
because the one is the reason the other exists.
> So, for those who may have been afraid to jump in for whatever
> reasons, I hope this has eased those fears; feel free to jump in, and
> enjoy the ride!:
I do not give money to immoral thieves. I hate the practice of fansubbing,
but I do not think it necessarily makes people who do it actually bad
people; I have quite a few doubts about the saintly motives attached to them
by many people here and elsewhere in the anime fan community, but I have no
doubt that somewhere there's a fansubber or two who sincerely believes
they're sharing things for others fans, improving the community, et cetera,
and despite my thinking they are going about things in a wrong-headed and
ultimately destructive way, they are probably okay people.
Crunchyroll, however, is run by people who illegally profiteered from anime.
They are absolutely the same as those people who sell fansubs on ebay (other
than being rather more clever and ambitious). There is no ifs, ands or buts
about this. That they wrangled a deal out of a cash-strapped and lazy anime
industry to go "legit" does not change one iota the fact that they are
fucking thieving assholes, and they do not deserve one thin dime. They can
rot in hell, and so will I before I ever use their service.
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
>
> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com...
>
>> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
>> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses.
>
> As much as it utterly pains me to defend the troll, I will point out the
> same thing he has:
>
> Crunchyroll is a legitimate company in the same way an ex-mafioso is a
> "legitimate businessman".
If they're really EX, then they're legit.
Your stance denies the possibility of redemption or of change in an
industry other than through, I suppose, lily-white outsiders who come in
after the guys who have (illegally) demonstrated the utter failure of
your business model have been stomped into the ground, and then go
through the work of building all the contacts, infrastructure, etc. the
criminals did, just to get to where they were.
The U.S. Government and many companies realized the best people to help
plug security holes, early on, was to hire the hackers. In this case,
the anime companies are realizing that the best way to make the
fansubbing/fanselling groups into legitimate customers is to allow those
groups the opportunity to become legitimate themselves.
This is the SMART thing to do. It allows people who might otherwise be
arrested and spend years contributing nothing to society (in fact,
costing society something like $100,000 per year) to instead take a
now-legitimate business and SAVE the industry they might otherwise have
hurt.
This is a VASTLY superior approach to stomping on such companies,
making the fanboys able to pain them as martyrs, and alienating the very
people you want to draw back into your milking stall^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
customer base.
They did the same thing with Napster. Smart companies DO this. Dumb
ones don't, and end up spending money to destroy the tools that would
otherwise help them.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Nobody
"Derek Janssen" <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:C6A6m.922$N5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Warewolf wrote:
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
>>> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses. Far from killing
>>> anime, this is a huge shot in the arm; like Hulu is the future of
>>> television in general, it looks like Crunchyroll is the future of
>>> anime.
>>
>> The only problem that I have with Hulu, at the moment, is its 'Americans
>> Only' policy - they will not allow *ANYONE* outside the US to view the
>> videos that are posted there.
Hmmm.... I wonder if there're be a patch / program for Yellow Dog Linux for
PS3 that can bypass such restricrions?
Take goog care,
Bill N.
I-Con Science Fiction, Inc.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3f9l2$m83$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Blade wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
>>> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses.
>>
>> As much as it utterly pains me to defend the troll, I will point out the
>> same thing he has:
>>
>> Crunchyroll is a legitimate company in the same way an ex-mafioso is a
>> "legitimate businessman".
>
> If they're really EX, then they're legit.
>
> Your stance denies the possibility of redemption or of change in an
> industry
My stance denies that criminals should profit from their crimes.
Specifically they should be prevented from profiting for their crimes in the
exact way they planned to when they committed said crimes in the first
place.
Fuck them, and fuck anyone who gives them money.
-
Blade
Gerardo Campos
I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and transportation
needs.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Captain Nerd
Gerardo Campos <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote:
Nor drink any alcoholic beverages for enjoyment.
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:h3f9l2$m83$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Blade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntE...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com...
>>>> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
>>>> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses.
> My stance denies that criminals should profit from their crimes.
If they are paying for the license how are they profiting from there crimes?
Gerardo Campos
13 Jul 2009 10:42:26a:
The problem with Crunchyroll, is that their start was not legitimate, and
is still doubious their moral status today.
Initially people uploaded anime fansubs and bootlegs into their servers
to be hosted and played, all of this without paying licenses and without
permission from the owners of those anime shows, while Crunchyroll
keeping revenues from the ads displayed in their site to pay for the
hosting and profit.
Recently, they managed to get some venture capital and set agreements
with some anime companies, to legally display those shows.
But a lot of criticism is directed towards the site, since, the capital
that CR is using to pay, today, for the licenses to host and broadcast
shows, was raised thanks to the illegal anime uploaded done by fansubbers
and other people.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Blade
"Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C475BDD...@130.133.1.20...
Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked, biked and
used public transportation (which does use gas, but comparatively little
compared to driving a car) for my entire life, a habit I changed not due to
my own preference.
Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is produced by
criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very, very interested to see
your reasoning for the direct correlation you drew.
You know, unless you're completely full of shit.
-
Blade
Blade
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrnh5mlc8....@localhost.localdomain...
Read my previous post. Or just look up Crunchyroll's history.
-
Blade
Gerardo Campos
>
>
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C475BDD...@130.133.1.20...
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 08:50:54a:
>
>>> My stance denies that criminals should profit from their crimes.
>>>
>>> Specifically they should be prevented from profiting for their
>>> crimes in the exact way they planned to when they committed said
>>> crimes in the first place.
>>>
>>> Fuck them, and fuck anyone who gives them money.
>>>
>>
>> I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and
>> transportation needs.
>
> Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked,
> biked and used public transportation (which does use gas, but
> comparatively little compared to driving a car) for my entire life, a
> habit I changed not due to my own preference.
Sorry, I forgot that you live in Canada, where public transportation is
more developed than in your southern neighbor.
> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very, very
> interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation you drew.
I did not say all gasoline in the world, I said the gasoline that you
use.
Look into the history, all western oil companies where involved in
illegal practices throughout the first half of the 20th century, like:
stealing land, funding armed unrest, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to
obey local law, falsifing production data, killing or buying goverment
officials, disrupting markets or pefroming sabotage practices to prevent
small countries to develop their own indsutry, lobbying at their
goverments to use the army to force other countries goverment to bend to
their wishes, should I continue?
> You know, unless you're completely full of shit.
>
I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you firmly
believe.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Derek Janssen
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 12:56:33p:
And...BLADE STRIKES AGAIN:
>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very, very
>> interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation you drew.
Uh, anyone recall how we *weren't actually discussing* the petrochemicsl
industry, but throwing a cheap punchline to de-Starky old-school jokes
about CR wimping out and going mainstream like Napster did?...
> I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you firmly
> believe.
(Oh, he likes to discuss what *he* believes, just not what the heck
everyone else is TALKING about!) ;)
Derek Janssen (can't help it, I just have this ability to understand
context)
eja...@verizon.net
Aje.RavenStar
"Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
news:cptnerd-189333...@news.giganews.com...
"The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account
is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly
executed." - Honor de Balzac
(usually quoted as "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime".)
Blade
"Derek Janssen" <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OoL6m.989$N5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Gerardo Campos wrote:
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 12:56:33p:
>
> And...BLADE STRIKES AGAIN:
Hey Derek, how many times have you responded in the troll's threads in the
last week?
(Psst: The answer is "ten times, not counting the post I am responding to.")
Maybe you should keep your mouth shut, then?
>>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very, very
>>> interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation you drew.
>
> Uh, anyone recall how we *weren't actually discussing* the petrochemicsl
> industry
Yup, until Gerardo brought it up. Not me. So why don't you complain to him?
Crunchyroll, incidentally, is a completely on-topic discussion here.
-
Blade
Blade
"Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C478ABA...@130.133.1.20...
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 12:56:33p:
>> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C475BDD...@130.133.1.20...
>>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 08:50:54a:
>>
>>>> My stance denies that criminals should profit from their crimes.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically they should be prevented from profiting for their
>>>> crimes in the exact way they planned to when they committed said
>>>> crimes in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Fuck them, and fuck anyone who gives them money.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and
>>> transportation needs.
>>
>> Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked,
>> biked and used public transportation (which does use gas, but
>> comparatively little compared to driving a car) for my entire life, a
>> habit I changed not due to my own preference.
>
> Sorry, I forgot that you live in Canada, where public transportation is
> more developed than in your southern neighbor.
There's plenty of US cities where public transport is well-developed.
>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very, very
>> interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation you drew.
>
> I did not say all gasoline in the world, I said the gasoline that you
> use.
So you'd better be ready to prove that the gasoline I use is produced by
criminals engaging in illegal acts. Somehow I don't think you're going to be
able to do that, though.
> Look into the history, all western oil companies where involved in
> illegal practices throughout the first half of the 20th century, like:
> stealing land, funding armed unrest, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to
> obey local law, falsifing production data, killing or buying goverment
> officials, disrupting markets or pefroming sabotage practices to prevent
> small countries to develop their own indsutry, lobbying at their
> goverments to use the army to force other countries goverment to bend to
> their wishes, should I continue?
Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought comes
from a criminal. Crunchyroll is run by people who illegally profiteered from
anime. You compared gasoline directly to this. Therefore everybody involved
in the business of oil production (today, not a century ago) must be
similarly guilty of illegal acts for which they are currently benefiting, or
you have brought up a completely invalid comparison for no purpose other
than to be contrary. As well say I cannot criticise Crunchyroll because
every person of non-Native descent on this continent benefits directly
(often via direct ancestors) from the genocide and theft of land of the
Native Americans. Which is all very well and good but has no validity being
compared to a situation where people who have actually done something
illegal are profiting from it, themselves, right now.
Unless, of course, you are completely full of shit.
>> You know, unless you're completely full of shit.
>>
>
> I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you firmly
> believe.
I firmly believe that you're full of shit, Gerardo, and made an invalid
analogy in order to be contrary. Howzat?
-
Blade
Starcade
> With all the aspersions being cast about Crunchyroll by certain
> people, I figured nothing can clarify things better than actually
> using it. So, here it is, an actual link, and some descriptions of
> what to expect, based on two of my own sessions:
Then, in the immortal words from the Star Wars series: "THEN YOU ARE
ALREADY LOST!"
Fuck you.
Fuck Crunchyroll.
You completely don't get it -- but, if I were to guess, you openly
cheer your new anime masters as they stomp the remaining industry into
the ground and put it six feet under.
Crunchyroll exists solely because of the rampant thievery of the fans,
and they can never escape that.
Crunchyroll _openly admits_ that they are in the process of
"disruptive innovation" -- they openly wish the current order
destroyed. Should they succeed (and, if they don't, the alternative
is _worse_ -- the thieves will spit out CR the same way they spit out
the present anime industry), there will be no anime industry.
> Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
> that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses. Far from killing
> anime, this is a huge shot in the arm; like Hulu is the future of
> television in general, it looks like Crunchyroll is the future of
> anime.
I can see a check coming in the mail, you sorry-assed fucking shill.
If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
Mike
Derek Janssen
>
> If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
...Still can't get in, huh? ;)
Derek Janssen (fortunately, both sides might win)
eja...@verizon.net
Starcade
> "Antonio E. Gonzalez" <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:djfl55p828gaat9cl...@4ax.com...
>
> > Yes, they're a legitimate company; yes, they make money through
> > that ad reveue; yes, they pay for their licenses.
>
> As much as it utterly pains me to defend the troll, I will point out the
> same thing he has:
>
> Crunchyroll is a legitimate company in the same way an ex-mafioso is a
> "legitimate businessman". Their legitimate company status is based on
> leveraging their illegal and immoral previous business (receiving ad money
> for fansubs and releases they had no rights to). You cannot divorce the two,
> because the one is the reason the other exists.
You see, that's the thing:
If it were simply fans acting in good faith and refusing to buy at the
prices charged, that's one thing. If the fans had one gram of respect
for the licensure and ownership of the process, and then withheld
their money, then you can place the blame on the "buggy-whip industry"
and be abjectly clean about it.
What we have here is a completely different animal, _because of the
illegal conduct of the fans_. The illegal conduct of the fans has
CREATED this situation, fostered it, cheered it on, and will see it
through to it's "disruptive innovation" endgame -- the open and
desired destruction of the present anime industry.
> > So, for those who may have been afraid to jump in for whatever
> > reasons, I hope this has eased those fears; feel free to jump in, and
> > enjoy the ride!:
>
> I do not give money to immoral thieves. I hate the practice of fansubbing,
> but I do not think it necessarily makes people who do it actually bad
> people; I have quite a few doubts about the saintly motives attached to them
> by many people here and elsewhere in the anime fan community, but I have no
> doubt that somewhere there's a fansubber or two who sincerely believes
> they're sharing things for others fans, improving the community, et cetera,
> and despite my thinking they are going about things in a wrong-headed and
> ultimately destructive way, they are probably okay people.
Again, though, what is their final goal? I would assert that,
especially as time has gone on, the stated intention is more for the
"lulz" and for the abject control over anime in the world.
> Crunchyroll, however, is run by people who illegally profiteered from anime.
> They are absolutely the same as those people who sell fansubs on ebay (other
> than being rather more clever and ambitious). There is no ifs, ands or buts
> about this. That they wrangled a deal out of a cash-strapped and lazy anime
> industry to go "legit" does not change one iota the fact that they are
> fucking thieving assholes, and they do not deserve one thin dime. They can
> rot in hell, and so will I before I ever use their service.
I think it was, more, a ransom against the anime industry, meself.
Mike
Gerardo Campos
>
>
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C478ABA...@130.133.1.20...
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 12:56:33p:
>
>>> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C475BDD...@130.133.1.20...
>>>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 08:50:54a:
>>>
>>>>> My stance denies that criminals should profit from their crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically they should be prevented from profiting for their
>>>>> crimes in the exact way they planned to when they committed said
>>>>> crimes in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuck them, and fuck anyone who gives them money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and
>>>> transportation needs.
>>>
>>> Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked,
>>> biked and used public transportation (which does use gas, but
>>> comparatively little compared to driving a car) for my entire life,
>>> a habit I changed not due to my own preference.
>>
>> Sorry, I forgot that you live in Canada, where public transportation
>> is more developed than in your southern neighbor.
>
> There's plenty of US cities where public transport is well-developed.
I said that in Canada (as a whole country) public transportation is more
developed than in the US. If I compare New York City or Boston, to say
Calgary, of course NYC is more developed.
>>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very,
>>> very interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation you
>>> drew.
>>
>> I did not say all gasoline in the world, I said the gasoline that you
>> use.
>
> So you'd better be ready to prove that the gasoline I use is produced
> by criminals engaging in illegal acts. Somehow I don't think you're
> going to be able to do that, though.
Just name the company from where you usually buy your gas, and we can
trace their origins. As well as the companies where you buy your oil
derived products.
>> Look into the history, all western oil companies where involved in
>> illegal practices throughout the first half of the 20th century,
>> like: stealing land, funding armed unrest, refusing to pay taxes,
>> refusing to obey local law, falsifing production data, killing or
>> buying goverment officials, disrupting markets or pefroming sabotage
>> practices to prevent small countries to develop their own indsutry,
>> lobbying at their goverments to use the army to force other countries
>> goverment to bend to their wishes, should I continue?
>
> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought
> comes from a criminal.
Until we learn from where do you get your gas, I can assume yours may
come from Alberta, but, there are several companies there, that are US
and British branches, and just because they are branches, broke from
their parent companies, doesn't erase their past.
As an example:
In Mexico only, at the end of the 19th century and in the first decades
of the 20th century , (though it will not surprise me if these practices
were executed elsewhere) US and British companies stole and killed
ignorant people to get their land to extract oil, hired tugs to protect
thir lands, bribed and killed goverment officials to avoid prosecution
from the law, intimidated and defused any effort from the workers to
create labor unions, used diplomatic and military forces to force
goverments to do what they wished, funded armed revolts to remove elected
officals when the goverment planned to raise taxes, refused to aknowledge
a Supreme Court order to pay extra hours to the workers, sabotaged
fields, no respect for the ecology, falselly acused Mexico
internationally of joining Axis powers and selling oil to them, when at
the same British and US continued to sell oil to Germany and Italy before
WWII.
> Crunchyroll is run by people who illegally
> profiteered from anime. You compared gasoline directly to this.
> Therefore everybody involved in the business of oil production (today,
> not a century ago) must be similarly guilty of illegal acts for which
> they are currently benefiting, or you have brought up a completely
> invalid comparison for no purpose other than to be contrary.
> As well
> say I cannot criticise Crunchyroll because every person of non-Native
> descent on this continent benefits directly (often via direct
> ancestors) from the genocide and theft of land of the Native
> Americans. Which is all very well and good but has no validity being
> compared to a situation where people who have actually done something
> illegal are profiting from it, themselves, right now.
I am not critizing your rant about Crunchyroll, I agree with you on that.
I am Critizing what you think about about the people that are giving
Crunchyroll money, since it sounds like you never bought stuff from
companies with a clean background
> Unless, of course, you are completely full of shit.
>
>>> You know, unless you're completely full of shit.
>>>
>>
>> I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you
>> firmly believe.
>
> I firmly believe that you're full of shit, Gerardo, and made an
> invalid analogy in order to be contrary. Howzat?
As I mentioned to Mike a few days ago, it is of low importance to me what
you believe about me in this aspect, so do not expect from me to discuss
about it.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Look into the history, all western oil companies where involved in
>> illegal practices throughout the first half of the 20th century,
>> like: stealing land, funding armed unrest, refusing to pay taxes,
>> refusing to obey local law, falsifing production data, killing or
>> buying goverment officials, disrupting markets or pefroming sabotage
>> practices to prevent small countries to develop their own indsutry,
>> lobbying at their goverments to use the army to force other countries
>> goverment to bend to their wishes, should I continue?
>
> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought
> comes from a criminal.
Do you specifically avoid things running on gas that was produced using
oil from Exxon or Mobil (or any other successor of Standard Oil)? If
not: why is it okay for those criminals to profit from their crimes?
> Crunchyroll is run by people who illegally profiteered from anime.
And who are now legally profiteering from anime. Your point being? That
anyone who ever commited a crime (or what you perceive as a crime) is
beyond redemption? Well, there goes what little credibility you still
had left ...
> You compared gasoline directly to this.
He compared oil companies directly to this. Companies that do have a
criminal track record.
> Therefore everybody involved in the business of oil production (today,
> not a century ago) must be similarly guilty of illegal acts for which
> they are currently benefiting, or you have brought up a completely
> invalid comparison for no purpose other than to be contrary.
Well, you were the one saying that criminals should not profit from
their crimes. Which oil companies demonstrably have. So, by your very
own logic ...
>> I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you
>> firmly believe.
>
> I firmly believe that you're full of shit, Gerardo, and made an
> invalid analogy in order to be contrary. Howzat?
The analogy being invalid because you say so, of course. Also I can't
help but notice how everyone who disagrees with you on stuff that you
"firmly believe", as Gerardo put it, is always "full of shit". Which, of
course, spares you the trouble of disproving their arguments.
You're such a pathetic little hypocrite, it's not even funny.
cu
59cobalt
--
"My surname is Li and my personal name is Kao, and there is a slight
flaw in my character."
--Li Kao (Barry Hughart: Bridge of Birds)
The Wanderer
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C478ABA...@130.133.1.20...
>
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 12:56:33p:
>> Look into the history, all western oil companies where involved in
>> illegal practices throughout the first half of the 20th century,
>> like: stealing land, funding armed unrest, refusing to pay taxes,
>> refusing to obey local law, falsifing production data, killing or
>> buying goverment officials, disrupting markets or pefroming
>> sabotage practices to prevent small countries to develop their own
>> indsutry, lobbying at their goverments to use the army to force
>> other countries goverment to bend to their wishes, should I
>> continue?
>
> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever
> bought comes from a criminal. Crunchyroll is run by people who
> illegally profiteered from anime. You compared gasoline directly to
> this. Therefore everybody involved in the business of oil production
> (today, not a century ago) must be similarly guilty of illegal acts
> for which they are currently benefiting, or you have brought up a
> completely invalid comparison for no purpose other than to be
> contrary.
This seems inconsistent.
You have (I think) said that Crunchyroll, having once been illegitimate
(committing crimes to make money), cannot become legitimate enough for
you to give them your money, even if they are no longer doing the
original illegitimate things.
Why, then, would those oil companies - which were once illegitimate
(committing crimes to make money) - now be legitimate enough for you to
give them their money, now that (as we may assume) they are no longer
doing the original illegitimate things?
Is it just that the people who were in charge back when the oil
companies were thus illegitimate are no longer involved, whereas the
people who were in charge when Crunchyroll was illegitimate are (I
think) the same people who are in charge now?
I suppose that that would make sense if you apply the original principle
("criminals should not profit from their crimes") not to the company
itself but only to the specific people involved with it. It was not
especially obvious that you were applying that distinction, though.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
sanjian
Even if it weren't, there's a difference between using a needed commodity
for which monopolitistic or ologopolistic control exists, and voluntarily
choosing one distatsteful entity when there are other options. There's a
reason "Cartel" is in OPEC's name.
Granted, I don't really attach the great sin to crunchyroll that you do, but
that doesn't make the gas analogy any better.
sanjian
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote in
> message news:slrnh5mlc8....@localhost.localdomain...
>> If they are paying for the license how are they profiting from there
>> crimes?
>
> Read my previous post. Or just look up Crunchyroll's history.
Your previous post may not have been convincing to those not already
familiar with the argument.
Dave, Blade's point is that Crunchyroll exists as an entity because they're
made of of ex-pirates, the chief of which is the Dread Fansubber Roberts.
They leveraged their experience and siphoned sales to convince the industry
to use their services. By Blade's analogy, this is a lot like "Look, we's
not gonna charge yous protection money. But we thinks it would be a good
idea to do yous banking wit my cousin down at Crunchroll National Bank, if
you knows what's good for yous."
Basically, the idea is that without the illegal activity, or the threat
thereof, Crunchyroll would have no legal business.
Now, I don't agree with Blade's view. I think that Crunchyroll leveraged
their experience in subbing and distribution to provide a service that the
commercial companies NEEDED to provide, but were too stupid and lazy to do.
Yes, said experience came through... questionable means, but it's still a
legitimate and necessary service. It's more like the doujin circle gone
pro, except that the only reason they even had a chance to go pro is because
their customers weren't doing their jobs very well.
Blade
"Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C479D00...@130.133.1.20...
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 02:14:33p:
>>>>> I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and
>>>>> transportation needs.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked,
>>>> biked and used public transportation (which does use gas, but
>>>> comparatively little compared to driving a car) for my entire life,
>>>> a habit I changed not due to my own preference.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I forgot that you live in Canada, where public transportation
>>> is more developed than in your southern neighbor.
>>
>> There's plenty of US cities where public transport is well-developed.
>
> I said that in Canada (as a whole country) public transportation is more
> developed than in the US. If I compare New York City or Boston, to say
> Calgary, of course NYC is more developed.
You still made massive assumptions, since you don't know where I live. For
instance, my power comes primarily from hydroelectricity here.
>>>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>>>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very,
>>>> very interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation you
>>>> drew.
>>>
>>> I did not say all gasoline in the world, I said the gasoline that you
>>> use.
>>
>> So you'd better be ready to prove that the gasoline I use is produced
>> by criminals engaging in illegal acts. Somehow I don't think you're
>> going to be able to do that, though.
>
> Just name the company from where you usually buy your gas, and we can
> trace their origins. As well as the companies where you buy your oil
> derived products.
I don't have a company from whom I usually buy gas. In addition, I don't
give a shit about "origins". I said that giving money to Crunchyroll was
something immoral because the creators of Crunchyroll deliberately engaged
in illegal profiteering to get to their current position. Not a hundred
years ago, not a decade ago. Not their grandfathers, not their founding CEO.
Them. In the last couple of years.
Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline, without
knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the onus is upon you
to back up your statement by showing that every provider of gasoline has
profited from illegal acts to get their current market position. Not a
hundred years ago, not a decade ago. Not their grandfathers, not their
founding CEO. Them. In the last couple of years.
If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
>> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought
>> comes from a criminal.
>
> Until we learn from where do you get your gas, I can assume yours may
> come from Alberta, but, there are several companies there, that are US
> and British branches, and just because they are branches, broke from
> their parent companies, doesn't erase their past.
That's as may be, but is completely irrelevant to proving why there is any
moral equivalency between buying gas and providing money to the people who
run Crunchyroll.
> I am Critizing what you think about about the people that are giving
> Crunchyroll money, since it sounds like you never bought stuff from
> companies with a clean background
By the standard you're using, there is literally no such thing. The entire
world stands in the backs of people who had their stuff immorally taken from
them. I already pointed out that applies to every non-native in North
America. It also applies to every native, all of whom descend from tribes
who killed and stole from other tribes at some point in their past. It also
applies to every single other person, company, product or endeavour in the
world.
Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is moral to support
people who illegally profiteered to gain the position they currently hold.
I am no fucking fan of Big Oil, by the way. And I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart
on moral grounds. But this is still apples and oranges.
>> Unless, of course, you are completely full of shit.
>>
>>>> You know, unless you're completely full of shit.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you
>>> firmly believe.
>>
>> I firmly believe that you're full of shit, Gerardo, and made an
>> invalid analogy in order to be contrary. Howzat?
>
> As I mentioned to Mike a few days ago, it is of low importance to me what
> you believe about me in this aspect, so do not expect from me to discuss
> about it.
Then don't say something so very, very stupid. If there's one thing that
ought to be completely obvious, it is that I have no problem discussing what
I firmly believe. None of which has any bearing on the fact you presented a
very bad analogy in order to be contrary.
Incidentally, even if your terrible analogy was actually valid, it would in
no way invalidate my point. Even if buying gas was morally equivalent to
supporting Crunchyroll, it would not magically make supporting Crunchyroll
less immoral.
-
Blade
Blade
"The Wanderer" <wand...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:44qdnWR_EqB-AcbX...@giganews.com...
> On 07/13/2009 03:14 PM, Blade wrote:
> This seems inconsistent.
It isn't.
> I suppose that that would make sense if you apply the original principle
> ("criminals should not profit from their crimes")
Bingo.
-
Blade
The Wanderer
> Blade wrote:
>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very,
>> very interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation
>> you drew.
>
> Even if it weren't, there's a difference between using a needed
> commodity for which monopolitistic or ologopolistic control exists,
> and voluntarily choosing one distatsteful entity when there are other
> options. There's a reason "Cartel" is in OPEC's name.
According to my understanding (for which a quick bit of Googling seems
to find support), "OPEC" actually stands for "Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries". What expansion were you thinking of which includes
the word "Cartel"?
Derek Janssen
> On 07/13/2009 05:22 PM, sanjian wrote:
>
>> Even if it weren't, there's a difference between using a needed
>> commodity for which monopolitistic or ologopolistic control exists,
>> and voluntarily choosing one distatsteful entity when there are other
>> options. There's a reason "Cartel" is in OPEC's name.
>
> According to my understanding (for which a quick bit of Googling seems
> to find support), "OPEC" actually stands for "Organization of Petroleum
> Exporting Countries". What expansion were you thinking of which includes
> the word "Cartel"?
And PT Barnum never said it either.
Derek Janssen (first Starky, then Sockboy...We're just RACKIN' up the
punchline fact-goofs this week, aren't we?) ;)
eja...@verizon.net
Blade
"sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:LoOdnTrJ9a5HOsbX...@posted.internetamerica...
> Blade wrote:
>> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote in
>> message news:slrnh5mlc8....@localhost.localdomain...
>
>
>>> If they are paying for the license how are they profiting from there
>>> crimes?
>>
>> Read my previous post. Or just look up Crunchyroll's history.
>
> Your previous post may not have been convincing to those not already
> familiar with the argument.
You're right. I apologise, David. I ought to really pay more attention to
people asking legitimate questions than people who are trolling to start an
argument, anyway.
So I'll explain my viewpoint, as an addendum to Sanjian's post.
> Dave, Blade's point is that Crunchyroll exists as an entity because
> they're made of of ex-pirates, the chief of which is the Dread Fansubber
> Roberts. They leveraged their experience and siphoned sales to convince
> the industry to use their services. By Blade's analogy, this is a lot
> like "Look, we's not gonna charge yous protection money. But we thinks it
> would be a good idea to do yous banking wit my cousin down at Crunchroll
> National Bank, if you knows what's good for yous."
To put it in my own words...
Crunchyroll was a service which generated ad revenue for the creators via
showing fansubs. You know how fansubs usually says something to the effect
"This is a free fansub created by fans, for fans. Do not sell, rent, etc,
etc."? Although they released it for "free" to people, Crunchyroll made
money from doing this. Fansubs are illegal to begin with; getting a profit
from them (or any money at all) is even worse.
With this money and their established distribution network, they convinced
certain anime companies to use them as proxies rather than working towards
shutting them down. The Crunchyroll that currently exists deliberately
illegally profiteered from anime and then leveraged that into a legit deal
from North American anime companies. It has long been a tenet in the fansub
community that the fact they're not done for profit makes them better than
just being bootleggers like the infamous Son May and so forth, Crunchyroll
did do it for profit. They are scum. That they have gone legit does not make
them not-scum. I do not want to give any money whatsoever to people who took
anime and illegally made money from it. They do not deserve what they have.
They certainly do not deserve any more. The economic merits or lack thereof
of their distribution deal don't concern me; if a startup that had not
illegally profiteered from anime ended up in the same position, I wouldn't
have any objections to making use of them.
You are, of course, entitled to not share my views, but that's where it
stands from my POV.
-
Blade
Gerardo Campos
>
>
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C479D00...@130.133.1.20...
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 02:14:33p:
>>>>>> I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and
>>>>>> transportation needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked,
>>>>> biked and used public transportation (which does use gas, but
>>>>> comparatively little compared to driving a car) for my entire
>>>>> life, a habit I changed not due to my own preference.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that you live in Canada, where public
>>>> transportation is more developed than in your southern neighbor.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of US cities where public transport is
>>> well-developed.
>>
>> I said that in Canada (as a whole country) public transportation is
>> more developed than in the US. If I compare New York City or Boston,
>> to say Calgary, of course NYC is more developed.
>
> You still made massive assumptions, since you don't know where I live.
> For instance, my power comes primarily from hydroelectricity here.
OK, not sure how many electricity powered transportation vehicles you
have access to, but let's drop this analogy
>>>>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>>>>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very,
>>>>> very interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation
>>>>> you drew.
>>>>
>>>> I did not say all gasoline in the world, I said the gasoline that
>>>> you use.
>>>
>>> So you'd better be ready to prove that the gasoline I use is
>>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. Somehow I don't
>>> think you're going to be able to do that, though.
>>
>> Just name the company from where you usually buy your gas, and we can
>> trace their origins. As well as the companies where you buy your oil
>> derived products.
>
> I don't have a company from whom I usually buy gas. In addition, I
> don't give a shit about "origins". I said that giving money to
> Crunchyroll was something immoral because the creators of Crunchyroll
> deliberately engaged in illegal profiteering to get to their current
> position. Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago. Not their
> grandfathers, not their founding CEO. Them. In the last couple of
> years.
But you are critizing the people that visit Crunchyroll because
Crunchyroll "origins"? Why just don't keep it down to critize
Crunchyroll? What fault has the poor sap that learns about Crunchyroll
today?
> Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline,
> without knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the
> onus is upon you to back up your statement by showing that every
> provider of gasoline has profited from illegal acts to get their
> current market position. Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago.
> Not their grandfathers, not their founding CEO. Them. In the last
> couple of years.
>
> If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
As other posters pointed out, the analogy is that gasoline companies do
not have a clean record, as neither Crunchyroll
>>> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever
>>> bought comes from a criminal.
>>
>> Until we learn from where do you get your gas, I can assume yours may
>> come from Alberta, but, there are several companies there, that are
>> US and British branches, and just because they are branches, broke
>> from their parent companies, doesn't erase their past.
>
> That's as may be, but is completely irrelevant to proving why there is
> any moral equivalency between buying gas and providing money to the
> people who run Crunchyroll.
Today, a lot of oil companies do not commit criminal offenses, I am
talking about the criminal offenses those companies did in the past.
See my last sentence at the bottom of this post.
>> I am Critizing what you think about about the people that are giving
>> Crunchyroll money, since it sounds like you never bought stuff from
>> companies with a clean background
>
> By the standard you're using, there is literally no such thing. The
> entire world stands in the backs of people who had their stuff
> immorally taken from them. I already pointed out that applies to every
> non-native in North America. It also applies to every native, all of
> whom descend from tribes who killed and stole from other tribes at
> some point in their past. It also applies to every single other
> person, company, product or endeavour in the world.
So, than based on this, what is wrong with people putting money on
Crunchyroll today. And again, I am not saying that Crunchyroll did not
commited criminal acts.
> Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is moral to
> support people who illegally profiteered to gain the position they
> currently hold.
>
> I am no fucking fan of Big Oil, by the way. And I refuse to shop at
> Wal-Mart on moral grounds. But this is still apples and oranges.
OK, I made a bad analogy or made a poor redacted analogy, but you
aknowledge that a lot of today companies, that have a clean record, once
had dark past, that was buried and forgotten in history
>>> Unless, of course, you are completely full of shit.
>>>
>>>>> You know, unless you're completely full of shit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see, not the one of the type that like to discuss in what you
>>>> firmly believe.
>>>
>>> I firmly believe that you're full of shit, Gerardo, and made an
>>> invalid analogy in order to be contrary. Howzat?
>>
>> As I mentioned to Mike a few days ago, it is of low importance to me
>> what you believe about me in this aspect, so do not expect from me to
>> discuss about it.
>
> Then don't say something so very, very stupid. If there's one thing
> that ought to be completely obvious, it is that I have no problem
> discussing what I firmly believe. None of which has any bearing on the
> fact you presented a very bad analogy in order to be contrary.
>
> Incidentally, even if your terrible analogy was actually valid, it
> would in no way invalidate my point. Even if buying gas was morally
> equivalent to supporting Crunchyroll, it would not magically make
> supporting Crunchyroll less immoral.
>
And again, I am not arguing what you think of Crunchyroll, I agree that
Crunchyroll started as an illegal site and neither I am trying to put CR
in better light.
I am arguing that you say that people should not spend money on
Crunchyroll because of its historical record. But, for you is ok to
spend money on gasoline and petrol derivated products despite the oil
companies historical criminal records. (or in other companies, despite
their criminal behavior in the past)
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
The Wanderer
Please don't do that.
You snipped out the part where I commented on how and why it could make
sense. By itself, it doesn't. (You also snipped out the actual question
I asked, which you have now indirectly answered in another reply to
Gerardo.)
If you simply apply the original principle, then Gerardo's apparent
interpretation *is* a reasonable one. In order for it to not be
reasonable, the additional points you snipped out - or something like
them - are necessary.
I'm having a hard time finding words to describe what you're doing here
which I find objectionable, but it seems at least as obvious to me as
your interpretation of your original principle does to you, and I read
it as being bad argument - and, therefore, very rude.
I dislike thinking badly of you, Blade, but I'm having a harder time
resisting it lately than I remember doing when I first read you here -
and while I *have* changed in that time, I don't think it's in in any
ways which are relevant to this. Back then, you seemed reasonable (in
the literal sense of "amenable to reason"), if tending to be belligerent
about some things; nowadays you seem significantly less reasonable but
no less belligerent, and it's only the fact that you often seem to be
right that provides any semblance of a redeeming factor to some of your
arguments.
Blade
"Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C47AE28...@130.133.1.20...
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 04:42:42p:
>> I don't have a company from whom I usually buy gas. In addition, I
>> don't give a shit about "origins". I said that giving money to
>> Crunchyroll was something immoral because the creators of Crunchyroll
>> deliberately engaged in illegal profiteering to get to their current
>> position. Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago. Not their
>> grandfathers, not their founding CEO. Them. In the last couple of
>> years.
>
> But you are critizing the people that visit Crunchyroll because
> Crunchyroll "origins"? Why just don't keep it down to critize
> Crunchyroll? What fault has the poor sap that learns about Crunchyroll
> today?
In this, you have one valid point: I drew with too broad a brush there. I do
not blame the person who uses Crunchyroll while being unaware of their
origins.
Using it while knowing how they got their position in the market, however,
is another story.
>> Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline,
>> without knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the
>> onus is upon you to back up your statement by showing that every
>> provider of gasoline has profited from illegal acts to get their
>> current market position. Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago.
>> Not their grandfathers, not their founding CEO. Them. In the last
>> couple of years.
>>
>> If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
>
> As other posters pointed out, the analogy is that gasoline companies do
> not have a clean record, as neither Crunchyroll
As well say North America cannot criticise China's human rights record due
to the genocide of Native Americans. It's an invalid analogy, because one
happened in the past and one is happening right now. It's also invalid
because China's human rights record does not magically become better even if
some other country is also bad.
No company on earth has a clean record if you take it back far enough and
with tenuous enough connections. This does not mean there isn't some
questionability in buying DeBeers diamonds, nor that anybody that refuses to
buy DeBeers diamonds is automatically a hypocrite because they also drive a
car.
> Today, a lot of oil companies do not commit criminal offenses, I am
> talking about the criminal offenses those companies did in the past.
However, I am talking about the criminal offences of the guys who are
currently profiting from money received by Crunchyroll, and that is why your
analogy is worthless. Yes, Henry Ford was a bad man, but he's also dead. He
is not getting a cut when you buy a car.
> So, than based on this, what is wrong with people putting money on
> Crunchyroll today. And again, I am not saying that Crunchyroll did not
> commited criminal acts.
What is wrong is that people putting money on Crunchyroll today are giving
their money to people who committed criminal acts to get to the position
where they could get that money.
Which is not at all the same thing as "Other people committed criminal acts
when they created something, which is now in the hands of people who didn't
commit those acts."
>> Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is moral to
>> support people who illegally profiteered to gain the position they
>> currently hold.
>>
>> I am no fucking fan of Big Oil, by the way. And I refuse to shop at
>> Wal-Mart on moral grounds. But this is still apples and oranges.
>
> OK, I made a bad analogy or made a poor redacted analogy, but you
> aknowledge that a lot of today companies, that have a clean record, once
> had dark past, that was buried and forgotten in history
Of course I do. It's just not relevant to the subject at hand.
> I am arguing that you say that people should not spend money on
> Crunchyroll because of its historical record. But, for you is ok to
> spend money on gasoline and petrol derivated products despite the oil
> companies historical criminal records. (or in other companies, despite
> their criminal behavior in the past)
Because you're talking about things that happened over a hundred years ago
to indict Big Oil, and I'm talking about things that happened less than five
years ago, committed by the same people currently profiting from
Crunchyroll. Apples and oranges. If an immortal cyborg William Randolph
Hearst still owned the San Francisco Examiner, I'd say it'd be a comparable
analogy to not buy said paper, but since he died in 1951, holding the
Spanish-American War against Philip Anschutz isn't quite as fair.
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought
> comes from a criminal. Crunchyroll is run by people who illegally
> profiteered from anime. You compared gasoline directly to this.
> Therefore everybody involved in the business of oil production (today,
> not a century ago) must be similarly guilty of illegal acts
So Crunchyroll will be a legitimate business that you will be happy to
pay money to after a certain period of time. That period of time is...
exactly how long? To get that terrible stench of former criminal
behavior off? A year? Five? Ten? Fifty? One hundred? How about 99? 98? 97?
That's a crock, Blade.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Starcade wrote:
>>
>> If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
>
> ...Still can't get in, huh? ;)
No. The serial killers and father-rapers are complaining that being
forced to share a jail with him would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>"Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9C479D00...@130.133.1.20...
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 02:14:33p:
>>>>>> I assume that you do not use gasoline for your energy and
>>>>>> transportation needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, except for the last six months I have primarily walked,
>>>>> biked and used public transportation (which does use gas, but
>>>>> comparatively little compared to driving a car) for my entire life,
>>>>> a habit I changed not due to my own preference.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I forgot that you live in Canada, where public transportation
>>>> is more developed than in your southern neighbor.
>>>
>>> There's plenty of US cities where public transport is well-developed.
>>
>> I said that in Canada (as a whole country) public transportation is more
>> developed than in the US. If I compare New York City or Boston, to say
>> Calgary, of course NYC is more developed.
>
>You still made massive assumptions, since you don't know where I live. For
>instance, my power comes primarily from hydroelectricity here.
Since I do know where you live... Slightly less than half of your
electricity comes from nuclear power. Enough of the remainder comes from
coal-fired plants that hydroelectricity is no longer the source of the
majority of your electricity. For exact numbers, ask the company that
sells you your power.
Esso: Levying illegal credit-card fees in Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/03/23/credit000323.html
Shell: Undermining the government of Nigeria, including by use of
bribery
http://www.globalissues.org/article/86/nigeria-and-oil
Sunoco: Ignoring environmental laws in Philadelphia, USA
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub311.cfm
Petro-Canada: Illegal strike-breaking in Quebec, Canada
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2008/12/c9189.html
Ultramar: Alleged price-fixing in Quebec, Canada
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080612/quebec_gasfixing_080611/20080612?hub=TopStories
(The smaller local players buy their fuel from one or more of the above,
so the above links cover them as well.)
And that's with less than ten minutes of web searching. It looks like
Ultramar is the only fuel company in our part of the world not proven to
be profiting from crime within the last half-decade, and they've been
alleged to have done so.
>>> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought
>>> comes from a criminal.
>>
>> Until we learn from where do you get your gas, I can assume yours may
>> come from Alberta, but, there are several companies there, that are US
>> and British branches, and just because they are branches, broke from
>> their parent companies, doesn't erase their past.
>
>That's as may be, but is completely irrelevant to proving why there is any
>moral equivalency between buying gas and providing money to the people who
>run Crunchyroll.
You have a point, but not the one you thought you were making. Most of
the gasoline companies are apparently still breaking the law;
Crunchyroll isn't.
<the stuff you appear to agree on, and the personal digs, snipped>
--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> e-mail: s/deadspam/gmail/
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear
of childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3gf4k$1lt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Gee, Sea Wasp, it's sure not intuitive at all to have "when the person who
actually did the illegal acts is no longer profiting from them" as a
criteria. Particularly when that is, quite literally, what I said in the
first place.
-
Blade
Blade
"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:4a5bbd37...@news.individual.net...
>>You still made massive assumptions, since you don't know where I live. For
>>instance, my power comes primarily from hydroelectricity here.
>
> Since I do know where you live... Slightly less than half of your
> electricity comes from nuclear power. Enough of the remainder comes from
> coal-fired plants that hydroelectricity is no longer the source of the
> majority of your electricity. For exact numbers, ask the company that
> sells you your power.
You'll forgive me for mistaking "Ontario Hydro" for being primarily a
hydroelectric company, especially given Canada is the only country in the
world to have over half of its electricity (59%) produced by hydroelectric
means. I have no reason to doubt you. But this doesn't fucking matter, as
has been pointed out in previous posts. Pay attention.
>>Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline, without
>>knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the onus is upon
>>you
>>to back up your statement by showing that every provider of gasoline has
>>profited from illegal acts to get their current market position. Not a
>>hundred years ago, not a decade ago. Not their grandfathers, not their
>>founding CEO. Them. In the last couple of years.
>>
>>If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
(snip)
> And that's with less than ten minutes of web searching. It looks like
> Ultramar is the only fuel company in our part of the world not proven to
> be profiting from crime within the last half-decade, and they've been
> alleged to have done so.
A) A company being accused of crimes does not equate to a company that
exists 100% due to crime, run by the exact same criminals, whose crime was a
direct cause of their later "legitimate" opportunities.
B) It also does not satisfy the requirement of "profited from illegal acts
to GET THEIR CURRENT MARKET POSITION".
C) This also doesn't fucking matter, as has been pointed out in previous
posts. Pay attention.
If you want to argue about the statement I made, which is actually relevant
to this newsgroup, please do. If you want to argue about the morality of oil
companies, kindly take it somewhere else. If you just want to argue for no
reason other than to be contrary, kindly take it to someone else.
-
Blade
sanjian
> On 07/13/2009 05:22 PM, sanjian wrote:
>
>> Blade wrote:
>
>>> Now, kindly explain precisely why all gasoline in the world is
>>> produced by criminals engaging in illegal acts. I would be very,
>>> very interested to see your reasoning for the direct correlation
>>> you drew.
>>
>> Even if it weren't, there's a difference between using a needed
>> commodity for which monopolitistic or ologopolistic control exists,
>> and voluntarily choosing one distatsteful entity when there are other
>> options. There's a reason "Cartel" is in OPEC's name.
>
> According to my understanding (for which a quick bit of Googling seems
> to find support), "OPEC" actually stands for "Organization of
> Petroleum Exporting Countries". What expansion were you thinking of
> which includes the word "Cartel"?
It was a bit of a joke. Don't always take things so literally.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now, because all of
their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.
Yes, previously they were doing illegal things. Now they're not.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3gj0s$rda$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Blade wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:h3gf4k$1lt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Blade wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, please do. I want specific reasons why any gas I have ever bought
>>>> comes from a criminal. Crunchyroll is run by people who illegally
>>>> profiteered from anime. You compared gasoline directly to this.
>>>> Therefore everybody involved in the business of oil production (today,
>>>> not a century ago) must be similarly guilty of illegal acts
>>>
>>> So Crunchyroll will be a legitimate business that you will be happy to
>>> pay money to after a certain period of time. That period of time is...
>>> exactly how long? To get that terrible stench of former criminal
>>> behavior off? A year? Five? Ten? Fifty? One hundred? How about 99? 98?
>>> 97?
>>>
>>> That's a crock, Blade.
>>
>> Gee, Sea Wasp, it's sure not intuitive at all to have "when the person
>> who actually did the illegal acts is no longer profiting from them" as a
>> criteria.
>
> Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now, because all of
> their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.
You know, if I had said absolutely nothing other than that line in this
entire thread, it would be possible to interpret what I said like that.
But since that is not the case, I must conclude that you are being
disingenuous for the sake of starting an argument.
I don't care to engage in more discussions about what I said. What I said is
pretty clear. The reasons I based it on are clear. If someone wishes to
argue about that, go for it. If someone genuinely does not understand what I
meant, they can feel free to ask. I do not have the patience to engage in
yet another debate about whether what I said is what I actually said, or
something else entirely that I might have said if you take lines completely
out of context and squint at them a bit.
-
Blade
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>news:4a5bbd37...@news.individual.net...
>>>You still made massive assumptions, since you don't know where I live. For
>>>instance, my power comes primarily from hydroelectricity here.
>>
>> Since I do know where you live... Slightly less than half of your
>> electricity comes from nuclear power. Enough of the remainder comes from
>> coal-fired plants that hydroelectricity is no longer the source of the
>> majority of your electricity. For exact numbers, ask the company that
>> sells you your power.
>
>You'll forgive me for mistaking "Ontario Hydro" for being primarily a
>hydroelectric company, especially given Canada is the only country in the
>world to have over half of its electricity (59%) produced by hydroelectric
>means. I have no reason to doubt you. But this doesn't fucking matter, as
>has been pointed out in previous posts. Pay attention.
I told Mikey this three days ago: "You seem to be under the delusion
that I have either the time or the desire to read everything in this
newsgroup. I don't."
>>>Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline, without
>>>knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the onus is upon
>>>you
>>>to back up your statement by showing that every provider of gasoline has
>>>profited from illegal acts to get their current market position. Not a
>>>hundred years ago, not a decade ago. Not their grandfathers, not their
>>>founding CEO. Them. In the last couple of years.
>>>
>>>If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
>
>(snip)
>
>> And that's with less than ten minutes of web searching. It looks like
>> Ultramar is the only fuel company in our part of the world not proven to
>> be profiting from crime within the last half-decade, and they've been
>> alleged to have done so.
>
>A) A company being accused of crimes does not equate to a company that
>exists 100% due to crime, run by the exact same criminals, whose crime was a
>direct cause of their later "legitimate" opportunities.
>
>B) It also does not satisfy the requirement of "profited from illegal acts
>to GET THEIR CURRENT MARKET POSITION".
You put a one-decade limit on the matter. The oil companies had their
current market positions one decade ago.
(If you want me to dig through corporate histories, I can, but not
today.)
>C) This also doesn't fucking matter, as has been pointed out in previous
>posts. Pay attention.
>
>If you want to argue about the statement I made, which is actually relevant
>to this newsgroup, please do. If you want to argue about the morality of oil
>companies, kindly take it somewhere else. If you just want to argue for no
>reason other than to be contrary, kindly take it to someone else.
I *was* discussing the statement you made, back in Message-ID
<h3g130$kqf$1...@news.albasani.net>: "So you'd better be ready to prove
that the gasoline I use is produced by criminals engaging in illegal
acts. Somehow I don't think you're going to be able to do that, though."
I presented the proof that you requested. Now you appear to be upset
that I did so. <sigh>
(Oh, and companies have no morality. That's something only people have.)
As for Crunchyroll, has anyone taken them to court over what they did
last year? Has anyone even threatened to take them to court for those
actions? If yes, then I haven't heard about any verdicts or settlements,
and thus must presume they are innocent until proven guilty. If not,
then the supposed affected parties have seen fit to approve of their
actions (they can hardly be unaware of those actions), and under
copyright law in both the US and Canada that means no crime has taken
place. (Yes, copyright law is in need of a major overhaul. We have to go
with what's on the books.) None of this addresses the morality or
"rightness" of what the people in charge of Crunchyroll did, only the
legality.
--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> e-mail: s/deadspam/gmail/
"They were engaged in a calm and dignified discussion of important
issues of the day. No, wait, that was somebody else. *These* two
were all but screaming at each other at the tops of their lungs."
- from "Drunkard's Walk V/Oh My Brother II"
Derek Janssen
> Derek Janssen wrote:
>> Starcade wrote:
>>>
>>> If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
>>
>> ...Still can't get in, huh? ;)
>
>
> No. The serial killers and father-rapers are complaining that being
> forced to share a jail with him would be cruel and unusual punishment.
["ahem, THANK you... >_< " expression]
(Uh, believe the general *concept* of the joke was to heckle Starky for
his statement not quite coming out as he intended?:
"If this is the future of anime, I'm a ringtailed monkey."
"It IS the future, and leave your family out of this!"
To paraphrase Horsefeathers.
...Not saying it was a *classic* drive-through of the mile-wide opening,
but at least it followed logically.
Y'see, that's the thing about not Always Having To Fight Evil, it leaves
you breathing room for a sense of humor.)
Derek Janssen (NOW d'you see why we're giving you the Ix-nay on the
Sponding-Ray?)
eja...@verizon.net
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Derek Janssen wrote:
>>> Starcade wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
>>>
>>> ...Still can't get in, huh? ;)
>>
>>
>> No. The serial killers and father-rapers are complaining that
>> being forced to share a jail with him would be cruel and unusual
>> punishment.
>
> ["ahem, THANK you... >_< " expression]
>
> (Uh, believe the general *concept* of the joke was to heckle Starky for
> his statement not quite coming out as he intended?:
And mine was for my own amusement, continuing a line of jokes.
> "If this is the future of anime, I'm a ringtailed monkey."
> "It IS the future, and leave your family out of this!"
> To paraphrase Horsefeathers.
And I was referring to Alice's Restaurant.
> Derek Janssen (NOW d'you see why we're giving you the Ix-nay on the
> Sponding-Ray?)
No.
Blade
"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:4a5bd3dd...@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:03:17 -0400, "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> I told Mikey this three days ago: "You seem to be under the delusion
> that I have either the time or the desire to read everything in this
> newsgroup. I don't."
But you have time and desire to argue about oil companies? And to reply to
Mikey? Well, whatever works for you, I suppose.
>>>>Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline,
>>>>without
>>>>knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the onus is upon
>>>>you
>>>>to back up your statement by showing that every provider of gasoline has
>>>>profited from illegal acts to get their current market position. Not a
>>>>hundred years ago, not a decade ago. Not their grandfathers, not their
>>>>founding CEO. Them. In the last couple of years.
>>>>
>>>>If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>> And that's with less than ten minutes of web searching. It looks like
>>> Ultramar is the only fuel company in our part of the world not proven to
>>> be profiting from crime within the last half-decade, and they've been
>>> alleged to have done so.
>>
>>A) A company being accused of crimes does not equate to a company that
>>exists 100% due to crime, run by the exact same criminals, whose crime was
>>a
>>direct cause of their later "legitimate" opportunities.
>>
>>B) It also does not satisfy the requirement of "profited from illegal acts
>>to GET THEIR CURRENT MARKET POSITION".
>
> You put a one-decade limit on the matter.
If you had the time and desire to read my posts, you would understand their
context. I did not "put a one-decade limit on the matter". I compared and
contrasted the difference between a small start-up that commited illegal
acts and deliberately leveraged them into their current "legitimate"
business, and an entire huge industry that is the backbone of the world
economy and who most certainly have had immoral acts in their history but
cannot reasonably be argued to be in an analogous situation to said small
start-up. That I indeed said in the middle of a largish paragraph of other
stuff "Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago." does not make it honest
or fair to ignore everything else in the paragraph and say I "put a
one-decade limit" on finding bad things oil companies do.
If you want to go out and research to prove that Esso as a company is
complicit in illegal acts to maintain their market share, and that this is
unambiguously an official company direction that comes from the very top, I
will happily agree that it is immoral to buy their products and will resolve
to not do so in future. But I don't want to hear about it on a goddamn anime
newsgroup, in a discussion about Crunchyroll. It is not relevant.
>>C) This also doesn't fucking matter, as has been pointed out in previous
>>posts. Pay attention.
>>
>>If you want to argue about the statement I made, which is actually
>>relevant
>>to this newsgroup, please do. If you want to argue about the morality of
>>oil
>>companies, kindly take it somewhere else. If you just want to argue for no
>>reason other than to be contrary, kindly take it to someone else.
>
> I *was* discussing the statement you made, back in Message-ID
> <h3g130$kqf$1...@news.albasani.net>: "So you'd better be ready to prove
> that the gasoline I use is produced by criminals engaging in illegal
> acts. Somehow I don't think you're going to be able to do that, though."
> I presented the proof that you requested. Now you appear to be upset
> that I did so. <sigh>
As I pointed out, you didn't actually do this. As I also pointed out but
shouldn't have to, even if you did it would have absolutely no bearing
whatsoever on the subject under discussion, and is off-topic for this
newsgroup to boot.
> As for Crunchyroll, has anyone taken them to court over what they did
> last year? Has anyone even threatened to take them to court for those
> actions? If yes, then I haven't heard about any verdicts or settlements,
> and thus must presume they are innocent until proven guilty. If not,
> then the supposed affected parties have seen fit to approve of their
> actions (they can hardly be unaware of those actions), and under
> copyright law in both the US and Canada that means no crime has taken
> place. (Yes, copyright law is in need of a major overhaul. We have to go
> with what's on the books.) None of this addresses the morality or
> "rightness" of what the people in charge of Crunchyroll did, only the
> legality.
Something is still illegal even if nobody is taken to trial for it. It is
quite true that they can not accurately be called criminals because they
were never prosecuted. However, their acts were openly illegal. Jack the
Ripper was never tried, but that doesn't mean there is doubt on the legality
of chopping up prostitutes. There is no doubt as to the legality (or lack
thereof) of receiving income from fansubs. Once upon a time, the fansubbing
community themselves were also very clear on what they thought about that.
Why don't you, instead of arguing about oil companies, try giving your
thoughts on the morality of profiting monetarily from fansubs? And what you
think about leveraging said profit into a legitimate endeavour and if the
people who did this should be supported and rewarded for doing so?
-
Blade
Derek Janssen
> Derek Janssen wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Derek Janssen wrote:
>>>> Starcade wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
>>>>
>>>> ...Still can't get in, huh? ;)
>>>
>>> No. The serial killers and father-rapers are complaining that
>>> being forced to share a jail with him would be cruel and unusual
>>> punishment.
>>
>> ["ahem, THANK you... >_< " expression]
>>
>> (Uh, believe the general *concept* of the joke was to heckle Starky
>> for his statement not quite coming out as he intended?:
>
> And mine was for my own amusement, continuing a line of jokes.
Yes, but rather than stroke Starky's own fantasies (and pretty much
WAITING ON HIM HAND AND FOOT, by troll standards), this one was more
realistically character based from group perspective--
Ie., comically playing off of Starky's latest attempt to update us on
how "close" he is to getting into prison, any minute now, and Showing Us
All, despite the fact that he doesn't quite seem to be able to be
elected Dogcatcher on *that* front lately, either... ;)
(...Remember, true comedy is Specific, and has real-world examples at
its command. Which is the difference that marks Satire apart from "101
Insults for All Occasions".)
Derek Janssen (which is a long way of saying "Sheesh, LET IT GO, and let
the smart people tell the jokes!")
eja...@verizon.net
Warewolf
news:h3f9l2$m83$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> The U.S. Government and many companies realized the best people to help
> plug security holes, early on, was to hire the hackers. In this case,
> the anime companies are realizing that the best way to make the
> fansubbing/fanselling groups into legitimate customers is to allow
> those groups the opportunity to become legitimate themselves.
>
> This is the SMART thing to do. It allows people who might otherwise be
> arrested and spend years contributing nothing to society (in fact,
> costing society something like $100,000 per year) to instead take a
> now-legitimate business and SAVE the industry they might otherwise
> have hurt.
Yeah? Well, tell that to (the deaf ears of) Square-Enix - they weren't
exactly being 'Echo-friendly' a couple of months ago.
Still, maybe they'll come to their senses and actually *reward* that
brand of 'customer loyalty'.
Vivendi certainly did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silver_Lining_(game)
(although that was *AFTER* their seats had been heated to 500 degrees by
the series' angered fanbase)
It's also why I don't buy too many retail games anymore - there's been
too much 'perfume' (aka 'Politics' and 'Corporate Laziness') sprayed
inside the boxes over the last couple of years. }X^�
Signed,
Warewolf
who knows that the road to Vaporware is paved with good intentions as
well.
Gerardo Campos
>
>
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C47AE28...@130.133.1.20...
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009 04:42:42p:
>>> I don't have a company from whom I usually buy gas. In addition, I
>>> don't give a shit about "origins". I said that giving money to
>>> Crunchyroll was something immoral because the creators of
>>> Crunchyroll deliberately engaged in illegal profiteering to get to
>>> their current position. Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago.
>>> Not their grandfathers, not their founding CEO. Them. In the last
>>> couple of years.
>>
>> But you are critizing the people that visit Crunchyroll because
>> Crunchyroll "origins"? Why just don't keep it down to critize
>> Crunchyroll? What fault has the poor sap that learns about
>> Crunchyroll today?
>
> In this, you have one valid point: I drew with too broad a brush
> there. I do not blame the person who uses Crunchyroll while being
> unaware of their origins.
>
> Using it while knowing how they got their position in the market,
> however, is another story.
Ok, we agree on this.
>>> Since you have said that there is a moral equivalence to gasoline,
>>> without knowing where I was or from where I might get gasoline, the
>>> onus is upon you to back up your statement by showing that every
>>> provider of gasoline has profited from illegal acts to get their
>>> current market position. Not a hundred years ago, not a decade ago.
>>> Not their grandfathers, not their founding CEO. Them. In the last
>>> couple of years.
>>>
>>> If you cannot, then your analogy was bunk.
>>
>> As other posters pointed out, the analogy is that gasoline companies
>> do not have a clean record, as neither Crunchyroll
>
> As well say North America cannot criticise China's human rights record
> due to the genocide of Native Americans. It's an invalid analogy,
> because one happened in the past and one is happening right now. It's
> also invalid because China's human rights record does not magically
> become better even if some other country is also bad.
>
> No company on earth has a clean record if you take it back far enough
> and with tenuous enough connections. This does not mean there isn't
> some questionability in buying DeBeers diamonds, nor that anybody that
> refuses to buy DeBeers diamonds is automatically a hypocrite because
> they also drive a car.
Quoting you: "[Criminals] should be prevented from profiting for their
crimes in the exact way they planned to when they committed said crimes
in the first place."
So, based on your standards, buying a DeBeers diamond and driving a Ford
is acceptable today, because those events happened a hundred years ago.
>> Today, a lot of oil companies do not commit criminal offenses, I am
>> talking about the criminal offenses those companies did in the past.
>
> However, I am talking about the criminal offences of the guys who are
> currently profiting from money received by Crunchyroll, and that is
> why your analogy is worthless. Yes, Henry Ford was a bad man, but he's
> also dead. He is not getting a cut when you buy a car.
>
>> So, than based on this, what is wrong with people putting money on
>> Crunchyroll today. And again, I am not saying that Crunchyroll did
>> not commited criminal acts.
>
> What is wrong is that people putting money on Crunchyroll today are
> giving their money to people who committed criminal acts to get to the
> position where they could get that money.
>
> Which is not at all the same thing as "Other people committed criminal
> acts when they created something, which is now in the hands of people
> who didn't commit those acts."
So, based on your standards, it was acceptable to invest in Standard Oil
in 1909, but in 2009 it is not acceptable to do it in a company that had
similar starts
>>> Which has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is moral to
>>> support people who illegally profiteered to gain the position they
>>> currently hold.
>>>
>>> I am no fucking fan of Big Oil, by the way. And I refuse to shop at
>>> Wal-Mart on moral grounds. But this is still apples and oranges.
>>
>> OK, I made a bad analogy or made a poor redacted analogy, but you
>> aknowledge that a lot of today companies, that have a clean record,
>> once had dark past, that was buried and forgotten in history
>
> Of course I do. It's just not relevant to the subject at hand.
But, it will be, since we do not know what will the opinion be of
Crunchyroll in 10, 50 or 100 years
>> I am arguing that you say that people should not spend money on
>> Crunchyroll because of its historical record. But, for you is ok to
>> spend money on gasoline and petrol derivated products despite the oil
>> companies historical criminal records. (or in other companies,
>> despite their criminal behavior in the past)
>
> Because you're talking about things that happened over a hundred years
> ago to indict Big Oil, and I'm talking about things that happened less
> than five years ago, committed by the same people currently profiting
> from Crunchyroll. Apples and oranges. If an immortal cyborg William
> Randolph Hearst still owned the San Francisco Examiner, I'd say it'd
> be a comparable analogy to not buy said paper, but since he died in
> 1951, holding the Spanish-American War against Philip Anschutz isn't
> quite as fair.
Then lets wait when the founders of crunchyroll pass away, and then the
company can not be blamed for the founders crimes.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Gerardo Campos
> "Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:4a5bbd37...@news.individual.net...
>>>You still made massive assumptions, since you don't know where I
>>>live. For instance, my power comes primarily from hydroelectricity
>>>here.
>>
>> Since I do know where you live... Slightly less than half of your
>> electricity comes from nuclear power. Enough of the remainder comes
>> from coal-fired plants that hydroelectricity is no longer the source
>> of the majority of your electricity. For exact numbers, ask the
>> company that sells you your power.
>
> You'll forgive me for mistaking "Ontario Hydro" for being primarily a
> hydroelectric company, especially given Canada is the only country in
> the world to have over half of its electricity (59%) produced by
> hydroelectric means. I have no reason to doubt you. But this doesn't
> fucking matter, as has been pointed out in previous posts. Pay
> attention.
98% of Norway's electricity is comes from hydroelectric plants, followed
by Brazil 85%, Venezuela 67% and Canada 61%. Though only Norway has a
reference to support this claim in the wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Galen
wrote:
>
>Something is still illegal even if nobody is taken to trial for it.
Not it in the case of copyright;
intellectual property rights have not been infringed
until the rights holder makes a complaint. If Crunchy
bought them off with a fairy story, that's legit.
-Galen
Derek Janssen
And THEY make up all of those evil electrons that Crunchyroll uses! ;)
Derek Janssen (sorry, GC, but even Blade's been tryin' to tell you,
somebody's got to be having Fun With Thread Drift[tm] at this point...)
eja...@verizon.net
Gerardo Campos
10:19:10p:
Did you missed the part that I am just pulling Blade's chain with this post
=P
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Farix
Despite all of the arguing, there are a few things that are clear:
1) Crunchyroll has become a legitimate streaming service.
2) Nothing is going to happen to Crunchyroll for its previous copyright
infringements.
3) The Japanese companies are not worrying about previous copyright
infringements if they are making a profit on the service now. The exact
details of the deal between the Japanese companies and Crunchyroll is
unknown. But can anyone honestly say that the Japanese companies
wouldn't authorize their anime being streamed from this site unless they
are get a cut of the subscription fees and ad revenue?
Beyond a few zealots and trolls, noone really cares what Crunchyroll was
in the past. All that matters is is what Crunchyroll is in the here and now.
Farix
paranormalized
> Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote on Mon 13 Jul 2009
> 10:19:10p:
>
> > Gerardo Campos wrote:
>
> >> 98% of Norway's electricity is comes from hydroelectric plants,
> >> followed by Brazil 85%, Venezuela 67% and Canada 61%. Though only
> >> Norway has a reference to support this claim in the wikipedia.
>
> > And THEY make up all of those evil electrons that Crunchyroll uses!
> > ;)
>
> > Derek Janssen (sorry, GC, but even Blade's been tryin' to tell you,
> > somebody's got to be having Fun With Thread Drift[tm] at this
>
> Did you missed the part that I am just pulling Blade's chain with this post
> =P
>
> --
> Saludos
> Gerardo Campos
Personally, I'm getting so annoyed with Blade's argumentation
techniques that I'm thinking of using Crunchyroll a few times just to
piss him off.
He's just too nasty and vociferous too danged often. I have some
moral qualms about CR, enough that I started getting Natsu no Arashi
through other avenues, but Blade's turning the debate into a creature
of black-and-white morality instead of a statement of personal
integrity... it just rubs me wrong.
Jonathan Fisher
currently more upset with Blade than CR... but 2-3 eps will clear that
up, hopefully. ^_^;;
sanjian
The point has never been what they're doing now, but rather how they came
into being. Blade's argument is that the company is born in sin and will
forever be unclean.
I disagree with Blade on this count, but if you're going to argue against
him, could you at least confine it to the point he actually has articulated,
instead of taking retarded side trips into petrodollars?
Blade
"paranormalized" <paranor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:70903c6e-7324-4a9b...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 13, 10:42 pm, Gerardo Campos <macr...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Did you missed the part that I am just pulling Blade's chain with this
>> post
>> =P
First off... what a shock, Gerardo, you're a troll. It's nice to know Mikey
doesn't have to feel alone anymore.
> Personally, I'm getting so annoyed with Blade's argumentation
> techniques that I'm thinking of using Crunchyroll a few times just to
> piss him off.
>
> He's just too nasty and vociferous too danged often. I have some
> moral qualms about CR, enough that I started getting Natsu no Arashi
> through other avenues, but Blade's turning the debate into a creature
> of black-and-white morality instead of a statement of personal
> integrity... it just rubs me wrong.
Is that so?
Well, let's just see what I actually said, shall we?
"I do not give money to immoral thieves. I hate the practice of fansubbing,
but I do not think it necessarily makes people who do it actually bad
people; I have quite a few doubts about the saintly motives attached to them
by many people here and elsewhere in the anime fan community, but I have no
doubt that somewhere there's a fansubber or two who sincerely believes
they're sharing things for others fans, improving the community, et cetera,
and despite my thinking they are going about things in a wrong-headed and
ultimately destructive way, they are probably okay people.
Crunchyroll, however, is run by people who illegally profiteered from anime.
They are absolutely the same as those people who sell fansubs on ebay (other
than being rather more clever and ambitious). There is no ifs, ands or buts
about this. That they wrangled a deal out of a cash-strapped and lazy anime
industry to go "legit" does not change one iota the fact that they are
fucking thieving assholes, and they do not deserve one thin dime. They can
rot in hell, and so will I before I ever use their service."
Yeah, that sure sounds entirely like I made it a black and white morality
thing rather than a statement of personal integrity. Let's try about the
only other post that wasn't sidetracked by Gerardo trolling, shall we?
"Crunchyroll was a service which generated ad revenue for the creators via
showing fansubs. You know how fansubs usually says something to the effect
"This is a free fansub created by fans, for fans. Do not sell, rent, etc,
etc."? Although they released it for "free" to people, Crunchyroll made
money from doing this. Fansubs are illegal to begin with; getting a profit
from them (or any money at all) is even worse.
With this money and their established distribution network, they convinced
certain anime companies to use them as proxies rather than working towards
shutting them down. The Crunchyroll that currently exists deliberately
illegally profiteered from anime and then leveraged that into a legit deal
from North American anime companies. It has long been a tenet in the fansub
community that the fact they're not done for profit makes them better than
just being bootleggers like the infamous Son May and so forth, Crunchyroll
did do it for profit. They are scum. That they have gone legit does not make
them not-scum. I do not want to give any money whatsoever to people who took
anime and illegally made money from it. They do not deserve what they have.
They certainly do not deserve any more. The economic merits or lack thereof
of their distribution deal don't concern me; if a startup that had not
illegally profiteered from anime ended up in the same position, I wouldn't
have any objections to making use of them.
You are, of course, entitled to not share my views, but that's where it
stands from my POV."
Yep, if there's one thing you can say without lying through your teeth, it
is that I definitely made this a black and white thing rather than a
statement of personal integrity.
In some alternate universe somewhere, anyway.
If you had doubts about Crunchyroll formerly but now want to give them money
because I "rub you wrong", then you go right ahead. It's the sort of
childish and ridiculous thing one would expect, given you also have
absolutely no problem flat-out lying about me.
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Derek Janssen wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>> Derek Janssen wrote:
>>>>> Starcade wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they are the future of anime, I am going to prison.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Still can't get in, huh? ;)
>>>>
>>>> No. The serial killers and father-rapers are complaining that
>>>> being forced to share a jail with him would be cruel and unusual
>>>> punishment.
>>>
>>> ["ahem, THANK you... >_< " expression]
>>>
>>> (Uh, believe the general *concept* of the joke was to heckle Starky
>>> for his statement not quite coming out as he intended?:
>>
>> And mine was for my own amusement, continuing a line of jokes.
>
> Yes, but rather than stroke Starky's own fantasies
Of being rejected even by the prison population? Well, whatever.
>
> (...Remember, true comedy is Specific,
I was quite specific.
and has real-world examples at
> its command. Which is the difference that marks Satire apart from "101
> Insults for All Occasions".)
I'm color blind in that range. Most things other people find funny, I
don't.
>
> Derek Janssen (which is a long way of saying "Sheesh, LET IT GO, and let
> the smart people tell the jokes!")
If that was the case, no one on the Internet would ever tell jokes.
Blade
"Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
news:r4sn55plchf6l3pn2...@4ax.com...
I am aware of that particular permutation of copyright law, which is related
to why rights-holders have to sue perceived infringers for fear of losing
their rights.
It does not mean they were not deliberately doing something blatantly
infringing, much like it doesn't mean fansubs are not infringing, something
which has been an accepted fact here in the past.
I am not disputing that Crunchyroll "bought off" the companies and is now
legit for those companies, legally. Since I have never and will likely never
visit their site, I am not aware whether all their content is legitimate, so
I cannot say whether they in fact are safe from future litigation (or that
the companies might rethink their deal).
Once upon a time, as I noted, it was a THING for fansubbers that nobody
profited off their works. It was why they were better than bootleggers. It
was the Last Great Sin, so to speak, and has been quoted to me many, many
times defending them. Nobody ever quoted "Well, it's not TECHNICALLY illegal
until the copyright holders specifically pursue legal action against
fansubber X" as a defence, at least until now.
-
Blade
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we took
all the original people involved out of it and replaced them with new
people who had nothing to do with the original company. He doesn't want
the people who were with Crunchy when they were doing illegal stuff to
be making money now that they've gone legit.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3hq4c$65n$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
So why'd you say "Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now,
because all of their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.", which is
clearly not that at all? If you understood enough of what I said to ask a
legitimate question, why waste my time by attempting to distort my words
into something you knew perfectly well I did not intend?
I'm not certain why there is such a fetish for misrepresenting what I say
around here. Surely if people object to my comments, they can actually
criticise, question, or argue with THEM rather than with some made-up, even
wackier Blade from their imaginations.
-
Blade
paranormalized
> Yep, if there's one thing you can say without lying through your teeth, it
> is that I definitely made this a black and white thing rather than a
> statement of personal integrity.
>
> In some alternate universe somewhere, anyway.
>
> If you had doubts about Crunchyroll formerly but now want to give them money
> because I "rub you wrong", then you go right ahead. It's the sort of
> childish and ridiculous thing one would expect, given you also have
> absolutely no problem flat-out lying about me.
>
> -
> Blade
I thought about making a comment about personal attacks, but refrained
since I felt that such a comment would be offensive. It appears that
black and white morality pushes more buttons than that label. I
apologize. My perception was that someone who denigrates others and
demonizes the opposition was more of a Moralist than a rude,
argumentative bastard, and my thought was that you actually *cared*
about how you presented yourself to a 3rd-party observer.(initially,
now participating)
It appears not.
Sheesh! Calm down, why don't you? Public debate is about public
perception, and you're coming across as a mudslinger. Not a cold,
calm, logician, but a demonizer who will bring up as many minor points
as you can to denigrate the opposition. Why? When Rob called you on
*modern* oil company criminality, you still dismissed him as topic
drift, instead of graciously admitting that such a comparison has some
merit. A logician would have ceded some ground in the face of proof
of a logical analogy, a mudslinger dodges and returns to his favorite
target.
This shit is counterproductive! That's what I've been telling you!
It's annoying people who were originally on your side, can't you
tell? Maybe being concerned about connotation and mood is unrealistic
in an internet debate, but dangit, mankind is an emotional beast. The
most consistent appeal to emotion you have is when you call every
dumbass opponent a lying liar who tells lies, and quite frankly, I
prefer a higher-minded mood.
If I'm descending into childishness, that's the nature of internet
debates. You call me and others unrepentant liars, (oh, wait, now I'm
repenting, but you never said anything about repentance earlier, so
I'm still putting words in your mouth, so I'm still a liar...etc) I
specifically choose a course of action to piss you off. There is a
logic to my actions, and judging by the intensity of your response, it
appears I hit a button harder than I expected. Sorry.
Bleck. I'm probably becoming as much an internet fucktard as anyone
else on this group. I think I'll bail on this debate before I start
acting like a teenage counterstrike player. Even the conscious
rejection of anonymity only delays the effect, nobody is ever as
polite as in physical space...
Jonathan Fisher
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:h3hq4c$65n$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> sanjian wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>>>> Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now, because all of
>>>> their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, previously they were doing illegal things. Now they're not.
>>>
>>> The point has never been what they're doing now, but rather how they
>>> came into being. Blade's argument is that the company is born in sin
>>> and will forever be unclean.
>>
>> No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we took
>> all the original people involved out of it and replaced them with new
>> people who had nothing to do with the original company. He doesn't
>> want the people who were with Crunchy when they were doing illegal
>> stuff to be making money now that they've gone legit.
>
> So why'd you say "Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll
> now, because all of their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.",
(A) because it amused me to say so, and more importantly,
(B) because I consider your position silly. I like the idea of these
guys finding a way to stay out of jail by IMPROVING the situation for
the industry, rather than going to jail, costing society money, and
WORSENING the situation for the industry. To me, Crunchyroll is a
win-win situation; a bunch of guys who COULD have ended up doing hard
time (costing society immensely) for doing something that the industry
SHOULD have been doing (and wasn't, thereby shooting itself in the
foot), are instead now making money legitimately, promoting the industry
they were (putatively, though not really) harming, and the industry is
Getting a Clue.
Your rants on the whole business sound almost like Starky's, which is
not a good thing. There's a big difference between Mafioso Criminals Who
Used To Break Legs And Fit Concrete Overshoes, and Downloading
"Criminals" Who Can't Even Be Clearly Shown To Hurt Anyone.
Now, if to your knowledge Crunchyroll personnel used to physically beat
people into line, left goat heads in people's beds, etc., to promote
their downloading approach and to stifle competition through fear and
violence, THEN your comparison with ex-Mafioso businessman would work
for me and I'd agree they should be out. And arrested. Not for the
downloading crap, though, but for violence, threats, etc.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3hvom$hoj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Blade wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:h3hq4c$65n$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we took
>>> all the original people involved out of it and replaced them with new
>>> people who had nothing to do with the original company. He doesn't want
>>> the people who were with Crunchy when they were doing illegal stuff to
>>> be making money now that they've gone legit.
>>
>> So why'd you say "Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now,
>> because all of their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.",
>
> (A) because it amused me to say so
Then what is the difference between you and any other troll?
You are the third person to admit to trolling in this thread.
I wonder why it is people complain about how abrasive I am, but not about
the fact that people are deliberately trying to provoke a response by being
rude and dishonest?
-
Blade
Giovanni Wassen
> I wonder why it is people complain about how abrasive I am, but not
> about the fact that people are deliberately trying to provoke a
> response by being rude and dishonest?
Perhaps because they are the same people? Just a guess.
--
Gio
http://www.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix
http://watkijkikoptv.info/animeblog
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>
>
>"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>news:4a5bd3dd...@news.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:03:17 -0400, "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> I told Mikey this three days ago: "You seem to be under the delusion
>> that I have either the time or the desire to read everything in this
>> newsgroup. I don't."
>
>But you have time and desire to argue about oil companies? And to reply to
>Mikey? Well, whatever works for you, I suppose.
I replied to Mikey because he falsely accused me by name of being a
thief. As I told you in person last Friday, I have a security clearance
to protect.
And I replied to this subthread because Gerardo is taking part in it.
He's one of the more knowledgable members of this group.
<snip>
>> I *was* discussing the statement you made, back in Message-ID
>> <h3g130$kqf$1...@news.albasani.net>: "So you'd better be ready to prove
>> that the gasoline I use is produced by criminals engaging in illegal
>> acts. Somehow I don't think you're going to be able to do that, though."
>> I presented the proof that you requested. Now you appear to be upset
>> that I did so. <sigh>
>
>As I pointed out, you didn't actually do this. As I also pointed out but
>shouldn't have to, even if you did it would have absolutely no bearing
>whatsoever on the subject under discussion, and is off-topic for this
>newsgroup to boot.
Funny how you didn't say discussing the oil companies was off-topic
until you started losing that discussion... Fine, I'll let it drop.
>> As for Crunchyroll, has anyone taken them to court over what they did
>> last year? Has anyone even threatened to take them to court for those
>> actions? If yes, then I haven't heard about any verdicts or settlements,
>> and thus must presume they are innocent until proven guilty. If not,
>> then the supposed affected parties have seen fit to approve of their
>> actions (they can hardly be unaware of those actions), and under
>> copyright law in both the US and Canada that means no crime has taken
>> place. (Yes, copyright law is in need of a major overhaul. We have to go
>> with what's on the books.) None of this addresses the morality or
>> "rightness" of what the people in charge of Crunchyroll did, only the
>> legality.
>
>Something is still illegal even if nobody is taken to trial for it.
No. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/ has an official (since June 1) copy of
the Copyright Act; please consult it before discussing copyright law.
> It is
>quite true that they can not accurately be called criminals because they
>were never prosecuted. However, their acts were openly illegal. Jack the
>Ripper was never tried, but that doesn't mean there is doubt on the legality
>of chopping up prostitutes. There is no doubt as to the legality (or lack
>thereof) of receiving income from fansubs. Once upon a time, the fansubbing
>community themselves were also very clear on what they thought about that.
>
>Why don't you, instead of arguing about oil companies, try giving your
>thoughts on the morality of profiting monetarily from fansubs? And what you
>think about leveraging said profit into a legitimate endeavour and if the
>people who did this should be supported and rewarded for doing so?
My morals are my own; attempting to apply them to someone else is
paternalism of the worst sort. Thus, I would prefer not to discuss my
morals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:h3hvom$hoj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Blade wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:h3hq4c$65n$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>>> No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we
>>>> took all the original people involved out of it and replaced them
>>>> with new people who had nothing to do with the original company. He
>>>> doesn't want the people who were with Crunchy when they were doing
>>>> illegal stuff to be making money now that they've gone legit.
>>>
>>> So why'd you say "Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll
>>> now, because all of their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.",
>>
>> (A) because it amused me to say so
>
> Then what is the difference between you and any other troll?
That would be the (B) part you snipped.
>
> You are the third person to admit to trolling in this thread.
>
> I wonder why it is people complain about how abrasive I am, but not
> about the fact that people are deliberately trying to provoke a response
> by being rude and dishonest?
Because you come in like a freight train and rant, which INVITES people
to snark and snipe at you. If you came in and simply reasonably
presented your objections, you'd likely get a lot less snarkiness.
Blade
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3i11t$mhk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Blade wrote:
>> Then what is the difference between you and any other troll?
>
> That would be the (B) part you snipped.
Not really. Mikey gives long paragraphs supporting his opinions too. I'll
freely admit you're smarter than him, but you're still being a troll.
>> You are the third person to admit to trolling in this thread.
>>
>> I wonder why it is people complain about how abrasive I am, but not about
>> the fact that people are deliberately trying to provoke a response by
>> being rude and dishonest?
>
> Because you come in like a freight train and rant, which INVITES people to
> snark and snipe at you. If you came in and simply reasonably presented
> your objections, you'd likely get a lot less snarkiness.
I guess some people really do think two wrongs makes a right.
-
Blade
Blade
"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:4a5c84f...@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:52:12 -0400, "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> Funny how you didn't say discussing the oil companies was off-topic
> until you started losing that discussion... Fine, I'll let it drop.
I really don't appreciate it when people lie about me.
I wrote:
"Incidentally, even if your terrible analogy was actually valid, it would in
no way invalidate my point. Even if buying gas was morally equivalent to
supporting Crunchyroll, it would not magically make supporting Crunchyroll
less immoral."
at 7/13/2009, 5:42 p.m.
Your first post in the thread was 7/13/2009, 7:19 p.m. Therefore your
statement above is simply not true, assuming you are saying I started
"losing" the discussion after you posted.
If you are instead insinuating I was "losing" the discussion to Gerardo, I
will point out the following quotes from him:
"OK, not sure how many electricity powered transportation vehicles you
have access to, but let's drop this analogy"
and
"OK, I made a bad analogy or made a poor redacted analogy, but you
aknowledge that a lot of today companies, that have a clean record, once
had dark past, that was buried and forgotten in history"
...from a post made at 6:07 p.m that same day.
If you are insinuating that I do not like to admit when I am mistaken, I
will point out this quote:
"In this, you have one valid point: I drew with too broad a brush there. I
do
not blame the person who uses Crunchyroll while being unaware of their
origins."
... from 6:24 p.m, and:
"> Your previous post may not have been convincing to those not already
> familiar with the argument.
You're right. I apologise, David. "
...from a reply to Sanjian at 5:58 p.m.
>>Why don't you, instead of arguing about oil companies, try giving your
>>thoughts on the morality of profiting monetarily from fansubs? And what
>>you
>>think about leveraging said profit into a legitimate endeavour and if the
>>people who did this should be supported and rewarded for doing so?
>
> My morals are my own; attempting to apply them to someone else is
> paternalism of the worst sort. Thus, I would prefer not to discuss my
> morals.
That is, of course, simply nonsense. You apply your morals to other people
all the time, not least of which in this thread, to me. I could pull up many
other posts where you apply your morals to other people, if you like.
-
Blade
Blade
"Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3i34c$c5u$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
> "Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:4a5c84f...@news.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:52:12 -0400, "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> Funny how you didn't say discussing the oil companies was off-topic
>> until you started losing that discussion... Fine, I'll let it drop.
>
> I really don't appreciate it when people lie about me.
>
> I wrote:
>
> "Incidentally, even if your terrible analogy was actually valid, it would
> in
> no way invalidate my point. Even if buying gas was morally equivalent to
> supporting Crunchyroll, it would not magically make supporting Crunchyroll
> less immoral."
>
> at 7/13/2009, 5:42 p.m.
Upon reflection I realise that is not necessarily a clear enough statement
of "discussion oil companies is off-topic" to definitively show my point.
So, in order to preemptively prevent accusations of dishonesty, I will also
add:
">> Uh, anyone recall how we *weren't actually discussing* the petrochemicsl
>> industry
>
> Yup, until Gerardo brought it up. Not me. So why don't you complain to
> him?
>
> Crunchyroll, incidentally, is a completely on-topic discussion here."
A reply to Derek at 3:11 p.m., where I am clearly agreeing such discussion
is off-topic. Also:
"Of course I do. It's just not relevant to the subject at hand." (referring
to the oil discussion, in response to Gerardo's post quoted in my previous
response)
at 6:24 p.m.
I think it is quite clear that by the point you posted I had agreed the
discussion was off-topic and had repeatedly stated I wasn't interested in
pursuing it. If you didn't think it was clear, I apologise, but nonetheless
I have absolutely no interest in arguing about oil companies on an anime
newsgroup, and frankly it is not hard to figure out that's off-topic.
-
Blade
Gerardo Campos
>
>
> "paranormalized" <paranor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:70903c6e-7324-4a9b...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Jul 13, 10:42 pm, Gerardo Campos <macr...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Did you missed the part that I am just pulling Blade's chain with
>>> this post
>>> =P
>
> First off... what a shock, Gerardo, you're a troll. It's nice to know
> Mikey doesn't have to feel alone anymore.
>
You think that I am a troll, just because I pointed wrong your statement
that Canada is the only country that produces more than half of its
electricity from hydroelectric plants? I though we both were enjoying the
discussion and having fun. Heck, we managed identify which parts of the
discussion we managed to agree and disagree.
As mentioned to you before, I do not realy care what you think of me,
but, just for the record: I may not be usually an active poster, but at
least, I think I had civil discussions with Mike and Eternal Lost Lurker,
not agreeing with them most of the time and probably annoying them, but
so far, this was done without receiving insults or labels from them.
Individuals that are (and were) considered to be the most abrasive, loud
and insulting in this newsgroup.
I think I am done discussing this topic with you, since I have not seen a
response from you to my replies, to your previous posts in this thread.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Blade
"Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C485E4C...@130.133.1.20...
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Tue 14 Jul 2009 06:10:59a:
>> "paranormalized" <paranor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:70903c6e-7324-4a9b...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>> On Jul 13, 10:42 pm, Gerardo Campos <macr...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> Did you missed the part that I am just pulling Blade's chain with
>>>> this post
>>>> =P
>>
>> First off... what a shock, Gerardo, you're a troll. It's nice to know
>> Mikey doesn't have to feel alone anymore.
>>
>
> You think that I am a troll, just because I pointed wrong your statement
> that Canada is the only country that produces more than half of its
> electricity from hydroelectric plants?
I was quoting from Wikipedia on that, so I am fully prepared to admit that
was wrong.
I think you're a troll because you admitted to making a post to "pull my
chain".
I though we both were enjoying the
> discussion and having fun. Heck, we managed identify which parts of the
> discussion we managed to agree and disagree.
To correct your misunderstanding: it was not fun being dragged into an
asinine off-topic discussion about oil companies. I conceded points you made
when you were right and I was not, which is not to be mistaken for "enjoying
the discussion". I very likely would have enjoyed a discussion where you
made an honest attempt to debate my point, so it's too bad you never tried
that.
-
Blade
Galen
wrote:
The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well
have intended to buy the companies off from the beginning,
in which case neither their actions nor their intentions were
criminal. I argue then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual
property is not theft.
-Galen
>
>-
>Blade
Blade
"Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
news:0g5p551ios8i8smq3...@4ax.com...
That's an interesting statement. Let me question your thoughts on it a bit.
Do you think it's morally okay to sell fansubs provided it is with the
intention of turning your fansub-selling operation into something legitimate
later, with the profits of said fansub-selling?
What if Crunchyroll had not been given permission by the companies? Would
they then be morally wrong for profiting from their distribution of fansubs,
or is their intentions all that matter? How does that square with the fact
they are now publically committed to removing all infringing material from
the site?
What if the companies withdraw their permission from Crunchyroll down the
line?
Did you, therefore, never agree with the large number of fansubbers and
their supporters that one important facet of why fansubs are not the same as
bootlegs is that they are distributed for non-profit purposes?
-
Blade
Giovanni Wassen
> The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well
> have intended to buy the companies off from the beginning,
> in which case neither their actions nor their intentions were
> criminal. I argue then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual
> property is not theft.
Stealing a car with the intention of buying it a few days later isn't
theft? It's basically the same.
Gerardo Campos
>
>
> "Gerardo Campos" <mac...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C485E4C...@130.133.1.20...
>> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote on Tue 14 Jul 2009 06:10:59a:
>>> "paranormalized" <paranor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:70903c6e-7324-4a9b...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.co
>>> m. ..
>>>> On Jul 13, 10:42 pm, Gerardo Campos <macr...@mx1.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> Did you missed the part that I am just pulling Blade's chain with
>>>>> this post
>>>>> =P
>>>
>>> First off... what a shock, Gerardo, you're a troll. It's nice to
>>> know Mikey doesn't have to feel alone anymore.
>>>
>>
>> You think that I am a troll, just because I pointed wrong your
>> statement that Canada is the only country that produces more than
>> half of its electricity from hydroelectric plants?
>
> I was quoting from Wikipedia on that, so I am fully prepared to admit
> that was wrong.
>
> I think you're a troll because you admitted to making a post to "pull
> my chain".
OK, I apologize for that, I thought I was being funny at that.
> I though we both were enjoying the
>> discussion and having fun. Heck, we managed identify which parts of
>> the discussion we managed to agree and disagree.
>
> To correct your misunderstanding: it was not fun being dragged into an
> asinine off-topic discussion about oil companies. I conceded points
> you made when you were right and I was not, which is not to be
> mistaken for "enjoying the discussion". I very likely would have
> enjoyed a discussion where you made an honest attempt to debate my
> point, so it's too bad you never tried that.
Ok, my misunderstading, just to make it clear this was my attempt
Your quotes:
1. "Criminals should [not] profit from their crimes."
2. "[Criminals] should be prevented from profiting for their crimes in
the exact way they planned to when they committed said crimes in the
first place.
3. "Fuck them, and fuck anyone who gives them money."
4. "No company on earth has a clean record if you take it back far enough
and with tenuous enough connections. This does not mean there isn't some
questionability in buying DeBeers diamonds, nor that anybody that refuses
to buy DeBeers diamonds is automatically a hypocrite because they also
drive a car."
Your position is: Crunchyroll should not be allowed to be a legit
company.
My poor attempt to reply to you was, using as analogy an industry that
started to flourish 100 years ago, but had a similar startup:
1. Crunchyroll, started by getting revenue in 2007 from anime without
paying the owners of such anime (stealing anime). Western oil companies
started getting revenue in 1907 acquiring a lot illegally land (stealing
land).
2. Crunchyroll made ammends with the anime owners 2 years later, and
attempts to conitnue thier business, and continues to get revenue from
showing anime. Western oil companies, start to fix their crimes 30 to 60
years later, and continue today profiting from the revenue of oil and oil
refined products.
3. Crunchyroll is now geting money from an investment firm and from the
ads targeted to the viewers. Oil companies also got money from
investments in 1907, and are still getting money from investors and
prodcut consumers, consumers that include you.
4. Crunchyroll, is so new, that it does not have the benefit of time to
erase or dim its criminal past records. Oil companies had a hundred years
to clean their act and to appear legitimate businesses.
My position is: If you give Curnchyroll enough time to amend its criminal
record, it should be acceptable for you to visit them.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Farix
>> Once upon a time, as I noted, it was a THING for fansubbers that nobody
>> profited off their works. It was why they were better than bootleggers. It
>> was the Last Great Sin, so to speak, and has been quoted to me many, many
>> times defending them. Nobody ever quoted "Well, it's not TECHNICALLY illegal
>> until the copyright holders specifically pursue legal action against
>> fansubber X" as a defence, at least until now.
>
> The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well
> have intended to buy the companies off from the beginning,
> in which case neither their actions nor their intentions were
> criminal. I argue then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual
> property is not theft.
Whether Crunchyroll intended to compensate the Japanese companies for
the copyright infringements from the beginning has little barring in the
matter. However, the fact that Crunchyroll has compensated the Japanese
companies for the copyright infringements and stopped all further
copyright infringement without going through the courts puts them back
in the "respectable" category.
Farix
Gerardo Campos
> Galen <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote:
>
>> The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well
>> have intended to buy the companies off from the beginning,
>> in which case neither their actions nor their intentions were
>> criminal. I argue then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual
>> property is not theft.
>
> Stealing a car with the intention of buying it a few days later isn't
> theft? It's basically the same.
Paying the car a few days later, may save the robber from having to pay
prison time if the car dealer decides not to prosecute the robber, but that
does not erase the fact that theft and a crime was commited.
--
Saludos
Gerardo Campos
Starcade
> The point has never been what they're doing now, but rather how they came
> into being. Blade's argument is that the company is born in sin and will
> forever be unclean.
And, additionally, so is their clientele. You see, that's the real
kicker: You're presuming legitimacy in a fanbase which does not care
for it.
> I disagree with Blade on this count, but if you're going to argue against
> him, could you at least confine it to the point he actually has articulated,
> instead of taking retarded side trips into petrodollars?
Well, they're trying to use other examples.
Mike (Poorly, but they're trying in any event.)
Starcade
> I am aware of that particular permutation of copyright law, which is related
> to why rights-holders have to sue perceived infringers for fear of losing
> their rights.
Which is why I fully expect the entire concept of copyright to go away
once a judge can be sufficiently bought off, for all realistic intent
and purpose.
> It does not mean they were not deliberately doing something blatantly
> infringing, much like it doesn't mean fansubs are not infringing, something
> which has been an accepted fact here in the past.
I wonder if it's an accepted fact _now_.
Reason I make that statement: It becomes a real question vis-a-vis the
attitudes of the anime fandom whether they even realize (or care!)
that their conduct is illegal and damaging to the system.
> I am not disputing that Crunchyroll "bought off" the companies and is now
> legit for those companies, legally. Since I have never and will likely never
> visit their site, I am not aware whether all their content is legitimate, so
> I cannot say whether they in fact are safe from future litigation (or that
> the companies might rethink their deal).
It doesn't matter -- I mean, look at what the son of a bitch
_admitted_ at AX: "Disruptive Innovation".
He openly wants to kill the present anime industry to _save it_???
He's as mad as the people on this fucking newsgroup!!
> Once upon a time, as I noted, it was a THING for fansubbers that nobody
> profited off their works. It was why they were better than bootleggers. It
> was the Last Great Sin, so to speak, and has been quoted to me many, many
> times defending them. Nobody ever quoted "Well, it's not TECHNICALLY illegal
> until the copyright holders specifically pursue legal action against
> fansubber X" as a defence, at least until now.
Which is why people have to wonder if these leechtards are trying to
finish off the whole shot, because, frankly, the companies would need
to exert worldwide reach to go after them!!
(Which they should've years ago...)
Mike
Starcade
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we took
> all the original people involved out of it and replaced them with new
> people who had nothing to do with the original company. He doesn't want
> the people who were with Crunchy when they were doing illegal stuff to
> be making money now that they've gone legit.
That's his argument -- but not mine.
You cannot save CrunchyRoll in that regard because, to make it
legitimate, you'd also have to run off it's entire former clientele
too.
Here's the problem: BOTH SIDES ARE HOPELESSLY POLLUTED. Both CR
itself and it's "fanbase" need to be excommunicated from the entire
anime demimonde, with greatest prejudice and force -- else there will
be no further anime demimonde...
Mike
Starcade
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in messagenews:h3hq4c$65n$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > sanjian wrote:
> >> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >>> Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now, because all of
> >>> their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.
>
> >>> Yes, previously they were doing illegal things. Now they're not.
>
> >> The point has never been what they're doing now, but rather how they came
> >> into being. Blade's argument is that the company is born in sin and will
> >> forever be unclean.
>
> > No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we took all
> > the original people involved out of it and replaced them with new people
> > who had nothing to do with the original company. He doesn't want the
> > people who were with Crunchy when they were doing illegal stuff to be
> > making money now that they've gone legit.
>
> So why'd you say "Good. Then you'll have no trouble with Crunchyroll now,
> because all of their profit is NOW coming from LEGAL acts.", which is
> clearly not that at all? If you understood enough of what I said to ask a
> legitimate question, why waste my time by attempting to distort my words
> into something you knew perfectly well I did not intend?
To attempt to discredit your argument.
To attempt to paint you into a supposed corner...
> I'm not certain why there is such a fetish for misrepresenting what I say
> around here. Surely if people object to my comments, they can actually
> criticise, question, or argue with THEM rather than with some made-up, even
> wackier Blade from their imaginations.
Are you kidding me? Most of this newsgroup is actively cheering on
the death of the anime industry, both here and in Japan! You are an
enemy to many in this group because you don't leech the corpse to
death.
Mike
Starcade
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> (B) because I consider your position silly. I like the idea of these
> guys finding a way to stay out of jail by IMPROVING the situation for
> the industry, rather than going to jail, costing society money, and
IMPROVING the situation for the industry? How?? By killing it???
You almost seem to make it sound as if the best course of action for
the industry is to "put it to sleep". It's so sick, because it needs
that much money to continue, that it should be done away with for it's
and society's own good???
I'm literally being shoved, by you guys, into Bizzarro World here!
> WORSENING the situation for the industry. To me, Crunchyroll is a
> win-win situation; a bunch of guys who COULD have ended up doing hard
> time (costing society immensely) for doing something that the industry
> SHOULD have been doing (and wasn't, thereby shooting itself in the
> foot),
BULL FUCKING SHIT, YOU CUNT!
The industry should not have been doing shit like that, because
there's no feasible way the industry could justify or recover the
costs necessary to continue anime.
What you are proposing is that the anime industry be put to sleep like
a sick dog or a lame horse.
You seem to continue to forget that quality animation, storytelling,
voice acting, and distribution costs MONEY -- lots and lots of MONEY.
> are instead now making money legitimately, promoting the industry
> they were (putatively, though not really) harming, and the industry is
> Getting a Clue.
No they aren't. They're (the industry) going out of business.
> Your rants on the whole business sound almost like Starky's, which is
> not a good thing. There's a big difference between Mafioso Criminals Who
> Used To Break Legs And Fit Concrete Overshoes, and Downloading
> "Criminals" Who Can't Even Be Clearly Shown To Hurt Anyone.
If you honestly believe that downloading like that is a victimless
crime, then you are a fool and need to be dealt with as such. (Of
course, I suggest you're even worse: That it's the _victims_ of this
crime who are to be eliminated from the equation.)
Mike
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Jul 14, 4:22 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> No, as I read Blade's argument, we could purify the company if we took
>> all the original people involved out of it and replaced them with new
>> people who had nothing to do with the original company. He doesn't want
>> the people who were with Crunchy when they were doing illegal stuff to
>> be making money now that they've gone legit.
>
> That's his argument -- but not mine.
>
> You cannot save CrunchyRoll in that regard because, to make it
> legitimate, you'd also have to run off it's entire former clientele
> too.
>
And here we have the difference between Blade, who can be a pain in the
ass and OTT, and Starky, who's a religious fanatic.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Jul 14, 6:04 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> (B) because I consider your position silly. I like the idea of these
>> guys finding a way to stay out of jail by IMPROVING the situation for
>> the industry, rather than going to jail, costing society money, and
>
> IMPROVING the situation for the industry? How?? By killing it???
By becoming a part of the industry and making money promoting anime.
Thereby, well, promoting the industry.
> If you honestly believe that downloading like that is a victimless
> crime, then you are a fool and need to be dealt with as such.
"Then DO something about it!"
Farix
That's because Mikey doesn't want to admit that it is best to turn that
clientèle into customers instead of letting them continue as leaches.
Leaches aren't doing anything for the industry, customers will keep the
industry alive.
Farix
Galen
wrote:
Morals are different than laws, which is what I thought
we were debating. Morally, the question reduces to:
"When the law is broken, who suffers?"
Claim 1: Free distribution harms commercial distribution,
therefore devalues the property, harming the rights holders.
-- which has been disputed. In any event, non-free bootleg
distribution in competition with free channels cannot reasonably
be doing more harm than the free channels alone, I should think.
And originally, Crunchyroll wasn't doing their own translations,
but simply reselling content already found on the internet; the
harm had already been done before they got involved.
Claim 2: Buggered translations are a libel against the creator
of the original work.
-- I find this argument unassailable, but it does not depend
on whether the unlicensed works are distributed free or not.
>Did you, therefore, never agree with the large number of fansubbers and
>their supporters that one important facet of why fansubs are not the same as
>bootlegs is that they are distributed for non-profit purposes?
In fact, I never did agree with that; the damage to the copyright
holder is not dependent on the degree of profit achieved by the
distributor, and the purpose of the law is to protect the creator(s)
of original works.
Punitive damages should be based on profit, though, since
the intent of punitive damages is deterrence.
>
>What if Crunchyroll had not been given permission by the companies? Would
>they then be morally wrong for profiting from their distribution of fansubs,
>or is their intentions all that matter?
Selling something you don't own with the intention of buying it
later is called "Short Selling"; selling it and not buying it later is
called "naked short selling". The morals of this are still being
debated by experts, but the first is normal business practice
as things stand, and the second is considered actionable.
>How does that square with the fact they are now publically committed
>to removing all infringing material from the site?
Because their business partners asked them to?
Perhaps there is nothing more to it than professional courtesy.
>
>What if the companies withdraw their permission from Crunchyroll down the
>line?
That would effectively involve a C&D order, which
should be treated as any other court order.
Morally, the justification for fansubs is that creation and
distribution of translations increases the value of the original work,
not lessens it. The argument against then profiting from such
distribution is that the distributor is selling something which
they do not own, and don't intend to buy, which is Naked Shorts.
Crunchroll sold what they did not own, but later bought, which
is Short Selling, and more ethical than free distribution with no
compensation to the original creators, the "fansub ethic".
Originally, after all, the declared purpose of fansubs was to
encourage licensing by proving a market; if anything,
Crunchyroll is the paragon of this philosophy.
Allow me to present a second example: http://www.8thman.com/
This store is selling restorations of vintage anime for which they
do not own the rights, and requests that the rights holder contact
them. Many of these rights appear to be in Limbo, with no clear
claimant to enforce them. Since the declared intent of this operation
is to recover and restore these films before they are lost, I would
consider that intent to be moral - and legal so long as it is not
challenged. In the event of challenge, the rights holder would have
the option to declare damages and request compensation - although
I doubt they could prove damages.
-Galen
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
> Galen <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote:
>> The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well have
>> intended to buy the companies off from the beginning, in which case
>> neither their actions nor their intentions were criminal. I argue
>> then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual property is not
>> theft.
>
> Stealing a car with the intention of buying it a few days later isn't
> theft? It's basically the same.
Copyright infringement. Is. Not. Theft. Period.
The difference becomes quite obvious when you realize that after a
copyright infringement the property remains in the possession of the
legitimate owner, whereas after a theft it doesn't. Which is why
copyright infringements are covered by different laws than theft.
cu
59cobalt
--
"My surname is Li and my personal name is Kao, and there is a slight
flaw in my character."
--Li Kao (Barry Hughart: Bridge of Birds)
Starcade
> I wonder why it is people complain about how abrasive I am, but not about
> the fact that people are deliberately trying to provoke a response by being
> rude and dishonest?
Simply, because there are a lot more of "them" than there is of you.
Mike
Starcade
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:52:12 -0400, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Rob Kelk" <robk...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> >news:4a5bd3dd...@news.individual.net...
> >> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:03:17 -0400, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> I told Mikey this three days ago: "You seem to be under the delusion
> >> that I have either the time or the desire to read everything in this
> >> newsgroup. I don't."
>
> >But you have time and desire to argue about oil companies? And to reply to
> >Mikey? Well, whatever works for you, I suppose.
>
> I replied to Mikey because he falsely accused me by name of being a
> thief. As I told you in person last Friday, I have a security clearance
> to protect.
>
> And I replied to this subthread because Gerardo is taking part in it.
> He's one of the more knowledgable members of this group.
Maybe those who grant you that security clearance should be reading
this newsgroup then -- especially given the present fan demimonde, I
would think it at minimum that they would NOT want you so involved
with it.
And, yes, by being in that demimonde, I still so accuse.
Got a problem with it? Take me to court, because you'd have to prove,
by at least preponderance of the evidence, that I am lying.
> >Something is still illegal even if nobody is taken to trial for it.
>
> No.http://laws.justice.gc.ca/has an official (since June 1) copy of
> the Copyright Act; please consult it before discussing copyright law.
That's why people *SHOULD BE* taking everybody and their brother to
court - failure to do so can, in some circles, _nullify the
copyright_.
> My morals are my own; attempting to apply them to someone else is
> paternalism of the worst sort. Thus, I would prefer not to discuss my
> morals.
Then any concept of "law" is, similarly, "paternalism of the worst
sort" -- as a matter of definition!
Mike
Starcade
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in messagenews:h3i11t$mhk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Blade wrote:
> >> Then what is the difference between you and any other troll?
>
> > That would be the (B) part you snipped.
>
> Not really. Mikey gives long paragraphs supporting his opinions too. I'll
> freely admit you're smarter than him, but you're still being a troll.
Like the bitch cares, Blade...
> > Because you come in like a freight train and rant, which INVITES people to
> > snark and snipe at you. If you came in and simply reasonably presented
> > your objections, you'd likely get a lot less snarkiness.
>
> I guess some people really do think two wrongs makes a right.
You just figured that out now???
Mike (The entire anime fan demimonde does that every day -- and three
or four wrongs making it even MORE "right".)
Starcade
> The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well
> have intended to buy the companies off from the beginning,
> in which case neither their actions nor their intentions were
> criminal. I argue then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual
> property is not theft.
So basically, stealing something with the express intent of putting
it's owner out of business is not theft????
What planet are you on?
Mike
Starcade
> "Galen" <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote in message
> > The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well
> > have intended to buy the companies off from the beginning,
> > in which case neither their actions nor their intentions were
> > criminal. I argue then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual
> > property is not theft.
>
> That's an interesting statement. Let me question your thoughts on it a bit.
>
> Do you think it's morally okay to sell fansubs provided it is with the
> intention of turning your fansub-selling operation into something legitimate
> later, with the profits of said fansub-selling?
I think it's even beyond that, in his (and many others') opinion...
It appears clear, especially as more and more information is coming
out, that it is their intention (and damn the consequences of doing
so!) to destroy the anime industry and drive it entirely to digital,
whether or not Japan can support itself with only digital-distro money
from the States.
"Disruptive Innovation", anyone?
> What if Crunchyroll had not been given permission by the companies? Would
> they then be morally wrong for profiting from their distribution of fansubs,
> or is their intentions all that matter? How does that square with the fact
> they are now publically committed to removing all infringing material from
> the site?
It doesn't matter -- and, in fact, it might come back and bite THEM in
the ass. As I said, both sides of the equation are irreparably
screwed.
> What if the companies withdraw their permission from Crunchyroll down the
> line?
What if the leech-"fans" abandon Crunchyroll to sbvert them by
stealing the product from _them_?
> Did you, therefore, never agree with the large number of fansubbers and
> their supporters that one important facet of why fansubs are not the same as
> bootlegs is that they are distributed for non-profit purposes?
I think the new generation of anime fans never did, no.
Mike (... because it is on that theft which their anime fandom relies.)
Starcade
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Starcade wrote:
> > You cannot save CrunchyRoll in that regard because, to make it
> > legitimate, you'd also have to run off it's entire former clientele
> > too.
>
> And here we have the difference between Blade, who can be a pain in the
> ass and OTT, and Starky, who's a religious fanatic.
Perhaps, maybe, the insistence of a re-examination of the anime fandom
as enemies of anime should be taken as the latter, then.
Again, both sides are irreparably fucked up in that regard -- how do
you think Crunchyroll's model actually was able to work? It never
would've worked as a fully-legit digital-distro model from day one.
The anime fandom wouldn't have accepted it -- even had they started
now.
Mike
Starcade
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Starcade wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 6:04 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> (B) because I consider your position silly. I like the idea of these
> >> guys finding a way to stay out of jail by IMPROVING the situation for
> >> the industry, rather than going to jail, costing society money, and
>
> > IMPROVING the situation for the industry? How?? By killing it???
>
> By becoming a part of the industry and making money promoting anime.
> Thereby, well, promoting the industry.
They can't make enough money to continue to sustain the industry,
idiot.
> > If you honestly believe that downloading like that is a victimless
> > crime, then you are a fool and need to be dealt with as such.
>
> "Then DO something about it!"
More than happily -- where do you live?
Mike
Starcade
> That's because Mikey doesn't want to admit that it is best to turn that
> clientèle into customers instead of letting them continue as leaches.
> Leaches aren't doing anything for the industry, customers will keep the
> industry alive.
The very fact that they are anime fans relies on the fact that they
will never be customers.
Force them to be customers, and they _leave the fandom_.
You continue not to get that point...
Mike (... nor the point that their departure is necessary to save said
fandom.)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Any google would tell you that.
Starcade
> Morals are different than laws, which is what I thought
> we were debating. Morally, the question reduces to:
> "When the law is broken, who suffers?"
There is no real difference -- as law is an imposition of morals on a
society and it's members.
> Claim 1: Free distribution harms commercial distribution,
> therefore devalues the property, harming the rights holders.
> -- which has been disputed. In any event, non-free bootleg
> distribution in competition with free channels cannot reasonably
> be doing more harm than the free channels alone, I should think.
> And originally, Crunchyroll wasn't doing their own translations,
> but simply reselling content already found on the internet; the
> harm had already been done before they got involved.
Not necessarily --- their explosive distribution channels gave the
illegal content the audience it's "creators" desired.
> Claim 2: Buggered translations are a libel against the creator
> of the original work.
Does the creator of the original work have the right to see the
transloation and approve it before broadcast?
> >Did you, therefore, never agree with the large number of fansubbers and
> >their supporters that one important facet of why fansubs are not the same as
> >bootlegs is that they are distributed for non-profit purposes?
>
> In fact, I never did agree with that; the damage to the copyright
> holder is not dependent on the degree of profit achieved by the
> distributor, and the purpose of the law is to protect the creator(s)
> of original works.
... so they can make a profit of their own, which is the only reason
they made the work to begin with.
> >What if Crunchyroll had not been given permission by the companies? Would
> >they then be morally wrong for profiting from their distribution of fansubs,
> >or is their intentions all that matter?
>
> Selling something you don't own with the intention of buying it
> later is called "Short Selling"; selling it and not buying it later is
> called "naked short selling". The morals of this are still being
> debated by experts, but the first is normal business practice
> as things stand, and the second is considered actionable.
The intention, though, of Short Selling is that the price of the
product will deteriorate between the selling and buying events. Keep
that in mind.
> >How does that square with the fact they are now publically committed
> >to removing all infringing material from the site?
>
> Because their business partners asked them to?
> Perhaps there is nothing more to it than professional courtesy.
Perhaps they are lying too.
> >What if the companies withdraw their permission from Crunchyroll down the
> >line?
>
> That would effectively involve a C&D order, which
> should be treated as any other court order.
Which they would probably consider nothing more than a "goddamned
piece of paper".
> Morally, the justification for fansubs is that creation and
> distribution of translations increases the value of the original work,
> not lessens it. The argument against then profiting from such
> distribution is that the distributor is selling something which
> they do not own, and don't intend to buy, which is Naked Shorts.
The problem with that argument, as demonstrated by the conduct of the
anime fandom, is that the _illegal_ distribution of that stuff
severely lessens it's value, both in fact and in business senses.
> Crunchroll sold what they did not own, but later bought, which
> is Short Selling, and more ethical than free distribution with no
> compensation to the original creators, the "fansub ethic".
The problem is that the entire process leading to Short Selling has,
as it's intention, the destruction of value.
> Originally, after all, the declared purpose of fansubs was to
> encourage licensing by proving a market; if anything,
> Crunchyroll is the paragon of this philosophy.
Not a market for the fansubs, mind you -- a market for BUYING anime.
This, with the advent of the digital explosion, has been destroyed.
Mike
Starcade
<usenet-2...@planetcobalt.net> wrote:
> Giovanni Wassen <exta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Galen <ga...@nekomimicon.net> wrote:
> >> The difference in this case is that Crunchyroll may very well have
> >> intended to buy the companies off from the beginning, in which case
> >> neither their actions nor their intentions were criminal. I argue
> >> then, that the "adverse possession" of intellectual property is not
> >> theft.
>
> > Stealing a car with the intention of buying it a few days later isn't
> > theft? It's basically the same.
>
> Copyright infringement. Is. Not. Theft. Period.
Bull. Shit.
Without that, there is no property. There can be no concept of
property.
Think: It's Copy Right -- It's the right to determine who can access
the material, and under what circumstances (time, manner, place, and
cost).
If copyright infringement is not theft, then there is no "property" to
exert a copyright on.
> The difference becomes quite obvious when you realize that after a
> copyright infringement the property remains in the possession of the
> legitimate owner, whereas after a theft it doesn't. Which is why
> copyright infringements are covered by different laws than theft.
And that's why copyright will be destroyed in the age of the
Internet. The property, then, has no owner -- and, hence, there can
be no concept of "property".
If you have no license to gain access to a copy of my (intellectual)
property, you are committing theft by accessing it. Otherwise, I have
no right to sell it to ANYONE.
Mike
Rob Kelk
<darkst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 14, 6:24=A0am, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:52:12 -0400, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rob Kelk" <robk...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4a5bd3dd...@news.individual.net...
>> >> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:03:17 -0400, "Blade" <kumonr...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> I told Mikey this three days ago: "You seem to be under the delusion
>> >> that I have either the time or the desire to read everything in this
>> >> newsgroup. I don't."
>>
>> >But you have time and desire to argue about oil companies? And to reply to
>> >Mikey? Well, whatever works for you, I suppose.
>>
>> I replied to Mikey because he falsely accused me by name of being a
>> thief. As I told you in person last Friday, I have a security clearance
>> to protect.
>>
>> And I replied to this subthread because Gerardo is taking part in it.
>> He's one of the more knowledgable members of this group.
>
>Maybe those who grant you that security clearance should be reading
>this newsgroup then -- especially given the present fan demimonde, I
>would think it at minimum that they would NOT want you so involved
>with it.
>
>And, yes, by being in that demimonde, I still so accuse.
Is this demimonde attractive, and does she consent to me being in her?
(Not that my sex life has any bearing on the discussion, mind you.)
Or does that word mean something else in areas not influenced by the
French language? (looks up the word in the online OED) (fails to find
it) (looks up the word in the printed OED) Ah, I see.
You have not offered any proof that I am part of any fan organization
(not can you, since I am not), or that any group of which I am a member
has committed any illegal actions (I refuse to speculate about the
possible activities of people other than myself).
>Got a problem with it? Take me to court, because you'd have to prove,
>by at least preponderance of the evidence, that I am lying.
If you have any proof of your claim, then present it to the authorities.
You cannot, because your claim is false.
Also, the burden of proof lies on the accuser; in this case, you.
>> >Something is still illegal even if nobody is taken to trial for it.
>>
>> No.http://laws.justice.gc.ca/has an official (since June 1) copy of
>> the Copyright Act; please consult it before discussing copyright law.
>
>That's why people *SHOULD BE* taking everybody and their brother to
>court - failure to do so can, in some circles, _nullify the
>copyright_.
You are confusing copyright law with trademark law. (Not a surprise;
many people do.)
>> My morals are my own; attempting to apply them to someone else is
>> paternalism of the worst sort. Thus, I would prefer not to discuss my
>> morals.
>
>Then any concept of "law" is, similarly, "paternalism of the worst
>sort" -- as a matter of definition!
You are confusing morals with ethics. (Not a surprise; many people do.)
--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz
"Aggresive killfiling. I highly recommend it. It isn't personal;
there's just a limited number of hours in the day."
- Russ Allbery (<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>), in message
<yl66l68...@windlord.stanford.edu>