TV Tokyo beats the Naruto fansubbers at their own game
Travers Naran
streaming English-subtitled episodes of the Naruto anime series, about
one hour after their Japanese broadcast, to paid monthly subscribers
worldwide on the Crunchyroll video service on January 8, 2009. "
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/tv-tokyo-to-also-stream-naruto-through-crunchyroll
Although I know Darkstar hates Crunchyroll, and understandably so --
it's like a stolen goods fence becoming a legitimate, legal pawn shop.
But far more interestingly:
"On January 8, Crunchyroll will stop accepting user-submitted videos and
other content from individuals, and only host videos approved by
copyright holders."
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
My prediction was right. The studios would enter the "fansub" business
by providing fast turn-around subs of anime straight on TV.
I do really, really wish them well. Of course if they followed this up
by a co-ordinated enforcement action...
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/5-anime-studios-sue-4-heavy-downloaders-in-singapore
OK, looks like they're getting with the program. As I said before:
carrot-and-stick. Although they might want to lay a little heavier on
the stick once the carrot is in place.
--
-----
Travers Naran, tnaran at google's mail.com
"Welcome to RAAM. Hope you can take a beating..." -- E.L.L.
darkst...@gmail.com
> "The Japanese broadcaster TV Tokyo has announced that it will begin
> streaming English-subtitled episodes of the Naruto anime series, about
> one hour after their Japanese broadcast, to paid monthly subscribers
> worldwide on the Crunchyroll video service on January 8, 2009. "
>
>
> Although I know Darkstar hates Crunchyroll, and understandably so --
> it's like a stolen goods fence becoming a legitimate, legal pawn shop.
Exactly. Said well, Travers. It's not beating the fansubbers at
their game, but joining them. Of course, the problem being that:
More and more people are realizing that the fansubbers are, basically,
_the game_. This all started when that venture capital company
decided to throw it's money behind the "stolen goods fence", leading
to their legitimization.
> But far more interestingly:
>
> "On January 8, Crunchyroll will stop accepting user-submitted videos and
> other content from individuals, and only host videos approved by
> copyright holders."
O --- K.......
Now, they're about to find out that they're going to bite the hand
that has fed them to this point.
I understand, and applaud, the move.
HOWEVER, as I said about the move vis-a-vis the suings in Singapore,
this is a long time too late.
What Crunchyroll, now, is obviously hoping: Their established base of
viewers will stay with them, even though they are becoming an apparent
legitimate service.
The reality: Since they basically only came to the fore as a bunch of
freaking thieves, CrunchyRoll is going into "bit the hand which fed
them" territory. I don't see the people who basically "made"
CrunchyRoll into what it is today staying with them as a fully legit
service.
> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> My prediction was right. The studios would enter the "fansub" business
> by providing fast turn-around subs of anime straight on TV.
Basically, as a no-choice. Eventually, this just takes the North
American situation completely out of play. There's no need, now, for
these people to come to North America, if it's clear that they already
know that too few people would buy in any realistic event.
The real kicker, though: The copyright holders need to enforce that
only official channels get these "studio-endorsed 'fansubs'", and I
don't see that happening without the very same enforcement that I
speak of with respect to the North American industry.
> I do really, really wish them well. Of course if they followed this up
> by a co-ordinated enforcement action...
*ding* *Travers' chair rises about a foot*
Mike
Dave Watson
> On Nov 18, 12:04 am, Travers Naran <tna...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, could you please get your tongues out of each other's mouths
and speak up?
Watson
Who suspects that what will take down Naruto in North America is not
fansubbers, but the domestic video releases catching up to the
enormous clot of filler episodes that closed out the first series in
Japan.
Travers Naran
> Sorry, could you please get your tongues out of each other's mouths
> and speak up?
EWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!! Deborah Gibson only please! :-P
> Watson
> Who suspects that what will take down Naruto in North America is not
> fansubbers, but the domestic video releases catching up to the
> enormous clot of filler episodes that closed out the first series in
> Japan.
It was the slow release schedule that drove Naruto fans into the arms
of piracy and fansubs.
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Nov 18, 5:58 am, Dave Watson <dwbeingupfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, could you please get your tongues out of each other's mouths
> > and speak up?
>
> EWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!! Deborah Gibson only please! :-P
What, you want her too?? :)
(Sorry, couldn't resist that remark. Carry on, Travers...)
> > Watson
> > Who suspects that what will take down Naruto in North America is not
> > fansubbers, but the domestic video releases catching up to the
> > enormous clot of filler episodes that closed out the first series in
> > Japan.
>
> It was the slow release schedule that drove Naruto fans into the arms
> of piracy and fansubs.
You may be right, but here's the rub:
It's already getting to the point that Viz has to question why they
are involved with Naruto at all, especially given the accelerating
pace at which fansubbing is taking over the entire anime culture.
Mike
The Wanderer
Actually, I suspect that in many cases people were already following the
fansubs and simply were unwilling to wait for the official releases to
catch up - even if they had come out at what would have been a perfectly
reasonable rate from the perspective of someone who had not already seen
most of the series. (Alternatively, some people may have been unwilling
to trust the official releases to get it sufficiently right.)
At one point or another I fell into both of those two headings, but
nowadays I just don't watch the series - I don't have the time for much
anime at all anymore, which is part of why I don't post here nearly as
often as I used to.
--
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.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> Travers Naran wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:58 am, Dave Watson <dwbeingupfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Watson Who suspects that what will take down Naruto in North
> > > America is not fansubbers, but the domestic video releases catching
> > > up to the enormous clot of filler episodes that closed out the
> > > first series in Japan.
> >
> > It was the slow release schedule that drove Naruto fans into the arms
> > of piracy and fansubs.
>
> Actually, I suspect that in many cases people were already following the
> fansubs and simply were unwilling to wait for the official releases to
> catch up - even if they had come out at what would have been a perfectly
> reasonable rate from the perspective of someone who had not already seen
> most of the series. (Alternatively, some people may have been unwilling
> to trust the official releases to get it sufficiently right.)
>
> At one point or another I fell into both of those two headings, but
> nowadays I just don't watch the series - I don't have the time for much
> anime at all anymore, which is part of why I don't post here nearly as
> often as I used to.
>
You used to post as often? ^_^
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>"The Japanese broadcaster TV Tokyo has announced that it will begin
>streaming English-subtitled episodes of the Naruto anime series, about
>one hour after their Japanese broadcast, to paid monthly subscribers
>worldwide on the Crunchyroll video service on January 8, 2009. "
>
>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/tv-tokyo-to-also-stream-naruto-through-crunchyroll
>
>Although I know Darkstar hates Crunchyroll, and understandably so --
>it's like a stolen goods fence becoming a legitimate, legal pawn shop.
It's more like a samizdat publication going mainstream, actually.
Crunchyroll never dealt in stolen goods; they dealt in unlicenced IP
(which according to the law is not the same thing).
>But far more interestingly:
>
>"On January 8, Crunchyroll will stop accepting user-submitted videos and
>other content from individuals, and only host videos approved by
>copyright holders."
And what's to stop J.Random User from saying "I'm the copyright holder
on this video" when he uploads it? The answer to that question will
determine whether this is posturing for the publicity or an effective
anti-piracy measure.
>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>My prediction was right. The studios would enter the "fansub" business
>by providing fast turn-around subs of anime straight on TV.
For one title. Hardly an effective experiment, let alone an effective
anti-piracy strategy.
>I do really, really wish them well. Of course if they followed this up
>by a co-ordinated enforcement action...
>
>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/5-anime-studios-sue-4-heavy-downloaders-in-singapore
>
>OK, looks like they're getting with the program. As I said before:
>carrot-and-stick. Although they might want to lay a little heavier on
>the stick once the carrot is in place.
So you want them to follow the MPAA model and sue their customers?
We've all seen how ineffective that is when the MPAA does it; why would
anime studios want so much bad publicity for so little material return?
Better IMHO if they were to follow Baen' mode of operation than the
MPAA's...
--
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"
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:04:36 GMT, Travers Naran <tna...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"The Japanese broadcaster TV Tokyo has announced that it will begin
> >streaming English-subtitled episodes of the Naruto anime series, about
> >one hour after their Japanese broadcast, to paid monthly subscribers
> >worldwide on the Crunchyroll video service on January 8, 2009. "
>
>
> >Although I know Darkstar hates Crunchyroll, and understandably so --
> >it's like a stolen goods fence becoming a legitimate, legal pawn shop.
>
> It's more like a samizdat publication going mainstream, actually.
> Crunchyroll never dealt in stolen goods; they dealt in unlicenced IP
> (which according to the law is not the same thing).
Then the law needs to be changed. The only difference between
unlicensed IP and licensed IP is that, once the license is granted to
someone, the "samizdat publication" is now stealing from TWO parties,
instead of one.
> >But far more interestingly:
>
> >"On January 8, Crunchyroll will stop accepting user-submitted videos and
> >other content from individuals, and only host videos approved by
> >copyright holders."
>
> And what's to stop J.Random User from saying "I'm the copyright holder
> on this video" when he uploads it? The answer to that question will
> determine whether this is posturing for the publicity or an effective
> anti-piracy measure.
Same problem YouTube has -- and, without massive enforcement measures,
I think we all know where that goes. Understand that most of these
people probably think they *DO* have copyright over the others' IP, at
this point -- at least no less enforceable of such.
> >HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> >My prediction was right. The studios would enter the "fansub" business
> >by providing fast turn-around subs of anime straight on TV.
>
> For one title. Hardly an effective experiment, let alone an effective
> anti-piracy strategy.
For probably one of the biggest fansubbed titles of all, though -- of
the level which will probably be necessary, I would assert that this
is a sizeable experiment.
(One which will absolutely crash and burn, as I will get to in a
separate response.)
> >I do really, really wish them well. Of course if they followed this up
> >by a co-ordinated enforcement action...
>
> >http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/5-anime-studios-sue-4...
>
> >OK, looks like they're getting with the program. As I said before:
> >carrot-and-stick. Although they might want to lay a little heavier on
> >the stick once the carrot is in place.
>
> So you want them to follow the MPAA model and sue their customers?
That's the only choice they have. Not that 80% of anime fans actually
constitute "customers".
More like "thieves".
> We've all seen how ineffective that is when the MPAA does it; why would
> anime studios want so much bad publicity for so little material return?
> Better IMHO if they were to follow Baen' mode of operation than the
> MPAA's...
The anime studios are already shit to most anime fans. Here and in
Japan.
Better to actually consider throwing them all out (the "fans") and
starting over.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
interesting angles at which this is going to be huge news going
forward:
1) The end of the R1 DVD industry: Once, for all, and finally.
When Gonzo, while insolvent, capitulated to CrunchyShit, a lot of
people here basically screamed: "WAVE OF THE FUTURE!"
That "wave" will not include DVDs, in any real measure -- certainly
not dubs.
If this situation has any degree of success, the Japanese will simply
(as they can do it -- and those who won't will need to either
consolidate or fold, and you're already seeing some corporate
consolidation over in Japan WRT anime right now!) cut out the
middleman. As I've said, though, the only reason the Japanese are
probably dealing with the Americans to begin with is the necessity of
their money.
This *might* be the end of that necessity.
Also, as I predicted, this sounds like CrunchyRoll becoming a
"licensor", of sorts.
Soon, they'll be the only game in town -- them and the other thief
bastards.
2) This probably means Viz is out of Shippuden. We know Viz has had
very little regard for the anime industry to begin with, the last
several years. What's to say that, at some point very soon, Viz gets
out of anime completely? I mean, there are already rumors that a
cutoff point for their releasings of Bleach has already been set --
what's to say this doesn't indicate that a similar cutoff point for
Naruto hasn't?
3) The second announcement (the end of fansubs at CrunchyRoll) was
probably a necessity to get Naruto Shippuden. Problem: It's abject
suicide for CrunchyRoll. Anyone want to predict the amount of
subscriptions (as a percentage) that CR will lose by January 8? Most
of them want _STOLEN_ anime -- legitimizing CR takes away their reason
for being there.
There's a certain amount of schaudenfreude which comes along with the
thought that the same thing which allowed CR to take down the legit
industry is eventually going to take down CR.
Mike
Travers Naran
> On Nov 18, 10:41 am, Travers Naran <tna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 5:58 am, Dave Watson <dwbeingupfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, could you please get your tongues out of each other's mouths
>>> and speak up?
>> EWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!! Deborah Gibson only please! :-P
>
> What, you want her too?? :)
>
> (Sorry, couldn't resist that remark. Carry on, Travers...)
I was setting it for you. ;-)
Travers Naran
> Given another day to think about it, I think there are three very
> interesting angles at which this is going to be huge news going
> forward:
More fuel for the fire:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2008-11-17/crunchyroll-launches-major-new-digital-distribution-partnership
Highlights:
One objective of the partnership is to combat online piracy.
“Crunchyroll's goal has been to provide a fully legitimate viewing
platform so that anime fans can access the most popular titles in a
timely manner from Japan via an authorized outlet. We are redesigning
the site to ensure that all professionally-produced content is approved
by licensors. This partnership with TV TOKYO, Shueisha and Pierrot is
great validation for online distribution”, said Kun Gao, CEO of
Crunchyroll. “By providing more viewing options to fans and closing the
release gap with domestic broadcast in Japan, Crunchyroll helps fans
satisfy their craving for the latest anime while supporting rights
holders' efforts to monetize their content. This is a very exciting time
to be an anime fan!”
From what I gather from other sites, TV Tokyo would like to do this
world wide. I suspect this could be the beginning of the Final Crackdown...
I gotta admit: this is an exciting development! I'm looking forward to
January now. :-)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Given another day to think about it, I think there are three very
>> interesting angles at which this is going to be huge news going
>> forward:
>
> More fuel for the fire:
> http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2008-11-17/crunchyroll-launches-major-new-digital-distribution-partnership
>
>
> Highlights:
>
> One objective of the partnership is to combat online piracy.
> “Crunchyroll's goal has been to provide a fully legitimate viewing
> platform so that anime fans can access the most popular titles in a
> timely manner from Japan via an authorized outlet. We are redesigning
> the site to ensure that all professionally-produced content is approved
> by licensors. This partnership with TV TOKYO, Shueisha and Pierrot is
> great validation for online distribution”, said Kun Gao, CEO of
> Crunchyroll. “By providing more viewing options to fans and closing the
> release gap with domestic broadcast in Japan, Crunchyroll helps fans
> satisfy their craving for the latest anime while supporting rights
> holders' efforts to monetize their content. This is a very exciting time
> to be an anime fan!”
>
> From what I gather from other sites, TV Tokyo would like to do this
> world wide. I suspect this could be the beginning of the Final
> Crackdown...
By "Crackdown" you mean "Industry getting a clue and realizing that
they need to play the same game as their fans"?
If they sue any significant numbers of the fans, they'll get what the
RIAA got -- Filled with Fail. For fail they have, and are.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
sanjian
"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:4923430...@news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:04:36 GMT, Travers Naran <tna...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"The Japanese broadcaster TV Tokyo has announced that it will begin
>>streaming English-subtitled episodes of the Naruto anime series, about
>>one hour after their Japanese broadcast, to paid monthly subscribers
>>worldwide on the Crunchyroll video service on January 8, 2009. "
>>
>>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/tv-tokyo-to-also-stream-naruto-through-crunchyroll
>>
>>Although I know Darkstar hates Crunchyroll, and understandably so --
>>it's like a stolen goods fence becoming a legitimate, legal pawn shop.
>
> It's more like a samizdat publication going mainstream, actually.
> Crunchyroll never dealt in stolen goods; they dealt in unlicenced IP
> (which according to the law is not the same thing).
Just out of curiosity, what IS the difference? Lost inventory?
darkst...@gmail.com
publicity stunts I've heard in a long time!):
On Nov 18, 7:53 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Travers Naran wrote:
> > darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Given another day to think about it, I think there are three very
> >> interesting angles at which this is going to be huge news going
> >> forward:
>
> > More fuel for the fire:
> >http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2008-11-17/crunchyroll-...
>
> > Highlights:
>
> > One objective of the partnership is to combat online piracy.
ROTFL!
*rolls on the floor*
*rolls some more*
*can't stop laughing*
Oh, that's the funniest situation I've heard of in a long time. Kiss
about 95% of your subscribers goodbye if any wind of that actually
starts blowing in CrunchyRoll Land.
Seriously. Ninety-five percent.
And, from what I've been reading, it sound slike there IS a fair
degree of panic among the subscribers.
CrunchyRoll was *MADE* by online piracy. It'll be broken by it, too.
> > “Crunchyroll's goal has been to provide a fully legitimate viewing
> > platform so that anime fans can access the most popular titles in a
> > timely manner from Japan via an authorized outlet.
Oh, stop lying to us. That may be your goal *now*, but it certainly
was never what got you to the dance, and I fully expect an immediate
shearing of your subscriber base in the next six weeks.
(And I expect it's only their goal now because they needed to make
that commitment to get a title like Naruto...)
> > We are redesigning
> > the site to ensure that all professionally-produced content is approved
> > by licensors.
YouTube would like to talk to you on the probablity of THAT
succeeding. Again, I fully expect an immediate shearing of your
subscriber base, as they flip you, and the entire legit industry, off.
Of course, there *IS* the possibility that someone bought them and are
trying to force them legit, but we'd have heard about that by now.
> > This partnership with TV TOKYO, Shueisha and Pierrot is
> > great validation for online distribution”, said Kun Gao, CEO of
> > Crunchyroll.
Kiss my ass, liar. There's a huge problem with that, and your sorry
thieving ass knows it, Mr. Gao (and I use "Mister" advisedly)...
There's a validation for FREE, _ILLEGAL_ online distribution -- as
long as there are no real consequences for doing it (a state which has
existed in anime fandom for a long time now). But, note the key word
I underlined: Illegal. Once you try to legitimize the process, you
are essentially trying to create a subscription service for legitimate
dissemination of Japanese anime.
Without MASSIVE legal funds, resources, and people to do so, you --
have -- no -- Earthly -- prayer.
None.
Zero.
You not only are going to have to sue the OTHER fansubbers and sites,
but also the individual downloaders, for they are now taking money out
of YOUR pockets, _as well as_ the creators'.
The very people YOU enabled are now your _enemy_. Because they will
undercut you.
Bet on it.
> > “By providing more viewing options to fans and closing the
> > release gap with domestic broadcast in Japan, Crunchyroll helps fans
> > satisfy their craving for the latest anime while supporting rights
> > holders' efforts to monetize their content.
Without a massive legal effort against fansubbers, sites, places like
BitTorrent as a whole, and fans -- that's not going to fly for more
than about six inches.
Does anyone else see how grandiose of a publicity stunt this is?
> > This is a very exciting time to be an anime fan!”
"They say now... Who do... *hummmmmmmmmmm* Who do you think you're
fooling?"
Come on. You've now undercut the anime industry to the point of
bankruptcy... I mean, what, do you honestly believe that, without the
same legal actions which should've put you out of business, you can
become THE worldwide source for anime, finishing off the DVD industry?
Good luck.
> > From what I gather from other sites, TV Tokyo would like to do this
> > world wide. I suspect this could be the beginning of the Final
> > Crackdown...
Travers, it needs to be. But, as I said about the whole situation,
it's about four years too late.
> By "Crackdown" you mean "Industry getting a clue and realizing that
> they need to play the same game as their fans"?
But the problem with that is, Gnat, they are about four years behind a
more popular, better, and more robust model.
It's also an illegal one.
> If they sue any significant numbers of the fans, they'll get what the
> RIAA got -- Filled with Fail. For fail they have, and are.
If you think that option if Filled with Fail, this is 100 times
worse. You can see through that about as much as you can see through
Deborah Gibson's silk lingerie.
Mike (Yeah, I'll invoke that joke. No, I've never actually seen it.)
darkst...@gmail.com
anime moments I've had. 90% of it is basically people preparing to
leave CR.
MAJOR schaudenfreude.
And when they do start going after all the rest, take all your sorry
asses, find the door, and leave anime completely!
Mike (Oh, and fuck the lot of you...)
Travers Naran
> Travers Naran wrote:
>> From what I gather from other sites, TV Tokyo would like to do this
>> world wide. I suspect this could be the beginning of the Final
>> Crackdown...
>
> By "Crackdown" you mean "Industry getting a clue and realizing that
> they need to play the same game as their fans"?
>
> If they sue any significant numbers of the fans, they'll get what
> the RIAA got -- Filled with Fail. For fail they have, and are.
I love how you bring up the RIAA, but never mention the MPAA which has
also been enforcing its copyrights. With the exception of Pirate Bay,
the MPAA has been extremely successful in taking down each major
bittorrent directory that pops up. There hasn't been a great "backlash"
against the movie industry, but that's because the MPAA focuses on the
distributors, not so much the downloaders.
The RIAA went after the wrong people, and paid literally and
figuratively. The MPAA went after the easy availability, and is mostly
winning.
My recommendation to the anime companies is to focus on taking the
distributors off-line. For BitTorrent sources and other P2P sources,
there are technical means of forcing them off. For the rest, a simple
legal notice to the ISP to forward on to the customer works.[1]
Although I'm not a hard-line copyright-taleban like Darkstar, I do
believe that we can only make the market better if we return to "you
sell me something at a price I think is worth it" instead of the "I'm
stealing your anime because I think it should be FREE!" attitude that
seems to pervade some corners of anime fandom.[2]
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7664088.stm
[2] I miss the days of "Buy the DVDs when they come out!" ethos of the
old-school (middle-school?) fans. :-(
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Travers Naran wrote:
>>> From what I gather from other sites, TV Tokyo would like to do this
>>> world wide. I suspect this could be the beginning of the Final
>>> Crackdown...
>>
>> By "Crackdown" you mean "Industry getting a clue and realizing
>> that they need to play the same game as their fans"?
>>
>> If they sue any significant numbers of the fans, they'll get what
>> the RIAA got -- Filled with Fail. For fail they have, and are.
>
> I love how you bring up the RIAA, but never mention the MPAA which has
> also been enforcing its copyrights.
The MPAA has been marginally smarter. Also isn't quite as Stupidly Evil
as the RIAA (close, but not quite).
> With the exception of Pirate Bay,
> the MPAA has been extremely successful in taking down each major
> bittorrent directory that pops up.
If you say so. I know that there isn't a movie that's been on in the
past year that an acquaintance of mine hasn't been able to find online,
at the SAME SITE, for the past year or two. A site which seems to also
offer nearly every TV series (anime and otherwise) ever made.
> There hasn't been a great "backlash"
> against the movie industry, but that's because the MPAA focuses on the
> distributors, not so much the downloaders.
Exactly my point.
>
> The RIAA went after the wrong people, and paid literally and
> figuratively. The MPAA went after the easy availability, and is mostly
> winning.
Like I said, they weren't AS stupid, and that is exactly where they
were smart and the RIAA dumb as posts. But the're not really winning,
either. They're not failing AS FAST, no. There are advantages that
movies have INHERENTLY over music in this context which make it more
difficult for the entire industry to be turned upside down so quickly
(basically, sheer data volume plus higher sensitivity of average
consumer to degraded quality).
If they don't continue to adjust their business model to meet the
modern expectations, though, they'll crash and burn.
> [2] I miss the days of "Buy the DVDs when they come out!" ethos of the
> old-school (middle-school?) fans. :-(
There's plenty who still do that. Dorky thinks that those who steal
should not only all be buying them, but should be counted as PRIOR
market that disappeared, which is lunacy.
Giovanni Wassen
> I love how you bring up the RIAA, but never mention the MPAA which has
> also been enforcing its copyrights. With the exception of Pirate Bay,
> the MPAA has been extremely successful in taking down each major
> bittorrent directory that pops up.
Yeah, bitmetv and demonoid are down too. Oh, wait, they aren't.
--
Gio
http://blog.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix
Abraham Evangelista
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:04:36 GMT, Travers Naran <tna...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"The Japanese broadcaster TV Tokyo has announced that it will begin
>>streaming English-subtitled episodes of the Naruto anime series, about
>>one hour after their Japanese broadcast, to paid monthly subscribers
>>worldwide on the Crunchyroll video service on January 8, 2009. "
>>
>>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/tv-tokyo-to-also-stream-naruto-through-crunchyroll
>>
>>Although I know Darkstar hates Crunchyroll, and understandably so --
>>it's like a stolen goods fence becoming a legitimate, legal pawn shop.
>
>It's more like a samizdat publication going mainstream, actually.
>Crunchyroll never dealt in stolen goods; they dealt in unlicenced IP
>(which according to the law is not the same thing).
>
>
>>But far more interestingly:
>>
>>"On January 8, Crunchyroll will stop accepting user-submitted videos and
>>other content from individuals, and only host videos approved by
>>copyright holders."
>
>And what's to stop J.Random User from saying "I'm the copyright holder
>on this video" when he uploads it? The answer to that question will
>determine whether this is posturing for the publicity or an effective
>anti-piracy measure.
Well I'd think they'd take down the uploads page and source their
video elsewhere.
>>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>>
>>My prediction was right. The studios would enter the "fansub" business
>>by providing fast turn-around subs of anime straight on TV.
>
>For one title. Hardly an effective experiment, let alone an effective
>anti-piracy strategy.
Well, it's not like this is the first time Japanese studios have tried
it. BOST has been open for more than a year now, and there have been
limited day/date releases in Japan for quite some time now.
What I'd really like to see are the statistics for the BOST and
CrunchyRoll sales. Are they selling well enough to be even a minor
revenue stream?
>>I do really, really wish them well. Of course if they followed this up
>>by a co-ordinated enforcement action...
>>
>>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-11-17/5-anime-studios-sue-4-heavy-downloaders-in-singapore
>>
>>OK, looks like they're getting with the program. As I said before:
>>carrot-and-stick. Although they might want to lay a little heavier on
>>the stick once the carrot is in place.
>
>So you want them to follow the MPAA model and sue their customers?
>We've all seen how ineffective that is when the MPAA does it; why would
>anime studios want so much bad publicity for so little material return?
>Better IMHO if they were to follow Baen' mode of operation than the
>MPAA's...
--
Abraham Evangelista
Dave Watson
Gee, and you wonder why we love you so much. Maybe it's not so much
to do with your opinions about anime and its fans so much as it is
about you being a complete and utter smothering-on-your-neck dickhead
about them.
Watson
Off to watch the Puni Puni Poemy DVD he BOUGHT last weekend.
"YEAH, WHATEVER, FUCK YOU, TOO."--All of RAAM except for the one clot
who's now making goo-goo eyes with Stalker Dolt in public.
Rob Kelk
Pretty much, yes. Theft applies to physical property only; distribution
of unlicenced IP is a misappropriation of expressed ideas, in the same
general class as trademark or patent infringement.
--
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
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<dwbeing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 2:10 am, darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Reading the CR forums thread about this is one of the happiest recent
>> anime moments I've had. 90% of it is basically people preparing to
>> leave CR.
>>
>> MAJOR schaudenfreude.
>>
>> And when they do start going after all the rest, take all your sorry
>> asses, find the door, and leave anime completely!
>>
>> Mike (Oh, and fuck the lot of you...)
>
>Gee, and you wonder why we love you so much. Maybe it's not so much
>to do with your opinions about anime and its fans so much as it is
>about you being a complete and utter smothering-on-your-neck dickhead
>about them.
>
So . . . 90% of CrunchyRoll's regular customers are raedy to *stay*
using the Take Everything Darky Says and Reverse It rule of reality,
Darky always being wrong . . .
Crunchy still on a Roll, then!
Derek Janssen
>
> Watson
> Off to watch the Puni Puni Poemy DVD he BOUGHT last weekend.
> "YEAH, WHATEVER, FUCK YOU, TOO."--All of RAAM except for the one clot
> who's now making goo-goo eyes with Stalker Dolt in public.
Travers isn't so much making GGE, so much as the "closet sympathist" who
wants to keep a veneer of social respectability, and try to reduce
everything to "sensible business terms" (he believes) without turning
all activist-like and whooping with the Indians...
Sort of--and Godwin's be darned, but the comparison *works*,
darnit--like the prewar 30's NY businessmen who said "Well, I think that
German painter fellow's as silly as the next man, but it's nice to see
SOMEONE knows how to get Germany's industries back on their feet--He'll
bring good things back to the country, just you wait!"
Derek Janssen ("At least Darky's keeping the industry's trains running
on time!")
eja...@verizon.net
Travers Naran
> Dave Watson wrote:
>
> > Watson
> > Off to watch the Puni Puni Poemy DVD he BOUGHT last weekend.
> > "YEAH, WHATEVER, FUCK YOU, TOO."--All of RAAM except for the one clot
> > who's now making goo-goo eyes with Stalker Dolt in public.
>
> Travers isn't so much making GGE, so much as the "closet sympathist" who
> wants to keep a veneer of social respectability, and try to reduce
> everything to "sensible business terms" (he believes) without turning
> all activist-like and whooping with the Indians...
>
> Sort of--and Godwin's be darned, but the comparison *works*,
> darnit--like the prewar 30's NY businessmen who said "Well, I think that
> German painter fellow's as silly as the next man, but it's nice to see
> SOMEONE knows how to get Germany's industries back on their feet--He'll
> bring good things back to the country, just you wait!"
Did he just call me Prescott Bush??
Dunno if I should feel complimented or chagrined. :-)
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Travers Naran wrote:
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> Travers Naran wrote:
> >>> From what I gather from other sites, TV Tokyo would like to do this
> >>> world wide. I suspect this could be the beginning of the Final
> >>> Crackdown...
>
> >> By "Crackdown" you mean "Industry getting a clue and realizing
> >> that they need to play the same game as their fans"?
>
> >> If they sue any significant numbers of the fans, they'll get what
> >> the RIAA got -- Filled with Fail. For fail they have, and are.
>
> > I love how you bring up the RIAA, but never mention the MPAA which has
> > also been enforcing its copyrights.
>
> The MPAA has been marginally smarter. Also isn't quite as Stupidly Evil
> as the RIAA (close, but not quite).
Actually, I think Gnat has brought up the MPAA on more than one
occasion.
> > With the exception of Pirate Bay,
> > the MPAA has been extremely successful in taking down each major
> > bittorrent directory that pops up.
>
> If you say so. I know that there isn't a movie that's been on in the
> past year that an acquaintance of mine hasn't been able to find online,
> at the SAME SITE, for the past year or two. A site which seems to also
> offer nearly every TV series (anime and otherwise) ever made.
The fact is, they just need to take everything the fuck down.
Censorship on the basis of the license to view the material. You see,
I used to play the game the other way too, but the facts are facts:
The survivability of a lot of these entertainment companies requires
proper recompense for their material. And, having met some of the
people behind this in anime (and finding a lot of them to be some of
the nicest people you'll meet), I'm just troubled at the alternative.
> > There hasn't been a great "backlash"
> > against the movie industry, but that's because the MPAA focuses on the
> > distributors, not so much the downloaders.
>
> Exactly my point.
The problem being that they still have to go against the downloaders,
especially if a lot of these movies still need to make money back at
the DVD level.
> > The RIAA went after the wrong people, and paid literally and
> > figuratively. The MPAA went after the easy availability, and is mostly
> > winning.
>
> Like I said, they weren't AS stupid, and that is exactly where they
> were smart and the RIAA dumb as posts. But the're not really winning,
> either. They're not failing AS FAST, no. There are advantages that
> movies have INHERENTLY over music in this context which make it more
> difficult for the entire industry to be turned upside down so quickly
> (basically, sheer data volume plus higher sensitivity of average
> consumer to degraded quality).
I think there's also that the MPAA also has, to its advantage, that
there are still people (fewer than used to) going to the movies, and
that is the main source of the income for the movie studios. Again,
different model than anime.
> > [2] I miss the days of "Buy the DVDs when they come out!" ethos of the
> > old-school (middle-school?) fans. :-(
>
> There's plenty who still do that. Dorky thinks that those who steal
> should not only all be buying them, but should be counted as PRIOR
> market that disappeared, which is lunacy.
No it's not. Again, the question you, then, have to ask: What are
you buying? What are you buying, if you have already stolen the
material? You certainly are NOT buying the anime... That's already
been consumed.
I mean, it's like going to a restaurant, robbing them of the
appetizer, and THEN asking to pay only for the main course.
Mike (... and then, often, robbing them of dessert too.)
Derek Janssen
No, just comparing to the overseas-investing 30's businessmen who would
start out making "normal" statements over cigars, and then two brandies
later, would start making those hypocritical Freudian Slips that showed
they weren't quite as "objective" as they were trying to put off:
"I mean, the man's got a point, it's hard enough trying to get a
business going these days without running to a lot of Jewish bankers,
they're running everything these days..."
(As with Travers' views on the anime industry, where we should keep our
heads and watch the volatile signs of a changing market, but it's good
to finally see those evil freeloading pirate-fanboy leeches get what
they deserve... ;) )
Derek Janssen (remember, we're OBJECTIVE!)
eja...@verizon.net
darkst...@gmail.com
> >And what's to stop J.Random User from saying "I'm the copyright holder
> >on this video" when he uploads it? The answer to that question will
> >determine whether this is posturing for the publicity or an effective
> >anti-piracy measure.
>
> Well I'd think they'd take down the uploads page and source their
> video elsewhere.
I've read parts of over 60 pages of these absolute fuck-tards who
don't give two shits about the anime industry -- rats deserting the
sinking ship. And many of them clearly don't give a damn -- or even
do, and openly want the industry collapsed, as I've been saying about
these idiots for years.
> >>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> >>My prediction was right. The studios would enter the "fansub" business
> >>by providing fast turn-around subs of anime straight on TV.
>
> >For one title. Hardly an effective experiment, let alone an effective
> >anti-piracy strategy.
>
> Well, it's not like this is the first time Japanese studios have tried
> it. BOST has been open for more than a year now, and there have been
> limited day/date releases in Japan for quite some time now.
But this is taking it another step. If this model were to succeed,
there would be no more need to license on the R1 level. Yes, it would
require significant corporate consolidation, but that's coming.
> What I'd really like to see are the statistics for the BOST and
> CrunchyRoll sales. Are they selling well enough to be even a minor
> revenue stream?
There are articles claimed that state that CR has, for the past time
period, been running at least a $70,000/month profit. Can't speak for
BOST.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> Gee, and you wonder why we love you so much. Maybe it's not so much
> to do with your opinions about anime and its fans so much as it is
> about you being a complete and utter smothering-on-your-neck dickhead
> about them.
Read the CR forum thread referred to, and understand that the feeling
is more than mutual. You don't even need to make up witty lines like
what you did -- it's evident in their attitudes and actions toward
anime.
The anime industry would be so much better off with about 1/5 the
number of fans it has now.
Mike (And, for those who scoff, the other 4/5 add nothing to the
process. Nothing.)
Dave Watson
"There are lies, and then there are damned lies, and then there are
statistics."--Mark Twain paraphrasing Benjamin Disraeli.
Watson
Did you know that 100% of people who aren't arseholes hate arseholes?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
First, allow me to compliment you on -- thus far -- NOT responding to
the last sequence of messages. You demonstrate a much stronger will than
you had shown to date, and certainly stronger than many others I've seen.
darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2:49 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> If you say so. I know that there isn't a movie that's been on in the
>> past year that an acquaintance of mine hasn't been able to find online,
>> at the SAME SITE, for the past year or two. A site which seems to also
>> offer nearly every TV series (anime and otherwise) ever made.
>
> The fact is, they just need to take everything the fuck down.
So, shut down all of the Interwebs? Yeah, that'll happen. When 90% of
the business in the world relies on it.
And you thought you have economic troubles NOW.
>> Like I said, they weren't AS stupid, and that is exactly where they
>> were smart and the RIAA dumb as posts. But the're not really winning,
>> either. They're not failing AS FAST, no. There are advantages that
>> movies have INHERENTLY over music in this context which make it more
>> difficult for the entire industry to be turned upside down so quickly
>> (basically, sheer data volume plus higher sensitivity of average
>> consumer to degraded quality).
>
> I think there's also that the MPAA also has, to its advantage, that
> there are still people (fewer than used to) going to the movies, and
> that is the main source of the income for the movie studios. Again,
> different model than anime.
No, it's not. Go look up some numbers. At *BEST* it's equal, and often
-- especially in the case of movies that don't do so well at the box
office -- the DVD and rental sales are several TIMES the box office
receipts.
>
>>> [2] I miss the days of "Buy the DVDs when they come out!" ethos of the
>>> old-school (middle-school?) fans. :-(
>> There's plenty who still do that. Dorky thinks that those who steal
>> should not only all be buying them, but should be counted as PRIOR
>> market that disappeared, which is lunacy.
>
> No it's not.
yes, it is.
> Again, the question you, then, have to ask: What are
> you buying?
The *LEGAL* copy of the anime.
As opposed to the not-legal copy.
> What are you buying, if you have already stolen the
> material? You certainly are NOT buying the anime... That's already
> been consumed.
And this is where you are Wrong.
The difference between the DVD and the anime is that the DVD is a
physical product (encoding the anime), and CAN be stolen -- because
taking THAT PARTICULAR DVD will prevent that DVD from ever being sold.
Infinitely replicable data isn't in any way the same thing. That's why
the LAW ITSELF treats this quite differently -- even though the clueless
try to use the same terminology for it.
>
> I mean, it's like going to a restaurant, robbing them of the
> appetizer, and THEN asking to pay only for the main course.
>
> Mike (... and then, often, robbing them of dessert too.)
Again, no, because the restaurant, in order to make up for that lost
dessert and appetizer, must BUY ANOTHER from its supplier. It has LOST
something. And loses EVERY time someone does that. For those things, it
DOES mean a lost sale, because they COULD have sold that dessert, but
someone took it, and now they can't.
In the case of the downloaders, the company DOES NOT LOSE INVENTORY
from the downloads. Each download costs them NOTHING. Nothing. Zero,
zip, nil, nada. They have exactly the same inventory after 15 trillion
downloads that they had when they started.
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> First, allow me to compliment you on -- thus far -- NOT responding to
> the last sequence of messages. You demonstrate a much stronger will than
> you had shown to date, and certainly stronger than many others I've seen.
Well, there's actual _news_ to discuss -- not just the regular ol'
circle jerk. But if you really need to understand why I so openly
resent you guys so much, actually _read_ what some of these
CrunchyRollers are posting over there on all this.
They're confirming every negative stereotype of anime fandom I have,
at this point -- at least those which haven't already been confirmed
by personal experience.
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2:49 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> If you say so. I know that there isn't a movie that's been on in the
> >> past year that an acquaintance of mine hasn't been able to find online,
> >> at the SAME SITE, for the past year or two. A site which seems to also
> >> offer nearly every TV series (anime and otherwise) ever made.
>
> > The fact is, they just need to take everything the fuck down.
>
> So, shut down all of the Interwebs? Yeah, that'll happen. When 90% of
> the business in the world relies on it.
They're going to need to take all the illegal stuff down, or that 90%
of the business in the world is going to become a much smaller amount
of money than it already is going to!
> And you thought you have economic troubles NOW.
Let me put it this way: I do not believe there is a realistically
solvent company left -- not when the worth of everything in the world
is dwarfed by a derivative set of criminal accounting schemes by a
factor of somewhere between 15 and 25, depending on whose estimates
you believe in.
I believe the whole shit-storm is finished -- it will just have to
play out.
> >> Like I said, they weren't AS stupid, and that is exactly where they
> >> were smart and the RIAA dumb as posts. But the're not really winning,
> >> either. They're not failing AS FAST, no. There are advantages that
> >> movies have INHERENTLY over music in this context which make it more
> >> difficult for the entire industry to be turned upside down so quickly
> >> (basically, sheer data volume plus higher sensitivity of average
> >> consumer to degraded quality).
>
> > I think there's also that the MPAA also has, to its advantage, that
> > there are still people (fewer than used to) going to the movies, and
> > that is the main source of the income for the movie studios. Again,
> > different model than anime.
>
> No, it's not. Go look up some numbers. At *BEST* it's equal, and often
> -- especially in the case of movies that don't do so well at the box
> office -- the DVD and rental sales are several TIMES the box office
> receipts.
That might work for a title which is eagerly awaited -- but for
something which flops so badly that it forces into question the
viability of the performers therein? (Or something which doesn't even
make theatres in the first place...)
> >>> [2] I miss the days of "Buy the DVDs when they come out!" ethos of the
> >>> old-school (middle-school?) fans. :-(
> >> There's plenty who still do that. Dorky thinks that those who steal
> >> should not only all be buying them, but should be counted as PRIOR
> >> market that disappeared, which is lunacy.
>
> > No it's not.
>
> yes, it is.
No it's not. (I can do that too. Now to the actual _answer_ to my
question -- or at least your approximation thereof...)
> > Again, the question you, then, have to ask: What are
> > you buying?
>
> The *LEGAL* copy of the anime.
Worth zero as an anime itself, especially because you ripped them off
of all real material on said "*LEGAL* copy".
You forget that that "*LEGAL* copy" should be the FIRST copy you view,
if you consider the anime, in and of itself, to be the product.
You have, in effect, consumed it twice. You consumed it the first
time with the illegal download, before you gained the continual
license to actually consume the product.
> As opposed to the not-legal copy.
But the anime on that "not-legal copy" has just as many legal
protections as the one you bought on the "*LEGAL* copy". You have, in
effect, two copies of that anime.
> > What are you buying, if you have already stolen the
> > material? You certainly are NOT buying the anime... That's already
> > been consumed.
>
> And this is where you are Wrong.
>
> The difference between the DVD and the anime is that the DVD is a
> physical product (encoding the anime), and CAN be stolen -- because
> taking THAT PARTICULAR DVD will prevent that DVD from ever being sold.
Doesn't matter. If that's the case, you are, then, buying the DVD --
essentially as merchandise. Logo merchandise, no different than the
plushies and the backpacks and the pillows, caps, what have you. You
are, then, *NOT* buying the anime. The anime, in and of itself, is
then *WORTHLESS*.
You are then buying the _DVD_ as merchandise -- that's it. And that's
where I think you don't get it.
So, basically, the fact that the anime is not a physical product means
it has no rights whatsoever?? Is that what you are trying to pass off
to me?
(You wouldn't be alone if you did, for the record...)
> Infinitely replicable data isn't in any way the same thing. That's why
> the LAW ITSELF treats this quite differently -- even though the clueless
> try to use the same terminology for it.
The problem is, though, the data would be only "infinitely replicable"
_BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT WHICH PLACED IT ON SUCH A MEDIUM_.
I all-cap and underline that because, again, this gets back to people
trying to excuse the illegal and criminal conduct of a so-called
"fanbase". The only reason that even makes the Internet (as far as
illegal conduct is concerned -- free-to-download eps, provided openly,
are another consideration) is because someone (or a whole bunch of
someones) _ILLEGALLY_ put it there.
And then a whole lot of someones _ILLEGALLY_ replicated it -- some to
even branch the illegal tree out further.
Again, you're excusing the illegal conduct of a fanbase which must be
slapped down. Hard. There's no industry otherwise.
> > I mean, it's like going to a restaurant, robbing them of the
> > appetizer, and THEN asking to pay only for the main course.
>
> > Mike (... and then, often, robbing them of dessert too.)
>
> Again, no, because the restaurant, in order to make up for that lost
> dessert and appetizer, must BUY ANOTHER from its supplier. It has LOST
> something.
So has the anime company. The loss, however, is basically the
expectation that their product can be feasibly protected so it can be
(if you prefer, at a later time) sold. You have no real right to view
that material without the license to do so -- that "license" is how
the companies make back their investment and try to make money.
> And loses EVERY time someone does that. For those things, it
> DOES mean a lost sale, because they COULD have sold that dessert, but
> someone took it, and now they can't.
But, again, you seem to confuse that, even if you do buy after you
download, you now have had two copies of the material, no different
than if you stole a DVD and then bought another one later. The horse
was already taken out of the barn a long time ago.
> In the case of the downloaders, the company DOES NOT LOSE INVENTORY
> from the downloads. Each download costs them NOTHING. Nothing. Zero,
> zip, nil, nada. They have exactly the same inventory after 15 trillion
> downloads that they had when they started.
Each download costs them a sale of the product that they put the name
on the bottom line to actually produce or release. Each download
gives the downloader access to a product they had no right to -- no
different than if I just stole dessert from your restaurant.
In your world, there could be no IP industries. None. For as long as
the material were infinitely replicable, it would have no rights
whatsoever, in your view.
Mike
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Nov 19, 3:55 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> First, allow me to compliment you on -- thus far -- NOT responding to
>> the last sequence of messages. You demonstrate a much stronger will than
>> you had shown to date, and certainly stronger than many others I've seen.
>
> Well, there's actual _news_ to discuss -- not just the regular ol'
> circle jerk. But if you really need to understand why I so openly
> resent you guys so much, actually _read_ what some of these
> CrunchyRollers are posting over there on all this.
Why? They're not RELEVANT to my industry. If they wouldn't pay to begin
with, they aren't customers, they're not in my field of view, and won't
be. They're whinging nothings.
>> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 2:49 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> If you say so. I know that there isn't a movie that's been on in the
>>>> past year that an acquaintance of mine hasn't been able to find online,
>>>> at the SAME SITE, for the past year or two. A site which seems to also
>>>> offer nearly every TV series (anime and otherwise) ever made.
>>> The fact is, they just need to take everything the fuck down.
>> So, shut down all of the Interwebs? Yeah, that'll happen. When 90% of
>> the business in the world relies on it.
>
> They're going to need to take all the illegal stuff down, or that 90%
> of the business in the world is going to become a much smaller amount
> of money than it already is going to!
Like I said, shut down all of the Internet? Because that's what it
would take. This is the same problem China faces -- and all oppressive
regimes face -- with respect to keeping their population from learning
things they don't want them to learn. If you give them ANY internet
connection, you're screwed. As one person put it: "The Internet
interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".
This holds true for ANY practice -- legal or illegal -- which doesn't
involve PHYSICAL PRODUCT. Porn, pirated movies or anime, scientific
data, etc., as soon as it's available enough for ONE member of the group
that wants to spread it around to get ahold of it, it's OUT THERE. And
once it's out, you can't reverse time. You can step on all the sprouting
weeds you want, but they will grow EXPONENTIALLY until you give up. Once
you give up, they'll die down to one or three majors and a dozen minor
sources, but if you then suddenly start stomping again, exponential
growth will start again.
>
>> And you thought you have economic troubles NOW.
>
> Let me put it this way: I do not believe there is a realistically
> solvent company left -- not when the worth of everything in the world
> is dwarfed by a derivative set of criminal accounting schemes by a
> factor of somewhere between 15 and 25, depending on whose estimates
> you believe in.
You're a delusional. But then, we've known that for a while.
>
> I believe the whole shit-storm is finished -- it will just have to
> play out.
>
>>>> Like I said, they weren't AS stupid, and that is exactly where they
>>>> were smart and the RIAA dumb as posts. But the're not really winning,
>>>> either. They're not failing AS FAST, no. There are advantages that
>>>> movies have INHERENTLY over music in this context which make it more
>>>> difficult for the entire industry to be turned upside down so quickly
>>>> (basically, sheer data volume plus higher sensitivity of average
>>>> consumer to degraded quality).
>>> I think there's also that the MPAA also has, to its advantage, that
>>> there are still people (fewer than used to) going to the movies, and
>>> that is the main source of the income for the movie studios. Again,
>>> different model than anime.
>> No, it's not. Go look up some numbers. At *BEST* it's equal, and often
>> -- especially in the case of movies that don't do so well at the box
>> office -- the DVD and rental sales are several TIMES the box office
>> receipts.
>
> That might work for a title which is eagerly awaited -- but for
> something which flops so badly that it forces into question the
> viability of the performers therein? (Or something which doesn't even
> make theatres in the first place...)
Yes. It DOES. Flops often "earn out" and make a profit in DVD, even if
they DIED in the box office. One reason that these days you can see a
guy who HAS made a flop or two still making movies.
>
>>>>> [2] I miss the days of "Buy the DVDs when they come out!" ethos of the
>>>>> old-school (middle-school?) fans. :-(
>
>>>> There's plenty who still do that. Dorky thinks that those who steal
>>>> should not only all be buying them, but should be counted as PRIOR
>>>> market that disappeared, which is lunacy.
>>> No it's not.
>> yes, it is.
>
> No it's not. (I can do that too. Now to the actual _answer_ to my
> question -- or at least your approximation thereof...)
>
>>> Again, the question you, then, have to ask: What are
>>> you buying?
>> The *LEGAL* copy of the anime.
>
> Worth zero as an anime itself, especially because you ripped them off
> of all real material on said "*LEGAL* copy".
>
> You forget that that "*LEGAL* copy" should be the FIRST copy you view,
Blah blah blah. That's not business, that's just an opinion. It has NO
-- allow me to repeat that, NO -- bearing on the business end.
>> Infinitely replicable data isn't in any way the same thing. That's why
>> the LAW ITSELF treats this quite differently -- even though the clueless
>> try to use the same terminology for it.
>
> The problem is, though, the data would be only "infinitely replicable"
> _BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT WHICH PLACED IT ON SUCH A MEDIUM_.
You mean, the company that produced the anime is illegal? Okay. Because
THEY are the ones that place their stuff on a medium which is infinitely
replicable. It's called a DVD. I can replicate that data directly. They
hand the stuff out cheap, you know.
> Again, you're excusing the illegal conduct of a fanbase which must be
> slapped down. Hard. There's no industry otherwise.
I'm not "excusing". I'm IGNORING, because if they really wouldn't
purchase, THEY AREN'T CUSTOMERS OF MY BUSINESS. What they do is illegal,
but it's no more relevant to me than the fact that 99% of the people out
there are violating the law speeding every single day. So what?
>> In the case of the downloaders, the company DOES NOT LOSE INVENTORY
>> from the downloads. Each download costs them NOTHING. Nothing. Zero,
>> zip, nil, nada. They have exactly the same inventory after 15 trillion
>> downloads that they had when they started.
>
> Each download costs them a sale of the product
No. it doesn't. If the downloader isn't going to buy it, it costs them
nothing. The ONLY time it counts as a lost sale is if the downloader
WOULD have bought the product, but chooses not to ONLY because he
downloaded it.
This is true in a few cases. In many cases, it's the reverse -- they
won't buy if they can't see it first, and the company doesn't allow them
to. So either they (take the legal course) wait and hope someone they
know takes the risk and buys it and then they can see it, or (take the
illegal course) they download it and sample first. If they like what
they see, they buy.
Note that in the LEGAL case, not only do you end up with vastly fewer
sales anyway -- because the people who would consider if they could see
it never DO see it, and if they do, it's months or years after you'd be
hoping to see your money -- but often they'll do exactly what many
downloaders do -- see the samples, say "eeh, okay, not worth MY money,
thanks for letting me see it, Joe." Is THAT a lost sale to you? If so,
shouldn't they also make sure that you can't ever show your copies to
anyone else who hasn't bought it? They're CONSUMING IT WITHOUT BUYING
IT, you know! Dear lord, we can't have one friend letting another friend
LISTEN TO HIS RECORD ALBUMS!
David Johnston
wrote:
Do you really think 80% of fans never spend anything? If you do,
you're wrong.
The Wanderer
> darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 3:55 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> In the case of the downloaders, the company DOES NOT LOSE
>>> INVENTORY from the downloads. Each download costs them NOTHING.
>>> Nothing. Zero, zip, nil, nada. They have exactly the same
>>> inventory after 15 trillion downloads that they had when they
>>> started.
>>
>> Each download costs them a sale of the product
>
> No. it doesn't. If the downloader isn't going to buy it, it costs
> them nothing. The ONLY time it counts as a lost sale is if the
> downloader WOULD have bought the product, but chooses not to ONLY
> because he downloaded it.
I've had this argument with him, though perhaps not as well as you
could.
He refuses to acknowledge that in order for the company to have lost the
sale, they have to have "had" the sale in the first place - or rather,
as best I can frame the matter, he holds that by the act of illegally
obtaining the material, a person simultaneously gives the company the
sale (because they now have the material, which they could not have
legitimately obtained without buying it) and takes it away (because they
have not paid the company for the material), and that the latter
qualifies the act of illegally obtaining as the loss of a sale.
He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because the
person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
What he would think about a person who obtained a copy illegally and
then later sent the full price of the equivalent legal copy to the
company, I don't know, but I suspect he'd say that that's also not good
enough; I'm not sure what his rationale would be. (Frankly, I've
considered doing that a few times in the past myself, for something
whose outside-the-license form was far preferable to the licensed form -
fansubbed Sailor Moon vs. the dubbed release, for instance. I never
actually did it, but the idea was there.)
--
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.
Farix
I seriously doubt that many people will leave CR. Yes, a lot of them are
blowing a lot of smoke right now about how "other" people will leave.
But it is still smoke and it's now about them.
Farix
Captain Nerd
The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What he would think about a person who obtained a copy illegally and
> then later sent the full price of the equivalent legal copy to the
> company, I don't know, but I suspect he'd say that that's also not good
> enough; I'm not sure what his rationale would be.
I'd call it more of an "irrationale"...
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
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, there's actual _news_ to discuss -- not just the regular ol'
> > circle jerk. But if you really need to understand why I so openly
> > resent you guys so much, actually _read_ what some of these
> > CrunchyRollers are posting over there on all this.
>
> Why? They're not RELEVANT to my industry. If they wouldn't pay to begin
> with, they aren't customers, they're not in my field of view, and won't
> be. They're whinging nothings.
And there's your problem. You just rendered about 80% of the entire
anime fandom as "not customers" and "whinging nothings". The fact
that they are such a huge percentage of anime viewing and fandom makes
it RELEVANT (in fact, I'll leave the all caps because that's what
makes them _that_ relevant).
Basically, the thieves are now running the fucking show. They are
determining which anime get released, which -- to a degree -- even get
made, and basically who might survive this mess.
The problem for CR, now, is that they're about to find that out as
hard of a way (if not far worse) as the industry they have polluted
beyond repair has.
> >> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The fact is, they just need to take everything the fuck down.
> >> So, shut down all of the Interwebs? Yeah, that'll happen. When 90% of
> >> the business in the world relies on it.
>
> > They're going to need to take all the illegal stuff down, or that 90%
> > of the business in the world is going to become a much smaller amount
> > of money than it already is going to!
>
> Like I said, shut down all of the Internet? Because that's what it
> would take.
Probably. But, consider the alternative: There will have to be a day
where the courts just say "there is no such thing as copyright --
since it is so completely unenforceable, when you release something,
it's public. Like it or lump it."
At that point, you have no intellectual property, as an industry. At
that point, no need for the likes of anime or movies or the like.
> This is the same problem China faces -- and all oppressive
> regimes face -- with respect to keeping their population from learning
> things they don't want them to learn. If you give them ANY internet
> connection, you're screwed. As one person put it: "The Internet
> interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".
Agreed. And that's the problem: If you are going to have, though, an
intellectual property of ANY KIND, you have to have a degree of
censorship which prevents it from being disseminated cleanly where
anyone can find it for free, or you won't be around that long.
> This holds true for ANY practice -- legal or illegal -- which doesn't
> involve PHYSICAL PRODUCT. Porn, pirated movies or anime, scientific
> data, etc., as soon as it's available enough for ONE member of the group
> that wants to spread it around to get ahold of it, it's OUT THERE. And
> once it's out, you can't reverse time. You can step on all the sprouting
> weeds you want, but they will grow EXPONENTIALLY until you give up. Once
> you give up, they'll die down to one or three majors and a dozen minor
> sources, but if you then suddenly start stomping again, exponential
> growth will start again.
So, basically, I was right in the preceding post: You believe that,
not only, there are no rights for such non-physical product, but that
there CAN'T BE, neither.
Then good-bye anime. Seriously. All roads you propose seem to lead
to the same end -- the center cannot stand. You see, once you say
what I think you're saying, there CAN'T be a feasible DVD industry, at
that point -- doubly so, not one which is the basis for the recovery
of what you put into the process. And once the Japanese lose the
merchandising end to any realistic effect, my prediction of the
absolute end of anime within half a decade (from the point I made the
prediction) will come true.
With the worldwide economy contracting, that sounds like, more and
more, a safe bet.
> >> And you thought you have economic troubles NOW.
>
> > Let me put it this way: I do not believe there is a realistically
> > solvent company left -- not when the worth of everything in the world
> > is dwarfed by a derivative set of criminal accounting schemes by a
> > factor of somewhere between 15 and 25, depending on whose estimates
> > you believe in.
>
> You're a delusional. But then, we've known that for a while.
GDP of the planet: $55T or so.
Last estimate I heard of the derivative swap market: $1.465
quadrillion.
Do the math yourself.
> >> No, it's not. Go look up some numbers. At *BEST* it's equal, and often
> >> -- especially in the case of movies that don't do so well at the box
> >> office -- the DVD and rental sales are several TIMES the box office
> >> receipts.
>
> > That might work for a title which is eagerly awaited -- but for
> > something which flops so badly that it forces into question the
> > viability of the performers therein? (Or something which doesn't even
> > make theatres in the first place...)
>
> Yes. It DOES. Flops often "earn out" and make a profit in DVD, even if
> they DIED in the box office. One reason that these days you can see a
> guy who HAS made a flop or two still making movies.
That's funny -- most of the flops end up in the bargain bin pretty
close to release, at least where I come from.
> >>> Again, the question you, then, have to ask: What are
> >>> you buying?
> >> The *LEGAL* copy of the anime.
>
> > Worth zero as an anime itself, especially because you ripped them off
> > of all real material on said "*LEGAL* copy".
>
> > You forget that that "*LEGAL* copy" should be the FIRST copy you view,
>
> Blah blah blah. That's not business, that's just an opinion. It has NO
> -- allow me to repeat that, NO -- bearing on the business end.
And that's why there can be no anime business, nor any IP business, in
your world view.
The only defensible position from there is to basically render the
concept of ownership of intellectual material to be abjectly
irrelevant, rendering all such product into the public domain. The
concept, then, of "sale" of such material would be as laughable as the
homeless in many cities ripping off free newspapers and trying to sell
them for their next drug hit.
The ONLY expectation that any company specializing in such product can
have is to control the unauthorized consumption of said product. The
legal copy should (and MUST) be the first copy you view, otherwise,
there's no anime industry. And there can be none, either. Here or in
Japan.
Else, even as a business consideration (over and above how I've asked
the question before), why buy it at all?
> >> Infinitely replicable data isn't in any way the same thing. That's why
> >> the LAW ITSELF treats this quite differently -- even though the clueless
> >> try to use the same terminology for it.
>
> > The problem is, though, the data would be only "infinitely replicable"
> > _BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT WHICH PLACED IT ON SUCH A MEDIUM_.
>
> You mean, the company that produced the anime is illegal? Okay. Because
> THEY are the ones that place their stuff on a medium which is infinitely
> replicable. It's called a DVD. I can replicate that data directly. They
> hand the stuff out cheap, you know.
No. The illegal conduct was the illegal uploading of an illegal work
to the Internet -- only THEN did it become infinitely replicable.
Because, here's the problem: It was infinitely replicable (even more
so than a DVD) _long before it went on the DVD_. That's the problem
with the downloading and fansubbing. Unauthorized product being
illegally altered and uploaded against the license granted these
people (at least those in Japan) to view it.
> > Again, you're excusing the illegal conduct of a fanbase which must be
> > slapped down. Hard. There's no industry otherwise.
>
> I'm not "excusing". I'm IGNORING, because if they really wouldn't
> purchase, THEY AREN'T CUSTOMERS OF MY BUSINESS.
Then the anime industry must expel them forcibly (with the force of
law) and resize to those who are customers. Hello, Bandai Visual-
level pricing.
The only reason that anime is even as "cheap" as it is here in America
is because they believe they can sell to that number of people, when
the number of people they might be able to sell to is, at best, 1/5 or
1/10 of that amount, given the amount of downloading going on.
> What they do is illegal,
> but it's no more relevant to me than the fact that 99% of the people out
> there are violating the law speeding every single day. So what?
If the actions of the 99% you speak of actually impacted your ability
to drive, put out vehicles for a living, or the like, I could possibly
see your argument. The only argument you actually made is that people
don't know how to drive. :)
> >> In the case of the downloaders, the company DOES NOT LOSE INVENTORY
> >> from the downloads. Each download costs them NOTHING. Nothing. Zero,
> >> zip, nil, nada. They have exactly the same inventory after 15 trillion
> >> downloads that they had when they started.
>
> > Each download costs them a sale of the product
>
> No. it doesn't. If the downloader isn't going to buy it, it costs them
> nothing. The ONLY time it counts as a lost sale is if the downloader
> WOULD have bought the product, but chooses not to ONLY because he
> downloaded it.
If the downloader isn't going to buy it, he or she cannot be allowed
to view the product, unless they find themselves in a situation where
they may be authorized to do so (authorized club/convention screening,
television deal, whatever). Again, then you consider the anime to be
abjectly worthless, and, if you do buy, you aren't buying the anime --
but I think we get to that in a second.
> This is true in a few cases. In many cases, it's the reverse -- they
> won't buy if they can't see it first, and the company doesn't allow them
> to. So either they (take the legal course) wait and hope someone they
> know takes the risk and buys it and then they can see it, or (take the
> illegal course) they download it and sample first. If they like what
> they see, they buy.
Then you do what the companies do -- give them one or two episodes.
Again, though: ANY saleable media requires the limitation of who can
consume said media, or it becomes unsaleable. Period.
> Note that in the LEGAL case, not only do you end up with vastly fewer
> sales anyway -- because the people who would consider if they could see
> it never DO see it, and if they do, it's months or years after you'd be
> hoping to see your money -- but often they'll do exactly what many
> downloaders do -- see the samples, say "eeh, okay, not worth MY money,
> thanks for letting me see it, Joe." Is THAT a lost sale to you? If so,
> shouldn't they also make sure that you can't ever show your copies to
> anyone else who hasn't bought it? They're CONSUMING IT WITHOUT BUYING
> IT, you know! Dear lord, we can't have one friend letting another friend
> LISTEN TO HIS RECORD ALBUMS!
Actually, yes. Your example would be another lost sale, because of
the concept of a "fruit of an illegal tree". You're proposing that a
person illegally downloading the material doesn't lose the sale on his
own, and doesn't lose the sale of anyone he shows it to, illegally.
The difference is that there is a limited license that you buy when
you actually buy the record album -- part of it, in most cases, is
private exhibition in your home (or in similar venue or medium).
That's the only real difference between your record album analogy and
the anime downloader one you give above it.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> Do you really think 80% of fans never spend anything? If you do,
> you're wrong.
I think 80% of the fans are only in it because they can steal their
anime.
Force people to pay the value which keeps the industry in business,
and watch the rats run for the door.
Mike
Derek Janssen
> On Nov 19, 5:46 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you really think 80% of fans never spend anything? If you do,
>>you're wrong.
>
>
> I think 80% of the fans are only in it because they can steal their
> anime.
I think. I think. I think I'll have another drink. :)
Derek Janssen (there are two words they teach you NOT to use in Debate
class...)
eja...@verizon.net
darkst...@gmail.com
> I've had this argument with him, though perhaps not as well as you
> could.
>
> He refuses to acknowledge that in order for the company to have lost the
> sale, they have to have "had" the sale in the first place - or rather,
> as best I can frame the matter, he holds that by the act of illegally
> obtaining the material, a person simultaneously gives the company the
> sale (because they now have the material, which they could not have
> legitimately obtained without buying it) and takes it away (because they
> have not paid the company for the material), and that the latter
> qualifies the act of illegally obtaining as the loss of a sale.
No. They take away the sale because of the fact that they have the
material -- the same manner as if they had shoplifted the DVD out
physically.
This is (and here's the key) unless you openly wish to put forward the
idea that the anime itself is financially worthless and the only thing
you purchase when you purchase the DVD is the physical DVD as logo
merchandise -- no different than all the backpacks, plushies, etc. and
so forth, as reiterated.
Let's try this tack: If you do not believe that, then you have to
ascribe some legal financial value to the anime as a product. At that
point, you then must limit any exhibition of that product to an
authorized channel, whether or not you have licensed the anime to
further authorized channels yet. Taking it out of the authorized
channels illegally may well deny that opportunity later.
If the anime is to have a financial value, then the only viewings
which it can have must be authorized by the creators or their
designees. Is that point that hard to understand?
> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because the
> person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
Exactly.
> What he would think about a person who obtained a copy illegally and
> then later sent the full price of the equivalent legal copy to the
> company, I don't know, but I suspect he'd say that that's also not good
> enough; I'm not sure what his rationale would be. (Frankly, I've
> considered doing that a few times in the past myself, for something
> whose outside-the-license form was far preferable to the licensed form -
> fansubbed Sailor Moon vs. the dubbed release, for instance. I never
> actually did it, but the idea was there.)
That, probably, would suffice. In fact, that's probably the ONLY
thing which would suffice, if anything would at all.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> I seriously doubt that many people will leave CR. Yes, a lot of them are
> blowing a lot of smoke right now about how "other" people will leave.
> But it is still smoke and it's now about them.
The fact is that it was always about them -- spitting in the face of
the legit industry. Listen to some of these fuckers. Really read
some of this shit. Some of these kids need to be fucking punched.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 5:46 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >>Do you really think 80% of fans never spend anything? If you do,
> >>you're wrong.
>
> > I think 80% of the fans are only in it because they can steal their
> > anime.
>
> I think. I think. I think I'll have another drink. :)
Look at the numbers from the different surveys regarding fansubbing...
Six million episodes a week don't lie.
Mike (In fact, my firm belief is that 80% only in fandom because of
fansubbing is probably _low_.)
ender
> Is THAT a lost sale to you? If so,
> shouldn't they also make sure that you can't ever show your copies to
> anyone else who hasn't bought it?
Don't the CDs and DVDs already contain disclaimers that it's illegal to
lend them? :)
--
< ender ><><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>< e at ena dot si >
Because 10 billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral...
it arouses such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness.
Giovanni Wassen
> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because the
> person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
--
Gio
http://blog.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because the
>> person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
>
> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>
Actually, he's gotten even sillier. Now it's the fact that you
"consumed" the anime that matters.
By that standard, then, he's UNDERESTIMATING the lost sales. How many
people watch stuff MORE THAN ONCE? So if I download an episode of Naruto
and watch it twice, that's TWO lost sales of Naruto.
In fact, he gets even funnier than THAT: in his last reply to me --
which I haven't replied to because it's just clear that no matter HOW
things go he's just going to get crazier and crazier -- he's now stated
that if I let 4 friends come over and watch my shiny new PURCHASED DVDs,
that's 4 lost sales, because my 4 friends have just "consumed" the anime
without purchasing it.
Giovanni Wassen
> Actually, he's gotten even sillier. Now it's the fact that you
> "consumed" the anime that matters.
But, but, I'll but it if I like it :)
> In fact, he gets even funnier than THAT: in his last reply to me
> --
> which I haven't replied to because it's just clear that no matter HOW
> things go he's just going to get crazier and crazier -- he's now
> stated that if I let 4 friends come over and watch my shiny new
> PURCHASED DVDs, that's 4 lost sales, because my 4 friends have just
> "consumed" the anime without purchasing it.
Oh, right. When I watch a rented dvd or a dvd which was bought by a friend
and I like it there's a big chance I will buy it too.
I don't read darkstar by the way, I like my killfile :)
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because
>> the person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
>
> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view obligated to
have purchased it from the company.
sanjian
"Giovanni Wassen" <ext...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B5C81C55D...@217.19.16.66...
It's a shame so many people insist on dragging him out of it.
Farix
>> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because the
>>> person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
>>
>> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>>
>
>
> Actually, he's gotten even sillier. Now it's the fact that you
> "consumed" the anime that matters.
>
> By that standard, then, he's UNDERESTIMATING the lost sales. How
> many people watch stuff MORE THAN ONCE? So if I download an episode of
> Naruto and watch it twice, that's TWO lost sales of Naruto.
Using that rhetoric, if I watch my DVD copy of Mushi-shi four times,
that means three lost sales. Of course, the utter stupidity of that is
obvious to all except the completely clueless.
> In fact, he gets even funnier than THAT: in his last reply to me --
> which I haven't replied to because it's just clear that no matter HOW
> things go he's just going to get crazier and crazier -- he's now stated
> that if I let 4 friends come over and watch my shiny new PURCHASED DVDs,
> that's 4 lost sales, because my 4 friends have just "consumed" the anime
> without purchasing it.
Do I have to exercise my rights under copyright law again just to
reprove how silly his stance is?
Farix
Giovanni Wassen
>> I don't read darkstar by the way, I like my killfile :)
>
> It's a shame so many people insist on dragging him out of it.
True, but I won't start killfiling those people, they actually have things
to say about anime.
ender
> Using that rhetoric, if I watch my DVD copy of Mushi-shi four times,
> that means three lost sales. Of course, the utter stupidity of that is
> obvious to all except the completely clueless.
...and music/movie execs (then again, they probably fit in the above
definition anyway).
bobbie sellers
darkst...@gmail.com
>
> >> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because
> >> the person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
>
> > Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>
> He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
> obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view obligated to
> have purchased it from the company.
Correct. You still have consumed the anime.
The only alternative is to believe that the DVDs (if and when ever
released) are simply logo merchandise.
Mike
sanjian
> "sanjian" <mun...@vt.edu> wrote:
>
>>> I don't read darkstar by the way, I like my killfile :)
>>
>> It's a shame so many people insist on dragging him out of it.
>
> True, but I won't start killfiling those people, they actually have things
> to say about anime.
It's a tough call for me.
Dave Watson
You mean, like, the same "believing" you do instead of actually
fucking thinking? Get the bozack.
Watson
"Don't just question authority--don't forget to question me."--Jello
Biafra.
Rob Kelk
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>> Each download costs them a sale of the product
Here, the group's resident clueless-one shows that he drank the RIAA's
kool-aid. They and their sycophants are the only ones who still believe
*that* particular falsehood, as far as I know.
He's *never* going to admit that he could possibly be wrong about this,
because too much of his ego is wrapped up in believing the falsehood.
(Or this is a sustained trolling of the group, with the same results.)
There's no point wasting time on him...
<snip>
--
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>
Rob Kelk
<inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because
>>> the person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
>>
>> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>
>He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
>obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view obligated to
>have purchased it from the company.
Well, that *is* part of the old fansubber's ethic as I understand it.
If you got the fansub, you're morally obligated to buy the prosub if
it's ever released.
This doesn't make him right about anything else, but he does have a
point in this one case.
--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> e-mail: s/deadspam/gmail/
"And frankly, if you consider shelling out cash to purchase the Ranma
1/2 manga too much of an expense perhaps you don't like Ranma 1/2
and thus shouldn't be writing fanfiction for it."
- Aaron "Epsilon" Peori ("Hybrid Theory" co-author), 25 Feb 2008
The Wanderer
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:18 -0500, The Wanderer
> <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>>> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>>
>> He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
>> obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view
>> obligated to have purchased it from the company.
>
> Well, that *is* part of the old fansubber's ethic as I understand it.
> If you got the fansub, you're morally obligated to buy the prosub if
> it's ever released.
>
> This doesn't make him right about anything else, but he does have a
> point in this one case.
Oh, no.
He doesn't say "if you got it illegally, you are obligated to buy it
legally later". I used to support that position, at least in principle
if not necessarily in practice, and may in fact still do so.
He holds that doing that would mean you've gotten two copies, but you've
only paid for one. Note that I said "obligated to have purchased",
above; the wording was chosen carefully.
As far as I can tell, his view is that if you've once ever gotten it
illegally, you are forever damned, and can never again regain legitimate
status no matter what you do.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:18 -0500, The Wanderer
> <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>>
>>> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because
>>>> the person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
>>> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>> He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
>> obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view obligated to
>> have purchased it from the company.
>
> Well, that *is* part of the old fansubber's ethic as I understand it.
No, not at all.
The fansubbers' ethic is "If you get the fansub, and later on the real
prosub becomes available, you're obligated to buy it."
The Dorkstar ethic is "If you watch a fansub, view something you didn't
purchase in someone else's home, or in any other way consume by viewing
without your own personal license an anime, you have cost them a sale.
Buying the pro product LATER does NOT make up for this. To make up for
it, you have to buy one for each illegal viewing IN ADDITION to your
legit purchase."
Captain Nerd
<8e399fc2-2ae0-4fdf...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Watson <dwbeing...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's the same "mentality" that the Circuit City folks had when they
came up with the idea of the original "DivX" system. Sure, you pay
for the disk, then you watch it, and if you want to watch it again,
you pay for it again. Why, it was so convenient, all you had to do
was plug your DivX player into your phone line, and it would
automatically charge your credit card!
I'm sure Dorkster would have approved of that system...
Rob Kelk
<inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Rob Kelk wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:18 -0500, The Wanderer
>> <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>
>>>> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>>>
>>> He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
>>> obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view
>>> obligated to have purchased it from the company.
>>
>> Well, that *is* part of the old fansubber's ethic as I understand it.
>> If you got the fansub, you're morally obligated to buy the prosub if
>> it's ever released.
>>
>> This doesn't make him right about anything else, but he does have a
>> point in this one case.
>
>Oh, no.
>
>He doesn't say "if you got it illegally, you are obligated to buy it
>legally later". I used to support that position, at least in principle
>if not necessarily in practice, and may in fact still do so.
>
>He holds that doing that would mean you've gotten two copies, but you've
>only paid for one. Note that I said "obligated to have purchased",
>above; the wording was chosen carefully.
>
>As far as I can tell, his view is that if you've once ever gotten it
>illegally, you are forever damned, and can never again regain legitimate
>status no matter what you do.
Ah. That isn't quite what you wrote earlier...
I guess I'm mistaken about him having a point in this case. Ah, well.
--
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
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:36:03 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
> >darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Each download costs them a sale of the product
>
> Here, the group's resident clueless-one shows that he drank the RIAA's
> kool-aid. They and their sycophants are the only ones who still believe
> *that* particular falsehood, as far as I know.
>
> He's *never* going to admit that he could possibly be wrong about this,
> because too much of his ego is wrapped up in believing the falsehood.
> (Or this is a sustained trolling of the group, with the same results.)
> There's no point wasting time on him...
Umm, Rob... Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
This is a serious question. The entire intellectual property industry
relies on it.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Actually, he's gotten even sillier. Now it's the fact that you
> "consumed" the anime that matters.
Well, is the anime the product or not? If it is, then the argument is
not silly by any means.
> By that standard, then, he's UNDERESTIMATING the lost sales. How many
> people watch stuff MORE THAN ONCE? So if I download an episode of Naruto
> and watch it twice, that's TWO lost sales of Naruto.
I can definitely see that argument, once you start from an *illegal
acquisition of the product*.
This is, of course, different from when you actually gain the license
to view the product as many times as you want -- but that's when you
*gasp!* buy the product.
> In fact, he gets even funnier than THAT: in his last reply to me --
> which I haven't replied to because it's just clear that no matter HOW
> things go he's just going to get crazier and crazier -- he's now stated
> that if I let 4 friends come over and watch my shiny new PURCHASED DVDs,
> that's 4 lost sales, because my 4 friends have just "consumed" the anime
> without purchasing it.
That argument can be made, except for one thing you ignored in reading
my comment: You may have already BOUGHT a right to limited private
exhibition, so you might be able to skate that. But you don't buy an
unlimited license, necessarily. The question, to that end, would be
what license you acquire when you so purchase. If you show it to your
four friends inside of that license, you don't lose sales in an
illegal manner. However, if you do go outside the license, then, YES,
you would've lost the 4 sales.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> Do I have to exercise my rights under copyright law again just to
> reprove how silly his stance is?
You didn't the first time. Sue me, have me arrested, file a C&D on my
ass, or admit you give up your supposed "copyright" when you post. I
still await your lawsuit or FBI investigation.
(The only other alternative would fell USENET in about five minutes.)
You forget these two abjectly immutable truths:
1) If you have a copyright, you have the right to limit who views your
material.
2) Only that limitation allows you to have any real value for your
product.
THAT is why the industry is dying. The only reason they can expect to
get even 99 cents an episode (much less the $24.99-29.99/DVD needed to
keep the industry going) is because they have the right to limit who
views the material. And that's why they need to sue the living Hell
out of not only the providers, but the fans who openly spit in their
face.
Mike (And, oh, BTW... Farix, expectation of personal financial gain
from violation of copyright is not a necessity for such action. I
await your legal action, bitch.)
darkst...@gmail.com
> Rob Kelk wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:04:18 -0500, The Wanderer
> > <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Giovanni Wassen wrote:
> >>> Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
>
> >> He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
> >> obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view
> >> obligated to have purchased it from the company.
>
> > Well, that *is* part of the old fansubber's ethic as I understand it.
> > If you got the fansub, you're morally obligated to buy the prosub if
> > it's ever released.
>
> > This doesn't make him right about anything else, but he does have a
> > point in this one case.
>
> Oh, no.
>
> He doesn't say "if you got it illegally, you are obligated to buy it
> legally later". I used to support that position, at least in principle
> if not necessarily in practice, and may in fact still do so.
>
> He holds that doing that would mean you've gotten two copies, but you've
> only paid for one. Note that I said "obligated to have purchased",
> above; the wording was chosen carefully.
>
> As far as I can tell, his view is that if you've once ever gotten it
> illegally, you are forever damned, and can never again regain legitimate
> status no matter what you do.
You're correct. The only way you could rectify that is to pay for the
first copy.
I just don't understand how it could be looked at otherwise, unless
there is NO obligation, NEVER to buy ANY anime you consume...
Mike (Of course, "at whose prices" could become another discussion..._
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> In article
> <8e399fc2-2ae0-4fdf...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Dave Watson <dwbeing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 3:14 pm, darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 4:04 am, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Giovanni Wassen wrote:
> > > > > The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because
> > > > >> the person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
> > >
> > > > > Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
> > >
> > > > He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
> > > > obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view obligated to
> > > > have purchased it from the company.
> > >
> > > Correct. You still have consumed the anime.
> > >
> > > The only alternative is to believe that the DVDs (if and when ever
> > > released) are simply logo merchandise.
> >
> > You mean, like, the same "believing" you do instead of actually
> > fucking thinking? Get the bozack.
>
> It's the same "mentality" that the Circuit City folks had when they
> came up with the idea of the original "DivX" system. Sure, you pay
> for the disk, then you watch it, and if you want to watch it again,
> you pay for it again. Why, it was so convenient, all you had to do
> was plug your DivX player into your phone line, and it would
> automatically charge your credit card!
>
Technically, they should charge a lot less if it's for use-once-only.
But imagine if this was applied to books! ^_^
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
But what if, since even legal licensed copies allow the owner
to show his legal copy to a limited audience, like say his 5 friends,
would that constitute a loss of 5 sales?
What if 1 friend didn't even want to watch it
but was forced to by the other friends?
What if he showed it to his family, including a 10-month-old baby
who doesn't even know what the heck she's looking at?
Would those constitute a lost sale?
Is there an age limit that gives the right of consent?
What if he passes around his legal copy for everyone to borrow?
What if he set up a Slingbox in Japan to time-shift w/o ads in the US,
watches it with friends while he translates on the fly by narration? ^_^
sanjian
"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:49261592...@news.individual.net...
>>He doesn't say "if you got it illegally, you are obligated to buy it
>>legally later". I used to support that position, at least in principle
>>if not necessarily in practice, and may in fact still do so.
>>
>>He holds that doing that would mean you've gotten two copies, but you've
>>only paid for one. Note that I said "obligated to have purchased",
>>above; the wording was chosen carefully.
>>
>>As far as I can tell, his view is that if you've once ever gotten it
>>illegally, you are forever damned, and can never again regain legitimate
>>status no matter what you do.
>
> Ah. That isn't quite what you wrote earlier...
>
> I guess I'm mistaken about him having a point in this case. Ah, well.
Rob, it's unreasonable to ask that someone be consistent about Mikey's
views. Most humans have a hard time getting their arms around the
completely irrational.
sanjian
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRu...@UofR.SlamSpam.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@uofr.net...
Specifically, college textbooks.
Not that I'm bitter, not that I'm bitter.
sanjian
> <sea...@sgeinc.inval...:
> But what if, since even legal licensed copies allow the owner
> to show his legal copy to a limited audience, like say his 5 friends,
> would that constitute a loss of 5 sales?
> What if 1 friend didn't even want to watch it
> but was forced to by the other friends?
> What if he showed it to his family, including a 10-month-old baby
> who doesn't even know what the heck she's looking at?
> Would those constitute a lost sale?
> Is there an age limit that gives the right of consent?
> What if he passes around his legal copy for everyone to borrow?
>
> What if he set up a Slingbox in Japan to time-shift w/o ads in the US,
> watches it with friends while he translates on the fly by narration? ^_^
How about trailers for new anime? Should we be charged a pro-rated fee?
The Wanderer
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:41:23 -0500, The Wanderer
> <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Rob Kelk wrote:
>>> Well, that *is* part of the old fansubber's ethic as I understand
>>> it. If you got the fansub, you're morally obligated to buy the
>>> prosub if it's ever released.
>>>
>>> This doesn't make him right about anything else, but he does have
>>> a point in this one case.
>>
>> Oh, no.
>>
>> He doesn't say "if you got it illegally, you are obligated to buy
>> it legally later". I used to support that position, at least in
>> principle if not necessarily in practice, and may in fact still do
>> so.
>>
>> He holds that doing that would mean you've gotten two copies, but
>> you've only paid for one. Note that I said "obligated to have
>> purchased", above; the wording was chosen carefully.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, his view is that if you've once ever gotten
>> it illegally, you are forever damned, and can never again regain
>> legitimate status no matter what you do.
>
> Ah. That isn't quite what you wrote earlier...
It's what I intended, and I can still read that intent in the precise
phrasing I used (see above re careful wording), but I'll admit that it
isn't necessarily as obvious as I might have preferred.
> I guess I'm mistaken about him having a point in this case. Ah,
> well.
Disappointing, but not really surprising.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
According to him, yes. I covered that above ("view something you didn't
purchase in someone elses's home").
> What if 1 friend didn't even want to watch it
> but was forced to by the other friends?
He could close his eyes, couldn't he?
> What if he showed it to his family, including a 10-month-old baby
> who doesn't even know what the heck she's looking at?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
> Would those constitute a lost sale?
As far as I can tell.
> Is there an age limit that gives the right of consent?
If he were ever a logical/reasonable person, I would think there would
be, but I can't assume so given his other "points".
> What if he passes around his legal copy for everyone to borrow?
>
DEFINITELY lost sales by the Starcade definition.
> What if he set up a Slingbox in Japan to time-shift w/o ads in the US,
> watches it with friends while he translates on the fly by narration? ^_^
>
ALL of them would be criminals! Jackboots and Bubba the Cellmate for you!
Farix
There's a problem with Darky's consumed rhetoric. When you consume a
produced, then that produced is no longer available and one would have
to obtain another one in order to consume it again. However, once you
watch an anime, the anime is still available to be watched again or be
watched by another. I don't have to redownload it or purchase another
copy. That model as already failed once in the form of DIVX.
As for what do I get when I purchase a DVD. First and foremost, I
purchase a copy for which I can view at my own pleasure and digression
on a widely compatible format. I also get nice artwork on the covers and
inserts and sometimes a pencil board or postcard. And if there is a
artbox for the series, I've usually oped for it. I also get on disk
extras, such as production art. But most importantly of all, I get an
English language track and I feel cheated if there is not English
language track without a major reduction in price. Yes, I'm not a
sub-zealot and can throughly enjoy my anime both subbed and dubbed.
Farix
Rob Kelk
>On Nov 20, 3:02=A0pm, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:36:03 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> >darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Each download costs them a sale of the product
>>
>> Here, the group's resident clueless-one shows that he drank the RIAA's
>> kool-aid. =A0They and their sycophants are the only ones who still believ=
>e
>> *that* particular falsehood, as far as I know.
>>
>> He's *never* going to admit that he could possibly be wrong about this,
>> because too much of his ego is wrapped up in believing the falsehood.
>> (Or this is a sustained trolling of the group, with the same results.)
>> There's no point wasting time on him...
>
>Umm, Rob... Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
>property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
>
>This is a serious question. The entire intellectual property industry
>relies on it.
And this is a serious answer: "The value of a thing is what it will
bring." Any given piece of intellectual property is worth as much as
what somebody is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.
Two real-life examples: Since I was willing to pay $54.95 for the
complete "Rocket Girls" series on DVD, that IP is worth $54.95 to me.
Since I'm not willing to watch any more of "Death Note" at all after
seeing the first two episodes on TV, let alone buy it, that IP is worth
$0 to me.
(This concept is easier to grasp if one has spent any significant length
of time in a market economy that does not have fixed prices, such as
those that exist in many areas of the Middle East...)
--
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"
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> "S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <LostRu...@UofR.SlamSpam.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@uofr.net...
> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 8:18pm-0500, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>:
>
> >
> > It's the same "mentality" that the Circuit City folks had when they
> > came up with the idea of the original "DivX" system. Sure, you pay
> > for the disk, then you watch it, and if you want to watch it again,
> > you pay for it again. Why, it was so convenient, all you had to do
> > was plug your DivX player into your phone line, and it would
> > automatically charge your credit card!
> >
>
> Technically, they should charge a lot less if it's for use-once-only.
> But imagine if this was applied to books! ^_^
>
> Specifically, college textbooks.
>
> Not that I'm bitter, not that I'm bitter.
>
Yeah, I remember spending most of my semester's food money in the
bookstore (t'was when there were still questions on Amazon's reliability).
One look at Hitler's Germany - 9 books! Passed on that class.
Then I learned to borrow books of friends' friends who took
the same classes a semester or year earlier. Ate better after that. ^_^
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
> > Thu, 20 Nov 2008 7:56pm-0500, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> > <sea...@sgeinc.inval...:
> >
> > >
> > > The fansubbers' ethic is "If you get the fansub, and later on the real
> > > prosub becomes available, you're obligated to buy it."
> > >
> > > The Dorkstar ethic is "If you watch a fansub, view something you
> > > didn't purchase in someone else's home, or in any other way consume by
> > > viewing
> > > without your own personal license an anime, you have cost them a sale.
> > > Buying
> > > the pro product LATER does NOT make up for this. To make up for it, you
> > > have
> > > to buy one for each illegal viewing IN ADDITION to your legit purchase."
> > >
> >
> > But what if, since even legal licensed copies allow the owner
> > to show his legal copy to a limited audience, like say his 5 friends,
> > would that constitute a loss of 5 sales?
>
> According to him, yes. I covered that above ("view something you
> didn't purchase in someone elses's home").
>
> > What if 1 friend didn't even want to watch it
> > but was forced to by the other friends?
>
> He could close his eyes, couldn't he?
>
I'm thinking A Clockwork Orange here, you droog! ^_^
>
> > What if he showed it to his family, including a 10-month-old baby
> > who doesn't even know what the heck she's looking at?
>
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
>
> > Would those constitute a lost sale?
>
> As far as I can tell.
>
> > Is there an age limit that gives the right of consent?
>
> If he were ever a logical/reasonable person, I would think there would
> be, but I can't assume so given his other "points".
>
Right of Consent by a Child to Watch or Not to Watch when Forced to Watch?
>
> > What if he passes around his legal copy for everyone to borrow?
> >
>
> DEFINITELY lost sales by the Starcade definition.
>
>
> > What if he set up a Slingbox in Japan to time-shift w/o ads in the US,
> > watches it with friends while he translates on the fly by narration? ^_^
> >
>
> ALL of them would be criminals! Jackboots and Bubba the Cellmate for
> you!
>
Well, the first person "paid" for it by paying for the Slingbox setup
in Japan and whatever TV costs that entail.
But his U.S. friends do not pay any of that and not seeing the ads
and not paying him for his unsanctioned translation services.
You could say it's a free fan-translated setup. ^_^
Invid Fan
<LostRu...@UofR.SlamSpam.net> wrote:
> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 8:18pm-0500, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>:
>
> > In article
> > <8e399fc2-2ae0-4fdf...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dave Watson <dwbeing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 20, 3:14İpm, darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Nov 20, 4:04İam, The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Giovanni Wassen wrote:
> > > > > > The Wanderer <inversepara...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >> He holds also that buying it later doesn't change matters, because
> > > > > >> the person now has had two copies but has only paid for one.
> > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I actually toss away the files after watching them nowadays.
> > > >
> > > > > He seems to have held that that doesn't change anything - you still
> > > > > obtained it, and still have had it, so you are in his view obligated
> > > > > to
> > > > > have purchased it from the company.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. İYou still have consumed the anime.
> > > >
> > > > The only alternative is to believe that the DVDs (if and when ever
> > > > released) are simply logo merchandise.
> > >
> > > You mean, like, the same "believing" you do instead of actually
> > > fucking thinking? Get the bozack.
> >
> > It's the same "mentality" that the Circuit City folks had when they
> > came up with the idea of the original "DivX" system. Sure, you pay
> > for the disk, then you watch it, and if you want to watch it again,
> > you pay for it again. Why, it was so convenient, all you had to do
> > was plug your DivX player into your phone line, and it would
> > automatically charge your credit card!
> >
>
> Technically, they should charge a lot less if it's for use-once-only.
DivX did, as the disks cost something like $5 then charged you iirc the
same each time you watched.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
darkst...@gmail.com
> Rob, it's unreasonable to ask that someone be consistent about Mikey's
> views. Most humans have a hard time getting their arms around the
> completely irrational.
Which is why you frustrate me -- because your views are so completely
irrational with not only copyright law but its necessary application
to keep things like the anime industry in business.
Mike (Yes, I know you are talking about me, but, once again, you're
trying for truth through consensus, not truth through fact.)
darkst...@gmail.com
> There's a problem with Darky's consumed rhetoric. When you consume a
> produced, then that produced is no longer available and one would have
> to obtain another one in order to consume it again. However, once you
> watch an anime, the anime is still available to be watched again or be
> watched by another. I don't have to redownload it or purchase another
> copy. That model as already failed once in the form of DIVX.
The problem is that you still have the product that they should demand
payment for -- again, unless you believe the anime itself to be
abjectly worthless.
Secondly, you have made something no longer available to you. It's
kinda hard to put a finger on it that you'd understand (not that you
guys understand that much), but the thing is that the first time you
view an intellectual property product has great financial value to the
owner of said intellectual property.
> As for what do I get when I purchase a DVD. First and foremost, I
> purchase a copy for which I can view at my own pleasure and digression
> on a widely compatible format.
Most of the leeches, thieves, and bastards would believe that the
computerized download formats even allow those shit-heads greater
latitude. In that vein, what do you really gain by having bought the
product, in that regard?
> I also get nice artwork on the covers and
> inserts and sometimes a pencil board or postcard. And if there is a
> artbox for the series, I've usually oped for it. I also get on disk
> extras, such as production art.
So, in these veins, it is nothing more than logo merchandise -- or
even the purchase thereof...
(Yes, stating this in small words for the small-minded like Farix and
Gnat: I know you have other things on the list...)
> But most importantly of all, I get an
> English language track and I feel cheated if there is not English
> language track without a major reduction in price. Yes, I'm not a
> sub-zealot and can throughly enjoy my anime both subbed and dubbed.
Unfortunately, you do realize two glaring realities:
1) That track basically adds somewhere north of $65K an episode to the
cost.
2) Most of these fucking retards don't want dubs -- not only that, but
the process would take so long that it would delay their precious
viewing within a short period of time of the Japanese airing.
Mike
RichardHudson
wrote:
>Yes, I'm not a
>sub-zealot and can throughly enjoy my anime both subbed and dubbed.
>
>Farix
Unfortunately there are a lot of people on the Internet who ...
Hate Dubs
Hate People who watch/like dubs
Want anime to stay a niche product
Hate new fans.
And they are growing in numbers every day.
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:29:02 -0800 (PST), darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Umm, Rob... Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
> >property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
>
> >This is a serious question. The entire intellectual property industry
> >relies on it.
>
> And this is a serious answer: "The value of a thing is what it will
> bring." Any given piece of intellectual property is worth as much as
> what somebody is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.
Then the answer, in this case: Zero.
Then you must conclude what Sea Wasp does: An infinitely replicable
medium, regardless of contract, copyright, or license, has NO RIGHTS
AT ALL.
None.
Nada.
Zilch.
There is no expectation for recovery, at that point.
And that is where we disagree. Because if the value of the product is
"what it will bring" in the marketplace, the anime industry
collapses. The "market" has already made its choice. Long ago.
Any expectation, given that statement of yours, of any real profit
(even what gains we are hearing from Navarre are in _sales_, not
necessarily _profits_) from the intellectual property is dead. At
that point, if the "market" declares the product to be worth nothing,
it becomes public domain, regardless of license, contract, or
copyright.
> Two real-life examples: Since I was willing to pay $54.95 for the
> complete "Rocket Girls" series on DVD, that IP is worth $54.95 to me.
> Since I'm not willing to watch any more of "Death Note" at all after
> seeing the first two episodes on TV, let alone buy it, that IP is worth
> $0 to me.
Here's the lawyers' problem: That same "IP is worth $0 to the person"
applies to the person who stole "Death Note" off of the Internet.
> (This concept is easier to grasp if one has spent any significant length
> of time in a market economy that does not have fixed prices, such as
> those that exist in many areas of the Middle East...)
That may be true, but, even with somewhat flexible prices, the person
setting the prices is NOT the paying customer (unless we want to go
complete haggle and barter here)...
Mike
Abraham Evangelista
Folks, it appears he's discovered 4chan. :-)
--
Abraham Evangelista
Abraham Evangelista
wrote:
I keep forgetting that most North-Americans living north of the Rio
Grande/Norte don't end up having to develop bartering skills.
I think of it as the Craig's list model: "...or best offer."
--
Abraham Evangelista
Farix
4chan is full of shitheads anyways. Pay them no mind.
Farix
Farix
I don't think they are so much growing. Just that dub viewers roll their
eyes and pay them no mind.
Farix
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Nov 21, 5:43 am, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:29:02 -0800 (PST), darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Umm, Rob... Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
>>> property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
>>> This is a serious question. The entire intellectual property industry
>>> relies on it.
>> And this is a serious answer: "The value of a thing is what it will
>> bring." Any given piece of intellectual property is worth as much as
>> what somebody is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.
>
> Then the answer, in this case: Zero.
Wrong, as many of us demonstrate daily. We pay money.
>
> Then you must conclude what Sea Wasp does:
Please do not put YOUR lunatic words in MY mouth, Dorky.
> An infinitely replicable
> medium, regardless of contract, copyright, or license, has NO RIGHTS
> AT ALL.
Medium is not the word you want to use there. Product is, I think. NO
medium has rights. Medium is merely the transmission method, be it the
stage of a play, a DVD (physical object only, no data), or a length of
fiber-optic cable. What you WANTED to say is that an
infinitely-replicable PRODUCT has no rights.
You are, of course, wrong. Legally, copyright remains in effect, and
regardless of whether the law remains or not, if you produce something,
it's still yours. You still have rights.
You have to choose what rights you feel need to be enforced, to what
degree, and under what circumstances, in order to make those rights
PROFITABLE.
Your problem is that you think "rights" only come from the barrel of a
gun, while others of us do not, and this is one of the several roots of
your disconnect.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>> (This concept is easier to grasp if one has spent any significant length
>> of time in a market economy that does not have fixed prices, such as
>> those that exist in many areas of the Middle East...)
>
> I keep forgetting that most North-Americans living north of the Rio
> Grande/Norte don't end up having to develop bartering skills.
I don't barter, I don't bargain. But I have no trouble understanding
the concept, since I'm not Darkstar.
Rob Kelk
Here's another real-world example, which I first heard about today:
http://magnatune.com/ They sell MP3s for whatever the purchaser wants
to pay, with 50% of the purchase price going to the artist. They're
making a profit.
Rob Kelk
>On Nov 21, 5:43=A0am, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:29:02 -0800 (PST), darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >Umm, Rob... =A0Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
>> >property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
>>
>> >This is a serious question. =A0The entire intellectual property industry
>> >relies on it.
>>
>> And this is a serious answer: =A0"The value of a thing is what it will
>> bring." =A0Any given piece of intellectual property is worth as much as
>> what somebody is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.
>
>Then the answer, in this case: Zero.
If that's what you value anime at, why are you here?
That's a serious question.
>Then you must conclude what Sea Wasp does: An infinitely replicable
>medium, regardless of contract, copyright, or license, has NO RIGHTS
>AT ALL.
Hardly. The opposite has been proven many times; I've even offered an
example elsewhere in this tread.
>None.
>
>Nada.
>
>Zilch.
>
>There is no expectation for recovery, at that point.
>
>And that is where we disagree. Because if the value of the product is
>"what it will bring" in the marketplace, the anime industry
>collapses. The "market" has already made its choice. Long ago.
The market has made its choice, and the industry is currently in better
shape than it was in 1993 despite the current economic downturn.
If you can understand how those two facts relate to each other, you'll
also be able to understand what we've been saying to you for months.
>Any expectation, given that statement of yours, of any real profit
>(even what gains we are hearing from Navarre are in _sales_, not
>necessarily _profits_) from the intellectual property is dead. At
>that point, if the "market" declares the product to be worth nothing,
>it becomes public domain, regardless of license, contract, or
>copyright.
Nonsense. "Public domain" has nothing to do with profitability. Look
at Dover Press or Lee Valley (both of whom make a profit by publishing
public domain works) for two examples.
>> Two real-life examples: =A0Since I was willing to pay $54.95 for the
>> complete "Rocket Girls" series on DVD, that IP is worth $54.95 to me.
>> Since I'm not willing to watch any more of "Death Note" at all after
>> seeing the first two episodes on TV, let alone buy it, that IP is worth
>> $0 to me.
>
>Here's the lawyers' problem: That same "IP is worth $0 to the person"
>applies to the person who stole "Death Note" off of the Internet.
The lawyers are irrelevant. We're discussing the marketplace.
>> (This concept is easier to grasp if one has spent any significant length
>> of time in a market economy that does not have fixed prices, such as
>> those that exist in many areas of the Middle East...)
>
>That may be true, but, even with somewhat flexible prices, the person
>setting the prices is NOT the paying customer (unless we want to go
>complete haggle and barter here)...
...Or to trust the purchaser to reward the artist appropriately.
I mentioned http://magnatune.com/ in another post. There, the person
setting the prices for intellectual property IS the paying customer.
They're making a profit.
(And it only takes one counter-example to disprove an absolute.)
darkst...@gmail.com
> Unfortunately there are a lot of people on the Internet who ...
>
> Hate Dubs
> Hate People who watch/like dubs
> Want anime to stay a niche product
> Hate new fans.
>
> And they are growing in numbers every day.
Then, for many reasons, they are self-loathing...
For mathematics would force these people to understand that they ARE
the "new fans". (Hence, why they are growing in numbers every
day...) But you are right -- the fansubbery types would, by
definition, hate dubs (and hate the industry which creates them), so
they would want that industry to fall out.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> RichardHudson wrote:
> > Unfortunately there are a lot of people on the Internet who ...
>
> > Hate Dubs
> > Hate People who watch/like dubs
> > Want anime to stay a niche product
> > Hate new fans.
>
> > And they are growing in numbers every day.
>
> I don't think they are so much growing. Just that dub viewers roll their
> eyes and pay them no mind.
Much to their peril. There will be no more dubs for the dub viewers to
be fans of, because of a lot of these others. It's too expensive to
maintain, at that point.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 5:43 am, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:29:02 -0800 (PST), darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Umm, Rob... Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
> >>> property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
> >>> This is a serious question. The entire intellectual property industry
> >>> relies on it.
> >> And this is a serious answer: "The value of a thing is what it will
> >> bring." Any given piece of intellectual property is worth as much as
> >> what somebody is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.
>
> > Then the answer, in this case: Zero.
>
> Wrong, as many of us demonstrate daily. We pay money.
Not enough to maintain a market, as continually being expressed by
companies going out of business. Broccoli is
the latest. Or do you choose to ignore even that?
(Of course you do...)
> > Then you must conclude what Sea Wasp does:
>
> Please do not put YOUR lunatic words in MY mouth, Dorky.
Sorry, but I will do as I please until you commit violence against me
to stop it.
> > An infinitely replicable
> > medium, regardless of contract, copyright, or license, has NO RIGHTS
> > AT ALL.
>
> Medium is not the word you want to use there. Product is, I think. NO
> medium has rights. Medium is merely the transmission method, be it the
> stage of a play, a DVD (physical object only, no data), or a length of
> fiber-optic cable. What you WANTED to say is that an
> infinitely-replicable PRODUCT has no rights.
Actually, we're both half-right. Both product AND medium must have
the rights (especially vis-a-vis digital transmissions), until one or
both (the bootleggers, as one example of "product", and the
fansubbers, as one example of "medium") begin to infringe on the
ownership rights of the creators and their licensees.
But it does appear that you do believe the anime itself to be abjectly
worthless, then, since you are, even here, talking about the DVD as
object and not the data. The data itself -- the anime -- is
worthless, in your model.
> You are, of course, wrong. Legally, copyright remains in effect, and
> regardless of whether the law remains or not, if you produce something,
> it's still yours. You still have rights.
Not if you don't enforce them and the entire concept becomes
meaningless. This is the world that the CrunchyShitters and the
fansubbers and the downloaders (not just anime) have desired to create
-- something in which intellectual property has NO financial value and
no expectation of cost recovery whatsoever.
And haven't at least some of you pointed out the necessity, in regards
to the law, of efforts to enforce said copyright for such claims to be
honored?
> You have to choose what rights you feel need to be enforced, to what
> degree, and under what circumstances, in order to make those rights
> PROFITABLE.
Umm, then you basically render the rights useless, because the fans
commit criminal conduct in violation of those rights to such a degree
that, unless you wish to go RIAA, they become abjectly unenforceable,
and, therefore, those rights are, in no way, profitable. And can
never be again...
That's why excusing the fans' conduct is such a dangerous slope: You
do that for too long (as companies or other fans), and you can't get
it back.
> Your problem is that you think "rights" only come from the barrel of a
> gun, while others of us do not, and this is one of the several roots of
> your disconnect.
I would suggest a good long look at American history before you spout
off continued nonsense.
Seriously.
How many "rights", really, were ever done without bloodshed?
How many "rights", really, are ever MAINTAINED without the force of
law (and, in very many cases, the maximum force thereof)?
Serious question. You really need to take a look at American history
and understand that the concept of what the "rights" of anyone are is
not usually a placid or pacified process.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:10:43 -0800 (PST), darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 21, 5:43=A0am, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:29:02 -0800 (PST), darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >Umm, Rob... =A0Of what value, then, is any piece of intellectual
> >> >property if what you say is true and what I say is false?
>
> >> >This is a serious question. =A0The entire intellectual property industry
> >> >relies on it.
>
> >> And this is a serious answer: =A0"The value of a thing is what it will
> >> bring." =A0Any given piece of intellectual property is worth as much as
> >> what somebody is willing to pay for it, no more and no less.
>
> >Then the answer, in this case: Zero.
>
> If that's what you value anime at, why are you here?
If "the value of a thing is what it will bring", the market has
already set it, and most experts on the subject understand it. An
anime which has become fansubbed is financially worthless. Hence, the
market has set the price at _zero_. The fact that I am here is that I
find that to be abhorrent.
And, if you gave a damn about anime, you would too.
> That's a serious question.
And I just answered it: The "fans" have set the value at zero. Most
supposed fans who even would pay would only pay maybe 30 or 40 cents
on the dollar at the price necessary, even at the level of fandom
INCLUDING the thieves, pirates, and the like, to keep the industry
going.
Most fans won't even pay _that_.
I find that sickening. Maybe it's because I've met a lot of the
people behind a lot of this work.
> >Then you must conclude what Sea Wasp does: An infinitely replicable
> >medium, regardless of contract, copyright, or license, has NO RIGHTS
> >AT ALL.
>
> Hardly. The opposite has been proven many times; I've even offered an
> example elsewhere in this thread.
No, not by your opinion. In fact, you're speaking of the matter you
just posted, right? The MP3 place which gives the artist half of the
purchase price?
You sure that's legal, under the RIAA?
> >None.
>
> >Nada.
>
> >Zilch.
>
> >There is no expectation for recovery, at that point.
>
> >And that is where we disagree. Because if the value of the product is
> >"what it will bring" in the marketplace, the anime industry
> >collapses. The "market" has already made its choice. Long ago.
>
> The market has made its choice, and the industry is currently in better
> shape than it was in 1993 despite the current economic downturn.
If you're using 1993 as your statement of "better than", please go see
the Wall Street barons -- they'd like to take you and try to continue
to commit fraud in the name of their private jets and the PPT and all
their bullshit.
That's laughable, and you know it.
> If you can understand how those two facts relate to each other, you'll
> also be able to understand what we've been saying to you for months.
Nope. No understanding at all. You went completely over my head on
that one, because the concept is SO LAUGHABLE that it barely even
merits a response. If you're using _1993_ as your basis point, then
you basically would have to call for the collapse of every remaining
large American company save MAYBE one...
(And that one would have to be at a MUCH smaller scale than at
present.)
I choose a more relevant plane: More like about four or five years
ago, when the anime DVD market was past double what it is today --
BEFORE inflation. Then the piracy went full-tilt, and the rest (and
anime itself) is history.
> >Any expectation, given that statement of yours, of any real profit
> >(even what gains we are hearing from Navarre are in _sales_, not
> >necessarily _profits_) from the intellectual property is dead. At
> >that point, if the "market" declares the product to be worth nothing,
> >it becomes public domain, regardless of license, contract, or
> >copyright.
>
> Nonsense. "Public domain" has nothing to do with profitability.
It has to do with the expectation of profitability -- or, in that
case, the lack of expectation thereof.
> Look at Dover Press or Lee Valley (both of whom make a profit by publishing
> public domain works) for two examples.
Under what authority (except for it being THEIR publishing, and that's
only a "maybe") do they expect a profit?
> >> Two real-life examples: =A0Since I was willing to pay $54.95 for the
> >> complete "Rocket Girls" series on DVD, that IP is worth $54.95 to me.
> >> Since I'm not willing to watch any more of "Death Note" at all after
> >> seeing the first two episodes on TV, let alone buy it, that IP is worth
> >> $0 to me.
>
> >Here's the lawyers' problem: That same "IP is worth $0 to the person"
> >applies to the person who stole "Death Note" off of the Internet.
>
> The lawyers are irrelevant. We're discussing the marketplace.
It's the marketplace's problem too, then. It's basically the problem
which has sliced the anime marketplace in more than half in the last
several years. Or do you wish to deny those numbers as well?
It may well be both their problems, but it is the lawyers' problem,
since it basically gets to the point of law (as well as to the
marketplace).
> >That may be true, but, even with somewhat flexible prices, the person
> >setting the prices is NOT the paying customer (unless we want to go
> >complete haggle and barter here)...
>
> ...Or to trust the purchaser to reward the artist appropriately.
Totally misplaced, and the Internet is full of history in that regard.
> I mentionedhttp://magnatune.com/in another post. There, the person
> setting the prices for intellectual property IS the paying customer.
> They're making a profit.
And, as stated, there are significant questions as to the legality of
that, at least in the present construct of the music industry.
Mike
The Wanderer
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:10:10 -0500, Farix <dhstr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'm not a sub-zealot and can throughly enjoy my anime both
>> subbed and dubbed.
>
> Unfortunately there are a lot of people on the Internet who ...
>
> Hate Dubs
I don't hate dubs; I would prefer for there to be a good dub for
everything which is not incapable of being correctly dubbed (a highly
ill-defined category), just as I'd prefer for there to be a good sub for
everything. However, such dubs are quite rare, and I'm not 100% positive
I've ever encountered a dub which was good enough to completely meet my
standards.
> Hate People who watch/like dubs
I don't hate people who watch or like dubs. I am somewhat irritated at
people accepting the generally (and IMO near universally) subpar levels
of quality available as being good enough, as this leaves little
inducement for dubs to get better, but that's somewhat of a different
matter.
> Want anime to stay a niche product
I don't care about this one way or the other, for itself.
> Hate new fans.
Of course I don't; the thought wouldn't have occurred to me.
Of course, in a certain sense, everyone and anyone already "in on"
something good hates the clueless newbie coming in like a louder but
less destructive version of a bull in a china shop - but equally of
course that doesn't describe even anything close to all new fans, just
enough of them to potentially give others a bad name.
> And they are growing in numbers every day.
People who prefer subs over dubs (requisite for hating dubs, I suspect
you'll agree) are growing in numbers every day? I don't think I've seen
that claimed before, but if it's true, that's very much a good thing.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Serious question. You really need to take a look at American history
> and understand that the concept of what the "rights" of anyone are is
> not usually a placid or pacified process.
You didn't want to go THERE, Dorky. American history 101:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Read that. Carefully.
This is one of the founding documents of the United States of America.
It is the very BASIS of the American philosophy, in some ways even more
so than the Constitution itself.
It makes clear, in that short portion of a paragraph, that it was the
belief of our founding fathers that rights are inherent in our nature,
and that government's function is not to CREATE rights, but merely to
SECURE the rights which ALREADY EXIST. (Note that "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness" are noted to be SOME of, but not all of, those
rights which are inherent to humanity). Moreover, that the powers of the
government over people are derived from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. If
enough of the governed do not agree, the government fails, but the
rights do not.
ashez2ashes
non-licensed stuff on there that no longer had active torrents.
--
ashez
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Well, personally I think this sucks. I was able to find lots of lesser
> non-licensed stuff on there that no longer had active torrents.
Being a criminal means always having to search for new suppliers, even
if you're too petty a criminal to actually get jailed yourself.
ashez2ashes
Yes, because I've certaintly never spent thousands of dollars on anime/
manga crap over the 11 years I've been an anime fan. How dare I use a
site to watch a very old series like Popolocrois which hasn't had an
active torrent in years and is doubtful it will ever be licensed.
--
ashez
darkst...@gmail.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Serious question. You really need to take a look at American history
> > and understand that the concept of what the "rights" of anyone are is
> > not usually a placid or pacified process.
>
> You didn't want to go THERE, Dorky. American history 101:
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
> That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
>
> Read that. Carefully.
I did. And then understand how many people had to be shot to even
make the model of that an _attempted_ reality (which never really, in
fact, succeeded)...
How many people had to be shot when the British came back for another
round 35 years later...
How many people had to be shot to give black slaves any sense of
humanity...
Two world wars, Korea, Vietnam...
The Civil Rights Movement, JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. and so forth as
reiterated...
If you honestly believe that most Americans believe in what you just
posted, you have got another motherfucking think coming -- and that is
_WHY_ this happens, and _WHY_ lethal force (or the threat thereof) is
often needed in that regard.
I've got a roommate who is beside herself because of the pigs who
voted for Prop. 8 in California. It's hard enough keeping her from
enacting lethal force, but she knows her history and how many people
died so that we could THINK we had those rights, Sea Wasp.
I go there because I know what I'm doing in so doing.
> This is one of the founding documents of the United States of America.
> It is the very BASIS of the American philosophy, in some ways even more
> so than the Constitution itself.
And how many people had to die at the hands of guns to even make the
chance of that a reality, Sea Wasp?
You just gave one of the perfect examples OF my point.
> It makes clear, in that short portion of a paragraph, that it was the
> belief of our founding fathers that rights are inherent in our nature,
> and that government's function is not to CREATE rights, but merely to
> SECURE the rights which ALREADY EXIST. (Note that "life, liberty and the
> pursuit of happiness" are noted to be SOME of, but not all of, those
> rights which are inherent to humanity). Moreover, that the powers of the
> government over people are derived from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. If
> enough of the governed do not agree, the government fails, but the
> rights do not.
Unfortunately, correct in theory and wrong in practice.
Because once the government fails, what does it become?
It becomes EXACTLY what you said I believe: "Ugg big, Ugg strongest
in tribe... Ugg rule."
It becomes exactly rule by the gun -- rule of the strongest.
America didn't just become a nation because we wrote it down on a
piece of paper. We had to write it down in our own blood.
Mike