TPP - yet more internet shackling IP legislation.

[hey]

Lots of good info at http://questioncopyright.org/learn
http://questioncopyright.org/copying..._censorship_is
http://questioncopyright.org/what_we...race_copyright
http://questioncopyright.org/promise

[hey]

I'm not from America, but wasn't the First Amendment about freedom of speech etc.? I don't really see how that connects to disregarding other people's rights and providing their items for free.

Indeed, which gives me the right to advertise anything i want, regardless of what it's creator wants.

[MaachaQ]

Edit: To be perfectly clear I know it isn't a cut and dry issue. There are definitely certain situations where piracy is more damaging than others and in some cases piracy has actually shown to help increase revenue (helo music industry and in some cases games) It is definitely a complicated issue.

I'll mention again about the Anime industry in the US, which is most definitely helped by file sharing. VHS trading by anime fans has been going on pretty much since VHS/Beta has been available, and it was done not for profit, but to share fan-translated quirky shows to people who might otherwise never have seen it. These anime fans spread the word about these shows at conventions, originally at Sci-fi and Comic conventions before there was even a thought of having just Anime conventions, and eventually some companies formed to purchase rights to some shows and produce English versions for the US market. Anime still is not something that is mainstream enough to have TV prime time advertising, and only a handful of shows are popular enough to get the full "Saturday morning" treatment from networks, and even the ones that air on TV are heavily censored or changed from the original. It is because of file-sharing, which started as VHS trading through the mail, that 90% of the Anime shows being brought the the US market are there at all. Without the efforts of fans to translate and spread the word about how good this or that show is, US fans would be stuck with stuff like 4Kids and Funimation butcher jobs of Naruto, One Piece, Case Closed (Detective Conan), etc.

I have bought many shows/movies on DVD that I probably never would have heard of if I hadn't gotten to sample them first by downloading. The same happened when I distributed VHS tapes, sometimes someone would send me copies of a show I didn't have/had never heard of and in exchange I would send them copies of one of my shows. I started with Sailor Moon (another butchered show from US TV, which I sought out the original version of) and via trades I was exposed to Fushigi Yuugi, Rurouni Kenshin, Wedding Peach, Revolutionary Girl Utena, Marmalade Boy, etc, all shows which would later be released on DVD uncensored to the US market and all of which I now own.

The Anime industry would simply not exist without word-of-mouth advertising that file sharing provides. It is too small a market to be able to advertise any other way, but still profitable enough that they continue to release a good number of titles each year. They can also produce t-shirts, keychains, plushies, etc to sell to fans at conventions, much more profitable that the actual video sales in many cases, and fans dressing up as characters at those conventions are also advertising the shows for free.

[Yugl]

I'll mention again about the Anime industry in the US, which is most definitely helped by file sharing. VHS trading by anime fans has been going on pretty much since VHS/Beta has been available, and it was done not for profit, but to share fan-translated quirky shows to people who might otherwise never have seen it. These anime fans spread the word about these shows at conventions, originally at Sci-fi and Comic conventions before there was even a thought of having just Anime conventions, and eventually some companies formed to purchase rights to some shows and produce English versions for the US market. Anime still is not something that is mainstream enough to have TV prime time advertising, and only a handful of shows are popular enough to get the full "Saturday morning" treatment from networks, and even the ones that air on TV are heavily censored or changed from the original. It is because of file-sharing, which started as VHS trading through the mail, that 90% of the Anime shows being brought the the US market are there at all. Without the efforts of fans to translate and spread the word about how good this or that show is, US fans would be stuck with stuff like 4Kids and Funimation butcher jobs of Naruto, One Piece, Case Closed (Detective Conan), etc.

I have bought many shows/movies on DVD that I probably never would have heard of if I hadn't gotten to sample them first by downloading. The same happened when I distributed VHS tapes, sometimes someone would send me copies of a show I didn't have/had never heard of and in exchange I would send them copies of one of my shows. I started with Sailor Moon (another butchered show from US TV, which I sought out the original version of) and via trades I was exposed to Fushigi Yuugi, Rurouni Kenshin, Wedding Peach, Revolutionary Girl Utena, Marmalade Boy, etc, all shows which would later be released on DVD uncensored to the US market and all of which I now own.

The Anime industry would simply not exist without word-of-mouth advertising that file sharing provides. It is too small a market to be able to advertise any other way, but still profitable enough that they continue to release a good number of titles each year. They can also produce t-shirts, keychains, plushies, etc to sell to fans at conventions, much more profitable that the actual video sales in many cases, and fans dressing up as characters at those conventions are also advertising the shows for free.

Ironically, the same industry is on the decline because of piracy. Anime scheduling, such as Toonami (The original air time), Syfy, and Funimation (An anime channel) arguably declined due to piracy. Even the current toonami program lacks funding. Considering the popularity of anime, it's difficult to understand why we've seen these anime segments disappear without looking at the fact that you can stream or download (The immediate issue here) these series.

[archibaldcrane]

If you illegally download something (and don't distribute it) and it is something you would not have purchased in absence of a piracy option, it does not harm anyone.

Still waiting to be told about how this is not true.

The difference between theft and piracy is more than just semantic. Theft causes definite harm, because it deprives another. Piracy only causes harm in certain situations.

The RIAA and MPAA have plenty of legal heft at their disposal to prosecute pirates. They do not need further legislation to prosecute people breaking copyright laws. Engaging in piracy is subject to legal ramifications that are a significant multitude worse than STEALING the equivalent game/album/movie from a local store, despite the latter being a more harmful action.

[Cantih]

Ironically, the same industry is on the decline because of piracy. Anime scheduling, such as Toonami (The original air time), Syfy, and Funimation (An anime channel) arguably declined due to piracy.

It wasn't piracy first that caused the trouble.
The US companies would release shows heavily delayed (often by years), at very high price points (who remembers 2 episode vhs for $20 a pop for a full season show?), part of it was the dubbing cost (which some fans don't even want), and part of it was what the JP companies charged (go look up how the manga publishers screw manga-ka), but the prices were still ridiculous and they're still pretty insane in Japan.

So fansubbers were able to provide shows faster than companies, with hardly a drop in quality. The companies would not adapt, and so they died, and now we have mostly new companies that are behind streaming and getting shit done on time at a minimum of price. There are still a few issues, but it's looking like things will get better.

US broadcast failed not because of piracy, but because of editing, censorship, and networks general dumassbness. Also, despite anime's "popularity" there's still pretty fucking few of us. Go be a real geek in general public (not friends, not internet, not campus, PUBLIC [offer not valid in Portland]), see where that gets you. Networks want big numbers, we are not big numbers.

Oh, btw, regarding manga
http://japandailypress.com/artist-of...y-free-2310043
BAM.

[Petitssk]

Indeed, which gives me the right to advertise anything i want, regardless of what it's creator wants.

Thanks for the links, I'll give them a read after work. Regardless, the First Amendment (probably, don't quote me on this) may give you the right to do that, yes, but the actual advertising (word of mouth) and the actual problematic act (download/upload) are two different parts of that equation - considering that there is no universally applicable "good" piracy, meaning piracy that does not harm anyone, I find it hard to believe that you can actually go with First Amendment there, seeing how it can both help and hurt.

[MaachaQ]

Ironically, the same industry is on the decline because of piracy. Anime scheduling, such as Toonami (The original air time), Syfy, and Funimation (An anime channel) arguably declined due to piracy. Even the current toonami program lacks funding. Considering the popularity of anime, it's difficult to understand why we've seen these anime segments disappear without looking at the fact that you can stream or download (The immediate issue here) these series.

There is still more Anime on TV today than there was when I was in high school/college, which was before internet file-sharing. When I was younger SciFi channel (stupid rename to SyFy >.>) showed Anime only on Saturday mornings, and it was stuff like Vampire Hunter D, Robot Carnival, real old school stuff. If there was Anime on any other channel, it was dubbed only and hacked until it barely resembled the original; Digimon, Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Robotech. Yes, airing on TV will get more exposure and possibly draw in more fans, but those fans then graduate to the stuff that will never and can never be aired on TV without huge cuts/changes (can you imagine the changes Ranma 1/2 would need to be able to air on US TV?). The only choice then is for them to go through legal streaming channels (Crunchy Roll, Hulu, Netflix?) which even then won't have the more niche stuff and may or may not be allowed to stream to their area, or buy pricy DVDs. I would totally support a new company dedicated to streaming the more obscure Anime stuff, but with all the licensing fees and restrictions currently in place I don't think such a company would be in any way profitable. It is far better for young fans to stay fans and promote the series they love, and when they are better able to buy the product they will.

tl;dr: even if current programming of Anime is being cut back, there is still far more being shown than there was 15 years ago when I got into the fandom.

[Petitssk]

There is still more Anime on TV today than there was when I was in high school/college, which was before internet file-sharing. When I was younger SciFi channel (stupid rename to SyFy >.>) showed Anime only on Saturday mornings, and it was stuff like Vampire Hunter D, Robot Carnival, real old school stuff. If there was Anime on any other channel, it was dubbed only and hacked until it barely resembled the original; Digimon, Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Robotech. Yes, airing on TV will get more exposure and possibly draw in more fans, but those fans then graduate to the stuff that will never and can never be aired on TV without huge cuts/changes (can you imagine the changes Ranma 1/2 would need to be able to air on US TV?). The only choice then is for them to go through legal streaming channels (Crunchy Roll, Hulu, Netflix?) which even then won't have the more niche stuff and may or may not be allowed to stream to their area, or buy pricy DVDs. I would totally support a new company dedicated to streaming the more obscure Anime stuff, but with all the licensing fees and restrictions currently in place I don't think such a company would be in any way profitable. It is far better for young fans to stay fans and promote the series they love, and when they are better able to buy the product they will.

tl;dr: even if current programming of Anime is being cut back, there is still far more being shown than there was 15 years ago when I got into the fandom.

Anime is actually one of the areas where I agree that current copyright is way too far behind. I've got a premium account on Crunchyroll, which is my only source of Anime, but even with that, as a German member, the selection of shows I can watch is extremely limited compared to what is available to North American members, which sucks a lot, even more so because they advertise all shows to all members anyway.

Licensing restrictions make sense, but when companies receive compensation based on views I find it hard to believe that it makes sense to lock certain nations out because copyright holders in their respective countries want to make dubs that half the fanbase doesn't even care about or avoids due to censorship and what not combined with availability online. Effectively, it's kind of like they're killing their most effective weapon themselves - online streaming, legal one at that, at reasonable prices, not 60USD for 4 episodes-prices. That's really just absurd. Then again, there are people paying such prices - collectors. It keeps the industry afloat and prevents pretty much everyone else from watching the shows while license holders throw a fit because of the resulting piracy.

I'd wager that's also a result of TV being somewhat ancient as far as broadcasting is concerned since the internet has given us many more efficient ways of doing just that.

[Plow]

It wasn't piracy first that caused the trouble.
The US companies would release shows heavily delayed (often by years), at very high price points (who remembers 2 episode vhs for $20 a pop for a full season show?), part of it was the dubbing cost (which some fans don't even want), and part of it was what the JP companies charged (go look up how the manga publishers screw manga-ka), but the prices were still ridiculous and they're still pretty insane in Japan.

So fansubbers were able to provide shows faster than companies, with hardly a drop in quality. The companies would not adapt, and so they died, and now we have mostly new companies that are behind streaming and getting shit done on time at a minimum of price. There are still a few issues, but it's looking like things will get better.

US broadcast failed not because of piracy, but because of editing, censorship, and networks general dumassbness. Also, despite anime's "popularity" there's still pretty fucking few of us. Go be a real geek in general public (not friends, not internet, not campus, PUBLIC [offer not valid in Portland]), see where that gets you. Networks want big numbers, we are not big numbers.

Oh, btw, regarding manga
http://japandailypress.com/artist-of...y-free-2310043
BAM.

not going to argue but I have to point out:

you just argued that piracy didn't kill an industry by describing how piracy killed an industry

and the closest you got to stepping away from that was arguing that you're not willing to pay what they're charging so it's only right that you get it for free

[Cantih]

Piracy was not the instigator. The businesses died because they did shit business.

Technically nobody dies from AIDS/HIV, they die from opportunistic infections they wouldn't have otherwise have gotten. But anyone with some damn common sense knows that HIV is what really did it.

The old US anime industry had AIDS. It just didn't have the same Magic Johnson health plan bigger industries do.

[Yugl]

There is still more Anime on TV today than there was when I was in high school/college, which was before internet file-sharing. When I was younger SciFi channel (stupid rename to SyFy >.>) showed Anime only on Saturday mornings, and it was stuff like Vampire Hunter D, Robot Carnival, real old school stuff. If there was Anime on any other channel, it was dubbed only and hacked until it barely resembled the original; Digimon, Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Robotech. Yes, airing on TV will get more exposure and possibly draw in more fans, but those fans then graduate to the stuff that will never and can never be aired on TV without huge cuts/changes (can you imagine the changes Ranma 1/2 would need to be able to air on US TV?). The only choice then is for them to go through legal streaming channels (Crunchy Roll, Hulu, Netflix?) which even then won't have the more niche stuff and may or may not be allowed to stream to their area, or buy pricy DVDs. I would totally support a new company dedicated to streaming the more obscure Anime stuff, but with all the licensing fees and restrictions currently in place I don't think such a company would be in any way profitable. It is far better for young fans to stay fans and promote the series they love, and when they are better able to buy the product they will.

tl;dr: even if current programming of Anime is being cut back, there is still far more being shown than there was 15 years ago when I got into the fandom.

It wasn't piracy first that caused the trouble.
The US companies would release shows heavily delayed (often by years), at very high price points (who remembers 2 episode vhs for $20 a pop for a full season show?), part of it was the dubbing cost (which some fans don't even want), and part of it was what the JP companies charged (go look up how the manga publishers screw manga-ka), but the prices were still ridiculous and they're still pretty insane in Japan.

So fansubbers were able to provide shows faster than companies, with hardly a drop in quality. The companies would not adapt, and so they died, and now we have mostly new companies that are behind streaming and getting shit done on time at a minimum of price. There are still a few issues, but it's looking like things will get better.

US broadcast failed not because of piracy, but because of editing, censorship, and networks general dumassbness. Also, despite anime's "popularity" there's still pretty fucking few of us. Go be a real geek in general public (not friends, not internet, not campus, PUBLIC [offer not valid in Portland]), see where that gets you. Networks want big numbers, we are not big numbers.

Oh, btw, regarding manga
http://japandailypress.com/artist-of...y-free-2310043
BAM.

There were shows that became popular despite edits and dubs. Yugioh, Pokemon, Yuyu-Hakusho, Rurouni Kenshin, FMA, DBZ, Card Captor, and others were subject to those very forces but to claim that "deficiencies" with these shows let to the decline of future anime is unreasonable and unfounded. In fact, I imagine most people grew to learn about and appreciate anime through these screenings.

Quite frankly, that last requirement is kind of ridiculous. I don't think a majority of completely random people (Since I can't include friends, people on the internet, campus, and I assume video game fans) know about the crap that has taken the toonami/syfy slot. That makes the point moot. If anime is of minor popularity, then I think you've invalidated MaachaQ's point about piracy "bringing" anime to the US. The changes made to anime (like dubbing) were done to make the product "work" within the US. If, as you both suggest, they turned out to be crap, then (by the logic of pro-piracy people within this thread) their downfall is appropriate because the product is crap. If that is the case though, then piracy did nothing for anime (Piracy brings anime to the US > Anime in the US is crap > Anime falls in the US (Rightfully) > Return to status quo).

Price point complaints only show that people aren't willing to spend money on these products. I've never heard of $20 for 2 episodes, but I have seen seasons for ~$50. Anyways, such complaints, to me, seem to undermine pro-piracy arguments because those were products you considered "good" but did not buy because piracy alternatives were available. Even with cheap alternatives available now, people continue to torrent because free will always trump cost. If a product hasn't made the cut, then perhaps that product is crap. After all, isn't one of the arguments for piracy that terrible products deserve to crumble? That's precisely what happens when you don't see these shows make the list.

[hey]

and part of it was what the JP companies charged (go look up how the manga publishers screw manga-ka), but the prices were still ridiculous and they're still pretty insane in Japan.

Related: Many bands, at least in the us, make exactly $0 total in album sales. In fact, they end up in debt, hundreds of thousands of dollars to the record companies. You see, despite owning all of the band's content, and taking 80% of their profits, they also charge the bands for producing their music, and then take their portion of the sales to pay back that loan. Most will never pay these loans back, and thus never make any money from the sales. Copyright is very often extremely harmful for content creators.

Thanks for the links, I'll give them a read after work. Regardless, the First Amendment (probably, don't quote me on this) may give you the right to do that, yes, but the actual advertising (word of mouth) and the actual problematic act (download/upload) are two different parts of that equation - considering that there is no universally applicable "good" piracy, meaning piracy that does not harm anyone, I find it hard to believe that you can actually go with First Amendment there, seeing how it can both help and hurt.

You argued that the business's had the sole right to advertise the way they wanted. That's bullshit. Free speech has nothing to do with piracy.

considering that there is no universally applicable "good" piracy, meaning piracy that does not harm anyone

Let's imagine a situation. There's this kid, we'll call him bob. Bob is 15 years old, has no job, and no allowance. He has exactly $0 to his name, and no chance of changing that any time soon. However, what he does have, is an internet connection, and an insanely popular blog, read by a million people. Obviously, since bob has no money, and no way of acquiring it, he cannot possibly pay for any entertainment. But what if he were to pirate it? Since he cannot possibly purchase that movie he wants to watch, there would be zero loss of sales by pirating it. However after he finishes it, loves it, and blogs about it, let's imagine 1000 people go and buy it. The total loss of profits for the company that produced it would be $0, while the gain would be $15,000. Would you say that this is "good piracy"? This objectively harms no one, and helps exactly the ones pretending to be hurt by it.

Piracy is always good, in situations where the pirate could not, or would not have purchased the product, had they not pirated it.



Furthermore, while it's great to talk about how consumer piracy, i feel it's more important to discuss the more serious problems with copyright, and that is censorship, and stifling innovation. For example, a few years ago we had a book called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. Basically, a sequel to Catcher in the rye.If this is your first time hearing of this book, don't bother going to your local bookstore to check it out: you won't find it. It's banned from sale in the US.

Despite it apparently not being such a great book, i'd love to hear arguments for how such a thing could possibly be good for society.

[hey]

free will always trump cost

This is demonstrably false.

[Yugl]

This is demonstrably false.

Receiving money for a free product doesn't mean people won't generally take the free option when the free option is the same product. I know you like to post links of crappy movies/music that received funds after a free release, but that misses the point since I'm not saying that people don't receive money (or even a lot of money) when they make a free release, I'm saying people generally prefer the free product when the difference between the products is null. If we bring your "all free" paradigm into this, we would probably see even less people willingly donate money because I'm guessing some of those donations stem from people donating out of respect for the fact that the product is free. However, in a society where that is the norm, such sentiment does not exist. I will take your point that "always" may be strong; change to to "a majority of the time."

[hey]

Receiving money for a free product doesn't mean people won't generally take the free option when the free option is the same product. I know you like to post links of crappy movies/music that received funds after a free release, but that misses the point since I'm not saying that people don't receive money (or even a lot of money) when they make a free release, I'm saying people generally prefer the free product when the difference between the products is null. If we bring your "all free" paradigm into this, we would probably see even less people willingly donate money because I'm guessing some of those donations stem from people donating out of respect for the fact that the product is free. However, in a society where that is the norm, such sentiment does not exist. I will take your point that "always" may be strong; change to to "a majority of the time."

Just because something is available for free doesn't mean you can't sell it. see: public domain works, and literally everything that is available for free online.

I know you like to post links of crappy movies/music that received funds after a free release

Does radiohead count as crappy music?

I will take your point that "always" may be strong; change to to "a majority of the time."

Which is hardly a problem.

[Petitssk]

You argued that the business's had the sole right to advertise the way they wanted. That's bullshit. Free speech has nothing to do with piracy.

Indeed, yet you argue that a benefit of piracy is that very advertising and outline it as your justification of piracy. I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at.

Let's imagine a situation. There's this kid, we'll call him bob. Bob is 15 years old, has no job, and no allowance. He has exactly $0 to his name, and no chance of changing that any time soon. However, what he does have, is an internet connection, and an insanely popular blog, read by a million people. Obviously, since bob has no money, and no way of acquiring it, he cannot possibly pay for any entertainment. But what if he were to pirate it? Since he cannot possibly purchase that movie he wants to watch, there would be zero loss of sales by pirating it. However after he finishes it, loves it, and blogs about it, let's imagine 1000 people go and buy it. The total loss of profits for the company that produced it would be $0, while the gain would be $15,000. Would you say that this is "good piracy"? This objectively harms no one, and helps exactly the ones pretending to be hurt by it.

Yes, that would be one case of "good" piracy, assuming it goes exactly that way.

Piracy is always good, in situations where the pirate could not, or would not have purchased the product, had they not pirated it.

Including your situation outlined above, piracy is not always good, as your story is merely an assumption. Can you, without a doubt, say that the people that will buy the movie that would not have bought it if not for the download would be greater in number than the people who would have bought it but then didn't because they found it for free? Piracy is not always good, even in situations as the one outlined above. That's just make-believe, and that's the problem with piracy. Sometimes good? No doubt, but always? Definitely not, there are more variations to it than teenagers becoming heroes because they advertise things for companies.

Furthermore, while it's great to talk about how consumer piracy, i feel it's more important to discuss the more serious problems with copyright, and that is censorship, and stifling innovation. For example, a few years ago we had a book called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. Basically, a sequel to Catcher in the rye.If this is your first time hearing of this book, don't bother going to your local bookstore to check it out: you won't find it. It's banned from sale in the US.

Despite it apparently not being such a great book, i'd love to hear arguments for how such a thing could possibly be good for society.

I'm sorry to hear that, but that's an entirely different aspect. I still agree that copyright needs to be changed, but not abolished entirely, as you envision it.

[Yugl]

Just because something is available for free doesn't mean you can't sell it. see: public domain works, and literally everything that is available for free online.

What does this have to do with the fact that people will take the free option a majority of the time if the free and priced product are identical?

Does radiohead count as crappy music?

I don't enjoy their music from what youtube has offered.

[hey]

ndeed, yet you argue that a benefit of piracy is that very advertising and outline it as your justification of piracy.

That is one of the many justifications for it, yes.

Piracy is not always good, even in situations as the one outlined above.

You are going to have to explain how piracy can possibly hurt anyone in situations where the loss of sales are exactly $0.

Furthermore (please respond to the above before this), why is a loss of a sale even a bad thing? A capitalist would argue that competition is a good thing, and that if a business cannot make a profit, then it is because it's a poor business, and it does not deserve to succeed. Why does this apply to everything but the entertainment, software, etc industries?

I'm sorry to hear that, but that's an entirely different aspect. I still agree that copyright needs to be changed, but not abolished entirely, as you envision it.

No, it is exactly the same. In order for someone to be free to release improvements/sequels/spin offs of anything they think needs an improvement/sequel/spinoff, they also need to be able to release the original (or something so close to it, that no one could ever tell them apart) too.

What does this have to do with the fact that people will take the free option a majority of the time if the free and priced product are identical?

Honestly, i'm not entirely convinced this is true. And even if it is, you'll need to explain why it's a problem.

[Cream Soda]

Were the anti pirates against recording on blank VHS or songs from the radio with a cassette back in the day?