Did I say it was theft? Also, if you are going to be so strict about the definitions, piracy is probably not the correct term either (piracy is the robbery of goods through intimidation and threat). What's occurring is probably more akin to counterfeiting.
Furthermore, just because it's not "theft" doesn't morally or legally justify one's actions.
Because my point was that piracy was not akin to theft, refuting the point that piracy=theft, and you provided a counter-argument to said refutation, I assumed it was in favor of the point I was arguing against. I use the term "piracy", like many others, to mean internet counterfeiting, because that is its colloquial meaning, but I digress.
Saying piracy is not theft may not morally or legally justify one's actions, but since theft is, in many people's eyes, not morally or legally justified, a distinction between the two assists in constructing a justification. That piracy is not theft is not the justification in and of itself, but it eliminates the immorality of theft (the major anti-piracy point).
That piracy is not theft is not the justification in and of itself, but it eliminates the immorality of theft (the major anti-piracy point).
Are you saying that internet counterfeiting is more morally acceptable? If I could figure out a way to increase my liquid assets in my bank account by changing a couple bits, is that any way more acceptable than printing counterfeit money? Just because it's not theft, doesn't mean it can't be equally reprehensible.
Here is the thing about fansubs. Well, at least for me, they are sometimes necessary to see if the product that you would like to acquire is good or not. I would download a couple of episodes of a new title and then if I like it I would buy it. That is how I got Gurren Lagann, I downloaded the first 4 episodes and I saw that the show had potential then I stopped watching it and waited for it to come (and since I do not care for dubs the wait all the more sweeter since it was cheap). Nevertheless, there are shows that I am still waiting to watch such as Kotetsushin Jeeg. Yeah, I have not watched all of it for two reasons: not many people cared for it so I had to watch it RAW, and it does not have and American license yet.
However, fansubs are good if it is impossible for one to get old anime such as Candy Candy or Remi. I can get the super old shows because most of those old shows were also released in Spanish, so I can buy all of "Marco: 3000 Leagues in Search for Mother", "Candy, Candy", " Heidi", legally if I want to (they do not come with the original Japanese language, but that is how I watched them back in the day). But, if you want to get Remi in the states is going to cost you an eye, a leg and a penis (if you are a guy, if you are a girl you are in luck).
Now, I think that every comes down to the nature of each person. I can go to Hulu and watch all of Astroboy 2003 but it is a very crappy version of the piece of art that is the real Astroboy 2003. Really, it is like comparing the crappy American version of Coupling with the hilarious British version. And I can say that because I was lucky enough to get a R3 dvd of Astroboy 2003 :P
I know watching anime can be an expensive hobby so use Netflix. It helps you manage your time (it is very easy to get hook on a show that you like) and money. But, if you are one of those people that have heard that Giant Robo is awesome and you still go out your way to torrent it (even though it cost less than 20$ for an excellent piece of animation), then sir or ma'am you are an ass!
That piracy is not theft is not the justification in and of itself, but it eliminates the immorality of theft (the major anti-piracy point).
Are you saying that internet counterfeiting is more morally acceptable? If I could figure out a way to increase my liquid assets in my bank account by changing a couple bits, is that any way more acceptable than printing counterfeit money? Just because it's not theft, doesn't mean it can't be equally reprehensible.
No, but my point is that it is not automatically as reprehensible as theft, as many people who are against piracy argue, and thus can be less reprehensible. If one asserts that piracy is theft, that assertion automatically makes piracy equally reprehensible, when, as I have shown, theft and piracy are not the same and thus cannot be assumed to be equally reprehensible. To justify piracy is to justify only piracy, and not piracy and theft, as the anti-pirates would have one think.
Stop viewing digital media as a good. Think of it as a service provided by another person. I pay someone to write a really, really long and complicated number. Sure, I can understand that this number can then be perfectly reproduced, but it had to originate from somewhere.
If it's a service, then charge for it like a service. The fact that the business model treats it as a good is the reason the business model fails. If the business model treated it as a service, it would probably work.
If it's a service, then charge for it like a service. The fact that the business model treats it as a good is the reason the business model fails. If the business model treated it as a service, it would probably work.
That sounds like the patron system. Do you really want to go back to that?
And producing infinite copies infinitely devalues the product.
And from this you later jump to saying that the value is in fact zero. You should realize that the subject is much more complicated than that. Infinite supply can still be supplied by only one supplier (which I would argue is the case with anime), you can still have intrinsic cost to transaction, value based on opportunity cost of making a copy etc.
Simply stopping piracy is not going to help anything. Even without piracy, the mere fact that the technology exists results in the devaluation of digital goods. There's no way you can undo that economic reality. There is no social or technological solution that can undo that truth. Your only hope is to accept it and find a path despite it.
You are simply not up to form today Scott. If indeed you could simply stop piracy then you would effectively remove the technology to copy from the picture.
The fact that it is possible to get stuff for free does not make it morally justifiable to take them for free. Think about the example of hacking your bank account.
The fact that a sellers inventory is not reduced does not make it not stealing. Unless you are creating (not copying), by yourself, the product in question, you have benefitted unjustly from the suppliers efforts.
A moral code has to have a foundation of principled logic. YouI seem to be arguing for a moral code based on yourmy own personal convenience. That's not really going to fly.
Simply stopping piracy is not going to help anything. Even without piracy, the mere fact that the technology exists results in the devaluation of digital goods. There's no way you can undo that economic reality. There is no social or technological solution that can undo that truth. Your only hope is to accept it and find a path despite it.
I would think that imposing some kind of legal/financial penalty on piracy would help combat that devaluation. Instead of saying to himself "I could get this myself for free," the potential pirate might instead think "I could take the 1/100 risk of paying a $1000 fine to pirate this," and then presumably if the object were priced at under 10 dollars, he would buy it. This is still an oversimplification, but illustrates the idea, and shows why some people think of the issue in terms of enforcement and penalties.
Here's a thought: why should anyone care? I could have sworn we had this discussion before, but I'll repeat here what I said before: if you get caught, tough shit. If you don't, then whoop dee fucking doo. There's no point in arguing in circles about morality. The fact of the matter is that fansubs are illegal and if you download them, you are in knowing violation of the law and can be persecuted. That doesn't stop me, but you don't see me rambling on and on about how it's morally acceptable.
And from this you later jump to saying that the value is in fact zero. You should realize that the subject is much more complicated than that. Infinite supply can still be supplied by only one supplier (which I would argue is the case with anime), you can still have intrinsic cost to transaction
Negligible.
value based on opportunity cost of making a copy etc.
Negligible. An individual copy of a digital product is indeed nigh upon valueless. The only significant aspect of value is the value associated with the creation / publication of the "good". Reimbursing the creator on a copy-by-copy system is nonsensical, with this in mind. It might be argued that it is necessary, but it is nonsensical nonetheless.
You are simply not up to form today Scott. If indeed you could simply stop piracy then you wouldeffectivelyremove the technology to copy from the picture.
Not true at all. It is merely monopolization, where the supplier can make a copy for zero cost, but no-one else can.
The fact that it is possible to get stuff for free does not make it morally justifiable to take them for free.
Yes, but if it doesn't adversely impact another, it might well be.
Think about the example of hacking your bank account.
In that example you would still be taking money from the bank if you withdrew that money you hacked.
The fact that a sellers inventory is not reduced does not make it not stealing.
Erm. It does.
Unless you are creating (not copying), by yourself, the product in question, you have benefitted unjustly from the suppliers efforts.
If it's a service, then charge for it like a service. The fact that the business model treats it as a good is the reason the business model fails. If the business model treated it as a service, it would probably work.
That sounds like the patron system. Do you really want to go back to that?
The patron system is clearly flawed and has many problems. However, in many ways it is better. Also, due to the advent of the Internet, it is possible to develop a new form of patronage that does not have some of the flaws the old patronage of Da Vinci's era. Take for example Jonathan Coulton. Rather than one wealthy patron, he has many small patrons insuring that music is his only job. I'm not just talking about charitable fans either. Valve paid him to write Still Alive. It's a business model where people pay for the creative service rather than for copies of the work. If artists of all shapes and sizes moved to this business model does it mean we would lose some things? Yeah, mostly likely. But it might simple be unavoidable given the harsh reality of the world.
The fact of the matter is that fansubs are illegal and if you download them, you are in knowing violation of the law and can be persecuted. That doesn't stop me, but you don't see me rambling on and on about how it's morally acceptable.
The fact of the matter is that fansubs are illegal and if you download them, you are in knowing violation of the law and can be persecuted. That doesn't stop me, but you don't see me rambling on and on about how it's morally acceptable.
This is correct.
No, not is not correct. It is against the law to distribute copies of the fansubs. It isn't against the law to receive copies. If you buy a bootleg DVD off the street, you are not guilty of anything. The person selling the DVDs is. Also, copyright infringement is not a criminal law. The police don't arrest you and put you in jail. All that can happen is that the copyright holder can come and sue you. If they don't sue you, it means they are ok with it.
If they don't sue you, it means they are ok with it.
I would like to think most of the copyright holders are not OK with it, but the money they would gain from taking your but to court is far less then the expenses that endeavor would cost them.
If they don't sue you, it means they are ok with it.
I would like to think most of the copyright holders are not OK with it, but the money they would gain from taking your but to court is far less then the expenses that endeavor would cost them.
I would like to think most of the copyright holders are not OK with it, but the money they would gain from taking your but to court is far less then the expenses that endeavor would cost them.
That's because the courts agree that the value you have diminished from the original product/creator is very low.
Copyright, at least as it was defined when it was created in the US, was very clearly not to protect artists, revenue, or even an author's right to recognition: it was created to give incentive for the continued creation of works. It was a compromise that was aimed entirely at getting people to create content. So long as said content is created, then the missive is met.
The current means for meeting this missive is the imposition of a temporary monopoly on artistic works for their creators. The less monetary value said work has, the less compensation the creator can glean from the pursuit of copyright violators. This creates incentive for monetarily-valuable works.
You can disagree with either the intent or the means, but that is how copyright is in the United States.
Illegal? Yes. But the term is copyright infringement, not stealing.
Technically, the ideas that have come up in this thread have ranged from theft to counterfeiting to fraud to copyright infringement (you can do three of hose just by variations of the bank account example) . Semantics aside, the main point was about the morality of said actions when there is technology to make those actions "easy" and the party being defrauded / stolen from / ripped off has no viable legal recourse.
I my opinion, a) you should always hold yourself to a high moral standard, regardless of whether there may be repercussions for bad behavior, and b) if you do decide to go against your own, or a generally accepted, morality, you should not bullshit yourself about it. In this regard, being upset about people calling or likening piracy to stealing, is, in my mind, an indication that you have a problem with b).
Remember: Rules are there so that you think about them, before you break them.
b) if you do decide to go against your own, or a generally accepted, morality, you should not bullshit yourself about it. In this regard, being upset about people calling or likening piracy to stealing, is, in my mind, an indication that you have a problem with b).
I am not denying that there are moral issues with piracy, though I was hoping to discuss them very specifically in this thread. However, to say that the moral issues are the same as those with stealing is misleading and serves to stifle discussion - which, understandably, is precisely why many of the largest media companies spend quite a lot of money to perpetuate this notion. The largest problem with stealing is that the act deprives another person of property, which is simply not the case with piracy. Piracy is copyright infringement, and copyright is very different to property rights... I could, by the same token, say "In this regard, being upset about people calling or linking piracy to murder is, in my mind, an indication that you have a problem with b)."
Remember: Rules are there so that youthinkabout them, before you break them.
Hey dont get me wrong im definitly for watching fan subbed anime to see whether you like the show or not all im saying is if you have the chance definitly buy it so the people who make it can keep making it. this is kind of the same argument of napster vs metallica. people were downloading metallicas music for free but the part the metallica obviously didnt care about, for reasons unknown to me, was record sales went up 30% after the inception of napster.
As far as the Jericho thing, yeah thats true it was all over jericho news sites. it got canceled once until fans sent nearly a ton of peanuts ( if you watched it you might get it) to the executives of the channel it was on. the execs gave it a second chance and when i failed again they decided to just wrap it up and put an end to it.
Mod: I'm not going to even bother fixing this. Make an effort, or you will be banned.
One thing to discuss (if it hasn't been already): Does piracy have a detrimental effect of the industry? Is this effect entirely the fault of piracy, the industries mishandling of the situation or a combination of both?
One thing to discuss (if it hasn't been already): Does piracy have a detrimental effect of the industry? Is this effect entirely the fault of piracy, the industries mishandling of the situation or a combination of both?
Anime is really only successful in the US when it is easily available for free. Look at how many anime fans came about when Toonami was in its heyday. Anime is basically gone from TV in most cases, relegated to late night spots or special nights, and without fansubs would likely die out in this country; especially with the economic crisis and whatnot, people have a lot less disposable income to spend, and thus luxury items like DVDs don't sell as well. Without free or extremely cheap methods of watching anime, there is a significantly lower chance of people spending their diminished disposable income on anime DVDs whose quality they cannot determine (because they haven't already seen it). There would, in essence, be no new fans, the current fans would stop spending money on anime DVDs, and the anime industry in the US would basically die out within a few years.
One thing to discuss (if it hasn't been already): Does piracy have a detrimental effect of the industry? Is this effect entirely the fault of piracy, the industries mishandling of the situation or a combination of both?
Anime is really only successful in the US when it is easily available for free. Look at how many anime fans came about when Toonami was in its heyday. Anime is basically gone from TV in most cases, relegated to late night spots or special nights, and without fansubs would likely die out in this country; especially with the economic crisis and whatnot, people have a lot less disposable income to spend, and thus luxury items like DVDs don't sell as well. Without free or extremely cheap methods of watching anime, there is a significantly lower chance of people spending their diminished disposable income on anime DVDs whose quality they cannot determine (because they haven't already seen it). There would, in essence, be no new fans, the current fans would stop spending money on anime DVDs, and the anime industry in the US would basically die out within a few years.
Yeah but saying something like anime is free cause its on tv isnt exactly representing it right. theres still income being moved back and forth because its on tv. Granted things like tunami and adult swim are the reason that anime kinda became mainstream in the country, there was anime long before tunami and adult swim and there will be anime long after
Comments
Saying piracy is not theft may not morally or legally justify one's actions, but since theft is, in many people's eyes, not morally or legally justified, a distinction between the two assists in constructing a justification. That piracy is not theft is not the justification in and of itself, but it eliminates the immorality of theft (the major anti-piracy point).
However, fansubs are good if it is impossible for one to get old anime such as Candy Candy or Remi. I can get the super old shows because most of those old shows were also released in Spanish, so I can buy all of "Marco: 3000 Leagues in Search for Mother", "Candy, Candy", " Heidi", legally if I want to (they do not come with the original Japanese language, but that is how I watched them back in the day). But, if you want to get Remi in the states is going to cost you an eye, a leg and a penis (if you are a guy, if you are a girl you are in luck).
Now, I think that every comes down to the nature of each person. I can go to Hulu and watch all of Astroboy 2003 but it is a very crappy version of the piece of art that is the real Astroboy 2003. Really, it is like comparing the crappy American version of Coupling with the hilarious British version. And I can say that because I was lucky enough to get a R3 dvd of Astroboy 2003 :P
I know watching anime can be an expensive hobby so use Netflix. It helps you manage your time (it is very easy to get hook on a show that you like) and money. But, if you are one of those people that have heard that Giant Robo is awesome and you still go out your way to torrent it (even though it cost less than 20$ for an excellent piece of animation), then sir or ma'am you are an ass!
The fact that it is possible to get stuff for free does not make it morally justifiable to take them for free. Think about the example of hacking your bank account.
The fact that a sellers inventory is not reduced does not make it not stealing. Unless you are creating (not copying), by yourself, the product in question, you have benefitted unjustly from the suppliers efforts. fix'd
Copyright, at least as it was defined when it was created in the US, was very clearly not to protect artists, revenue, or even an author's right to recognition: it was created to give incentive for the continued creation of works. It was a compromise that was aimed entirely at getting people to create content. So long as said content is created, then the missive is met.
The current means for meeting this missive is the imposition of a temporary monopoly on artistic works for their creators. The less monetary value said work has, the less compensation the creator can glean from the pursuit of copyright violators. This creates incentive for monetarily-valuable works.
You can disagree with either the intent or the means, but that is how copyright is in the United States.
I my opinion, a) you should always hold yourself to a high moral standard, regardless of whether there may be repercussions for bad behavior, and b) if you do decide to go against your own, or a generally accepted, morality, you should not bullshit yourself about it. In this regard, being upset about people calling or likening piracy to stealing, is, in my mind, an indication that you have a problem with b).
Remember: Rules are there so that you think about them, before you break them.
I could, by the same token, say
"In this regard, being upset about people calling or linking piracy to murder is, in my mind, an indication that you have a problem with b)." Terry Pratchett is awesome.
As far as the Jericho thing, yeah thats true it was all over jericho news sites. it got canceled once until fans sent nearly a ton of peanuts ( if you watched it you might get it) to the executives of the channel it was on. the execs gave it a second chance and when i failed again they decided to just wrap it up and put an end to it.
Mod: I'm not going to even bother fixing this. Make an effort, or you will be banned.