Should we change how we approach copyright law, and IP?

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Quite the the opposite! I try to address all of their arguments... mind you, when I am writing 5 lines, but despite the quoting the counter-argument refers to only the first one ignoring the other four... or whichever is convenient to extract out of context to support one's opinion is not much of a discussion, rather an excuse to religiously evangelize one's opinion. I stated my arguments, at the best of my ability and patience, they are there to read, and in good-will countered.

It's up to you guys to read our opinions and contribute, I don't believe I can try any more to write anything else constructive here given the preachers opposing my opinion... some earlier post (including the first few ones of Anh), actually made me reconsider some of my opinions and confirm a couple of impressions I had with actual facts, but the last couple of days that's not the case.

It's one thing to have an opinion and be willing to discuss it, either to enrich it or change it, and another to strive to impose one's own. My intention was and still is to consider an alternative to the deification of money, and that a more altruistic mindset can be at least equally beneficial to the society. Everyone is free to read it as well as the opposing opinions and make his/her own mind. I don't even wish to change the opinion of anyone, rather drive them to think for themselves instead of adapt the most convenient opinion...

... rant-mode-off... damn this thread sucks as it turned out, again I have to defend myself, instead of my opinion... just like AnoHana 15 months ago with almost the same persecutors

Your view on copyright is very anarchic to the point to the point that you seem to have a hate for capitalism instead of just copyright.
Anyways some arguments of mine against some of your previous posts (while i am pretty sure they are similar to others)

Before copyright, patent, and all that jazz, innovation had the same pace, and was more accessible from the masses. On the other hand, the commercialization of science and engineering has created an array of problems that lead into many failures, financial included. Companies these days spent way more resources into having the legal right to use certain technologies, rather than into inventing new ones or perfecting existing ones.

Before the copyright and patent , you say? Funny, patents and copyrights were starting to get used more often during the industrial revolution, an era which is known for an explosive growth on innovation and technology.
As for more accesibility, before the industral revolution many things that we consider normal now were luxury goods that only the royality and the rich could afford.

Same is true for art. Almost all band I used to like established themselves in underground scenes, broke into mainstream for a few years and then either turned back into the underground scene for stable financial support or jointly founded small independent labels. On the other hand, very crappy mass produced artists have risen and fallen within large record labels producing very bad quality music, earning their employers a shitload of money, and the individuals disappeared in poverty.

You were claiming that aohige was making generalizations before, but it's you who is making generalizations that are based on empirical observations on music.

Should patents and copyright stop being a merchandise and benefit financially only the creator/developer, and by extent his employers/cooworkers/benefactors is a first step to stop all this waste of resource (the billions of dollars) for something that can objectively needs a tiny fraction.

Are you even considering the huge ammounts of money invested? The money invested in the copyright is a small fraction of the research costs on a short term.

Thank the Romans that did not claim a patent for aqueducts, otherwise we would still be unable to have running water
And the context for the argument...

I find it odd that you have used one of history's biggest plagiarisers as an example for this topic on copyright.

You are making many assumption here. What patents prohibit is the use of existing technology by the weaker financially companies that are unable to buy the legal right to use it. Should this again stop being the case, it will reinvigorate again the competition for innovation, instead of the competition for stagnation that patents promote. Currently resources are funneled to the acquisition of the right to use an innovation and not to innovate.
More modern example of pattern infrigment...

You are also making assumptions youself for thinking that an absence of patents would improve the innovation. The socalled "weaker" companies are the ones who did not have the huge ammount of budget to spend on developing their own kind of technology. For the weaker companies it's alot easier and cheaper to pay for a licence to use the patented or copyrighted technology.

Why was iPhone successful? Because billions of dollars were spent into innovation? Apple is still locked into countless patent wars with other hardware developers for using their patented technology. The fact that their managed trashed the patent law, led to an extremely successful product, as well as reinvigorated a stagnant market. Internet would never have exploded if we had to pay for the slow and buggy IIS, but the copyleft LAMP made cheap and fast servers feasible. Linux has not even been funded by anyone and still isn't. OS X and iOS are built around a 70s kernel with technology developed by an obscure company with very limited resources. Should we move further back into technological history when patents and copyright did not stop innovation and the spread of knowledge the examples are even more numerous.

The iphone was mostly succesfull because of their marketing strategies, not because of their technology. In fact the original iphone that was introduced in 2007 was not that much more innovative from their competition.

Also many medicine, surgery, and other practices developed outside the patent system and had greater impact to human welfare and lifespan than the multimillion research currently funded. And don't forget that any policy, law, ideology, etc. has as an objective the benefit of the many. Patents and copyright by nature as either means or ends try and succeed in achieving exactly the opposite.

A quote from the book "Pharmaceutical Patents in Europe" to counter that argument:
"Pharmaceutical companies could not exist without some guarantee that they can recoup the cost of developing a new product."

You also worry about that without patents, there will be no incentive for innovation and research. Leaving aside the thousands of years of human history that you conveniently choose to ignore, as well as the fact you're labeling an exception every contemporary example I brought up; the process is rather simple. With patents and copyright not being resealable, each individual will be sought after to work with and not for the investor, gaining exactly what he deserves, and the investor will be forced into a more productive role because he will need the person. Without the burden of the whole law altogether, investors will be forced to fund research either by institutions or individuals as well as employ the personnel that can actually produce and work with the now "secret" patents, instead bloat corporation with unproductive leeches that their only job is to lie and manipulate.

Thousand of years of human history? More like last 3 centuries when we are looking at the growth of innovation.

As for your 2nd part of that quote about companies and inventors, what does this even have to do with copyright or patents? The inventors themselves do get credit for their inventions.

[Random32]

Your not being able to sell a remake of Justin Bieber's last song doesn't hinder cultural advancement in any way. Just make up your own crap if you're that interested in "advancing culture".

Last time I checked, not being able to do that results in less culture being produced, which means culture isn't advancing as rapidly as it would.

Most derivatives are covered by fair use, and thus not blocked. Not so for straight up plagiarism, but again, I don't see a problem.

Some manga author warned that the doujin industry would die if US copyright laws came to Japan via TPP. Doujinshi are generally unauthorized derivative works that would not exist under the US copyright system.

It means people have to come up with their own crap instead of selling their fanfiction.

Which means less cultural goods produced. Tada~ You answered your own question before you even asked it.

99% of fanfics are crap, but there are some really good ones that I would buy if they were on sale. Also, if people buy good fanfics, we might get more good fanfics since there would be more incentive for people who aren't obsessed 14 year old fangirls to write them.

Yes, the first copy costs thousands to millions to make. The others basically nothing. So all you need is one sucker to pay millions so you can get your stuff for free? And you see nothing wrong with that?

As a person that spends a shit ton of cash buying anime, so more anime can be produced, for most of this the people on this forum to simply take for free, I see nothing wrong with that.

I would hope most of the people here see nothing wrong with that, since they are either the sucker paying, or the people taking for free. Since that seems to be the way late night anime is funded.

Or heck, just steal it. You want something but don't want to pay for it. Stop making excuses and just try not to get caught.

You are really quick to stereotype me into someone who I'm not.

I want stuff to be free. That is very different from wanting stuff for free. If I wanted free food, I would line up at a soup kitchen and steal from the poor. If I wanted food to be free, I would be giving money to said soup kitchen so they can feed those who can't afford food. Likewise, I'm willing to pay more for entertainment so everyone can enjoy it.

And how much money do you think can be raised that way? Even without the psychological obstacles of paying something through the nose just so a bunch of entitled kids can get it for free?

I would say enough to finance most of the works we are seeing today. The anime industry already operates on the principle that some people are very willing to pay through their nose, despite the knowledge that a lot of people will simply take it for free. All this changes is that the full product hasn't been released yet when the people are committing money.

Or maybe it's just a stupid idea. Ever considered that?

It's worked before. Art patronage works when a few people have a crap ton of the resources. Considering the world is moving in that direction with ever increasing income inequality, I think its about time a similar way of funding artistic works came back.

No copyright: as with patents, someone will have to find some alternative way to make people invest money, or all we'll be left with will be advertisements.

I already suggest a system that has worked several times before in the past, adapted for a more modern age. Is it just you who is blind toward alternative ways?

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

So I answered your questions several times already, it's just that you and aohige are not persuaded by the arguments... so please don't write again that I evade the question, disagreeing and ignoring are two very different things. Discussion between arguing parties has the purpose of enriching our understanding, improving and occasionally altering our mindset, and enlightening the audience... diverting attention, ignoring and twisting each others arguments does not fulfill any of those purposes.

You still evaded the most important question, with no answer.
In fact, it seems you are totally oblivious to the what the question actually is.

Artists and creators must be paid for their work.
Innovations are founded on motivation, not thin air. It does not just "happen".
Your stance is completely from a stance of a leecher, founded in fantasy of "I am entitled to get things for free at others expense", instead of being grounded in actual reality.

I'm still waiting for you to give an answer, not a random gibberish.

And one more thing. I have repeatedly said, the current system is less than ideal, and needs work. None of us, not one person in the entire conversation is claiming that current system is perfect.
The patient and copyright laws should change and improve, but there MUST be a law to protect the creators for progress to happen. In whatever form it maybe, otherwise the volume of motivations will severly diminish. Patient laws were made in the first place to guarantee one's trade secret will not be wasted, and will be secured.
This is furthur proof that YOU are the one refusing to read and understand the subject at hand, not everyone else.

Originally Posted by Random32

For financing of high cost stuff like big budget movies or games, I suggest a kickstarter-ish system. Patrons who can afford it pay creators to make cultural goods to give out to everyone free of charge.

Of course that isn't happening easily. People too invested in the current system are busily resisting change.

Relying on "good samaritans to come make stuff I want" is not going to work.
It'll limit the amount of creation to nearly nothingness, and sheer number of innovations will come to a halt.

Malkuth is somehow convinced that the past century was century of hell, and previous centuries were paradise of innovation.
When in fact, the past centuries was the biggest surge in innovations and advancement in entire human history.

[Malkuth]

No comment, that's not even close to a level of discussion I am willing read about, aohige, at least Anh tries to divert the discussion, you are just ridiculing it

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

No comment, that's not even close to a level of discussion I am willing read about, aohige, at least Anh tries to divert the discussion, you are just ridiculing it

Yes, of course.
Instead of actually answering the question, just lebel the other side as trolls, and pretend you win the argument.

Very mature, Malkuth. Reddit level.
I'm out, as you wish. Anh and hyl can carry on.

[Malkuth]

Whatever... write ONE argument to support your opinion, and I will reconsider discussing it (I can even agree with you if you can justify your opinion, instead of just stating it), but you just prefer staying outside the fray, conveniently labeling in safety and convenience, instead of supporting "your" opinion and decorating with degrading adjective everyone who disagrees.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Whatever... write ONE argument to support your opinion, and I will reconsider discussing it (I can even agree with you if you can justify your opinion, instead of just stating it)

Uh, so you're basically saying you ignore entire posts and pretend you win.

How about the reason why artists need to get paid, why patient laws were made in the first place, and why the laws must be there to protect creations?
Or the facts I have posted, such as lack of protection during the darker ages, the advancement of progress during the past centries, etc?

Those are not argument to you, right? They're just mere letters on the screen that does not do "your argument" very good, therefore should be dismissed right?

you just prefer staying outside the fray, conveniently labeling in safety and convenience, instead of supporting "your" opinion and decorating with degrading adjective everyone who disagrees.

Dude. Everything you have said here applies to yourself.
What you decided to do here is basically "passive-aggressive".
An act to pretend you are being victimized and bullied, to justify your own agression.

I'm actually quite appalled at this, and as you wish, I'll be gone.
You're not worth it.

[Malkuth]

WTF, have you ever discussed in your life? Discussing is not about winning, but learning from someone who does not share your opinion!

Also everything you mentioned, I have addressed already, go back read and try to think about what I wrote... if my expression using the english language sucks so much, you can still ask for a clarification... I will in good-will try to help.

As for your personal references, dunno... I have no clue what you wish to imply, so I'd rather leave it there. Suffice to say, if you feel that I feel victimized, that's your understanding... definitely not mine, unless you can read my thoughts too

Now can you skip the off-topic sarcasm, and personal stuff, and try to stick to the subject?

[Random32]

Actually, I'm relatively happy with the patent system. Apart from a lot of patent trolling/etc, and restricting technologies from going to poorer countries, it does its job relatively well. Reform is needed, but not as major as what copyright, especially in the US, needs.

Copyright on the other hand, is working against the creation of more cultural goods. It needs major-ass reform. Anything short of nuking it from orbit and starting over is a band aid that will quickly fall off.

Relying on "good samaritans to come make stuff I want" is not going to work.

Actually, its relying on rich people to fund art, and it was the way all art was funded back in the day of rich nobles. It also has a lot of similarities with otaku funding anime. Both of which have been proven to work.

[Malkuth]

Originally Posted by Random32

Actually, its relying on rich people to fund art, and it was the way all art was funded back in the day of rich nobles. It also has a lot of similarities with otaku funding anime. Both of which have been proven to work.

Or like the linux, apache, php, perl, python, mysql, postgresql, sqlite that made internet work for you kids, not to mention opengl so you can enjoy your over-priced games... all those are because some rich people funded them?

Oh! wait it gets better, have you even considered if some wise-ass had patented printing press, surgical operations, the human genome, alphabets, spoken languages, lightning fire

Not dark ages, but pretty much the end of civilization would be at hand if such idiocy was supported earlier in human history and prehistory

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by Random32

Actually, its relying on rich people to fund art, and it was the way all art was funded back in the day of rich nobles. It also has a lot of similarities with otaku funding anime. Both of which have been proven to work.

Proven to work...but not well.

Having a patron fund art is extremely limiting. This is due to the fact that it requires a patron wealthy enough to fund what is needed for creation of art/innovation, caring enough about what is produced to fund it, and accessible enough by the creator to have the patron fund the project. Each one of these is a large limitation on what the creator can produce.

[Malkuth]

A certain Leo operated under that system, when innovation was not subject to commercialization, and we all know how all his inventions worked five to ten centuries afterwards... at least some then holy roman occupied decadent italian dukes did not claim intellectual ownership to his worthless fantasies because they paid for his food and lodging

[Triple_R]

Nice to see this old thread I started get bumped like this, and really take off.


After giving it some thought, my views are similar to Random32's.

Patents are important because they ensure that creators/inventors can sell their creations without having to worry about unscrupulous people taking their ideas/inventions/content and trying to sell it themselves. This, of course, is necessary in order for creators/inventors to feel that their creative pursuits are worthwhile. Patents serve a frankly necessary motivating factor.


The problem is copyright. The problem is that copyright goes beyond a truly legitimate financial concern - It doesn't just fight bootleggers (people profiting from breaking copyright).

I think that, eventually, society is going to have to accept that for anything that can be digitized, it is going to be widely copied and disseminated for free, if people are interested in it at all. Trying to legally crack down on that will either be a fool's errand, or result in a draconian solution that's worse than "the problem" itself. So for all intents and purposes, I think that copyright law should not apply to the internet (or only apply in the most egregious of circumstances - certainly not for a mere AMV on YouTube, say).

I honestly think that the anime model might be the way of the future here - Sell this digitized content in something tangible, make it into a "Collector's Item", and pitch it that way. The most hardcore fans may well go for this, as is the case with many otakus in Japan.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Random32

Last time I checked, not being able to do that results in less culture being produced, which means culture isn't advancing as rapidly as it would.

Quality, not quantity... Justine Bieber's latest song already exists, why make it again?

Some manga author warned that the doujin industry would die if US copyright laws came to Japan via TPP. Doujinshi are generally unauthorized derivative works that would not exist under the US copyright system.

OK, good point, but if the original work doesn't come to light due to lack of funding, neither will the fanfiction further down the road.

Which means less cultural goods produced. Tada~ You answered your own question before you even asked it.

On balance, I don't believe so. The vast majority of cultural products are made and distributed because there's money in it. Take that money away, and the original works go. Now, you've given examples of alternative means (thanks for not being Malkuth), but I'm not convinced.

99% of fanfics are crap, but there are some really good ones that I would buy if they were on sale. Also, if people buy good fanfics, we might get more good fanfics since there would be more incentive for people who aren't obsessed 14 year old fangirls to write them.

The disappearance of non-free fanfiction would be sad, but I believe less important than a drastic shrinkage in the production of original work.

As a person that spends a shit ton of cash buying anime, so more anime can be produced, for most of this the people on this forum to simply take for free, I see nothing wrong with that.

I would hope most of the people here see nothing wrong with that, since they are either the sucker paying, or the people taking for free. Since that seems to be the way late night anime is funded.


You are really quick to stereotype me into someone who I'm not.

You're right, I apologize.

I want stuff to be free. That is very different from wanting stuff for free. If I wanted free food, I would line up at a soup kitchen and steal from the poor. If I wanted food to be free, I would be giving money to said soup kitchen so they can feed those who can't afford food. Likewise, I'm willing to pay more for entertainment so everyone can enjoy it.


I would say enough to finance most of the works we are seeing today. The anime industry already operates on the principle that some people are very willing to pay through their nose, despite the knowledge that a lot of people will simply take it for free. All this changes is that the full product hasn't been released yet when the people are committing money.

That's a pretty big change.

Now, if you have an idea for a project (let's say a movie), you have to pitch it to professionals. They're not infallible, but at least it's their day-job. They can conceivably spend more than a minute to think it through.

You want to replace them with netizens and our notoriously short attention span. That will obfuscate the differences between a "movie idea" that's a 100-word blurb, and a "movie idea" that's a complete script just waiting for a few rewrite. And god there will be a lot of 100-word blurbs to compete against. That means, in turn, that the only things that'll stand out will be the ones that can be explained and strike a chord with just a few keywords. In other words, prequel, sequels, and adaptations (like we don't already have enough of those). Oh, and things with big name stars, but you'll have to pitch it to them first. So you'll be able to pitch "Justin Bieber, (Twilight-)Vampire Hunter" (... now I kinda want to see it done...), but you won't be able to pitch a self-contained movie on its own merits.

It's worked before. Art patronage works when a few people have a crap ton of the resources. Considering the world is moving in that direction with ever increasing income inequality, I think its about time a similar way of funding artistic works came back.

I already suggest a system that has worked several times before in the past, adapted for a more modern age. Is it just you who is blind toward alternative ways?

I'm not sure we're culturally ready for that. The rich nowadays have too many other distractions. Besides, it would mean a select few would decide what art gets done, rather than the masses.

Besides, that will still shrink the amount of available money. While there are "people who want to make money" galore, charity's much less common. Not to mention, there are other causes.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Nice to see this old thread I started get bumped like this, and really take off.

After giving it some thought, my views are similar to Random32's.

Patents are important because they ensure that creators/inventors can sell their creations without having to worry about unscrupulous people taking their ideas/inventions/content and trying to sell it themselves. This, of course, is necessary in order for creators/inventors to feel that their creative pursuits are worthwhile. Patents serve a frankly necessary motivating factor.


The problem is copyright. The problem is that copyright goes beyond a truly legitimate financial concern - It doesn't just fight bootleggers (people profiting from breaking copyright).

I think that, eventually, society is going to have to accept that for anything that can be digitized, it is going to be widely copied and disseminated for free, if people are interested in it at all. Trying to legally crack down on that will either be a fool's errand, or result in a draconian solution that's worse than "the problem" itself. So for all intents and purposes, I think that copyright law should not apply to the internet (or only apply in the most egregious of circumstances - certainly not for a mere AMV on YouTube, say).

I honestly think that the anime model might be the way of the future here - Sell this digitized content in something tangible, make it into a "Collector's Item", and pitch it that way. The most hardcore fans may well go for this, as is the case with many otakus in Japan.

You still need the ad revenue for a lot of stuff, and that means copyright so you can sell them to broadcast networks. You also need the money gotten from selling it to cinemas. Well, you need a lot of money all round, and you're not going to have enough "dedicated fans".

I won't argue that the copyright system isn't abused and couldn't stand some heavy reform. Heck, I wouldn't be against some kind of global license (if we have some way to track downloads so the money is shared equitably and success is rewarded) funded by taxes. (And in case someone's as quick to jump to conclusions as I am , I'm not poor enough to not pay taxes.)

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

You still need the ad revenue for a lot of stuff, and that means copyright so you can sell them to broadcast networks.

I'm not saying that copyright should necessarily disappear entirely, just that it might be good if copyright restrictions were largely (if not entirely) lifted, just on the internet.

Simply put, I think that a well-managed entertainment industry can find ways to be successful while coping with widespread internet piracy .

The reason I say that is that the anime industry has found a way to do it, and it's far from inexpensive to create anime.


The problem I have with copyright restrictions is that it's main impact on the internet is being just one, big, annoying killjoy that probably doesn't earn a penny for professional creators in the processing of being that.

Let me give you a good example of that - The famous "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" series by LittleKuriboh. This was insanely popular on YouTube, and I also enjoyed watching it. But then YouTube started deleting it like crazy, all because of copyright infringement.

"Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" shortened Yu-Gi-Oh episodes, and redid (most) of the lines to basically spoof the show and have some fun at its absurdities. But it wasn't a mean-spirited thing; it was clearly a labor of love done by a fan of the show.

Now, do you really think that Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged was hurting DVD sales for Yu-Gi-Oh? If anything, it was renewing some people's interest in the show.

The problem with modern copyright law is that, in application, it's like a big, dumb, messy bomb that causes a lot of collateral damage. It frequently, if not typically, causes more harm than good.

Fans should be able to freely make and share AMVs on any website that has the functionality in place to do this (including YouTube). Fans should be able to freely write fanfiction and share it on any website that is set up (in whole or in part) for the dissemination of fanfiction. And original TV airing anime episodes are in large part just advertisements anyway - How can it be bad for an advertisement to gain a wider audience?

These things are good for various entertainment franchises. If anything, they add to their fame and popularity.

The anime and manga industry is a great example of this, where derivative fanworks (particularly in the form of doujins) are absolutely huge in Japan. But this doesn't seem to be hurting those two industries. If anything, it seems to be helping them.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I'm not saying that copyright should necessarily disappear entirely, just that it might be good if copyright restrictions were largely (if not entirely) lifted, just on the internet.

Simply put, I think that a well-managed entertainment industry can find ways to be successful while coping with widespread internet piracy .

The reason I say that is that the anime industry has found a way to do it, and it's far from inexpensive to create anime.


The problem I have with copyright restrictions is that it's main impact on the internet is being just one, big, annoying killjoy that probably doesn't earn a penny for professional creators in the processing of being that.

Let me give you a good example of that - The famous "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" series by LittleKuriboh. This was insanely popular on YouTube, and I also enjoyed watching it. But then YouTube started deleting it like crazy, all because of copyright infringement.

"Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" shortened Yu-Gi-Oh episodes, and redid (most) of the lines to basically spoof the show and have some fun at its absurdities. But it wasn't a mean-spirited thing; it was clearly a labor of love done by a fan of the show.

Now, do you really think that Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged was hurting DVD sales for Yu-Gi-Oh? If anything, it was renewing some people's interest in the show.

The problem with modern copyright law is that, in application, it's like a big, dumb, messy bomb that causes a lot of collateral damage. It frequently, if not typically, causes more harm than good.

Fans should be able to freely make and share AMVs on any website that has the functionality in place to do this (including YouTube). Fans should be able to freely write fanfiction and share it on any website that is set up (in whole or in part) for the dissemination of fanfiction. And original TV airing anime episodes are in large part just advertisements anyway - How can it be bad for an advertisement to gain a wider audience?

These things are good for various entertainment franchises. If anything, they add to their fame and popularity.

The anime and manga industry is a great example of this, where derivative fanworks (particularly in the form of doujins) are absolutely huge in Japan. But this doesn't seem to be hurting those two industries. If anything, it seems to be helping them.

The problem with your example of the Yu-gi-oh abridged was that youtube was the one being stingy, not 4kids who had the rights in the USA. 4kids themselves never claimed any infringements on those videos.

As for parodies, they shouldn't fall under the copyright law as long as it's fair use.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I'm not saying that copyright should necessarily disappear entirely, just that it might be good if copyright restrictions were largely (if not entirely) lifted, just on the internet.

Simply put, I think that a well-managed entertainment industry can find ways to be successful while coping with widespread internet piracy .

The reason I say that is that the anime industry has found a way to do it, and it's far from inexpensive to create anime.


The problem I have with copyright restrictions is that it's main impact on the internet is being just one, big, annoying killjoy that probably doesn't earn a penny for professional creators in the processing of being that.

Let me give you a good example of that - The famous "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" series by LittleKuriboh. This was insanely popular on YouTube, and I also enjoyed watching it. But then YouTube started deleting it like crazy, all because of copyright infringement.

"Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged" shortened Yu-Gi-Oh episodes, and redid (most) of the lines to basically spoof the show and have some fun at its absurdities. But it wasn't a mean-spirited thing; it was clearly a labor of love done by a fan of the show.

Now, do you really think that Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged was hurting DVD sales for Yu-Gi-Oh? If anything, it was renewing some people's interest in the show.

The problem with modern copyright law is that, in application, it's like a big, dumb, messy bomb that causes a lot of collateral damage. It frequently, if not typically, causes more harm than good.

Fans should be able to freely make and share AMVs on any website that has the functionality in place to do this (including YouTube). Fans should be able to freely write fanfiction and share it on any website that is set up (in whole or in part) for the dissemination of fanfiction. And original TV airing anime episodes are in large part just advertisements anyway - How can it be bad for an advertisement to gain a wider audience?

These things are good for various entertainment franchises. If anything, they add to their fame and popularity.

The anime and manga industry is a great example of this, where derivative fanworks (particularly in the form of doujins) are absolutely huge in Japan. But this doesn't seem to be hurting those two industries. If anything, it seems to be helping them.

I don't see why an internet fanfiction should be treated differently from a paper doujin. If you're going to allow one, you should allow the other.

That said, the problems you've raised aren't problems with the principles of copyright (that creators can control the reproduction of their work and thus sell the rights) but in its translation into actual laws and in the use of said laws. I don't find it that worrying, though. Those who use the Internet the best will eventually gain an advantage.

And while I can see that the greater visibility brought by fanwork would be an advantage, I can also see that having TV broadcasts (and DVDs) compete against internet streaming where all the ad revenue goes to Google instead of the production companies would hurt the latter's bottom line.

It's not really a simple, all or nothing problem, and any solution would have... collateral damage.

[AnimeFan188]

European Parliament Kills Global Anti-Piracy Accord:

"The European Parliament on Wednesday declared its independence from a global
anti-piracy accord, rejecting the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The vote, 478-39, means the deal won’t come into effect in European Union-member
nations, and effectively means the global accord is dead."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/eu-kills-acta/

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

European Parliament Kills Global Anti-Piracy Accord:

"The European Parliament on Wednesday declared its independence from a global
anti-piracy accord, rejecting the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The vote, 478-39, means the deal won’t come into effect in European Union-member
nations, and effectively means the global accord is dead."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/eu-kills-acta/

Wow. Pwned.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Wow. Pwned.

"However, despite this apparent victory for the Internet, transparency and democracy, the Commission indicated that it will press ahead with the court reference, and if the Court doesn't reject ACTA as well, will consider bringing it back before the Parliament."