How much is too much for Macross?

[SchizophrenicMC]

"Software in Australia is influenced by ONE thing and one thing only: the small market, which Australia's pretty much in for for everything, since it's an island nation no one cares about and is only remembered for Kangaroos and Koalas.

No offense, I'm just being blunt here. "

'no one cares about' Australia except for, say, the 20 million+ people living here, and whoever is scattered around the world with any personal interest in any one of those 20 million+. 'No offense' nullified by the sheer idiocy of your hyperbole. I'm Australian, born and raised, and I've never seen a koala in the wild. I've also lived in the US for five years, so at least one of us has the experience to comment on other cultures beyond tired cliches. I find your bluntness far less offensive than your blithely-deployed ignorance.

The blithely-deployed ignorance is the point of the statement.

There are 20 million of 7 billion in Australia. This is a very small fraction, you see. It's about .3% of the population. (Unless I carried something wrong. I do that when it's after 1 am) Compare that to Japan, with a population of 127,000,000, and the intended market, and you see that Australia's kinda insignificant in anime. The USA has 330,000,000 and a big share of the market, compared to the rest of the world, plus most of the licensing agencies for anime are based in the US or Canada (A few are even here in Texas, which I'll point out has 24,000,000 people). Further, the point carries, or at least it should, across.

The Australian market for stuff like that is small, and Australia's low on the priority list, because of it. And the marsupial comment? When you ask most people of the English-speaking world the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Australia," the answer is likely "Kangaroo," "Koala," "Continent," or "G'day mate." Because, really, no one but .3% of the world gives a flyin' frak about Australia. Especially, the people behind big Japanese software firms.

Now, I'm sorry that I'm a minor and I can't much go and live in another country, but your 5 years in America doesn't change anything. There is no culture here. Just ignorance about the rest of the world. Oh, and Mexicans. We got plenty of those.

The bluntness and "blithely deployed ignorance" are the same thing.

[DreamsOfIshtar]

The blithely-deployed ignorance is the point of the statement.

There are 20 million of 7 billion in Australia. This is a very small fraction, you see. It's about .3% of the population. (Unless I carried something wrong. I do that when it's after 1 am) Compare that to Japan, with a population of 127,000,000, and the intended market, and you see that Australia's kinda insignificant in anime. The USA has 330,000,000 and a big share of the market, compared to the rest of the world, plus most of the licensing agencies for anime are based in the US or Canada (A few are even here in Texas, which I'll point out has 24,000,000 people). Further, the point carries, or at least it should, across.

The Australian market for stuff like that is small, and Australia's low on the priority list, because of it. And the marsupial comment? When you ask most people of the English-speaking world the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Australia," the answer is likely "Kangaroo," "Koala," "Continent," or "G'day mate." Because, really, no one but .3% of the world gives a flyin' frak about Australia. Especially, the people behind big Japanese software firms.

Now, I'm sorry that I'm a minor and I can't much go and live in another country, but your 5 years in America doesn't change anything. There is no culture here. Just ignorance about the rest of the world. Oh, and Mexicans. We got plenty of those.

The bluntness and "blithely deployed ignorance" are the same thing.

Oh, look, it can do math. What it apparently can't do is figure that of that 7 billion, you can probably discount well over 90% as not giving a 'flying frak' about anime -- regardless of location. And then we can consider things like GDP, standards of living, wages...that'll knock out quite a few more. You're throwing numbers around with absolutely no experience or context -- you're a minor, as you yourself said, so I'll take that into very kind consideration regarding your ineptitude with data manipulation and relevant discourse. I try to be gentle with children but when they act all big and tough on the internet, I reckon the proberbial gloves can come off. We're all equals here, right? All just words on the screen.

This is, by the way, entirely irrelevant for the most part, and it pains me to have to taint Tochiro's thread further...but I'm also courteous and believe in responding to people. That and my last post was, I believe, quite pertinent.

To continue: while it is entirely possible Japanese software firms don't care much for Australia (why software firms are even relevant to a Macross board is beyond me, but hey, this is your ride, I'm just trying to find the brakes), they're equally unconcerned for the most part with America, regardless of how many millions of people you unfortunately call your countrymen. If you're not sure about this, check your latest Famitsu. Look at what's big in Japan on consoles. Then compare it to US sales and chart-toppers. The concern of Japanese software firms is irrelevant to population, but thumbs up for the effort. The real amusing thing here is it all hinges on Japan's lingering domesticity, which you clearly don't understand. But that's okay, you're all about America's domesticity and its...Mexicans, apparently. Mmmkay.

'When you ask most people of the English-speaking world the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Australia," the answer is likely "Kangaroo," "Koala," "Continent," or "G'day mate." ...Were you paying attention when I mentioned I'd spent five years in the US? I talked to...yknow, a LOT of people in that time, mostly on the East Coast. When they finally figured out (or had to be told) that I wasn't from England, most of them said first and foremost that they'd love to visit. They asked why I left. About the weather. The beaches. What the heck 'cricket' is. How hot are the girls?...that sort of thing. Only the obviously silly ones (amongst such a number I believe we can count you in this regard) asked about riding kangaroos. That you'd believe your statement tells me far, far more about you than anyone else. It's a big internet, my young friend. Start at 'Australia' in Wikipedia and go crazy from there.

The only decent point you made about was about the large market share of the US regarding licensing and anime. This is pretty much true, but as Tochiro and others have also elucidated, the US is where a great deal of the torrenting/STEALING of anime goes on too. We Aussies have crap connections and the Japanese just don't go there. So I'm glad you're possibly proud of your big slice of the pie when it comes to releasing/purchasing anime -- just don't forget how few people actually pay for their mouthfuls of that pie.

"There is no culture here. Just ignorance about the rest of the world. "

If you're any indication, I won't argue that.

Get some sleep.

[Gubaba]

The blithely-deployed ignorance is the point of the statement.

There are 20 million of 7 billion in Australia. This is a very small fraction, you see. It's about .3% of the population. (Unless I carried something wrong. I do that when it's after 1 am) Compare that to Japan, with a population of 127,000,000, and the intended market, and you see that Australia's kinda insignificant in anime. The USA has 330,000,000 and a big share of the market, compared to the rest of the world, plus most of the licensing agencies for anime are based in the US or Canada (A few are even here in Texas, which I'll point out has 24,000,000 people). Further, the point carries, or at least it should, across.

The Australian market for stuff like that is small, and Australia's low on the priority list, because of it. And the marsupial comment? When you ask most people of the English-speaking world the first thing that comes to mind when you say "Australia," the answer is likely "Kangaroo," "Koala," "Continent," or "G'day mate." Because, really, no one but .3% of the world gives a flyin' frak about Australia. Especially, the people behind big Japanese software firms.

Now, I'm sorry that I'm a minor and I can't much go and live in another country, but your 5 years in America doesn't change anything. There is no culture here. Just ignorance about the rest of the world. Oh, and Mexicans. We got plenty of those.

The bluntness and "blithely deployed ignorance" are the same thing.

Christ, man...is this rant trying to win the coveted Ugly American Essay of the Year Award (Macross World Edition)?

Give it a rest. Last time you pulled something like this, the thread in question got locked. DO try not to let that happen again, please.

[Bri]

I suppose in a way, you can already see the changes anime companies have been making. Like more content being shown online, episode counts being shorter, prices being higher, broadcast episodes being watered-down, and content having more "moe" or being based on titles that have succeeded in the past or in other media like video games. It's hard to say which are right moves and which are the wrong moves.

Agreed, it's an evolving market. It all happened before in the 90s when anime faced tighter regulations and was forced out of daytime television. The distribution channels changed but the content remained. Same these days with the rise of the internet. The core business is to provide animated entertainment, the distribution and sale of said core product can take many forms and will change over time.

Yep, this issue of premium content with DVDs is a good motivation for sales. But they are still expensive... As Sketchley said, though, you can often find plenty of bargains at second-hand places like Book-Off in Japan.

[...]

The only times I thought I must have it now was the DYRL remastered edition. Which I thought is still overpriced with the extras being odd... I mean, one entire DVD is wasted on having the same movie again, but in monaural audio. What the hell is the point, if you asolutely must put that in, why not have an alternate track on the first DVD? I don't want to pay a premium for that crap. I chose to buy it for the added 200+ page storyboard book. The actual DVD content left a lot to be desired. I guess Bandai Visual kind of won that battle though. The downloaders would be getting more or less nothing new, while the hardcore fans had to pay extra for loads of stuff they don't need, just to get the one or two things they do want. If they had included newly-filmed interviews and stuff, it would have been a lot more worthwhile to me, but they would need to recouperate more production costs, as that stuff can be downloaded easily.

Interesting to see that Bandai is already taking precautions against downloading. I'm very curious if this attachement to physical media -as you and Sketchly pointed out- will remain in Japan if or (more likely) when broadband internet availability gets more widespread.

[...] To a degree, the internet, as a disseminator of information, has made varying prices in different countries harder to maintain, but I still don't hesitate to pay 30-40% more than an American for the same game. It's just ingrained in me that new releases cost that much. Of course, now that the price of new PS3 games here has cleared a hundred AUS, I'm far, far more selective -- but I still buy the game if I really want it. Amazon won't ship games overseas for fairly obvious reasons. Thankfully this same policy has not touched other media, and I am constantly watching the exchange rate.

I think habit and routine, the inertia of consumers, is a force not to be discounted when it comes to asking 'how much is too much?'

Very interesting point you make here. It's a very reasonable question to pose as a consumer, "why am I paying more or getting less quality then a person in country A?". Macross fans heve been quite active in overcoming their own inertia. Not being satisfied with HG licensed merchandise, direct imports out of Japan are the norm at MW. Internet based vendors like HLJ and Overdrive partly thank their existence from the desire of oversees mecha fans to aquire model kits and toys.

Internet has caused the tolerance for price differences to decrease and, just as importantly, the net has empowered consumers to take action.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Bri

[Vile]

I always buy the real deal if it's available. If torrent is the only way, then needs must, I suppose. If I like something enough and watch it often enough to live without the subtitles, I might even buy the original if it's only available in Japanese.

Mind you, then I need to have a fansub to refresh my memory every now and then ...

[Tochiro]

Many thanks for the (mostly) civilized debate guys. Much appreciated.

The longer this thread continues, the more I see two axis of influences emerging that shape how people respond to this issue (please note that the below are supposed to denominate extreme ends of each axis):

1)(i)those with no interest in or actual experience with Japan

|

|

|

(ii)those who live or have lived in Japan (or work in related industries), know the local market and/or have a vested interest in the industry.

2)(i)Young fans who prefer digital over physical media and may or may not pay for it

|

|

|

(ii)older fans who grew up with physical media and are used to paying for it

Ok, Im sure thats simplifying things waaaay too much, but those are two main factors I see at work here.

Personally, I can't comprehend the jump in logic from 'its too expensive' to 'i will download it for free.' Like Vifam said, either you can afford to it and pay for it or you cant, in which case you 'deal with it.' Downloading with no intention of purchasing the product regardless of quality is not a method of dealing with it, its theft.

If everyone bought just those shows they liked enough to watch 2 or 3 times, then I wouldnt have a problem with downloading as a way to sample a series. The problem is that most people don't.

Bri, you can hide behind technicalities all you like, but even revenue that isn't included in a productions budget and cost estimates is revenue lost if someone gets said product without having paid for it. Again, to quote Vifam, the money has to come from somewhere.

Having said that, it's obvious from the responses on this thread that most people here pay for some things, whether it be the Blu-ray versions or concerts or fancy shmancy valkyrie toys. My gripe is really with the masses of 'fans' on the internet who don't put any money back into the industry at all.

There have been some very good points brought up today though.

I do agree with a lot of what Ishtar said, which isnt surprising since we grew up together despite currently living an ocean apart.

There has to be a cost for quality. Streaming at low res for free or youtubing is one thing, but going so far as to rip DVDs and Blurays is another. Granted the 'cost' of quality is higher in Japan. But thats the price its set at so thats the price you pay if you want it imo. If not, settle for youtube.

Let me reverse the situation: Most popular western tv shows can take years to come out in Japan, IF they show at all (and usually gain much more popularity after being released on rental). But do you see Japanese ripping US DVDs and fansubbing them? No. In my case, I did what Ishtar did: downloaded each weeks episode, watched it, deleted it and then ordered the DVDs. Now how many anime fans can you honestly say do the same?

As I noted in my original post, macross is a more tricky proposition because its not available with English therefore changing the cost to value ratio for most people (although I will note that when Ishtar and I were in highschool and didnt have fansubs, we got off our asses and learned Japanese! Kids these days, grumblegrumble...wheres my cane?). But there are ways to be a fan and put some money back into the franchise without buying DVDs you obviously can't understand – merchandise, soundtracks, artwork books, valkyrie toys, tshirts, concerts, etc. These are things you can import regardless of the market you are in.

And Bri, yes, the Japanese attachment to physical media isnt going to change anytime soon. While the boondocks may not have the greatest connections, much of the country has one of the fastest fibreoptic internet infrastructures on the face of the planet. I love my unlimited hikari internet :-)

And surprisingly, this hasnt changed purchasing patterns all that much. The physical media and the idea of supporting something you like still has very strong cultural roots here. I remember when 'supporting anime' as a medium in the 90's in the west resulted in similar sentiments. I wonder why the 'fans' lost that. Not to be ageist but its definately the older fans I know back home (mid-late 20's and up) who still seem to feel this way.

I think people who are in favour of purely digital media need to realise that just because the technology is there to make something instantaneous doesnt mean that it legally can be. Many anime companies refuse to even start shopping their licenses until after a show is halfway done airing so they can better gauge the value of said license. And the license needs to be negotiated for every region, whatever te distribution method. Then theres the language barriers involved. Do you thing theres a single native English speaker at most anime companies in Japan? Think again. All these hurdles need to be overcome. Granted some companies overcome them better and faster than others, but to be so impatient as to resort to stealing ans then never actually buying the product? Well it just creates a Catch 22 situation, doesnt it? Because with sales of anime in the west dropping theres little motivation for Japanese companies to overcome these hurdles any better than they previously were. Instead they turn inwards and begin to focus on the local market – something that you can already see happening.

Oh and Renato – AWESOME pick of the Fukuyama DVDs. VERY nice. And much better than the downloaded alternative imo ;-)

Edited August 20, 2009 by Tochiro

[Bri]

Personally, I can't comprehend the jump in logic from 'its too expensive' to 'i will download it for free.' Like Vifam said, either you can afford to it and pay for it or you cant, in which case you 'deal with it.' Downloading with no intention of purchasing the product regardless of quality is not a method of dealing with it, its theft.

It is hard to explain, but in order to apreciate my point of view you will need to leave out the moral context. This thread is also shows a devision between those who feel people should act according to morals and rules and those who understand the way human behaviour is affected by incentives. You can swim around in righteous indignation, but it is not going to change the current situation, and the companies who can adpat to these changed conditions have the future.

Bri, you can hide behind technicalities all you like, but even revenue that isn't included in a productions budget and cost estimates is revenue lost if someone gets said product without having paid for it. Again, to quote Vifam, the money has to come from somewhere.

I am sorry but no it isn't lost revenue. If someone aquires your product without paying for it legally and is not a prospective buyer then it is not theft but freeriding. Or more technical, you benefit from a positive externality. You cannot count this as lost revenue. The target audience, the Japanese domestic market are the ones paying for it.

And Bri, yes, the Japanese attachment to physical media isnt going to change anytime soon. While the boondocks may not have the greatest connections, much of the country has one of the fastest fibreoptic internet infrastructures on the face of the planet. I love my unlimited hikari internet :-)

And surprisingly, this hasnt changed purchasing patterns all that much. The physical media and the idea of supporting something you like still has very strong cultural roots here. I remember when 'supporting anime' as a medium in the 90's in the west resulted in similar sentiments. I wonder why the 'fans' lost that. Not to be ageist but its definately the older fans I know back home (mid-late 20's and up) who still seem to feel this way.

I'm in my thirties myself and from the west. In the nineties it was hard to come by new material, the community was smaller and you depended more on others to exchange new content. Now fans have become more individualistic as the dependacy on a local community got replaced by an online one.

I think people who are in favour of purely digital media need to realise that just because the technology is there to make something instantaneous doesnt mean that it legally can be.

The law follows technological development, not vice versa. Internet technology made new ways of distribution possible and the legal system strugles to catch up.

Many anime companies refuse to even start shopping their licenses until after a show is halfway done airing so they can better gauge the value of said license. And the license needs to be negotiated for every region, whatever te distribution method. Then theres the language barriers involved. Do you thing theres a single native English speaker at most anime companies in Japan? Think again. All these hurdles need to be overcome. Granted some companies overcome them better and faster than others, but to be so impatient as to resort to stealing ans then never actually buying the product? Well it just creates a Catch 22 situation, doesnt it? Because with sales of anime in the west dropping theres little motivation for Japanese companies to overcome these hurdles any better than they previously were. Instead they turn inwards and begin to focus on the local market – something that you can already see happening.

The license revenues of the US market helped fuel the boom in the early part of this decade, until it collapsed when the hype was over. The business model used by the anime companies might be due for an overhaul, instead of desperatly trying to maintain the status quo. Anime has always been focused on the Japanese market, nothing new there.

Maybe it's me but I detect a hint of irritation towards me. Honestly it is not my intention to insult, if I did my appologies. I just can't sugarcoat my arguments like a native speaker can. I fully respect your position on rewarding original creators and the choices involved however I feel I should point out this is one type of opinion amongst others.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Bri

[Vile]

older fans who grew up with physical media and are used to paying for it

Oi! Let's not get too personal, there!

[sketchley]

As for marginal revenue, it's not a loss. It's similar to selling last minute seats on a flight. If your plane is filled for 80% and the flight will happen then the costs are considered sunk. Selling any remaining seats at a discount (even below average cost) is still added income.

This stuck out in my memory like an ingrown nail. This arguement isn't applicable to a DVD et al. Using it is the same as stating that a DVD is a perishable (like milk) that has a best before date. A better arguement would be of the retail shop that orders a plethora of a single item, sells enough to recoup costs, expenses and a modicrum of profit, and liquidates the remainder at below cost prices.

So what options do non-Japanese speaking fans abroad have? Japanese imports, licensed versions and downloads. Japanese imports are expensive(if we discount cheap auctions) and more importantly dont have subs.

They have the option of patience and petitioning a company to acquire the license and provide a translation in the copy that they purchase from the company.

You've also neglected the third country option. Purchasing licensed copies from a third country will probably result in a much lower item price, simply because the cost of living (which translates into a higher per item cost) is lower in other countries. I'm refering to Korea, and Taiwan here. I once bought a pair of Japanese CDs in Korea produced for the domestic market, complete with "not for sale in Japan" printed on them. Their cost was 1/2 to 1/3 the retail cost of the exact same CDs in Japan. The only difference was the inclusion of translated lyrics in a seperate insert booklet! The only difference with Macross (or another popular anime) DVDs et al would be the menu would not be in Japanese. But as most of us can't read Japanese, the difference is negligible.

Anyhow, imports are expensive. It's a fact of life. If you have to import, you know you're going to be paying an inflated premium. If you can't afford to pay that price, change hobbies.

Lastly, why should a product made for the Japanese market have subtitles or dialogue tracks in non-Japanese languages? Isn't it culturally chauvanistic to make that assumption and demand?

Licensed versions often lack the extras of Japanese versions

Are you refering to the booklet, stickers and stuff like that? Or things like "making of" etc video documentaries? If it's the later, you'll be pleased to know that those things are highly uncommon on domestic releases. THe lack of them on licensed version is only due to the domestic versions not having them. Period.

As for the storage argument (Japan is hardly unique in having a high population density) a shelf full of external harddrives has more storage capacity then a house filled with DVDs;).

It's not an arguement. It's a fact of (Japanese) life. I think you'd appreciate the situation more if you did more research on the subject before trying to construct a counterarguement.

[sketchley]

(Apparently I had quoted too much... and have to break the post in two!)

Not exactly. Anime is made in Japan and Japanese anime companies prescribe to Japanese laws. That means, a distributor of the program must have a license with the rights holder (say Macross from Big West). Just because a country allows downloading does not mean it's not stealing.

Expanding on this - the Japanese entertainment industry has, on at least one occasion, asked Youtube to remove anime titles. Take it as meaning that they are aware of the stealing of their IP in foreign countries, want it to stop, and are proactive about it.

And Bri, yes, the Japanese attachment to physical media isnt going to change anytime soon. While the boondocks may not have the greatest connections, much of the country has one of the fastest fibreoptic internet infrastructures on the face of the planet. I love my unlimited hikari internet :-)

You got hikari too? It's great, isn't it? (Other than the initial 1+ month of waiting for them to put the hardline into the neighbourhood...)

But yeah, if anyone wants an example of Japan being a country attached to things tangible: Japan is still very much a cash (as in paper money carried in your pocket) society. Sure, there are credit cards and mobile phone "wallets", but by and large, the majority of people pay for things in cash. Cheques? Never seen one in Japan. With all the companies I've every worked for, it was either direct deposit into the bank account, or cash. Compare that to North America, where I've heard stories of people afraid of carrying more than $20 in their wallet, and more than willing to pay $0.25 for each and every money transaction, I am left shaking my head in sadness that people live with such fear in their lives.

I think people who are in favour of purely digital media need to realise that just because the technology is there to make something instantaneous doesnt mean that it legally can be. Many anime companies refuse to even start shopping their licenses until after a show is halfway done airing so they can better gauge the value of said license. And the license needs to be negotiated for every region, whatever te distribution method. Then theres the language barriers involved. Do you thing theres a single native English speaker at most anime companies in Japan? Think again. All these hurdles need to be overcome. Granted some companies overcome them better and faster than others, but to be so impatient as to resort to stealing ans then never actually buying the product? Well it just creates a Catch 22 situation, doesnt it? Because with sales of anime in the west dropping theres little motivation for Japanese companies to overcome these hurdles any better than they previously were. Instead they turn inwards and begin to focus on the local market – something that you can already see happening.

I fully agree. Why should a company specialize their product for a foreign market that provides obsolutely no incentive (read: income) for their efforts? I think Japanese companies would be more than willing to produce media with English content on it, if they got paid for their work.

It is hard to explain, but in order to apreciate my point of view you will need to leave out the moral context.

Erm, you're misunderstanding. It's not a moral or immoral action. It is a payment for work. Let's put it in different terms: if you go to work, do you not want to be payed for that work at the end of the day? If you're boss stopped paying you, would you continue working?

who understand the way human behaviour is affected by incentives.

And how did you come to the conclusion that those with morals do not understand human behaviour is affected by incentives?

but it is not going to change the current situation, and the companies who can adpat to these changed conditions have the future.

As I mentioned already, the Japanese market is adopting and changing to new market conditions. (See Discas) It's simply not evolving in directions that you are familiar with, desire, or cater to you.

I am sorry but no it isn't lost revenue. If someone aquires your product without paying for it legally and is not a prospective buyer then it is not theft but freeriding. Or more technical, you benefit from a positive externality. You cannot count this as lost revenue. The target audience, the Japanese domestic market are the ones paying for it.

No matter which way you look at it, it is lost revenue. Ref. Japanese anime companies demanding that Youtube remove their content. Perhaps things would be totally different if the media were in some sort of electronic copy-proof format, like the toys or model kits...

The law follows technological development, not vice versa. Internet technology made new ways of distribution possible and the legal system strugles to catch up.

Agreed. People find new ways to steal, and governments create new laws to stop stealing. Ref: Pirate Bay, Napster, et al.

You have to keep in mind that the content, IP or whatever you wish to call it, is covered by copyright law. New forms of distribution and media do not require changes in copyright law to such an extent that the original work can be acquired in entirity with no recompense to the creators and/or owners of the IP.

The license revenues of the US market helped fuel the boom in the early part of this decade, until it collapsed when the hype was over. The business model used by the anime companies might be due for an overhaul, instead of desperatly trying to maintain the status quo. Anime has always been focused on the Japanese market, nothing new there.

Why would the US market have anything to do with the Japanese market? Isn't it the US companies who should have evolved and adapted? We already know that the Japanese ones are, and their continued operation is indicative of it.

Honestly it is not my intention to insult, if I did my appologies. I just can't sugarcoat my arguments like a native speaker can.

No worries! The language that you've used to present your arguements is very good (I actually thought you were a native speaker until I read that line!) Any irritation on our part is against the content of the arguements and logic used to justify certain actions.

[BeyondTheGrave]

I torrent it or watch it online and if I like it enough, I fork over the cash to buy it legally. Such is the case with a few Gundam anime, Azumanga Daioh, and Clannad. Nothing Macross, because only Plus and SDFM are available to me, and the store I get my anime DVDs from has jacked the price up because they only ever have one copy of each... And no one buys them.

Way I see it, it's much like seeing something on cable, recording it on my DVR, and watching it a few times later before going to the store and buying the DVD so I can watch it whenever I want without having to clutter up precious space in my DVR.

Ebay is your friend when looking for anime cheap also amazon.com sells it used. Check your local used record store.

I'd tell you where to buy bootlegs (yes I own a few and have considered buying A MF one) but they can be an disappointment sometimes.

I think too far is when someone gets plastic surgery to look like Basara or Mylene.

I think too much depends on what the item is.

[Bri]

This stuck out in my memory like an ingrown nail. This argument isn't applicable to a DVD et al. Using it is the same as stating that a DVD is a perishable (like milk) that has a best before date. A better argument would be of the retail shop that orders a plethora of a single item, sells enough to recoup costs, expenses and a modicrum of profit, and liquidates the remainder at below cost prices.

The example was meant to explain the concept of marginal revenue to a person without knowledge of business economics. First thing to come to mind and both examples explain the concept.

They have the option of patience and petitioning a company to acquire the license and provide a translation in the copy that they purchase from the company.

Anyhow, imports are expensive. It's a fact of life. If you have to import, you know you're going to be paying an inflated premium. If you can't afford to pay that price, change hobbies.

Or they can just take whatever is available from the internet, which they can legally do by making a copy of said information for personal use. You don’t have to like this but it is an option that is available and used a lot.

Lastly, why should a product made for the Japanese market have subtitles or dialogue tracks in non-Japanese languages? Isn't it culturally chauvanistic to make that assumption and demand?

Not if you want to complain about lost revenue abroad. If the product is purely meant for the internal market then complaining about free riding holds no ground. You either accept the existence of an international market or you don’t.

It's not an arguement. It's a fact of (Japanese) life. I think you'd appreciate the situation more if you did more research on the subject before trying to construct a counterarguement.

For your information: Japanese average home space 121,7 m^2 (wiki) Dutch average home space 120 m^2 (CBS 2007). Like I said Japan is not unique in having to deal with limited living space. Granted I don’t live in Japan but I have visited the country several times and I never found the conditions cramped by my standards. Don’t assume everyone in the west faces US conditions.

Erm, you're misunderstanding. It's not a moral or immoral action. It is a payment for work. Let's put it in different terms: if you go to work, do you not want to be payed for that work at the end of the day? If you're boss stopped paying you, would you continue working?

That’s a bad example. The situation is more like this. Suppose you are a musician and you get payed by a person to give a live concert in his garden. I’m the neighbor who can hear the music and I record it for my own use. As long as I don’t sell it or use it for commercial reasons this action is fully legal. Unless you have any influence or power over me to make me pay, you have to rely on my good will to give you any amount I see fit.

And how did you come to the conclusion that those with morals do not understand human behaviour is affected by incentives?

The whole moral argument is based on the notion that anyone who has done work is entitled to compensation by all users. -Anime is made by the producers and anyone who watches it without compensating them is stealing. They who watch without paying should stop doing that because stealing is wrong.-

However if we analyze the situation, this is what happens: The production can be consumed in a non-exclusive (can’t stop downloading) and non-rival way (digital copy does not reduce the number of original units produced for consumption) and the producer is being compensated for his production by selling to the intended customers (Japanese home market) so future production will still happen. Those who do not belong to the intended customers have a choice to consume or not, there are no costs to this choice as there is no punishment for freeriding. If their benefit from consuming (enjoyment from anime) outweighs not consuming (guilt of free riding) they will chose to consume. Any income generated from those who freeride is extra income for the producers and the height of this payment will be significantly less (quite often even zero) then what the target consumers will pay.

The moral argument refuses to acknowledge that the difference in power between the two types of consumers will be reflected in the price payed for anime.

You have to keep in mind that the content, IP or whatever you wish to call it, is covered by copyright law. New forms of distribution and media do not require changes in copyright law to such an extent that the original work can be acquired in entirity with no recompense to the creators and/or owners of the IP.

Making a digital copy for domestic use happens without breaking copyright law. IP lawyers have unsuccessfully challenged downloading and been shot down by the courts every time.

Why would the US market have anything to do with the Japanese market? Isn't it the US companies who should have evolved and adapted? We already know that the Japanese ones are, and their continued operation is indicative of it.

The revenue from these US licenses were seen as part the revenue by several producers, GONZO most notably, and included predicted returns from the US market in cost estimates for future productions. When the license market in the US took a nose dive those producers got hurt financially.

The Japanese business model for anime is still governed by sponsors raising funds and commissioning a production company to make an anime with a significant amount of the budget allocated for acquiring broadcasting time. The structure is characterized by a large number of subcontractors. Revenue is gained from DVD and merchandise sales. (METI)

Compare this to developments in online streaming like Kadokawas yahoo channel and lean operations like Mokoto Shinkais 5 cm per second. If the DVD sales are no longer guaranteed then it’s time to look for revenue elsewhere.

No worries! The language that you've used to present your arguements is very good (I actually thought you were a native speaker until I read that line!) Any irritation on our part is against the content of the arguements and logic used to justify certain actions.

Thank you.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Bri

[Vifam7]

That’s a bad example. The situation is more like this. Suppose you are a musician and you get payed by a person to give a live concert in his garden. I’m the neighbor who can hear the music and I record it for my own use. As long as I don’t sell it or use it for commercial reasons this action is fully legal. Unless you have any influence or power over me to make me pay, you have to rely on my good will to give you any amount I see fit.

Not exactly. If you record his music and then distribute it, whether for profit or not, it's not legal. I believe that's how it is under current laws of the US and Japan. The key word is 'distribution' not acquisition.

Using the above example, you could probably pass your recording to a couple of friends. The musician would probably never know or care. But if you take the recording and distribute it on the internet via torrents or something where millions can download and the musician finds out, he might take you to court for distributing his work without permission. Scale of distribution is another factor.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The Australian is easily angered... And seems to miss my point.

If I haven't provided ample explanation by now, I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, in the interest of not getting banned again, I'll be on-topic.

$100 for Macross Plus is too much for me... Basically, twice as much as it costs is the point where it's not worth it.

Luckily, you can buy Mac+ for $50.

All of these are US figures, of course.

[Bri]

Not exactly. If you record his music and then distribute it, whether for profit or not, it's not legal. I believe that's how it is under current laws of the US and Japan. The key word is 'distribution' not acquisition.

Using the above example, you could probably pass your recording to a couple of friends. The musician would probably never know or care. But if you take the recording and distribute it on the internet via torrents or something where millions can download and the musician finds out, he might take you to court for distributing his work without permission. Scale of distribution is another factor.

Yes, putting it on the net is illegal, but downloading the copy is not.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Bri

[DreamsOfIshtar]

You'll have to forgive me for not being as thorough in my responses as sketchley -- I'm not going to go through point-by-point. At most, I'll be brainfarting...

Bri, I think there's a word for your attitude and I'm the first to admit I really don't like it when my friend uses this word. I think your attitude towards downloading is provincial. I want to back up sketchley's point that downloading media without paying for what generally has a pricetag of some nature is stealing -- 'freeriding' is a synonym, nothing more. Your example of recording a neighbour's free concert is fine if you look at it from a very selfish perspective: just your neighbour, the band, you. But to put this into perspective, you have to imagine your friend has thousands if not tens of thousands of neighbours all standing there with their recorders and their happy whee-look-what-we're-getting-for-free grins. Also, the quality of said recording would be almost certainly inferior to a professionally-recorded album, live or studio. So comparing 'recording a band playing next door' with downloading anime/movies/etc which has absolutely no loss of quality is too easily dismissed.

Edit of sorts: vifam7 probably said this better and more succinctly. Ignore the grouch on the porch ranting at the kids, if you will....

On Tochiro's ugly little scale, I'm definitely middle-of-the-ground -- which is where I like to be on most subjects. Gotta keep the options open. I've already said I'm a dirty pirate, and have zero moral issues with it. But that's me being selfish too: how can my little acquisitions be bringing down the entire anime industry? There have been enough advertising campaigns trying to convince me otherwise. My favourite is one that poses a number of hypothetical situations: you wouldn't steal a movie. You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a car. And then the punchline of sorts: DOWNLOADING IS STEALING....well, got news for you. I totally would steal a car if I could do it with mutorrent and a half-assed DSL connection. I'd probably have it stolen within 5 seconds of getting it by some sap with a better connection, but hey.

There's another issue at play here too: all of those things mentioned in the anti-piracy ad are physical, limited (extended, if you're sad enough to have done a little metaphysics). Digital property can be duplicated effortlessly, losslessly...infinitely. And this makes 'theft' so much harder for some people to understand, particularly those who have themselves never produced anything they've thought saleable. iTunes and the like are noble, and they've helped bridge some of the gap, but they're not remedies: they're band-aids. But I think it's been that way since even before the 'net: companies know not every single copy of their product will be sold at RRP, all nice and clean. So you rely on the ignorance/goodwill/laziness of General Consumers and prepare for some measure of loss to we who are a bit more canny. And sometimes you switch sides (I'm middle of the ground, remember?) and fork out for something simply because it's there, because you want it, and maybe because you've got the money available because you stole something else...

The most important thing, I believe, is to keep perspective -- the internet is simultaneously global and personal. Anything can go 'viral', most things won't. And sure, we're all infinitesimal, but it's that 'all' that makes things difficult to sweep aside. There's a deeper argument to which Tochiro would groove regarding the absence of repercussion/consequence and Generation Y, but I'll leave it there.

EDIT to reply to Bri: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_BitTorrent have fun. Torrents themselves might not be illegal, but what they enable certainly is. It's a tired defence and I'm quite sick of it. We steal. There's no prettying this up. None. Anyone who might be old enough to drive here probably breaks the law every time they get behind the wheel. Most of my friends (being the arty types) get stoned now and then. My parents occasionally drive when they've had too much to drink. There are a plethora of laws people break because they're not socially abhorrent -- but they're still laws, and we're still breaking them.

Edited August 20, 2009 by DreamsOfIshtar

[eugimon]

Not exactly. If you record his music and then distribute it, whether for profit or not, it's not legal. I believe that's how it is under current laws of the US and Japan. The key word is 'distribution' not acquisition.

Using the above example, you could probably pass your recording to a couple of friends. The musician would probably never know or care. But if you take the recording and distribute it on the internet via torrents or something where millions can download and the musician finds out, he might take you to court for distributing his work without permission. Scale of distribution is another factor.

It all depends on the contracts. If the artist doesn't have the appropriate contracts he or she doesn't "own" his performance. So any recording of that performance can be used and reused without permission. (edit:: this almost *never* happens nowadays since even student artists have access to generic legal contracts that protect their rights. HOWEVER, there are lots of places like animal habitats that have it written into their entrance contract that the photographer doesn't own the rights to any of the images or sounds they capture in the habitat... so even the question of who owns what is a pretty tricky one... if you're a contracted artist, it pays to read the fine print).

It's like if you upload a picture to photobucket or a video to youtube... under those services you don't have any rights to how your work is used even if photobucket or youtube use it in advertisements and profit off your work. I think there was actually a case in Australia or New Zealand where Verizon or some other big name company took a girl's photo off of one of those services and used her as a model in one of their campaigns. Her image was plastered everywhere but since she gave up any right to the image when she put it up on the net it was difficult for her to get them to stop.

Anyways, what is legal is not always what is ethical. So if company X doesn't have the license to market and sell their material in whichever country, they can't claim you "stole" it (in the legal sense) because they have no rights to distribute it it in the first place... they don't legally "own" the material in that particular spot in the world.

The only person(s) they can go after are the people in the intended market who don't abide by whatever fair use laws that are applicable.

Edited August 20, 2009 by eugimon

[Bri]

Bri, I think there's a word for your attitude and I'm the first to admit I really don't like it when my friend uses this word. I think your attitude towards downloading is provincial. I want to back up sketchley's point that downloading media without paying for that generally has a pricetag of some nature is stealing -- 'freeriding' is a synonym, nothing more. Your example of recording a neighbour's free concert is fine if you look at it from a very selfish perspective: just your neighbour, the band, you. But to put this into perspective, you have to imagine your friend has thousands if not tens of thousands of neighbours all standing there with their recorders and their happy whee-look-what-we're-getting-for-free grins. Also, the quality of said recording would be almost certainly inferior to a professionally-recorded album, live or studio. So comparing 'recording a band playing next door' with downloading anime/movies/etc which has absolutely no loss of quality is too easily dismissed.

It was a simplified example to counter Sketchleys equally simplified example. If you want to define my attitude, I would accept cynical or realist depending on your point of view. I don't think it has much use to try to explain the difference between stealing and freeriding again.

[DreamsOfIshtar]

It all depends on the contracts. If the artist doesn't have the appropriate contracts he or she doesn't "own" his performance. So any recording of that performance can be used and reused without permission. (edit:: this almost *never* happens nowadays since even student artists have access to generic legal contracts that protect their rights. HOWEVER, there are lots of places like animal habitats that have it written into their entrance contract that the photographer doesn't own the rights to any of the images or sounds they capture in the habitat... so even the question of who owns what is a pretty tricky one... if you're a contracted artist, it pays to read the fine print).

It's like if you upload a picture to photobucket or a video to youtube... under those services you don't have any rights to how your work is used even if photobucket or youtube use it in advertisements and profit off your work. I think there was actually a case in Australia or New Zealand where Verizon or some other big name company took a girl's photo off of one of those services and used her as a model in one of their campaigns. Her image was plastered everywhere but since she gave up any right to the image when she put it up on the net it was difficult for her to get them to stop.

Anyways, what is legal is not always what is ethical. So if company X doesn't have the license to market and sell their material in whichever country, they can't claim you "stole" it (in the legal sense) because they have no rights to distribute it it in the first place... they don't legally "own" the material in that particular spot in the world.

The only person(s) they can go after are the people in the intended market who don't abide by whatever fair use laws that are applicable.

Two points.

1) Your dissection of the example, to me, just proves what a poor example it was in the first place. Record contracts, etc. are *not* anime licenses. If you really wanted to make Bri's example work, you'd say something like 'so my friend is playing an anime on a projection screen and I'm leaning over the fence with my camcorder...' or '...so I plugged my drive into the output slot and then let my other neighbour do the same, and he did the same...' ad infinitum.

2) Fairly sure it wasn't Australia -- I'd like to believe I'd have heard of that. Verizon's an American telecommunications service (we have Telstra, Optus, a few other biggies), but if you're going to 'steal' a picture from Photobucket etc., that hardly matters. More pertinent to this is something I've recently had to implement: watermarking. As I said before, it's easy to forget that your little facebook or whatever is connected to the rest of the net, but the concept of IP on those sorts of sites is dodgy at best. Watermarking can be obtrusive but it's nowhere near as potentially obtrusive as someone using your picture for their own purposes -- be it a drawing, design, or whatever. I don't watermark everything, but sometimes it's really worth it.

2b) Is there a video equivalent of watermarking? It's a whole different thing. I've watched boots with advertisements of the bootleggers all over them. Sure, it's obtrusive but if that's how you get to see the movie/anime, that's what you put up with. As much as I appreciate the sheer ease with which we're sharing/distributing media right now, I'm almost equally excited to see what defences and countermeasures might arise. I definitely don't fear that reaper -- it's been a fun ride, but I can see the wear and tear on the rollercoaster and some of us haven't realised we're still in it...

[eugimon]

Two points.

1) Your dissection of the example, to me, just proves what a poor example it was in the first place. Record contracts, etc. are *not* anime licenses. If you really wanted to make Bri's example work, you'd say something like 'so my friend is playing an anime on a projection screen and I'm leaning over the fence with my camcorder...' or '...so I plugged my drive into the output slot and then let my other neighbour do the same, and he did the same...' ad infinitum.

My point is that a "license" can mean many things. And if you don't have the right "license" then you may or may not be able to claim your work as your own. This goes for the small time, contract employee and all the way up to corporations. If you don't license your work and get the appropriate copyrights then that work is open to anyone who stumbles across it and you don't have any legal right to make them stop or compensate you. You keep mixing up your ethics and morals with what is "legal" those concepts may have overlap but they are not same.

2) Fairly sure it wasn't Australia -- I'd like to believe I'd have heard of that. Verizon's an American telecommunications service (we have Telstra, Optus, a few other biggies), but if you're going to 'steal' a picture from Photobucket etc., that hardly matters. More pertinent to this is something I've recently had to implement: watermarking. As I said before, it's easy to forget that your little facebook or whatever is connected to the rest of the net, but the concept of IP on those sorts of sites is dodgy at best. Watermarking can be obtrusive but it's nowhere near as potentially obtrusive as someone using your picture for their own purposes -- be it a drawing, design, or whatever. I don't watermark everything, but sometimes it's really worth it.

I'm sorry, it was Virgin and the service was Flickr and it WAS Australia, it was the "Dump your pen friend" campaign. And yes, just like you should watermark your image, license holders should license their work in intended markets.

2b) Is there a video equivalent of watermarking? It's a whole different thing. I've watched boots with advertisements of the bootleggers all over them. Sure, it's obtrusive but if that's how you get to see the movie/anime, that's what you put up with. As much as I appreciate the sheer ease with which we're sharing/distributing media right now, I'm almost equally excited to see what defences and countermeasures might arise. I definitely don't fear that reaper -- it's been a fun ride, but I can see the wear and tear on the rollercoaster and some of us haven't realised we're still in it...

Yeah, video watermarking happens all the time. Look at any network broadcast shows, you'll see logos in the corner, sometimes they crawl across the bottom of the screen, sometimes they're big bold opaque letters, sometimes they're nice and small, semi-transparent and unobtrusively tucked away in the corner.

You see real world examples of this all the time. Some pop group in Korea gets popular and for a while their music and videos are all over youtube. Then when that group finally gets licensed for sale in the US, those same videos that were sitting on the net for weeks, months, years, get yanked down for copyright infringement.

What might be considered theft morally or ethically isn't always so legally.

[Bri]

You keep mixing up your ethics and morals with what is "legal" those concepts may have overlap but they are not same.

[...]

What might be considered theft morally or ethically isn't always so legally.

This is where we keep butting heads over. A limited amount of people (mostly Japanese fans) pay for the lion share of anime production. The ones who watch but don't contribute or only to a small extent get a better deal. Their ability of aquiring at little cost is a reflection of the market power they hold. This concept is apparantly very unsettling for those who argue from a moral perspective given the hostile reactions to my explanation of this situation. The moral argument: you watch, you pay equally, without recognizing the difference in market power may be more apealing but its not realistic.

[DreamsOfIshtar]

Eugimon: I looked into that Virgin/Flickr situation and am shocked I either didn't hear about it or have forgotten. Talk about underhanded. That poor girl. At a more callous level, you could say it's a lesson to the rest of us not to go distributing that which is precious to us (i.e. photos of ourselves) even on sites that usually require some sort of 'knowledge' to access specific photos.

I've no issue with confusing moral/legal, as my former posts have made fairly clear. I'd also like to believe that most anime companies/distributors are fairly thorough with their licensing practices. I profess sufficient ignorance on the topic to sit back and listen, but I am curious: if the internet is global (given), are there global licensing laws? Fairly sure there aren't yet, but wouldn't that be an inevitability? And wouldn't the increasing usage of the internet to distribute the media (legally or otherwise) only expedite that process?

Bri: I'm sorry but you just make me shake my head. Cynical and realist is fair enough, but that's not what I'm getting from you -- at least not without that provincial angle to remove some of the effective bite from either. I'm completely open to correction from someone better informed/educated, but I don't believe pirates are considered part of the market share, simply because they do not incur profits. They're a calculated, accepted loss -- they don't hold 'market power', they undermine it. They can influence market trends, absolutely, but if pirates held real market power, distributors would acknowledge them as something more than a threat, as a viable portion of their revenue...and maybe that's not so far off either. To date, I've never heard of a demographics study for any given product saying something to the tune of '...and illegal acquisition accounts for x% of our market share'.

Again, keep in mind I play both sides, so feel free to not extract moral/legal polarities from what I've said. That I believe stealing is wrong doesn't stop me -- refer to my previous example of the magnitude of laws we break.

Edited August 20, 2009 by DreamsOfIshtar

[eugimon]

Eugimon: I looked into that Virgin/Flickr situation and am shocked I either didn't hear about it or have forgotten. Talk about underhanded. That poor girl. At a more callous level, you could say it's a lesson to the rest of us not to go distributing that which is precious to us (i.e. photos of ourselves) even on sites that usually require some sort of 'knowledge' to access specific photos.

I've no issue with confusing moral/legal, as my former posts have made fairly clear. I'd also like to believe that most anime companies/distributors are fairly thorough with their licensing practices. I profess significant ignorance on the topic to sit back and listen, but I am curious: if the internet is global (given), are there global licensing laws? Fairly sure there aren't yet, but wouldn't that be an inevitability? And wouldn't the increasing usage of the internet to distribute the media (legally or otherwise) only expedite that process?

Bri: I'm sorry but you just make me shake my head. Cynical and realist is fair enough, but that's not what I'm getting from you -- at least not without that provincial angle to remove some of the effective bite from either. I'm completely open to correction from someone better informed/educated, but I don't believe pirates are considered part of the market share, simply because they do not incur profits. They're a calculated, accepted loss -- they don't hold 'market power', they undermine it. They can influence market trends, absolutely, but if pirates held real market power, distributors would acknowledge them as something more than a threat, as a viable portion of their revenue...and maybe that's not so far off either. To date, I've never heard of a demographics study for any given product saying something to the tune of '...and illegal acquisition accounts for x% of our market share'.

Again, keep in mind I play both sides, so feel free to not extract moral/legal polarities from what I've said. That I believe stealing is wrong doesn't stop me -- refer to my previous example of the magnitude of laws we break.

Sorry, my apologies, it just seems like the moral concept of theft and the legal concept are being confused.

There really should be but it's hard to get everyone to play together. Like in the US fair us laws allow for bars and restaurants to show TV programming like sports or music videos... but there's odd rules like the TV has to be less that 55 inches and no more than 5 speakers connected to the sound system, basically what could be found in a "home". But those US laws conflict with international laws.

Anyways, several legitimate US streaming services like HULU or individual networks like NBC limit their viewing to people in specific geographic regions. In this way, they can verify their viewership, continue to sell ads for those programs and not be in conflict with whatver laws in whatever part of the world they don't have license for.

[DreamsOfIshtar]

Sorry, my apologies, it just seems like the moral concept of theft and the legal concept are being confused.

There really should be but it's hard to get everyone to play together. Like in the US fair us laws allow for bars and restaurants to show TV programming like sports or music videos... but there's odd rules like the TV has to be less that 55 inches and no more than 5 speakers connected to the sound system, basically what could be found in a "home". But those US laws conflict with international laws.

Anyways, several legitimate US streaming services like HULU or individual networks like NBC limit their viewing to people in specific geographic regions. In this way, they can verify their viewership, continue to sell ads for those programs and not be in conflict with whatver laws in whatever part of the world they don't have license for.

Oh, the regional constrictions of HULU are much-lamented by me and mine. Sometimes I can't even stream exclusive online content (such as behind-the-scenes featurettes) because of these locks, and that's just frustrating. I think a significant step towards countering piracy is global streaming, on-demand as it were, *with* the option for downloading at high, reliable speed for a very small fee (or a subscription). I know these things are coming, and I for one anticipate it. Piracy stopped being 'fun' the most it became so easy. Now it's just torrent this show, grab that album. Ho hum. Nowhere near as exciting as a shiny new dvd or bluray set. But the backlash of this sort of thinking is that we can blame the lawmakers for our breaking the law, and I don't necessarily think it's that simple either.

If the moral and legal ideas of theft are being confused, I'd attribute that to an inevitable falling-back on the former and far-from-embarrassing ignorance on the latter. I do think the fact that professionals are having a hard time 'playing together' means we laymen don't stand much of a chance in understanding and rationalising the legal ideas of theft at a digital level. So it falls back to logic: you take something that isn't yours that others pay for, that is supposed to be paid for, that feels like theft. That is certainly a moral conclusion, but it doesn't have anything to do with 'wrong' or right', because there's no judgment there regarding whether the theft is either. It's just a case of saying it is theft. I'm hesitant to call that a purely moral idea.

[eugimon]

Oh, the regional constrictions of HULU are much-lamented by me and mine. Sometimes I can't even stream exclusive online content (such as behind-the-scenes featurettes) because of these locks, and that's just frustrating. I think a significant step towards countering piracy is global streaming, on-demand as it were, *with* the option for downloading at high, reliable speed for a very small fee (or a subscription). I know these things are coming, and I for one anticipate it. Piracy stopped being 'fun' the most it became so easy. Now it's just torrent this show, grab that album. Ho hum. Nowhere near as exciting as a shiny new dvd or bluray set. But the backlash of this sort of thinking is that we can blame the lawmakers for our breaking the law, and I don't necessarily think it's that simple either.

If the moral and legal ideas of theft are being confused, I'd attribute that to an inevitable falling-back on the former and far-from-embarrassing ignorance on the latter. I do think the fact that professionals are having a hard time 'playing together' means we laymen don't stand much of a chance in understanding and rationalising the legal ideas of theft at a digital level. So it falls back to logic: you take something that isn't yours that others pay for, that is supposed to be paid for, that feels like theft. That is certainly a moral conclusion, but it doesn't have anything to do with 'wrong' or right', because there's no judgment there regarding whether the theft is either. It's just a case of saying it is theft. I'm hesitant to call that a purely moral idea.

Well, unfortunately right and wrong or pretty grey... I can't verify this but I was told by my cousin in Korea and some other people there that when the core Disney characters came up for license in South Korea some lady who owned a local grocery store managed to grab the license first (the characters were painted on the side of her shop at the time) and consequently Disney had to pay *her* royalties for the rights to use those characters. So... did the lady "steal" from Disney? Certainly she didn't create those characters nor spend billions turning them into world wide properties, so what "right" did she have to profit from them and perversely force the actual creators of those characters to pay her? And yet, if Disney were to ignore her legal rights and use their moral right to go around her, they would be the ones "stealing".

So I get what you're saying... the rule of thumb is if you're getting something for nothing, you're stealing... but unless what that "something" is is properly defined and licensed under the specific laws of your country... that something may in fact be nothing.... and getting nothing for nothing isn't stealing at least as far as you can prove in court... which is all that matters to most. It's just another way in which our copyright and fair use laws have yet to catch up to the realities of the modern world.

[DreamsOfIshtar]

Well, unfortunately right and wrong or pretty grey... I can't verify this but I was told by my cousin in Korea and some other people there that when the core Disney characters came up for license in South Korea some lady who owned a local grocery store managed to grab the license first (the characters were painted on the side of her shop at the time) and consequently Disney had to pay *her* royalties for the rights to use those characters. So... did the lady "steal" from Disney? Certainly she didn't create those characters nor spend billions turning them into world wide properties, so what "right" did she have to profit from them and perversely force the actual creators of those characters to pay her? And yet, if Disney were to ignore her legal rights and use their moral right to go around her, they would be the ones "stealing".

So I get what you're saying... the rule of thumb is if you're getting something for nothing, you're stealing... but unless what that "something" is is properly defined and licensed under the specific laws of your country... that something may in fact be nothing.... and getting nothing for nothing isn't stealing at least as far as you can prove in court... which is all that matters to most. It's just another way in which our copyright and fair use laws have yet to catch up to the realities of the modern world.

The greyness of right and wrong is more than ancient, and entirely too convoluted to expore here. In the example of the Korean grocery store owner (highly amusing!), I'd say the fault lay purely with Disney for not, if you'll pardon the crudity, protecting their assets. That's a fairly clean-cut case to me -- the legal idea of theft is far stronger than the moral. She might have been immoral but she still acted well within the envelope of widely-accepted law. Now if the shoe were on the other foot, and Disney stole her idea because she wasn't canny enough to protect it, of course we'd feel a bit more indignant -- and morally so. We'd sympathise with her, I'd hope, but ultimately accept that if Disney acted legally, that's all there is to it. In the Virgin case, the legality wasn't really under fire; it was a defamation of the girl's character, and a pretty darn savage one at that. That's what she 'won'. That it could all have been prevented with some watermarking etc. was about as irrelevant as her not putting the picture up in the first place. It all came down to what was done with it, not that something was done with it. And that's an interesting legal/moral intersection in itself, since 'defamation of character' is far more morally reprehensible than legal, in terms of ownership, etc.

The rule of thumb is that if you take something that you are expected to pay for by the owners/sellers, you are stealing. Legally you might not be (as you've shown), but I think it'd take an unusually amoral person to do it without any idea that it is theft at some level. I may be slightly idealistic there, but I'm not so naive as to think that'd stop many people from making a buck or ten million.

Which is another point people seem to struggle with: if you're not selling your stolen goods, maybe they're not really stolen. Sorry, they are -- you're just not putting yourself on any significant radars and the sharks have bigger fish to catch there. Because most of us will agree that in terms of theft, personal use is less reprehensible than turning a profit. Whether that's legal or moral or some typical mix thereof I leave up to you, the jury.

Edited August 21, 2009 by DreamsOfIshtar

[Bri]

Bri: I'm sorry but you just make me shake my head. Cynical and realist is fair enough, but that's not what I'm getting from you -- at least not without that provincial angle to remove some of the effective bite from either. I'm completely open to correction from someone better informed/educated, but I don't believe pirates are considered part of the market share, simply because they do not incur profits. They're a calculated, accepted loss -- they don't hold 'market power', they undermine it. They can influence market trends, absolutely, but if pirates held real market power, distributors would acknowledge them as something more than a threat, as a viable portion of their revenue...and maybe that's not so far off either. To date, I've never heard of a demographics study for any given product saying something to the tune of '...and illegal acquisition accounts for x% of our market share'.

It's frustrating to communicate a point which is clearly not understood and I'm afraid the technical side of behaviour theories would just alienate the debate even more. I guess this is where I fail as a teacher and I refuse to get upset by people I debate with, so let's agree to disagree.

As for the "pirates" as you call them, they are the ones doing the illegal act: putting the content on the net. They extend the reach of broadcasts from Japanese television to a world wide audience as it were. The irony is that trough their actions more people can see anime. Content they would never have been able to see otherwise (whether you consider that stealing or not). These actions by the pirates and the people who download generate extra revenue for the producers as some of the downloaders buy Japanese or oversees editions and merchandise as a consequence of seeing these downloaded anime. I'm sure producers fully realise this "advertising" effect and that has been the main reason for the support a site like Crunchyroll got.

What I can not seem to get across is that revenue gained from people like you and me, who in theory should not have been able to watch certain anime but still buy legitimate releases and merchandise of that anime, is an unexpected bonus and not a loss. The damage done is the loss of revenue by people who would have bought a legitimate copy but haven't because they were able to download it. The net balance is the loss or gain to the sector by downloading. The kids that download anime but who would never consider spending a penny on it, even if every local shop carried every anime in existence and they could no longer download, can NOT be seen as a loss because under no circumstance would the anime producer get any money from them.

With this point I hope I explained my position as well as possible.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Bri

[DreamsOfIshtar]

It's frustrating to communicate a point which is clearly not understood and I'm afraid the technical side of behaviour theories would just alienate the debate even more. I guess this is where I fail as a teacher and I refuse to get upset by people I debate with, so let's agree to disagree.

As for the "pirates" as you call them, they are the ones doing the illegal act: putting the content on the net. They extend the reach of broadcasts from Japanese television to a world wide audience as it were. The irony is that trough their actions more people can see anime. Content they would never have been able to see otherwise (whether you consider that stealing or not) generate extra revenue for the producers by buying Japanese or oversees editions and merchandise. I'm sure producers fully realise this "advertising" effect and that has been the main reason for the support a site like Crunchyroll got.

What I can not seem to get across is that revenue gained from people like you and me, who in theory should not have been able to watch certain anime but still buy legitimate releases and merchandise of that anime, is an unexpected bonus and not a loss. The damage done is the loss of revenue by people who would have bought a legitimate copy but haven't because they were able to download it. The net balance is the loss or gain to the sector by downloading. The kids that download anime but who would never consider spending a penny on it, even if every local shop carried every anime in existence and they could no longer download, can NOT be seen as a loss because under no circumstance would the anime producer get any money from them.

With this point I hope I explained my position as well as possible.

There are some precedences to what you're saying, the most notable to me would be the Kiseki situation. Without getting into too many details, they went from being a fansubbing group (and fairly grey/illegal distribution of unlicensed work in the West, of which there was a heck of a lot in the 90s) to a legitimate company and then, I believe, some sort of demise no one seemed to notice. This backs up your suggestion that pirates (as I call myself and others who sometimes use sites like, I dunno, that bay place dot org) are actually capable of positive effects on the market. I didn't deny that. But they simply cannot be considered part of the market share *until* they cross the line from thief-of-product to legal-distributor-of-product. Support for sites like crunchyroll try to encourage that shift, not perpetuate the situation of production-->theft. I'm fairly sure I haven't seen many tasteful ads on the prominent torrent sites...

An unexpected bonus is only unexpected once -- because having noticed it, one is going to try to promote it in the future. The magnitude of which is not really the issue, though, and I'm the first to say that Japan could do with a good kick up the butt regarding global releases instead of just making things for Japanese and relying on foreign distributors to do the rest of the work (be it simply releasing or, far less to my liking, localisation).

'People who would have bought a legitimate copy but haven't because they were able to download it' = 'The kids that download anime but who would never consider spending a penny on it' because if they were not, in any way, 'able to download it' they would have to go to a 'local shop [that] carried every anime in existence' -- if they wanted to watch said anime. You're working under the assumption that ''The kids that download anime but who would never consider spending a penny on it' only watch anime because it's free. That they'd never touch the legit market if there were no illegitimate sources. I think that's...well, my head's shaking again.

[Bri]

[...]

You're working under the assumption that ''The kids that download anime but who would never consider spending a penny on it' only watch anime because it's free. That they'd never touch the legit market if there were no illegitimate sources. I think that's...well, my head's shaking again.

Yup, this assumption would cover the majority of the young broadband users over here. Downloading is the new television, a way to spend time, if it would cost them money they'd just find a different hobby. Although I'm generalising, most disposable income goes towards clothes, mobile phones and going out.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Bri

[DreamsOfIshtar]

Yup, this assumption would cover the majority of the young broadband users over here. Downloading is the new television, a way to spend time, if it would cost them money they'd just find a different hobby. All disposable income goes towards clothes, mobile phones and going out.

Then they definitely don't count for any of the market share and I'm sorry what was your point again?

[sketchley]

For your information: Japanese average home space 121,7 m^2 (wiki) Dutch average home space 120 m^2 (CBS 2007). Like I said Japan is not unique in having to deal with limited living space. Granted I don’t live in Japan but I have visited the country several times and I never found the conditions cramped by my standards. Don’t assume everyone in the west faces US conditions.

I know exactly how big my home is, thank you. I'm also not assuming that the rest of the world faces US conditions. What I am saying is that the Japanese home condition is not limited to space, but also cost of living, and lifestyle. There are some intangible aspects that are hard to convey without actual first-hand experience.

That’s a bad example. The situation is more like this. Suppose you are a musician and you get payed by a person to give a live concert in his garden. I’m the neighbor who can hear the music and I record it for my own use. As long as I don’t sell it or use it for commercial reasons this action is fully legal. Unless you have any influence or power over me to make me pay, you have to rely on my good will to give you any amount I see fit.

How is it a bad example? Someone creates work, and is not being paid for it. Unless if it is a labour of love, they will stop doing that work when they are no longer compensated for it.

Your example is flawed, too. The neighbour with a recording is within reason. However, if the musician was selling the music, and the neighbour gave the recording away, it has an impact on the musician's livelihood, does it not?

Others beat me to it with much better responses.

Edited August 21, 2009 by sketchley

[Bri]

Then they definitely don't count for any of the market share and I'm sorry what was your point again?

My point: revenue gained from people like you and me, who in theory should not have been able to watch certain anime but still buy legitimate releases and merchandise of that anime, is an unexpected bonus and not a loss. The damage done is the loss of revenue by people who would have bought a legitimate copy but haven't because they were able to download it. The kids don't count as the latter. You seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend this so I will leave it at that. *Shakes head*

I know exactly how big my home is, thank you. I'm also not assuming that the rest of the world faces US conditions. What I am saying is that the Japanese home condition is not limited to space, but also cost of living, and lifestyle. There are some intangible aspects that are hard to convey without actual first-hand experience.

Then don't claim some one hasn't done their research when they have, thank you. My reply on harddrive storage was a tongue in cheek remark on a preferance for physical media under difficult conditions.

How is it a bad example? Someone creates work, and is not being paid for it. Unless if it is a labour of love, they will stop doing that work when they are no longer compensated for it.

Your example is flawed, too. The neighbour with a recording is within reason. However, if the musician was selling the music, and the neighbour gave the recording away, it has an impact on the musician's livelihood, does it not?

Others beat me to it with much better responses.

I know my example isn't perfect however it is closer to the actual situation as the creator gets rewarded. Most of the responses failed for the most part, only Vifam 7 pointed out correctly that the person putting it on the internet is the one acting illegal.

At this point the discussion has settled in fixed positions so unless new views or opinions get posted I'll leave it at this. Thank you gentlemen for a lively yet interesting debate.

[DreamsOfIshtar]

My point: revenue gained from people like you and me, who in theory should not have been able to watch certain anime but still buy legitimate releases and merchandise of that anime, is an unexpected bonus and not a loss. The damage done is the loss of revenue by people who would have bought a legitimate copy but haven't because they were able to download it. The kids don't count as the latter. You seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend this so I will leave it at that. *Shakes head*

I know my example isn't perfect however it is closer to the actual situation as the creator gets rewarded. Most of the responses failed for the most part, only Vifam 7 pointed out correctly that the person putting it on the internet is the one acting illegal.

At this point the discussion has settled in fixed positions so unless new views or opinions get posted I'll leave it at this. Thank you gentlemen for a lively yet interesting debate.

...lively yet interesting. As opposed to...lively yet boring?...hm. Okay. To respond, likely for the last time myself:

Sentence 1: yes.

Sentence 2: yes.

Sentence 3: no. You're relying on motivation. On 'would', not on 'should'. Person A would have bought it but didn't, and Person B had no intention of buying, and didn't -- this doesn't mean anything other than the fact that two copies of whatever it is were not purchased that could have been. Any copy not purchased but acquired is stolen. Is revenue lost. Whether they're kids who'd almost certainly (and let's not play with absolutes here) not acquire said anime if it HAD to be purchased, whether they're people who can or would purchase it but for whatever reason don't -- same outcome. One more unit not sold. The person putting on the internet IS acting illegally -- as is anyone accepting it knowing it's a stolen good.

Thank you as well. Your views are surprisingly sympathetic for these 'kids', as though they are somehow victims of the easy system we Gen Xers might have put in place, or that they're entitled to torrents as the 'new television'. Surprising, since you separate yourself from them and so likely are older, and remember when this wasn't the case. I only wish I could less cynical or realistic about the situation, and accept that anyone with a net connection and a bit of torrent know-how deserves for free what the makers themselves deem to be worth at least something.

I am also done.

[VFTF1]

Just about everything that Bri has written is what I would have written, so I'll just let Bri speak for me.

All I'm going to add from myself is this:

If I could walk into the store here in Warsaw and buy all of the Macross DVDs legally, and get CDs of Yoshiki Fukayama concerts that I could play in my car while crusing with my girlfriend - I would do it in a heart beat.

If I could import DVDs and CDs from a far away land and know that they'd actually work on the CD players and DVD players that are used in this country - I would.

But I can't.

Although - I do know that the Japanese BW Transformers DVDs that came with Takara-Tomy BW TFs from Japan DO work on my laptop DVD player...

Does that mean if I bought a Macross DVD or CD from Japan, it would work too?

And are there any legal Macross DVDs that have english subs?

Pete

[Gubaba]

Although - I do know that the Japanese BW Transformers DVDs that came with Takara-Tomy BW TFs from Japan DO work on my laptop DVD player...

Does that mean if I bought a Macross DVD or CD from Japan, it would work too?

It depends. My computer can switch back and forth between regions, but after a few times of doing that, it will lock. So I use my DVD player (the one, y'know, that's connected to my TV) for Region 1 DVDs, and my laptop for Region 2 DVDs. Either your computer can play Region 2, or else the DVDs themselves are Region 0 (and some Japanese DVDs are. All of Japanese singer Shiina Ringo's DVDs can be played on any player anywhere).

And are there any legal Macross DVDs that have english subs?

Pete

Only the ones made by U.S. or European companies, unfortunately. You can always download the subtitle patches at add them to your DVDs, though. I'm not sure how to do it, but Hurin, Xeros, and OptimusX have all worked on such projects, and have tutorials to help you through the process.