Forum - View topicHey, Answerman! - SOPA Cabana
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
 Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||||
|
@agila61:
Let's just not forget that copyright has its origins in a pre-digital world. Since the early 18th century we may have updated this concept, however the culture it is meant to regulate has changed fundamentally. The legal and economic mechanisms in place are slow to change, but that doesn't mean they cannot or should not do so. If that were never to have happened, I'd probably be buying the bulk of my books on the black market. Last edited by dewlwieldthedarpachief on Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
agila61
 Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||
Copyright has its origins in the decreasing cost of making copies, with the changes in the economics of digital distribution another in a long series of changes that have reduced the cost of making copies of original works. Reform should respect the interests of artists, and all too often the arguments made about the flaws of the current copyright system are arguing for the ability to copy the content without any regard for the ability of artists to live off of their work. Advancing visions of how the income is to be generated and distributed is one thing, but advocating the flouting of existing copyright law because things could be done better, without in fact organizing for the replacement income sounds very much just like inventing excuses for denying creators the rights that they are owed. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||||
|
@agila61:
It's a fortunate compromise, I think, that piracy is lighting a fire under the dusty bottoms of businessmen whilst at the same time there are people available to support their subsequent innovations. Do you believe this would be practical or even feasible were people to 'rebel' within the system? That sounds doubtful at best. It's also important to acknowledge that there isn't a uniform solidarity on the part of artists here either; although some (like Metallica) dig the draconian side of things, I have yet to meet an artist that sides with the MPAA mentality; radical ideas about copyright aren't few among them either. Both consumers and artists have a common bone to pick with the network of legality and middlemen that wants to do business at everyone else's expense. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||
This "rebellion" story sounds suspiciously like a self-indulgent rationalization among people who are motivated by the ability to get free stuff, and then feel the need to dress it up as more impressive than "I like getting free stuff and don't much care whether the creators thrive or starve". However, what is "lighting the fire" under the feet of anime businessmen is the collapse of their previous revenue sources. So it is refreshing to see a pro-piracy advocate admit that piracy does indeed undermine the revenue stream that had previously been paying the bills in this relatively small niche industry, already famous for living paycheck to paycheck. As to whether or not there are people available to support the recent innovations ~ that is not yet settled. Its also possible that there are not sufficient people to support the recent innovations to maintain the industry at its current level of output, so that the volume of output will continue its ongoing decline.
Lumping Metallica and an anime studio together as "artists" seems to be painting with a very broad brush. Musicians have freedom in this issue that many other artists do not enjoy, since its possible for recordings to take on a primarily promotional role with live performance being relied upon as the primary income source. The question that faces anime studios is how to keep paying bills if the work itself is not paid for. Some anime can survive quite comfortably on merchandise income, but since merchandise income tends to be very heavily tilted to the "A-list" titles, reliance on merchandise income alone implies a substantial downsizing of the anime industry. Bunny and Tiger introduced a product placement component to the income streams, but that also seems to be limited in its opportunities relative to the Japanese market for physical media at premium prices.
This seems to be more a music industry perspective than an anime industry perspective. If the "middlemen" making up the production committee and funding the production are eliminated, its not entirely clear how an inbetween animator or voice actor gets any work at all. As far as "the MPAA perspective", its easy for lots of people to agree that the MPAA approach is obviously wrong-headed ~ witness our successful fight to beat the MPAA & RIAA authored SOPA and PIPA legislation ~ without thereby agreeing that there should be not protection at all of the legitimate copyright entitlements of creators of original works. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||||
|
@agila61:
Artists and brush-painting, tee-hee! 
Metallica is just a convenient example of a place on the spectrum an IP holder/artist/whatever might stand in regard to copyright. Also, I do realise that the anime industry isn't as large and powerful as music, but it isn't in a vaccum when it comes to copyright either. The efforts of larger industries to muscle their interests cannot help but affect this related one. I don't disagree that such a "rebellion" is self-indulgent, but I suspect we do disagree on whether or not that is valid here. Primarily, I'm interested in getting the closest we can get to fairness and I think that's a goal we have in common. I do wonder if you'd be okay with fairness if it came at a dear cost to anime, though. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
pue-eternity
 Posts: 4 Location: USA |
|
|||||||||
Even if everyone who ever watched an anime paid for it, loved it, and supported it by buying merchandise, it's still doubtful the creator would get (or keep getting) enough to live on. It's the way it goes, the most money goes to the company execs, the distributors, etc. The system simply has no need of authorship recognition or a sense of artist/staff appreciation. 
There's really no way to track the money lost without assuming a great deal, so the lost opportunity or whatever can't be equated with the creators' success. You're assuming that piracy is that harmful and that there are actual losses to be accounted. And everyone likes free stuff, but you're thinking of piracy as theft, what are you stealing? It's copyright infringement not theft. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||
The legitimate right of the creator of an original work to exercise control over the copying of their original work is not restricted to particular institutions: its a general right. If a particular creator wishes to participate in some system other than a royalty per view system, that is their prerogative. If I occasionally write a useful snippet of code in Forth, I'll generally release it into the public domain, and if I released something substantial enough that I thought I required credit for it, I'd release it under an open source license. And the preferences of one set of artists does not modify the the right of another artists to participate in a commercial royalties, or commercial pooled rights, or creative commons, or whatever other system they wish to participate in.
But if the discussion is, "musicians can survive quite well under conditions X, why can't an anime voice actor" ... the answer is quite obvious, that as long as live venues can distinguish between genuine and counterfeit tickets, they have a means to generate an income so long as they have a large enough audience. People working in a large team collaborating to create a work require a system that allows the budget for a production to be made available up front, and then to allow the budget to be recovered in some way. A "fair" system that does not allow the work to be made is not really fair.
First and foremost it has to be more fair to those creating the original work, since if it is not, those of us who enjoy the original work have less original work to enjoy. So, no, I don't see that it would indeed be a "fair" system if it destroys the job prospects of artists, craftsmen, and actors currently employed by the anime industry. If ensuring the continued creation requires a system that fails in terms of some particular standard of fairness, to me that is an indictment of the validity of that standard of fairness with respect to the question of a creative industry. What is a fair way to allocate something that will exist one way or another is not necessarily a fair way to allocate something that will not exist in the first place unless the original creators are able to make a living by doing what they are doing. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||||
|
@agil61:
I see we are actually talking about two different things now. Everything you've described about entitlements and so on in regard to the current system is spot on; no arguments there. Our divergence is an entirely ethical one; I see access to information being something paramount that business should accommodate, not vice versa. The pragmatist in me wants to and will continue to contribute, but I can't help but feel we're treating the symptom here. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||
If placing a top priority on access to information creates a system in which there is no reason to create complex original works in the first place, its a hollow victory. So for original work, I place the top priority on ensuring the conditions for its creation, and second priority on ensuring access. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||
It's up to individuals to decide the priorities and these are revealed by their actions. There is no "placing a top priority" from above in some kind of top-down management sense. These "top priorities" are created by those who are willing to use violence or threats to force other people to acquiesce to their demands for their benefit. Whether this promotes "complex original works" or not doesn't mean that the system is justified. I'm sure someone could point out that a society beset with problems is likely to produce more interesting media content to some than one which is more peaceful, so is it appropriate for people to go around trying to make things hard on people to make for more interesting content? Obviously both of us would say no to this. My point is that there isn't any validity in justifying force solely on the basis that it results in more complex original works.
Who decides this? How is their decision validated?
Well, if you are going to (somewhat rightfully) chide me for"directly" attributing scarcity with the convention of property, I'd like you to provide some backup for this claim. Everything I've read on this issue attributes the beginnings of copyright to censorship and privilege grants to certain groups. When copyright was initially created it provided publishers with monopolies, not authors. It was used to limit was published. Perhaps you mean "modern" copyright, but to undercut your argument here that is based more on reason than history, I have to say that the reduction in the cost of creating copies and the "economics of digital distribution" has not just made it easier for the consumer, it has made it easier for the producer and author to benefit from a significantly larger audience. There was a time when getting something out to the populace was a huge ordeal, but now the enemy of authors and artists is indifference.
What's paramount for business is making profit. They serve their social function by providing products that people want that they are willing to pay more than the costs of production to make. On the other end, customers will demand what they want, like you do, and businesses will accommodate it to the extent they need to in order to be profitable. What's necessary is to leave this environment intact to allow for maximum free competition, copyright and intellectual property laws reduce that by providing privileges by force.
I don't think you are right that eschewing the use of threats and violence to provide control over copying will destroy artists, craftsmen, etc, but for an apt analogy based around state privilege, I'm sure that many of those who work for the military-industrial complex like their jobs. This isn't going to make me ok with the government taking money from people against their will to pay for drones and bombs. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
agila61
Posts: 3213 Location: NE Ohio |
|
|||||||||
No, its not just up to each individual: humans are social animals, and without a functioning complex society, the internet would not exist in the first place, so the question of what behavior should be permitted and proscribed on the internet would not arise. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||||||
You're statement is a non-sequitur. You are leaping from "up to the individual" to the conclusion that complex society must be impossible if things are up to the individual. The truth is quite contrary to this. The reason society is complex, the reason for the division of labor that makes the internet possible is due to the individual choices and the interrelation between those choices and the choices of others. I certainly agree with the notion that humans are social animals, but to get from there to the notion that priorities are decided outside of individuals is another non-sequitur. People sometimes make decisions collaboratively, but more often decide coincidentally due to common desires and mutually beneficial trade. Even when decisions are collaborative, people only agree to follow the decision if they believe it's beneficial to do so. I would suggest reading this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group