Forum - View topic

NEWS: Google Search to Downgrade Sites With Copyright Removal Notices

oblivious247 wrote:

...Do I pirate? Yes. But unlike so many others who do, I have no delusions about it not being wrong...

It's not "wrong". It's illegal. There is a difference. Just as it isn't "wrong" to smoke marijuana and it isn't "wrong" to cross the street against a red light. They are just illegal. They may also have some unpleasant repercussions but still doesn't make them "wrong". Intellectual property laws were introduced to protect revenue streams and encourage creativity. They are a practical measure, not a moral measure. It is quite within the capability of any legislature to remove intellectual property laws.

The best solution to the issue is cheap and ready access to quality streamed content. Our access to legitimate anime content is growing by the day. Google's actions aren't of great concern to me.

@oblivious247,

If I stream an anime from an unauthorised site, I have enjoyed the content but the content owner has not received any remuneration from my activity.

If I watch the anime via a DVD that my girlfriend has lent to me, I have enjoyed the content but the content owner has not received any remuneration from my activity.

If I borrow a book of poetry from a friend, memorize a poem, visit my girlfriend and recite the poem to her, we have both enjoyed the content but the content owner has not received any remuneration from our activity.

Are all these activities "wrong"? If not, what is the difference? If the second and third activity were made illegal, would that then make them "wrong"?

Given that YouTube says an old Fleischer Superman cartoon(public domain) belongs to a German company, I'd say it's safe to say it's broken(especially since we're talking about Viacomm(Paramount, which commissioned them and later acquired the studio) and WB(DC) as the "legitimate" 'owners' if there were any here).

No, what changes the fact is that it doesn't deal with property rights at all. The concept of "intellectual property" is much younger than the areas of law it describes.

Actually, the traditional definition of "monopoly" is a state grant that forbids competition by law, which stretches back hundreds of years. For example, the English Statute of Monopolies. The sense you refer to is a recent innovation(there's a reason it's the Sherman Antitrust Act) and doesn't really mean anything, given you can make most any business into a "monopoly" if you define the market right("virgin aluminum", anybody?).

Referring to "intellectual property" as monopolies isn't a semantic game - but claiming actual property as monopolistic is.

Legal permission(license?) may line up with rights, but often doesn't(and thus they shouldn't be conflated).

Copyright apologist thinking and just another example of conflating issues. There's one slight problem with your analogy: owning a car or a knife is not a right.

I'll put this in an example to help you understand: in many countries, it's illegal for an artist to waive their rights.

In the US, artists are contractually obligated to do so, and guess who's writing those bills (turned to law)? It's certainly not the artist.

They have no legal right to do so. It's not their copyright anymore.

Now these distributors are fighting to strip artists of their rights by removing the clause which allows them to reclaim their copyright.

How is it an artist has to reclaim what's given to them by the Constitution?

That's a question no copyright apologist cares about answering.

I posed a topic of discussion here several months ago considering the difference in opinion on piracy between manga fans and American comic fans. I find the difference quite fascinating. Manga readers seem pretty down with piracy, whereas American comic readers for the most part look down on pirates with great disdain.

Xanas wrote:

PurpleWarrior13 wrote: Well, I'm highly against piracy. I don't think it's fair to the people and companies producing the material, and I don't believe anyone's entitled to these shows. I support adding some very loose guidelines to the internet if it's going to be so important in the future, but nothing too strong of course. I think these measures are appropriate. They aren't shutting down the sites, but they are discouraging their actions. You're right, no one is entitled to those shows, so like all other data they will be copied. The "guidelines" you would apply to the internet is vague, but regardless all such rules affect the choices of actual people, either being backed by threats or the use of physical force. This is unwarranted merely because you are "highly against" something. If by "these measures" you refer only to the google search downgrade then I take no issue with that in and of itself. But the only reason google is doing that is because they are under threat of the confiscation of money and property that is theirs that they believe will occur if they don't go along with this. If this were purely voluntary, it would have occurred a long time ago.

It involves more than just me be being "highly against something". Piracy is flat out illegal, and if it involves taking these kinds of measures, then so be it. I know Google isn't necessarily doing it because it's the right thing to do, but I whole-heartedly support them in doing this.

TheAncientOne wrote:

Viz doesn't have their own player. They only use Hulu embeds. Netflix Canada doesn't automatically have everything the U.S. site does, and that carries over to anime as well. From what little I have heard from those in Canada that have Netflix, it doesn't stream nearly as many titles as the U.S. version.

That's what I thought, and it is strange that Hulu isn't available in Canada. Usually streaming rights include US and Canada.

As for Nexflix, and other ways of viewing content, I'm sure there are several other legal sites to view anime, including Crunchyroll, YouTube (legal uploads from distributors), and ANN (which has it's own player for viewing many titles available on Hulu), and even if a particular show isn't available for legal streaming (this applies to anywhere BTW), then we have to simply remember that we are not entitled to viewing any show for free.

With a small private showing you more or less have control of the situation. You paid for it and presumably the people you show it to won't copy it and send it around to others. When you put it online, millions of people have access to it and can do whatever they want with it, including further distribution.

Pirates grossly exaggerate just how expensive these items are. Buying a dvd once or twice a month isn't going to "bankrupt" you. And if it does, well then you have more serious matters to be attending to instead anyway. If someone produces a product you like, you should pay for it. It's only fair.

You seem to be trying to reason that the word "property" isn't relevant in the phrase "intellectual property", which certainly has me furling the proverbial eyebrow. Whether the phrasing came after the rights were established seems moot to its meaning and its general usage in the legal system. Looking at Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia's entries for intellectual property may help to clarify my point, though I wonder if it's just your general belief that creative content shouldn't constitute a form of property (i.e., that if you wrote a book, you shouldn't be able to own it's content).

...When you put it online, millions of people have access to it and can do whatever they want with it, including further distribution...

My point was that lawful ownership doesn't necessarily grant the right to do whatever you want with your personal property. Legally owning a ... knife ... doesn't give you the right to ... stab a person with a knife

or to place copyrighted materials on your hard drive without permission. You're not entitled to those rights because they generally considered as unfairly infringing on the rights of others.