Forum - View topicINTEREST: Gantz Creator Urges Fans to Buy Manga New, Not Used
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
grouwl
Posts: 69 |
|
|||
[I would like to see a way in which I can send funds to a creator whose work is not licensed in the US]
Easy : buy the Japanese edition new from amazon.jp even if you can't read it the action and money itself will make you feel better than us trying to understand your general cheapness to buy something you definitely like. |
||||
leafy sea dragon
Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||
Something else to consider: Someone who spends less on a given product is not necessarily someone who will spend less in general nor is the producer losing out. The former is why people like Top Gun can have larger libraries than they would've if the material was never on sale; the latter is why sellers will put popular things on markdown (because by lowing the price, that incentivizes people to buy things they otherwise might not have bought, while the people who woiuld've bought it anyway will still buy it, meaning increased sales; in addition, the seller might persuade some of these buyers to buy other things while they're at it).
If someone who buys manga cheap but buys a lot of it actually spends more money than someone who buys only a few manga at full price, is the bargain hunter not supporting the supply chain more? |
||||
CandisWhite
Posts: 282 |
|
|||
1) Not only did I cut out low-income earners, I pointed out that positive actions by people with purchasing power do affect them, for the better. More sales at companies lead to more hours, higher wages, more hires. Now, obviously, there are other factors at play, such as the cost of doing business and getting employers to do their fair share, but sales matter. 2) My example about the concert-goer was to show that people who often complain about the price of things are not complaining because they literally cannot afford the item but because they cannot afford this item ,and that one, and that one, and, etc: That's not an issue; That's life. The concert-goer was able to buy tickets that can go for hundreds of dollars apiece and that was his choice; He, now, has to accept that his budget has gone crunch and scale back until things are steady again. 3) You find nothing wrong with people legally buying anything, at any price, regardless of income. That's fine: It's not wrong, the way that stealing or killing are wrong, not even close. However, educating people about what their money does and where it goes to is important. e.g. Dollar store products exist; They are legal: What had to happen to get those products to be so cheap? Quality of product and treatment of overseas factory workers come into question and make the purchase of those items more distasteful. 4) I mentioned Wal-Mart because I was trying to keep my comment as broad as possible; I was trying to keep the conversation in the general area of good decision making without going into the quagmire of deciding which stores are better than others. I usually give Wal-Mart a wide berth, for the very reason you mentioned, tacked onto the fact that other retailers need my money far more than Wal-Mart. I have bought things at Wal-Mart but it's been more of "I need Lax-a-Day now!" than regular shopping. 5)The library example was used because libraries have sold books worth far more than $1 for that amount (the donor would have been better off donating the $30 they spent on the book directly to the library) and I, personally, would feel squicky buying new or gently-used books for WAY less than they're worth from a library, without donating the difference, but I will give you that not everyone is aware of this situation. I do care about where I shop, and what I buy, and how I buy it; I wouldn't paint myself as a paragon, as there are people who are doing far better things and working harder to improve people's lives and I admire them for it; There is no one way to be an ethical consumer and no one level at which it is done: That was my whole point; New attitudes and actions can always be incorporated into a person's everyday life, and the more power you have, the more aware you need to be of how it is used. This idea won't improve society overnight, or in every aspect , but it helps, and, as you pointed out, I'm certainly not the only one who thinks that way. TL;DR: I have no issue with used anything being sold; The issue I have is with the culture of cheap that seems to spring up to defend buying manga used vs new, a culture that has ramifications in many aspects of life and which affects real world people. P.S. Another commenter (Zin5ki) pointed out that most habitual second-hand manga buyers probably are poor, and, therefore, there really is no debate; I sincerely hope so. |
||||
leafy sea dragon
Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||
The dollar stores where I shop are stocked mostly with things that failed to sell elsewhere, so they wound up at these stores on severe markdown. That's very different than the Dr. Ashens Poundland type situation (and even then, that's a result of differences in socioeconomic culture that allows these things to even be made). They are, in essence, giant clearance racks (which I also enjoy buying things from when I find them). A lot of these products, namely groceries, licensed products, and large items, cannot possibly be sold at US$1 for a profit in any other situation. The companies that took the loss are the original retailers who bought them straight from the producers at whatever price it was, then resold them to discount stores at a loss (or even outright given to them for free). In this case, the real loser is the original retailer, which stocked a product that wound up not selling as well as predicted. For the record, this sort of discount stores are places I like to visit to find snacks and candy I like that flopped initially and wound up here, where I get to continue enjoying them more. The cool-Aid revival of Great Bluedini is one recent example, which was re-introduced in 2015 but was soundly rejected. (My guess is lack of marketing, considering the initial run of Great Bluedini in the mid-90's was somewhat successful.) It is my favorite flavor of cool-Aid, so I bought packets several at a time wherever I could find them. They've since sold out at all of the local 99 Cents Only stores though, so I'm treasuring the two packets I have left. (Apparently, I've found another auto-censored word.) |
||||
Desa
Posts: 285 |
|
|||
So unwanted books should just be sent to landfills where they belong right? Come off it.
If someone no longer wants a book that I want, than it's better in my hands than in the trash. I always feel bad when a perfectly good book is thrown away but I never feel bad buying used goods simply because they're used. Besides this whole problem can be solved with digital manga, which are always "new", virtually infinite availability, never out of print, no transportation costs, cannot be resold as "used" in most cases. There are no real downsides, only immense benefits for everyone involved. |
||||
Kadmos1
Posts: 13597 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
|||
Buying used is the many people would prefer since they can get the volume they like and the manga-ka will get some royalties from it. If this manga-ka has an estate, they will maintain the "Gantz" copyright until he's been dead for 50 years.
|
||||
Agent355
Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||
First of all, thank you for continuing this discussion in a calm, reasoned and interested manner. I really feel like I am gaining a lot from this exchange (I mean it sincerely!) To address your points:
1. Again, I know this wasn't your intent, but when you are presenting a set of ethical standards, "cutting out low-income earners" from those standards is othering, condescending and patronizing. I'll give a detailed example why this is at the end of this post. 2. Presenting purchasing power as an almost 1-to-1 action that leads to better livelihoods for low income people is disingenuous at best. I think you are severely underestimating those "other factors." If choosing to buy higher priced goods meant better standards for the workers making and selling those goods, than Iphone factories in China wouldn't need suicide nets hanging from their roofs, and clothing factories in places like Bangladesh wouldn't collapse, trapping the workers in rubble...the people at the top have the most incentive to take advantage of the people at the bottom (usually workers in third world countries, or at least third world country conditions, even in the United States) while servicing other people at the top--producing expensive designer goods from clothes to electronics as cheaply as possible and selling them for as an expensive price points as they can get away with. They usually use branding and marketing to convince people of the product's value, regardless of its actual value. Then they keep the profits for themselves. Actual sales don't make as much as a difference in these complicated worldwide economic structures as one would hope. What truly can make a difference are international and local legislation, unions, and oversight. But it all starts with awareness, and I think we're on the right track and the same page in that regard.
Those are all good points. People tend to want more than they can afford (don't we all?), and we all make cost-benefits analysis with our personal budgets. But if someone *does* choose to go to an expensive concert, and has to reduce his or her overall entertainment budget as a result, why would it therefore follow that it would be more ethical for that person to refrain from any more entertainment consumption until they can afford to buy physical copies at full price again? And there are other factors in account here, too. For example, concerts actually benefit artists and everyone involved in the entertainment industries, from producers to ticket booth workers, food vendors, ushers, janitors, etc, more than buying a single CD or MP3 ever could. Most artists make the majority of their income via live performances these days. Full disclosure: I live on disability (*gasp!*I live on the Government's bounty! It's awful, I know.) and yet I've been going to New York Comic Con every year anyway. I *do not* make purchasing decisions lightly, particularly in my entertainment budget (which I do have, shocking, I know!) But I love cons, and NYCC is my only local con, basically, and the only one I can go to now that Otakon is moving to DC, since staying free at friends in Baltimore and taking public transportation to the convention center won't be an option anymore . It's probably my biggest indulgence of the year. Does that mean I don't "deserve" to get a Crunchyroll subscription or buy new manga occasionally? I have very strict personal rules when It comes to buying manga, by the way, which is probably why this discussion feels so personal to me. One big rule: I do not buy manga that I can get at the library, with few exceptions. So rest assured that I rarely use citizens' tax dollars to add to my *personal collection.* I use the resource provided by taxes that is shared by everyone in New York City-the libraries (as I wrote before, NYC has *3 separate systems!*)! Libraries are where we can *all* enjoy free (to us), ethical, legal access to whatever media they purchase. They have always been the great information and entertainment equalizer. And if they can make some pocket change by selling a used book for $1, all the power to them. Even if that book is worth $30 on ebay. That's not your decision to make, and, as someone else pointed out, it's better than that book ending up in the dump or recycling center. Again, I'm glad that you're thinking about this stuff and that you are aware of how your consumer actions affect others. I suspect that we are on the same page on this overall. Making exceptions for "poor" people sounds so patronizing to me because it separates people by income and class and reinforces myths about how some people are more worthy, ethical, better in some way based on what's in their wallet. No, that's a false dichotomy. *Everyone* can take out books and other media (including, increasingly, ebooks and emanga) from the library. Richer people often choose to purchase books for various reasons: convenience, building a personal collection, etc. That doesn't make them "better" or more ethical or even more supportive of the creators than the unwashed masses who use the library. And if a rich person chooses to consume his media in this way rather than another way that may, that's okay, too. Remember that the more people who check out books from the library, the more the library purchases and reorders books. And the more *types* of people use the library, from different races, classes and income levels, the less likely it is for the library to be neglected and get reduction of funding. A good example of a neglected institution that only poor people are known to use are public schools. In communities where everyone from every income bracket sends their kids to the same public schools, the schools do well and all the kids benefit. But in many communities, even racially and income diverse ones, public schools do poorly and tend to be segregated by race, ethnicity, and immigrant status. The richer families, (usually white, American born, native English speakers) all send their kids to private schools, leaving the public schools to serve all (and often only) the kids from poorer families, usually kids of color, many of whom don't speak English at home...the schools lose the funding and support of the richer families while facing greater challenges teaching the kids who are more likely to need free lunches, ESL teachers, more support in general. This aggravates the problems within those communities overall and leaves many kids extremely disadvantaged. You might think it's a jump to associate an attitude of separating the moral or ethical obligations of people of different income status as consumers with poorly performing public schools who are literally separated by income status. But the attitude you presented serves to increase the stigma that leads to those situations and makes them worse. It can't be ok for *some people* to shop for used goods and use libraries (and public schools, etc), but not ok for *other people* to use those resources and buy used products. That's a recipe for discrimination, for a world where shopping for clothes at a Goodwill will get your kids labeled and teased, where libraries become so neglected that people like tentensan are turned off from using them (btw, really glad to interest you in libraries again, tentensan! Hope to meet you there one day!). Spending more money on consumer goods is not a value or a virtue, and preaching that it is just creates a world or Haves and Have-Nots. It's not good for any of us. I hope you can better understand where I'm coming from. Sorry for TL:DR! |
||||
enurtsol
Posts: 14876 |
|
|||
No, after the first sale, the copyright owner is no longer entitled to royalties from it. |
||||
Hikarunu
Posts: 950 |
|
|||
I dont really care about whether the original author get his/her royalty. They already rich from sales from new print volume release anyway.
So what if I prefer to get used manga? As most people said here buying volume series manga is bitch. You tend to have an incomplete set because it is out of print.That's why used bookstore is exist. It have the purpose. And buying used book still considered as legal. If car makers lament they dont get enough sales because more people prefer used car, do you still agree with them? |
||||
CandisWhite
Posts: 282 |
|
|||
Thank YOU for this reply! You're right, in that people of all economic classes should be held to the same standards, and I do, in as much as I expect people, regardless of wealth, to have the same basic understanding of how business works and why things cost what they do. It does, however, change slightly, from my perspective, when you get into logistics: The bar of paying full price for any product or service, especially as the cost of those increases, becomes a lot harder to reach for people who are on a very tight budget; It is not condescension but understanding that leads people who are less tight, and able to reach or even clear that bar, to not expect the same ability from people who have it tough; If they are able to, more power to them. And I totally agree that a mixed society is best. When people pay their way, money is spread around in a more equitable fashion: Consumers make sure that they pay for the labour they benefit from and employers make sure that each part of the labour pie receives their fair share; Getting to that reality should be, at least, a goal for both ( and that includes Bangladeshi garment factories). There are many ways for people to pay their way and, yes, it is not always simply buying stuff. When many people look at the cost to buy something, product or service, they see the loss of dollars in a sale as not a big deal. What they fail to realize is that those few dollars are just from your share: Every time a purchase doesn't put in those dollars, that's a loss; The deeper the discount, the deeper the loss; The smaller the product/service profit margin, the more the losses cut; And those losses add up. These things are usually so little to us, the buyers, but it's a big deal for the businesses, the employers; It's a lot harder to get a business to pay its workers well when customers won't buy a $40 shirt but they'll snap up a $10 one. I've seen good habits help businesses do well: Salons which are well-run are patronized by people willing to spend for the service they receive and, thus, have staff able to earn a decent living. People are free to cut their own hair at home but, if they choose to come to a salon, they need to know what things cost and why they do; Most people do and are happy to oblige. It's a good example of how when things are done right, everyone benefits. The structure is held up by labour law but the success is capitalism at its best. Are we going to get to full equity any time soon? Of course not: People aren't going to change their spending habits overnight and all employers aren't suddenly going to be great guys to work for. These things take time and, as you said, sometimes a push, but they can change; It was once considered normal for middle class families to have servants, for those people to be paid so little. The idea is not that changing the whole world falls on the shoulders of 1 person or 2 or 10 but that each person can be a drop of good in the bucket, and that all of those drops add up to an ocean. Again, thank you for your reply. I'm glad that this was an overall pleasant experience for you. |
||||
leafy sea dragon
Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||
It is most definitely not that simple. If someone bought something for $2 that they would've normally bought for $3, it's not as if that dollar disappears forever. Chances are that dollar will get used for something else. Maybe it's a similar good or even the same good, or maybe it's something completely different. When a company or creator goes bankrupt, rarely is it because they were selling things too cheap. It's because they were doing something that few people were interested in (whether that means they created something unappealing or they never got the attention they needed), they made decisions that annoyed potential buyers, or something unrelated but catastrophic happens that instantly drives them out of business. And the people selling goods and services know that their consumers want the most bang for their buck and will price their goods and services accordingly. Well, most of the time anyway. You have stuff like Veblen goods (where demand rises with price, like luxury cars or anime on home video in Japan) and non-competitive markets (where sellers price things without concern for their neighbors because the buyers have atypical habits), but they are more an exception than the norm. You can buy things to support the people who make them, but those people more than likely know that they're not going to be profitable unless they sell those goods and services at competitive prices. |
||||
CandisWhite
Posts: 282 |
|
|||
$18 or $15 or $5 paid for $20 worth of labour is a loss; If those missing dollars are spent on another product or service, it still counts as a loss: Businesses may decide that the loss is worth it if bigger purchases are made as result but if there is no compensation then that loss has to be absorbed somewhere. Being competitive is a good thing but every business needs a baseline as to how they compensate and treat their workers; If they can't turn a decent profit, or one at all, because customers believe that what has been decided as a fair price for the products or services is not as low as they believe it should be, then either the company goes under or they start to cut corners and an easy target is employee compensation. The salon industry, as a whole, has been very lucky because the people who form their customer base are usually committed to paying their way; They want the service or the product so they will pay. Whether it is conscious or not, the mentality is there. That doesn't mean there aren't cheapskates or that people who do pay are doing it out of any altruism, just that the industry has done well because of this. When a business is patronized by people who pay their way, intentionally or not, it thrives; When a business properly compensates its workers, it has done its duty by them. The idea is to get people to understand what things are worth and to make the knowledgeable decision of whether or not to buy that product or service, to understand that human beings, at many levels, made that product for them, or performed that service for them, or made the products that helped that service be performed. Yes, it stinks if you invest in a business and people don't want your product; That happens and that's how capitalism works. Capitalism and fairness for workers need not be mutually exclusive;There are industries thriving with both customer and employer paying their fair share: You can be competitive and a decent employer; The idea is to mold a society where we recognize that. |
||||
leafy sea dragon
Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||
Actually, I would not say that spending less than full price is necessarily a loss, and I mentioned that it is more complicated than that. I've already described it from the consumer side. From the business side, it's the same schtick. If a manufacturer of something releases a coupon for, say, 50% off of a product, then they are hoping for at least one of the following conditions:
1. That there are enough people who will pay for it at half price who would not have bought it at all to make more profits than without the coupon because of sheer quantity. 2. That people who buy the item at half price might be incentivized to buying other things, and so they make normal profits off the other things plus a bit off the discounted items. 3. That people who come to the business decide they like it enough to come back later and buy things at full price. Groupons fall into this category. I can say that, as someone who uses coupons left and right, I have fallen into all three of these categories. I also know that if the company thinks they'll lose from creating these coupons, promotions, and other assorted discounts, they would never have created a way for customers to pay discounted prices in the first place. (There is also the inverse, price-gouging, but that's another can of worms.) |
||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group