Forum - View topicNEWS: Anime Encyclopedia's McCarthy Decries Book's Copying
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
neocloud9
 Posts: 1178 Location: Atlanta, GA |
|
|||
|
So... Had someone just scanned it and posted it online? That's uncool.
|
||||
|
||||
machetecat
 Posts: 396 |
|
|||
|
YOU GO, GIRL!
|
||||
|
||||
v1cious
 Posts: 6229 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||
|
i'm more shocked by the fact that someone went out of their way to scan an 850 page encyclopedia that no one will probably read.
|
||||
|
||||
|
ljaesch
Posts: 299 Location: Enumclaw, WA |
|
|||
|
As a writer, I can understand Ms. McCarthy's frustration. Copying something and distributing for free without the copyright holder's consent is NOT COOL.
But, seriously, even the revised version of the encyclopedia is now about four years out of date, and includes several inaccuracies. I don't get why someone would go to the effort to distribute this book illegally for free at this point in time, when more up-to-date information is available on the Internet. |
||||
|
||||
|
Shakudo
Posts: 5 |
|
|||
|
Also as a writer, I think that anyone who spent that much time trying trying to make her more well known should at least be thanked.
Copyright as a system is horribly flawed and outdated, and the creative commons is completely unnecessary if you don't care about keeping "rights" you never really had in the first place. How does she know that making this book available will diminish its value? She doesn't. Or who's to say that seeing a spike in interest in a four-year-old book wouldn't translate into a better market for a third edition? No one can for sure. But I'll tell you which scenario I find more likely. Especially if plays up her value as an anime authority. |
||||
|
||||
LordRedhand
 Posts: 1472 Location: Middle of Nowhere, Indiana |
|
|||
Unfortunately that is not a decision for you to make on whether as an author her book should be distributed freely. Nor was it the person who did this act either. As it flies in the face of what most believe, that the authors/rights holders have the power/authority to distribute their work as they see fit. Not you, not the person that did this, no one but the authors/rights holders can make that decision. Want to release your works for free? That's fine, but don't force it upon other authors who want to release differently, as you don't have the right to do so. |
||||
|
||||
|
Shakudo
Posts: 5 |
|
|||
|
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "forcing" anyone to do anything they don't want to do.
But look at the "problems" in the recording industry. There has been rampant filesharing for the last decade now. And look what's happened since then. The total number of active musicians is up. Music sales are up. Band revenues are way up. Look at the movie industry. They announced that 2009 was a record breaker at the box office. Almost twice as many movies were released. I'm just suggesting that rather than get mad, McCarthy could be using the bump in popularity in more profitable ways. |
||||
|
||||
Shay Guy
 Posts: 2324 |
|
|||
|
Wow. It's definitely uncommon to see the creator of an infringed work praising Creative Commons in the context of a complaint about the infringement. For once, the copyright holder seems to be unambiguously in the right.
Book sounds interesting, I'm reserving it at the library now. |
||||
|
||||
Mr. Anobe
 Posts: 47 Location: Canada |
|
|||
Actually, the only people can make that decision are the Copyright Holders and no one else. Period. I definitely agree with Shakudo on the how the current system is flawed. Sooner or later, the Copyright holders will go "too far" and collapse. That's my guess. |
||||
|
||||
|
LordRedhand
Posts: 1472 Location: Middle of Nowhere, Indiana |
|
|||
Prove it was just file-sharing as I recall some of those "new" acts you mention don't like file-sharing of their work either, nor those the movie industry either. In fact some of the artists I listen to release music, some of which for free, with no DRM and occasionally under the Creative Commons license, and yet people still illegally file-share their work, still listing can't find it or the limits of DRM as reasons why? I like to call those people what they are, leeches. Also all those successes you mention either a. Don't exist as Band revenue is either at the livable/going down as not all bands can afford the constant touring/live performances that music down loaders usually attribute to how to make money scheme (They also usually also make claims that if the band can't match the studio sound live then they are not worth listening to, leading to why bother going to a live show in the first place?) But those successes occurred in our current copyright system, the one you say is in shambles and is broken and needs to be revamped and updated in such a way that even the Creative Commons License which you say gives away rights that the author never had to begin with. So maybe we should hammer out the rights that an author does have and go from there? I'll start, do you believe what I said above about an authors right is theirs to have and is true? Edit @ Mr. Anobe: One of the things about our copyright system is that an author can sell or license the rights they have for their works as the copyright holder automatically defaults to the author in the case of it not being sold or given. These conditions are normally contracted out, so for example Stone Temple Pilots signed a contract agreeing to give X number of albums to a music label to sell, with the band getting a percentage of the gross profit of the album sales. STP moves to a different label, so they either a.) Make the remaining albums for their old label (which they are doing right now) or b.) Buy out of the contract if such an option exists for them. Last edited by LordRedhand on Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
Sam Murai
 Posts: 1051 |
|
|||
I wholly agree. Putting a ton of hard work into any book, especially one like her's, and then having someone come and essentially post it online for free without the author(s)' or the publisher's consent is both irresponsible and just flat-out wrong. There is little defending it, even less so considering you can buy it readily elsewhere. And also...it's really pointless. Someone actually wasted their time to scan all of the pages in that behemoth of a book? I would be rolling if they typed the whole thing out to plagiarize it on their own site, as it would look quite pathetic. One would just be better off buying it, used or new. It's a nice snapshot/retrospective of anime's history worth having. But even if it were not, it would not excuse the unauthorized act done. |
||||
|
||||
Greed1914
 Posts: 4640 |
|
|||
Is there proof that band revenues are up as a result of file sharing? Also, record years at box offices are not anything new, because of the combination of inflation and worldwide screenings. Seriously, the biggest blockbuster of 2009 was easily Avatar, and if you adjust it for inflation, it is at the 17th spot, not #1 and the Dark Knight, which was 2008's big winner is at 28th. Somehow I doubt if online availability made Gone with the Wind the overall top grossing film at the box office. Also, twice as many movies as compared to what? If you're going to compare something, you need to say what you're comparing. I don't really see the connection you're making in regards to movies. |
||||
|
||||
|
Lady Multi
Posts: 675 |
|
|||
|
Hn... I think its wrong that someone other than the author or publisher put it on the net, but...
for an encyclopedia....anime or no... you can find the information for free online whether its that particular book or not. It being an information source, and not an original work, makes it more of a knowledge tool instead say someone's 200+ page novel that came only from their brain. ...then there is the issue of the whole International world that the internet is composed of...different laws...different belief.... No I'm not saying that I think its right, but if the information is already readily available to view without this book, why? ...seriously, type "Anime wiki" in a search. *shrug* Or "1980 anime list", etc... Common knowledge cannot be directly copyrighted.... |
||||
|
||||
adam_omega
 Posts: 256 Location: Seven Seas |
|
|||
Unlike Avatar and Dark Knight, Gone With The Wind was rereleased multiple times since its original 1939 theatrical release (1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989, 1998 and probably others). The same is true of Star Wars and other movies that are listed for inflation adjustment. In terms of online piracy, my view is that you can't fight it. Once it's out there, it's out there forever. Fighting it just makes you into the bad guy because the people downloading your product wouldn't have ever paid for it to begin with (but there is that chance they they're sampling it or picking up a portable or back-up version). It's like scanlation sites. You can shut down one, but five more may just pop up in its place with the same content. Now since that's the reality we live in, I'd much rather see an actual product get pirated than a knock off. By this I mean, I'd much rather see an actual printed copy of Title XYZ scanned and put on the internet if a legal alternative is not available. At least then you're still getting the same product and everyone can bitch about the same exact thing. I feel for Mrs. McCarthy here, but rather than making a huge fuss about it--which is only encouraging people to seek out the pirated product in question (a la the Streisand effect)--she should be working with her publisher to find an alternative to get the Anime Encyclopedia out there legally. Heck, how about partnering with an App maker and porting the Anime Encyclopedia to the Apple iPhone/iTouch? That would be rather useful, actually. |
||||
|
||||
|
captainbanana
Posts: 191 |
|
|||
|
Just the thought of reading 850 pages on my computer screen....my eyes...they bleed.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group