Forum

They forgot that copyright deals with the exclusive right to distribute copies not the exclusive right to simply make copies, at least in the original conception and still current usage (for everyone else). Since making copies of paper by proxy is essentially no different than doing it yourself, will they start busting down doors to stop people from doing it in their homes? If not, what if businesses offer a mobile service, either in their van or in your own home?

IP law is already effed up and I guess they must be trying take a leadership position in screwing it up even more

This is BS. As long as they weren't selling the books, whatever they do with their legitimately purchased books is their business. Go Nagai can burn in hell. He's overrated anyways.

It seems to me that this is self destructive.

Yes the scanned copies do get onto the internet and end up pirated, but by starting down this path they also risk offending their own customers. Never a good thing for a businessman, and mangaka are businessmen, to do.

Publishing as a whole is being prodded to go in a direction that, mostly, it does not want to go: "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Mark Gosdin

My understanding is that the private home reproduction of copyrighted content is actually allowed in Japan because of the SARAH and SARVH organizations, which both outline and collect taxes on copy reproduction technology and media (CDs, burner drives, etc.) which is then redistributed back to the copyright-holders. I'm guessing there aren't any taxes being collected on the services provided by these digitizing shops, which means they're making profits off of copying copyrighted content without compensating the original creators, which is likely the crux of the issue here.

Anyways, I hope more and more artists start standing up for their rights like this in the future. Part of what makes infringement so easy on the conscience is the perception that the creators are okay with it, and instances like this help raise awareness that that usually isn't the case.

As an aside, I find it humorous how some are quick to lambast the artists whenever they take a stand for their copyrights. Telling Go Nagai to "go to hell" and that he's "overrated" is funny to hear, and reminds me of similar disdain that was lobbed at the author of Black Butler when she spoke out against illegal streaming and download sites, along with the creators of Black Lagoon and Hellsing when they joked about various ways uploaders should meet their untimely ends.

I pay for my book and subsequently want to make it digital so I can read it on a device, that's MY decision. The author already made his money.

What I do with my property, the book in question, is none of the author's business. And a washed up artist like Go Nagai who simply repeats his past "successes" trying to lean on legitimate businesses like this is really sad.

Further I've gone through this list and noticed that most of these artists are older people who may not understand technology in the present day and are reacting out of fear of something they simply aren't adequately prepared to comprehend. Technology has changed and these guys are dwelling in the past. Stop being luddites and embrace new technology, you're Japanese for Susano-o's sake.

誤称 wrote:

I pay for my book and subsequently want to make it digital so I can read it on a device, that's MY decision. The author already made his money.

What I do with my property, the book in question, is none of the author's business. And a washed up artist like Go Nagai who simply repeats his past "successes" trying to lean on legitimate businesses like this is really sad.

Although you own the book, you don't actually own the content in it, which means you're not free to do willy-nilly with it what you want, the same way you're not free to run stop signs just because you "own" your car. Your rights end where the rights of other's begin, and in this case your right to digitize a book ends where the right of the author to control the copying of his/her work begins.

As for Go Nagai, he's a legendary artist, and the moans of a few disgruntled fans isn't going to change that. Wink

Kikaioh wrote:

Although you own the book, you don't actually own the content in it, which means you're not free to do willy-nilly with it what you want, the same way you're not free to run stop signs just because you "own" your car. Your rights end where the rights of other's begin, and in this case your right to digitize a book ends where the right of the author to control the copying of his/her work begins.

No, the author has, typically, a set of exclusive rights. These include things like "selling the work", "public performance", "selling the rights to perform publically or to sell the work". There was no sale of the work by these companies. The business transaction here was the labor involved in the digitization process which is not a right the author has exclusivity to.

The court cases of note, such as the Kinko's case and the Google case, had to do with the problem of reselling said digital files and the public distribution of said material. There has not been, nor is there likely to be, case work on the copying of works for personal use (likely due to the improbability of catching someone in the act of doing so).

This will be an interesting case to follow, but I do not believe that had Go Nagai and his elderly friends tried this in the United States this case would hold up in court. What would likely happen is that this sort of bully tactics will cause these legitimate businesses to settle out of court and cease providing the service they had been.

It saddens me that people support others attempts at intimidation like you do Kikaioh.

@誤称: Those rights are indeed amongst the exclusive rights authors possess, but I think you're missing the most important right that's of interest here, which is "copyright", i.e. the right to copy/create reproductions. Copyright is more than just the exclusivity to sell your creation, it's also the exclusive right (outside of fair use) to copy it, and to decide who can copy your works and under what conditions. The question in this case is whether these digitizing shops had the right to copy these books into a digital format, since it seems that in Japan the act of copying copyrighted content is currently only permitted if A. it's done privately at home for personal use and B. there's a revenue stream for the rights holders.

As for the Kinko's and Google cases, I'm assuming you're talking about the Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp. case, as well as the Authors Guild v. Google case. Although they're topically relevant to the discussion, I don't believe they're useful here because we're discussing Japanese law, whereas these cases were/are being held in the United States (although the Authors Guild v. Google case does have Australian and Canadian plaintiffs in addition to the American Author's Guild, and since AFAIK the case is still on-going, it's possible Japanese authors might jump on board as well).

What saddens me is how rampant piracy has become in the anime community in the past decade, but that's a different discussion altogether Laughing

(though it does seem to be a diminishing issue with the increase of legal streams, albeit I've still my doubts that the "give away, hope they pay" model will pan out in the long run). And really, I don't think this is so much a case of intimidation by the authors, as it is a case of businesses wanting to assume more rights than they're warranted, and customers wanting to get more than what they paid for. Honestly, these digitizing businesses are taking advantage of these authors in order to drum up profits for themselves, so I've very little sympathy for them.

Last edited by dragon695 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

Kikaioh wrote:

the usual angry piracy screed

Yes, yes we know. Why must you constantly act like such a MPAA/RIAA mouthpiece? You do realize that the original intent of copyright has nothing to do with its current form? The people who buy works were supposed to have equal rights to those of the creator, you know?

誤称 wrote:

I pay for my book and subsequently want to make it digital so I can read it on a device, that's MY decision. The author already made his money.

What I do with my property, the book in question, is none of the author's business. And a washed up artist like Go Nagai who simply repeats his past "successes" trying to lean on legitimate businesses like this is really sad.

Further I've gone through this list and noticed that most of these artists are older people who may not understand technology in the present day and are reacting out of fear of something they simply aren't adequately prepared to comprehend. Technology has changed and these guys are dwelling in the past. Stop being luddites and embrace new technology, you're Japanese for Susano-o's sake.

I imagine, even if you do argue that you bought the book and can do with it as you like, that legally there's a difference between making a digital copy yourself and allowing a third part to make a profit digitizing it for you. in that case the third party would essentially be making a profit from a copyrighted work without legally obtaining permission to do so, which would void any argument of "I paid for it so I can do what I want with it."

Weazul-chan wrote:

誤称 wrote:

I pay for my book and subsequently want to make it digital so I can read it on a device, that's MY decision. The author already made his money.

What I do with my property, the book in question, is none of the author's business. And a washed up artist like Go Nagai who simply repeats his past "successes" trying to lean on legitimate businesses like this is really sad.

Further I've gone through this list and noticed that most of these artists are older people who may not understand technology in the present day and are reacting out of fear of something they simply aren't adequately prepared to comprehend. Technology has changed and these guys are dwelling in the past. Stop being luddites and embrace new technology, you're Japanese for Susano-o's sake.

I imagine, even if you do argue that you bought the book and can do with it as you like, that legally there's a difference between making a digital copy yourself and allowing a third part to make a profit digitizing it for you. in that case the third party would essentially be making a profit from a copyrighted work without legally obtaining permission to do so, which would void any argument of "I paid for it so I can do what I want with it."

That's no different then if I take my Ford to a GM mechanic to have it tuned up. I am paying for a service using my own property, even if Ford created it. There really is no difference, and the copyright gestapo are dead wrong to try to go down this path.

I believe this is nothing more than an attempt to force the customer to double dip and has little to do with the creator's integrity.

I don't really have a problem with this. You shouldn't be able to profit from violation of copyright, and frankly you shouldn't do it in the first place. Sure, having to buy something again sucks, and I know all about living on a meager amount of money, but that's just how it is.

Honestly, though... any debate like this will inevitably just wind up with pirates frothing at the mouth because FREEDOOOOOOOOOOOM and anti-pirates frothing at the mouth because STEALING. Confused

dragon695 wrote:

Weazul-chan wrote:

誤称 wrote:

I pay for my book and subsequently want to make it digital so I can read it on a device, that's MY decision. The author already made his money.

What I do with my property, the book in question, is none of the author's business. And a washed up artist like Go Nagai who simply repeats his past "successes" trying to lean on legitimate businesses like this is really sad.

Further I've gone through this list and noticed that most of these artists are older people who may not understand technology in the present day and are reacting out of fear of something they simply aren't adequately prepared to comprehend. Technology has changed and these guys are dwelling in the past. Stop being luddites and embrace new technology, you're Japanese for Susano-o's sake.

I imagine, even if you do argue that you bought the book and can do with it as you like, that legally there's a difference between making a digital copy yourself and allowing a third part to make a profit digitizing it for you. in that case the third party would essentially be making a profit from a copyrighted work without legally obtaining permission to do so, which would void any argument of "I paid for it so I can do what I want with it."

That's no different then if I take my Ford to a GM mechanic to have it tuned up. I am paying for a service using my own property, even if Ford created it. There really is no difference, and the copyright gestapo are dead wrong to try to go down this path.

I believe this is nothing more than an attempt to force the customer to double dip and has little to do with the creator's integrity.

actually, your analogy of bringing your Ford to a GM mechanic works better in an analogy of comparing it to bringing a book to a book binder to get it repaired or rebound if it's beyond repair more than it works comparing it to paying a third party to make a digital reproduction of a book.

intellectual property rights do make unauthorized reproductions a no-no, and that's what's going on here; companies making a profit from making unauthorized digital reproductions. while no one can really stop you from making your own digital copy in your own private home for your own private use or having a friend with a good scanner do it for you it's a different matter going to a third party with no ties to the creator/publisher and paying them to do it for you.

dragon695 wrote:

Kikaioh wrote:

the usual angry piracy screed

Yes, yes we know. Why must you constantly act like such a MPAA/RIAA mouthpiece? You do realize that the original intent of copyright has nothing to do with its current form? The people who buy works were supposed to have equal rights to those of the creator, you know?

"Angry screed?" Oh goodness, it's been a long time since I've heard spin like that. Very Happy

You know, the only person that seems to be getting angry here is you dude --- maybe you're letting your annoyance get the better of your good judgment. I can tell it irks you to hear that some people actually do support artists in protecting their copyright, but you don't have to go on a mud-slinging tirade to try and discourage opinions you don't agree with. I mean really, an MPAA/RIAA mouthpiece? That's pretty funny. Laughing

Anyways, from my memory the history of copyright is a bit complex and has roots in various nations and cultures around the world. Which original intent are you talking about? And what rights are you suggesting consumers ought to have that are supposed to be equal to the creator?

dragon695 wrote:

Weazul-chan wrote:

]I imagine, even if you do argue that you bought the book and can do with it as you like, that legally there's a difference between making a digital copy yourself and allowing a third part to make a profit digitizing it for you. in that case the third party would essentially be making a profit from a copyrighted work without legally obtaining permission to do so, which would void any argument of "I paid for it so I can do what I want with it."

That's no different then if I take my Ford to a GM mechanic to have it tuned up. I am paying for a service using my own property, even if Ford created it. There really is no difference, and the copyright gestapo are dead wrong to try to go down this path.

Actually, the better example would be if you took your Ford to a Chinese bootleg car shop and paid them to build you a working replica of your car. The shop would be making a profit off of replicating Ford's design in the same way these digitizing services are making a profit off of creating copies of the artist's content.

@Anfingrimm & Weazul-chan: I agree completely. Anime catgrin

Weazul-chan wrote:

dragon695 wrote:

Weazul-chan wrote:

誤称 wrote:

I pay for my book and subsequently want to make it digital so I can read it on a device, that's MY decision. The author already made his money.

What I do with my property, the book in question, is none of the author's business. And a washed up artist like Go Nagai who simply repeats his past "successes" trying to lean on legitimate businesses like this is really sad.

Further I've gone through this list and noticed that most of these artists are older people who may not understand technology in the present day and are reacting out of fear of something they simply aren't adequately prepared to comprehend. Technology has changed and these guys are dwelling in the past. Stop being luddites and embrace new technology, you're Japanese for Susano-o's sake.

I imagine, even if you do argue that you bought the book and can do with it as you like, that legally there's a difference between making a digital copy yourself and allowing a third part to make a profit digitizing it for you. in that case the third party would essentially be making a profit from a copyrighted work without legally obtaining permission to do so, which would void any argument of "I paid for it so I can do what I want with it."

That's no different then if I take my Ford to a GM mechanic to have it tuned up. I am paying for a service using my own property, even if Ford created it. There really is no difference, and the copyright gestapo are dead wrong to try to go down this path.

I believe this is nothing more than an attempt to force the customer to double dip and has little to do with the creator's integrity.

actually, your analogy of bringing your Ford to a GM mechanic works better in an analogy of comparing it to bringing a book to a book binder to get it repaired or rebound if it's beyond repair more than it works comparing it to paying a third party to make a digital reproduction of a book.

intellectual property rights do make unauthorized reproductions a no-no, and that's what's going on here; companies making a profit from making unauthorized digital reproductions. while no one can really stop you from making your own digital copy in your own private home for your own private use or having a friend with a good scanner do it for you it's a different matter going to a third party with no ties to the creator/publisher and paying them to do it for you.

So, let us stretch the analogy some more. What if said book had some pages torn, and in order to rebind the book, they had to make new page folds by copying the originals. It is no different then ordering an aftermarket part of that has the same design as the authorized Ford part. Aftermarket part makers do not pay Ford any royalties or compensation for the parts the sell. In any event, the analogy's point is that under reasonable copyright law, we are not expected to double dip for purposes of making copies for personal use. It is a right that stretches back to English Common Law, whereby we balance the common good with the individual good. Like all things, there are two sides to every story. The purpose of copyright law was not to establish twice lifetime creative monopolies like has been done in recent years. It was supposed to be a very short term reward to encourage creators to create more, not rest on their laurels and expect the world to owe them a living for the rest of their lives.

Since these companies do not keep the copies for themselves or try to resell them to anyone, they are legitimately providing a service for the end user. In fact, I might add that this has been going on for years with very little controversy, specifically as it concerns the blind and visually impaired, who often need their books scanned in to allow screen readers to read the books to them. Should they be expected to wait until digital copies are available or do it themselves? No, of course not.

Once again, this is nothing more than a cheap ploy by creators (and mostly large corporations) to tilt the balance of copyright law to favor their rights over the rights of the consumer. They want to force us to double dip even though we have rights as a consumer to continue to enjoy our fairly purchased books regardless of what form they may be in. To support this kind of gouging is morally reprehensible. Arguing that these service providers are somehow profiting, despite charging a uniform price that is agnostic of content, is a thinly veiled attempt to support this paradigm.

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Go Nagai, Other Manga Creators Sue 7 Book-Digitizing Shops

This Week in Anime - SonyFuniCrunchyKadoRoll

Macross 7 Episodes 1–26 Anime Streaming Review

Let This Grieving Soul Retire! Anime Gets 2nd Season

The Worst Anime of Fall 2024

Optimus Prime Actor Garry Chalk Diagnosed with Cancer

Tasokare Hotel – Episodes 1-3 Review (Press Screening)

The Best Anime of Fall 2024

Vinland Saga Season 2 Blu-ray Anime Series Review

'As a Reincarnated Aristocrat, I'll Use My Appraisal Skill' Anime Gets 3rd Season

MF Ghost Anime Gets 3rd Season

Puniru is a Kawaii Slime Anime Gets 2nd Season

My Hero Academia: Vigilantes Spinoff Manga Gets TV Anime in April 2025

New Ranma 1/2 Anime Gets 2nd Season

Re:Anima Volume 1 Manga Review

Yu-Gi-Oh! Gets Promotional Net Anime Shorts Next April

Forum - View topicNEWS: Go Nagai, Other Manga Creators Sue 7 Book-Digitizing Shops

Forum

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Go Nagai, Other Manga Creators Sue 7 Book-Digitizing Shops