RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Bill, you've WAY missed the point on this.

Fansubbers (I'm not one) translate material not available in English so that English fans can enjoy it. Once a copyright-holding company makes the effort to translate the material and create a legitimate release, the fansubbers usually step back, respecting the copyright. The efforts of these fansubbers are helping to drive the manga boom that the copyright holders are now profiting from.

Everyone respects the rights of these copyright holders; no one's trying to keep them from earning their money. If anything, by bringing neglected material to English-speaking fans, they're making the material more valuable to the copyright holder. There's better ways of dealing with fansubbers that have made you money than cease-and-desist letters.

# posted by Ray 10:27 AM

Wow Bill...bitter much? I mean, holy cow...

It's not theft. It's copyright infringement. You do know the difference, right?

# posted by Anonymous 10:27 AM

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

Watch someone fish and 'steal' their 'fishing technology', and you're a criminal. Tell someone else about what you saw and you're contributing to the downfall of civilization.

The point of property rights is that people take better care of things when they own them because they have a vested interest in the property's value. With so-called Intellectual Property, this is not a valid point because information and ideas do not obey the same rules that physical objects obey. Information cannot be 'squandered'. In fact, the opposite is true. Transfering information increases the well-being of the populace. If I give you an apple, I no longer have an apple. If I tell you about a poem about an apple, I get to keep the poem, and you might even improve on it or be otherwise inspired.

This post is not intended to convince anyone of anything. It is a clarification of why old views of about property are obsolete, whether you like it or not.

# posted by Anonymous 11:18 AM

So Ray, what you're saying is that if I design a car, build it in red, and sell it in the United States it's perfectly oksy for someone to take those cars, especially if they think they're fabulous vehicles that should be shared with the rest pf the world, paint 'em blue and sell them in Europe? Don't think so.

All my Todds... It's been my experience that those who have no understanding of intellectual property usually have had none of their own. I'm not going to explain it again.

# posted by Anonymous 12:13 PM

Bill, your point isn't analogous at all. That red car is perfectly drivable throughout the world, and isn't any better at fulfilling its mission of transporting passengers from one place to another in blue. Moreover, painting it blue doesn't add any value to the owner of the intellectual property of the red car. You've missed the point completely.

Let me give you a better example. Let's say that the red car wasn't being utilized in Japan because the manuals, console, etc were in English. Let's say a number of car enthusiasts cobbled together a Japanese manual and a conversion kit, free of charge, so the console would now be in Japanese. Let's say as a result of this, more people imported the red car, making the red car company lots of money not only on the red car but on other models that they put out. And then let's say that, once the owner of the rights of the red car came to Japan, the enthusiasts went to the car company and said, "Here's all our work. Since it's your car, it's really yours, I hope you're not mad." And the car company said, "We're suing you.", angering the enthusiasts who made the car company all the money in the first place.

NOW does this make sense?

# posted by Ray 12:23 PM

But Ray, they don't like red cars over there, they only like blue ones. Besides, they can put all the manuals, brochures, tech suppprt, and free oil changes they want --but they still have to pay for the car before the can sell or distribute it.

# posted by Bill 1:09 PM

I'm for protecting the copyright holder from free distribution of copyrighted material. This car analogy isn't correct. I can't publish someone else's novel on my website just because it could bring me extra income from the traffic. If I were an animator, I'd be pretty upset that my work was given away for free.
Why don't you free distribution enthusiasts move back in time to russia and work at the tractor factory for toilet paper?

# posted by metermax 2:31 PM

You're still not fundamentally seeing the argument (it shows with the car color hangup).

I'm not arguing that the copyright holder needs to protect his rights legally. I'm not arguing that the anime or manga should be given away free on the internet. I'm saying that the translators have made the properties much more valuable by generating interest in properties that the rights holders never generated on their own. You can protect your rights without insulting the fan community that buys your product.

Let's try a different example. Let's say I'm fluent in both English and Latverian (home of Dr. Doom of the Fantastic Four). Last time I checked, your columns are not available in Latverian. As a fan, I translate a column or two into Latverian and send it to my Latverian friends, and Latverian interest in AliceandBill.com skyrockets. Your business reps realize that there's money in Latveria (something you never realized before), and you set up AliceandBillinLatveria.com, selling translated columns for huge amounts of money (and there's huge money being spent on manga and anime).

Now, I've not made any claim to the rights to your column. I've not made any claims to the money your property generates. Once you start translating the columns, I back off, since there's no reason for both of us to translate the columns. Yes, I violated your rights initially, but you're now sitting on a pile of money as a result.

Do you sue me?

# posted by Ray 3:37 PM

Money doesn't make things right and a good and vigorous lawsuit might teach you the error of your ways and provide a deterrent against someone else doing it. You can't paint the building and rent it out if you don't own it.

# posted by Bill 3:45 PM

I give up. You just don't get it. My mother warned me about fighting on the internet with guys like you.

# posted by Ray 4:09 PM

It's real simple, Ray. If it's not yours, leave it alone.

# posted by Bill 5:21 PM

NO bill, you've BOTH missed the point. The point isn't what either of you are saying - the point, as it is with the RIAA, and the MPAA, is control. There is a proven link between 'fansubs', music/tv/movie/game sharing, and a DIRECT increase in revenue. What a company lacks at that point, is control. They're quite happy to get the extra money - they're not at all happy that now someone else has the power to affect their revenue stream. Pure and simple. People like to manage their own affairs. In that, they're right - but that's all they're right about. For most, (read as, the RIAA and the MPAA) that control isn't about managing a revenue stream, so much as it is about controling the choices that the rest of us get to make.

As a once famous southern politician often remarked, "I don't care who does the voting as long as I get to do the nominating." The music and movie industries don't care what you decide to watch, or rent, or buy - they care that you ONLY get to choose from their products. THAT more than anything else is about as unamerican as I can possibly imagine. The retard who made the Russia crack above should wake up, and look at the world around him - we ARE living in that situation now. People don't care what freedoms they give up as long as we keep feeding them the latest glitzy crap, ala Spears, Agulara, Lohan, Jojo, Mario, Good Charolette, etc.

As Michael Moorecock (you can look up who he is later) once wrote, "The world has been ending for years, we've just been too bloody busy watching the comercials to notice."

Last, but certainly not least, I was taught that when someone did you a favor, and asked you for nothing in return, you said, "Thank you." That's what these Otaku deserve - a thank you from the people that they have made BUCKETS of money for, out of their love of the genere.

# posted by LRSE Hosting 7:07 PM

"As Michael Moorecock (you can look up who he is later)"

Now there's a handful of arrogance.

# posted by Bill 8:34 PM

Bill, you at least have to agree that it is the fansubbing community that made Anime so popular in the US, whether it is right or wrong. I know that I wouldn't have even heard of, let alone get hold of most of the anime series available if it weren't for fansubs.

The industry behind it would have a hard time trying to push legal cases where the sub is withdrawn as the title becomes available, as there is no obvious loss of earnings (the RIAA's argument was that their sales had fallen due to file sharing, but Anime sales have ballooned). The most they probably would be able to get is a court order to remove the subs. But then that in itself may see their sales fall, the companies would be shooting themselves in the foot.

It could be compared to AliceandBill, or any other website trying to sue Google. Which does take copies of their material and cache it, and also offers translation services. But people don't sue Google because it increases their traffic/revenue.

-Perros-

# posted by Perros 11:24 PM

The only prblem with that is that they're adding value and re-dsitributing something they don't own. No matter how good the intentions might be, or whether or not you think the outcome may provide mitigating circumstances, if it's not yours then you have no right to put your hands on it.

# posted by Bill 4:10 AM

The only reason this is even an issue is because technology is such that you can pretty much get perfect copies of videos. If the video/audio was crappy there wouldn't even be a DMCA act in the first place.

# posted by Anonymous 5:10 AM

No, Todd, the only reason this is an issue is because some folk decided to play around with something they had no rights to put their hands on.

GUYZ!! There are almost no conditions under which you can make a rational case for the end justifying the means when the means are illegal.

# posted by Bill 6:11 AM

Bill who is this Todd fellow? :)

Jack Valenti tried to stop the sale of vcr's in the late 70's to early 80's saying it would kill the motion picture idustry. NOT.

Same can be said for cassette tapes and the RIAA. Again NOT.

I can see nailing people for dl'ing software or games but not TV shows. I mean come on!!

What is the difference between dl'ing a show and Tivoing it?

# posted by Anonymous 7:31 AM

Other Todd, what's the difference between watching a broadcase TV show and watching a cable TV show when you don't subscribe to cable? If you ripped off the cable service to show your friends and neighbors how wonderful it was, would that mitigate the fact that you ripped it off? Nah...

# posted by Bill 7:40 AM

Quoting Bill: "if it's not yours then you have no right to put your hands on it."

That doesn't explain why Google is free to cache and translate websites, which are often Copyright material, without any successful court actions against them.

I'm sure fansubs would disappear if the studios produced translated versions to release with the Japanese versions, and this is the way that studios should fight this, instead of by wasting court time.

-Perros-

# posted by Perros 7:43 AM

Quote "As Michael Moorecock (you can look up who he is later)"

Now there's a handful of arrogance. /Quote

That's right Bill - if you can't refute the post, attack the poster.

# posted by LRSE Hosting 7:56 AM

How could you steal cable and show it to your neighbor? Wouldn't your neighbor be the one you are stealing it from??

Copyright law is getting so f'd up that you can't even make a backup copy in most instances legally!

# posted by Anonymous 8:10 AM

Let's try for a triple in one post....

Perros: "That doesn't explain why Google is free to cache and translate websites, which are often Copyright material, without any successful court actions against them."

Has anyone actually tried to sue Google on that particular issue?

LSRE: If the messenger has leprosy, I'm not going near the message.

Todd: I'm not going to explain to you how to steal cable. But just because there's a cable line running thruogh your neighborhood it doesn't mean your neighbors subscribe to cable. Also, you're not stealing from your neightbor, you're stealing from the cable company. You're neighbor can't grant you use of his cable subscription outside of his house.

Whew....

# posted by Bill 8:41 AM

From the Looks of it, you'd think I'd stumbled onto a Republican/Democrate debate.

There's got to be a way to view this situation that's not so polarized. I mean, you have to look at intent. Is the intent of the community to deprive the author of income. Clearly in this case it's not, they aren't selling the movies, therefore how are they depriving the owner of income?

Is the content legally owned by the studio who created it...sure, there's no question on that regard either. Should the community have gotten permission...sure they should have asked at the very least. But to call this criminal, or stealing, that's a matter of intent, and I don't think Bill or anyone here makes a strong enough arguement to that point.

Issues like Fair Use will continue to be a sore issue for the media creators, and the consumers. There is no black and white way to look at this. Just because it's law, doesn't mean that it's right. "Right" and "Law" aren't not congruent.

Also, to the person that said that those who have never created or owned content don't understand. That point is ignorant. What your intent with the content you create gives you understanding. I for one have created plenty of content, papers, drawings, movies, songs. My intent wasn't to profit from it, but to enrich the lives of those around me and bring joy, so let them share it with friends and family. Each person I can make smile, think about something I've said, or tap a toe to a tune I created...then great! That's reward enough for me. Greed is the root of all this debate. How much money is enough, and in whose pocket does it belong, and how much is fair.

My question is so whose robbing who? A niche product that has limited viability in an English market gets help from a core group of adopters, only to have the content creator snub and threatened the very people that helped them reach a broader market. I'd say the fans got robbed on this one...How about just saying Thanks, we appreciate your loyalty, and stay tuned for the next installment. Enjoy.

# posted by Anonymous 4:22 PM

It sounds to me like we might all be speculating regarding the opinions of the author of the material being hosted, and those of the fansub site authors.
The law is going to provide the content owners the right to decide whether they can let the fansub sites use their content. It makes no difference as to whether anyone considers it fair that the content owner can sue. They can.
Do the fansub sites really care to be thanked for their efforts? Or are they upset that they can be sued for something that was illegal to begin with? I think for the amount of text that is being typed about it, that some of you are defending the fansub sites as a new medium. That's not what they are. If the content owner feels otherwise, they have the right to stop it.

# posted by metermax 6:22 AM

It sounds to me like we might all be speculating regarding the opinions of the author of the material being hosted, and those of the fansub site authors.
The law is going to provide the content owners the right to decide whether they can let the fansub sites use their content. It makes no difference as to whether anyone considers it fair that the content owner can sue. They can.
Do the fansub sites really care to be thanked for their efforts? Or are they upset that they can be sued for something that was illegal to begin with? I think for the amount of text that is being typed about it, that some of you are defending the fansub sites as a new medium. That's not what they are. If the content owner feels otherwise, they have the right to stop it.

# posted by metermax 6:23 AM

If you want to tell me there's no need for it in this day and age where most any anime title is released, I'll agree. If you want me to say file sharing networks are evil and it's not helping to grow the industry to have millions of downloads, yup. I agree. Never have loaded one of those programs, don't plan to, cause I agree with you on that part Bill.

But, to say the anime companies have always hated fansubbing, nope. I will have to disagree.

If it wasn't for the "illegal" actions as you describe em, there'd be no anime industry now. I've been watching anime since the late 80's, and know how I was introduced to the stuff? Fansub tapes. Made from usually college AV room equipment since nobody was processing video on a 286 on Windows 2.0. The Net was not there till 1996, and file sharing later.

But back in the day, the tapes were copied for free. You sent the subbers the tapes, they sent them back with the episodes on em, and you promised to destroy the tapes if commerical releases came out. (btw, the fansub versions were sometimes better than the commercial ones, but me and my friends complied with those terms.)

It was an enthusiast thing, like the sharing of old tv shows on tape that didn't get a home video release that, by keeping the fan base alive, helped bring back those old shows in some form.

The popularity of this activity with respect to anime helped the first American anime distributors show Suncoast and a few other chains there was a market and a demand for product, and people might actually pay for big eyed characters, with lots of guns. Those chains themselves didn't have the market presence they have today, or the same level of corporate backing, so it was a risk. It's paid off for them handsomely.

So yeah, I'll agree that those days are long gone, but please don't act like it was always just this horrible misdeed and miscarriage of justice.

-Rick

# posted by Anonymous 12:47 PM

OK, everybody pull up Google and search for the anime series called 'Naruto'.

"Results 1 - 50 of about 1,120,000 English pages for naruto"

That is 1.1 million pages
Now, how many of those people do you think speak Japanese?

The English-speaking fanbase was CREATED by the fansub groups, people who volunteer their time and bandwidth for the advancedment of anime without any expectation of a reward

Bill, Laws, especially property and copyright laws, exist to make rich people richer, fairness has nothing to do with it.
At one time the law said that Africans were property, did that make slavery right?

# posted by Aaron Davis 11:18 PM

OK, everybody pull up Google and search for the anime series called 'Naruto'.

"Results 1 - 50 of about 1,120,000 English pages for naruto"

That is 1.1 million pages
Now, how many of those people do you think speak Japanese?

The English-speaking fanbase was CREATED by the fansub groups, people who volunteer their time and bandwidth for the advancedment of anime without any expectation of a reward

Bill, Laws, especially property and copyright laws, exist to make rich people richer, fairness has nothing to do with it.
At one time the law said that Africans were property, did that make slavery right?

# posted by Aaron Davis 11:18 PM

Sorry about the double post

# posted by Aaron Davis 11:21 PM

We're back to the end justifying the means... and that's been proven, over and over again, not to be a viable approach to anything. The law is a tool that helps prevent anarchy which many of you seem to forget is democracy with a clue. Great dialogue from A Man For All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.

More: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you where would you hide Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

# posted by Bill 8:13 AM

yeah, I meant, "without a clue"

# posted by Bill 8:14 AM

I'd rather stand with courage, and conviction against the winds of injustice. Fool hardy or not, the fortitude of my soul is all the safety I need, no law will ever quench that thirst. So hide behind the safety of your laws, where the devil himself resides...he'll greet you there, and you him, for there you both find temporary safety. Remember though no matter how many laws there are between you and the devil, eventually he'll find you and ask you to dance.

At least in the open I'll see him coming. That's more than I can say for you.

Respectfully,

Another Todd.

# posted by Anonymous 3:37 PM