The difference is that any fool can make AMVs by him/herself, so people would generally find it easier to believe if s/he tries to claim credit for an AMV that's not his/hers. Also, it's usually not hard to edit out credits that identify the original editor -- try doing that with a book!hasteroth wrote:You fail to understand the principal. it Does not matter the amount of effort put forward or the length of it.Emotive wrote:That is also a very different thing, both from the two others and from streaming amvs..hasteroth wrote:Or producing a movie and only showing it in theatres and never releasing it on DVD.
Allowing someone access and enjoy something but not letting them have it in their possession because they could steal it is the issue here. And it's idiotic because, like commercial products (books, movies, and games) they are catalogued.
Also, in the case of AMVs, many people don't know the catalogue exists or just don't bother checking against it. Not to mention that the catalogue itself is woefully incomplete. The other examples you mentioned don't have this problem.
The upshot of all that is that your analogies fail because, catalogued though they may be, AMVs are still far easier to plagiarize (with impunity) than your examples are.
Furthermore, I don't see what's so ridiculous about not releasing a film on DVD. The producers paid to make the movie; they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Kind of like how Studio Sokodei doesn't distribute copies of their fan parodies or offer them for download: we fans may not like it, but it's certainly within their rights.
