Source Footage Ethics Symposium - I'm blowing your mind!

[sayde]

Thank you BasharOfTheAges for effectively occupying a few minutes of my time. Anyways, while you did bring up some good points--

As long as it doesn't look like crap I could honestly care less where you got the footage from.

^^that's more or less how I feel about the issue in the end.

[BasharOfTheAges]

I only want to address one aspect. You ask about transfer of ownership. You absurdly claim this transference does not constitute supporting the creators. I argue you are wrong. Here's a break up as to why:

1) Person A purchases Macross: DYRL for 7800 yen.
2) Person A watches it, but does not enjoy it enough to keep it.
3) Person A sells it to Person B for 4000 Yen.
4) Person A still paid 7800 yen, but got back 4000 yen.
5) Person A (3800 Yen) + Person B (4000 Yen) = Total Payment (7800 Yen).

Although it is trickle down, only one copy is moving, and no matter how you break it down, the production company, its associates, its seiyuu and animators, as well as the original creators get thier piece. You can repeat Steps 3-5 ad nauseum, even allowing for profit due to rarity of the item over time, and at no point is there a legal or ethical issue present.

Your entire argument centers around the assumption that the person who buys second hand would not have bought a new copy either way. Similar arguments have been used to defend simply downloading things. The fact remains that the person who buys a product used does not contribute to the company the produced the product. See where the validity of the "support the industry" argument falls apart then? You are not supporting the industry by buying used. And by using the same reasoning that has the RIAA and the MPAA's panties in a bunch, you're actually hurting it. (note, whether or not i believe this is unimportant, i'm just folowing the conclusion of a line of reasoning).

Thank you BasharOfTheAges for effectively occupying a few minutes of my time.

My pleasure. I'm often very bored at work.

and @
downwithpants : The concept of utility being taken seriously completely baffles me. If taken to be just compensation, in terms of anything tangible like money, we're back arguing over whether or not fansubs promote sales. You certainly get utility from watching something you illegally downloaded, so where's the differnce between doing that and borowing or re-selling something? (to the creator's wallet i mean)

[Gods Dark Angel]

I recently took some time to post here while watching ECW, and I would like to know your thoughts on my particular post BasharOfTheAges.

[Kionon]

Your entire argument centers around the assumption that the person who buys second hand would not have bought a new copy either way.

Incorrect. My assumption is that it is irrelevent whether they would have or not. The DVD (and the footage on it) is physical property.

Similar arguments have been used to defend simply downloading things.

Wrong again, as my argument is not what you assume it to be. Downloading is digital, not physical. You cannot hold it in your hand and exchage it physically for something else of value, be it money or anything else. It is not the same at all.

The fact remains that the person who buys a product used does not contribute to the company the produced the product.

I dispute this. In fact, I disputed it already. As was disputed by others. The ability of a physical product to be exchanged for another item of value is an inherent value that differentiates it from downloaded material. That ability drives up demand rather than suppressing it.

See where the validity of the "support the industry" argument falls apart then? You are not supporting the industry by buying used. And by using the same reasoning that has the RIAA and the MPAA's panties in a bunch, you're actually hurting it.

No, I do not. I am supporting the industry when I buy used, because that physical copy had to be purchased originally from the company. Its demand would be altered if I was not allowed to resell it. And in fact this is the opposite of the RIAA and MPAA stance. As far as they are concerned, one should never be able to buy used, ever, under any circumstances. They want to control each and every physical copy that is produced on the basis of the intellectual property contained therein. This would mean you'd be purchasing a license to use the physical item, but you would not actually own it. This is precisely the exact opposite of the economic model I argue is at work.

[BasharOfTheAges]

I guess this is why I did so poorly in economics... If you buy a product used the company that could have been getting money from you buying it new instead gets nothing. Right? How are you supporting the industry? You no longer represent the demand for that product, as you already possess it. Demand as a whole (for a large enough industry) is independednt of your actions. Yet your indivudual actions are the point of discussion here. It all falls apart in the small scale. I've even had economics professors admit to that.

[BasharOfTheAges]

I should probably clarify how i see the whole used thing a bit better.

Say there's a given demand for an item. That demand is there. Now, instead of buying form the source, you buy from someone that had previously bought from the source. You may be exchanging money for the product (thus giving it value) but the source gets none of this. You are not ging money to the source. It already had all the money it was going to get after the first person bought it. Since the source does not have your revenue and you still have your product, youare not helping the source at all.

[downwithpants]

and @
downwithpants : The concept of utility being taken seriously completely baffles me. If taken to be just compensation, in terms of anything tangible like money, we're back arguing over whether or not fansubs promote sales. You certainly get utility from watching something you illegally downloaded, so where's the differnce between doing that and borowing or re-selling something? (to the creator's wallet i mean)

to the creator's wallet, there's no difference borrowing or using fansubs. however, in both cases of reselling and borrowing, the creator has potentially driven up the demand for the DVD. with fansubs, the creator is only lowering her demand for the DVD without raising anyone else's.

[BasharOfTheAges]

to the creator's wallet, there's no difference borrowing or using fansubs. however, in both cases of reselling and borrowing, the creator has potentially driven up the demand for the DVD. with fansubs, the creator is only lowering her demand for the DVD without raising anyone else's.

Driven up the demand you say. To whom exactly? Surely not the creator himself. He already has the DVD in question. Do you mean he'd drive up the demand through his work (i.e. promoting the series)? How would the actual source matter then (legit or otherwise)?

[madbunny]

This is all bullshit.

Essentially it's all semantics.

Virtually everything that we do is, in one way or another a violation of either copywright law or some sort of infringement on a EULA. There 'are' loopholes, but those are minor and usually sucky ones. (for example, you are allowed to point a video camera at a television and make a copy of a show.) There will probably always be loopholes that allow us to make use of whatever the current technology, be it DVD, high def disks, or HD raws. Equally the people that 'lose' money from us doing this will always try to find ways to stop it. That's the way it works.

On the subject of 'losing' money, don't get me wrong here. It doesn't have to be actual, real money. Losing theoretical, or potential money is apparently just as bad as carjacking to the movie and music industry. Just look at the record profits while still bitching about losing profit to pirates and coming up with billions/trillions of theoretical lost dollars to internet downloads. That's not really overly relevant to my argument here though.

Ethically, anybody that stands on a high horse is just fooling themselves.
Anytime that the industry that makes anime gets more people interested and involved it gains. Period. DVD sales are not the only way that companies get money. Rentals that make the licensing agency piles of cash also make the industry money by encouraging more licensing agencies to drop tons of cash on anime studios to make more stuff. Thats the way it works.

Amvs are a niche hobby. One that takes talent and skill (mostly) along with a medium amount of technical ability to be sure.. but still a niche hobby. There is no rule that says big coporations such as ADV, or Geneon can't be hypocritical, having huge booths at cons taking advantage of hype created by a funsub community, and at the same time trying to shut down sites that service that same community. I saw Naruto shit at booths WAAAAY before it was officially introduced.

On that same thought apparently the people here on the .org don't seem to also understand that pretty much every single step, regardless of purchasing the medium or not is illegal. All of it. Grab a cd, and look at it. On that cd, or the case for the CD, in a place where you could have theoretically seen it before opening is a warning: unauthorized copying is punishable under federal law. Every DVD that you pop in your player most likely either has the FBI warning, or the Interpol warning that you're not allowed to copy or use any part of that disk whatsoever blah blah, and so on.

As far as I'm concerned, unsubbed raws are probably the closest to legal that you can get, untill tv shows start broadcasting a similar warning. DRM is currently trying to deal with that little loophole, so who knows.

It's all semantics. The reason that this always comes up is because people want to feel that just because it's 'harmless' it's ok. It might be, but it's still against the laws that are in place.

It's a hobby, instead of arguing semantics, lets try to actually enjoy it.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Madbunny. This topic wasn't intended to be about laws, but about the "moral guidelines" that dictate what we can and cannot discuss on the site. I was claiming that certain things like borrowing, buying used, and renting were equally unethical based on the only given reasoning i've ever seen and thus should also be banned avenues of conversation. Of course this won't happen, but it's nice to point out our flaws once in a while.