Welcome to General Deception

[godix]

Why do people keep using the library reference? The org isn't a library. Authors can have their books removed from libraries. No library would ever tell an author "we're keeping a copy of your book on our shelf because the kids might stop visiting us otherwise."

Actually, this is false. Once an author signs a contract to have his book published, their control is done. The book is out there, their name is on it, and they can't pull it back and make libraries give back the book. Now a library might choose to comply if an author asks for their book to be removed, but there's no requirement for them to do so and a lot probably wouldn't comply too. At best, authors have the option of not allowing new releases of that work beyond what the original contract allowed.

Which is pretty much how the org works. Once you agree to have the org host your videos, your control is done. You can ask the org to delete your video, and in some very specific circumstances the org will agree, but there's nothing that requires it delete them and a lot of times they won't. You can refuse permission to upload it elsewhere, but it's here on the org because you agreed to allow that.

Or look at cons. Some cons keep any video ever sent to them. They have massive amounts of videos store and can play any of them at the con, or any future con, without you being able to stop it. If you ask nicely, they might delete your video out of that, but it's not required they do so.

Have you ever read the terms and conditions of pretty much any site that allows posts? Almost all of them have some sort of legalise speak about how once you hit submit on a comment, the website can host it until the big crunch if they want. Your control over distribution of that comment is done. In some cases, you give the website permission to reprint your comment, which means they can slap it into a book and sell it and you have no ability to prevent that.

Then there are the wayback machine, video aggregation sites, people who upload vids to other sites without the authors knowledge, etc. Look at Tom The Fish, he deleted his video what, a decade ago? Yet if I made a post in GAMV asking for one of his old ones I would almost certainly get someone to give me a copy.

I don't understand why some think the org not allowing deletion is a big deal. It's the internet. From the moment someone chooses to put something on the net, they have lost all control over distribution of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand how the internet works.

[Arigatomina]

I don't understand why some think the org not allowing deletion is a big deal. It's the internet. From the moment someone chooses to put something on the net, they have lost all control over distribution of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand how the internet works.

I didn't know that about libraries. I'm actually really curious how they get permission to share any copywritten books at all. I suspect there's some sort of royalties involved somewhere. As possessive as publishers are, not to mention individual authors, they must be getting something in exchange for letting free copies be shared with the masses. Maybe I'll check my library to see if there's a book on the subject. ;p

About the deletion. For me, it was originally because I didn't see any small print warning about it. I still maintain that there was no small print until at least a year after I started uploading amvs here. I joined for the carrot and if I had seen small print warning me of this policy I wouldn't have shelled out the $50 for it. If anyone wants to check old copies of the site, I'd be happy to be proven wrong and have this chip removed from my shoulder. After the small print was added (I first noticed it in 2005), I still didn't like it because I wanted the org to be above that sort of thing. Snubbing editors? Biting the hand that feeds you, you mean. Today, I don't personally care any more. But I think other people will care because the tube exists now and you can delete any vids you want over there. The org is going to be compared with the other huge amv hosting site and that one lets creators have control over the distribution of their work. That makes it a better hosting alternative for those who are as possessive of their vids as any other hobbyist (compare to scanlations, fanfics, fanart, etc).

I'm stuck in the middle of wars about people hosting other people's fanworks without permission or refusing to remove them if permission is withdrawn - in every anime related hobby I participate in. It's the big "war" I see going on these days between fan-creators and those who want to get visitors by sharing what those creators 'created'. And if that war breaks out with amvs, the org is going to be the bad guy and the tube is going to be the good guy. It's a matter of priciple that I will never support the org taking a stance that makes the tube look like the good guys in comparison. It pains me to point out ways they're superior to any site, let alone the org.

...and things like articles, interviews, and other features to keep the scene interested...

That's the sort of thing I'd look forward to. But it seems like a moot subject when we don't even know if there will be room for an 'articles/etc' tab on the main page after everything is reformatted. I'd want to know if any activity is going to flow past that section before I'd start trying to flesh it out. If no one knows it exists, there's no point. If the section doesn't get traffic, then things that would go there can be stickied in GenAmv instead.

/love this edit button, no double posting necessary

[BasharOfTheAges]

I don't understand why some think the org not allowing deletion is a big deal. It's the internet. From the moment someone chooses to put something on the net, they have lost all control over distribution of it. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand how the internet works.

I didn't know that about libraries. I'm actually really curious how they get permission to share any copywritten books at all. I suspect there's some sort of royalties involved somewhere. As possessive as publishers are, not to mention individual authors, they must be getting something in exchange for letting free copies be shared with the masses. Maybe I'll check my library to see if there's a book on the subject. ;p

It's called the first sale doctrine. Once you sell or otherwise transfer ownership of a product (think donations or gifts), you give up all rights on saying what people can do with it. They can even lend it out to other people. They bought the copy, it's theirs to do with as they see fit. Granted they can't make copies of it (and "public performance" is a touchy subject), but they can do what they want with their own copy, including lending it out. This concept is codified in US copyright law and has a good deal of history in being upheld in federal court.

[godix]

I didn't know that about libraries. I'm actually really curious how they get permission to share any copywritten books at all. I suspect there's some sort of royalties involved somewhere. As possessive as publishers are, not to mention individual authors, they must be getting something in exchange for letting free copies be shared with the masses. Maybe I'll check my library to see if there's a book on the subject. ;p

Not that it matters too much, but publishers often charge libraries more for a book than what bookstores do. I think it's because to loan to the general public, as opposed to loaning a book to a friend, requires special licensing. Regardless, once the library has legally purchased that book and those rights, authors can't do dick to have the book pulled.

Besides, every author who's opinion on libraries I've heard of strongly endorses libraries. Piers Anthony once mentioned that his books were being stolen from his local library so he donated new copies to the library. Why anyone would want to own a Piers Anthony book is beyond my comprehension though. Still, point is, you're far more likely to see professional authors assisting libraries distribute their work than to see them condemn libraries for it.

But I think other people will care because the tube exists now and you can delete any vids you want over there. The org is going to be compared with the other huge amv hosting site and that one lets creators have control over the distribution of their work.

And how many times have we seen videos reuploaded and available on dozens of different accounts? Sure, an editor can delete their copy of the video, but frequently that isn't even the most popular copy of that video on the tube anyway. Once something is on the net, there is no such thing as 'control over distribution of their work'. As you point out, other fandoms are having 'wars' as they slowly learn this lesson. Others who had to learn this lesson are scientology, the RIAA, and the MPAA. Do you *REALLY* endorse the exact same mentality that has lead to all the copyright issues we've seen over the last decade?

The only person who could stop distribution is the guy who sucks so much that anyone who downloaded a copy of their video immediately deleted it. And in that case, no one wanted his work anyway so it doesn't matter in the slightest.

[JaddziaDax]

Libraries don't need to attract writers in order to get books to stock their shelves. The org does.

You are right they don't need to attract writers, they just stock their shelves with whatever they can buy. Sounds like the dead proxy account to me. Go out find popular amv and put it in the catalog. You want to talk about people not having the control after they upload, if we were to "stock our shelves" the way libraries do then we would have more pissed off people.

I don't see why donation method is a defining feature. While our funding methods may be different than a public library, that doesn't make the site less a library in general.

When people talk about the site itself as a library, they aren't talking about the people on the site, they are talking about the functionality of the site. When people talk about libraries they are talking about the building with the books inside it, not the readers or even the workers.

The basic functionality is to catalog the videos. Uploading and feedback were just the next step and were implemented so that viewers can access videos easier and contribute as well.

I think the attitude of some editors that viewer feedback is somehow worth less than editor feedback that has changed the shift of the view that this site is for editors only. This is one of the reasons I have been pushing for public preview, to draw in VIEWERS. Even if it's only a view count on my page, it means that the audience was there, even if silent. I respect the opinions and views of both editors and viewers, and I'd like to see more viewer related features on this site.

Also, those "profits" (feedback and help) are free for anyone who wants to try their hand at editing weather they are here or at youtube. A viewer can easily slip into becoming an editor. I was watching amvs/fanvideos for a few years before I started editing, and I know several people on this site probably wouldn't have thought to become an editor if they hadn't seen a video first.

Writers would continue to write books even if readers stopped visiting libraries because writers do most of their "sharing" by selling. Writers would continue to write and sell books even if libraries no longer existed. Editors might not continue to make amvs if viewers stopped visiting the places where amvs are shared. Editors might not continue to make amvs if org and tube style amv-sharing places no longer existed.

Please tell me you are only speaking for yourself. I'd continue to make videos if I had the ideas and inspirations to do so, even if the org wasn't around, because there are plenty of places for me to share my videos that aren't on the internet I rather enjoy submitting my videos to conventions and sharing them with my family and friends. This site just makes it easier to do so with friends that aren't local.

I bet a lot of authors would stop writing books if they heard that all the libraries were going to shut down. If at the very least out of protest. Lots of them actually love and appreciate libraries themselves, since when they were kids that's where they read a lot of their first books and became attracted to the profession. (I've heard similar sentiments from a specific John Green - a young adult author - who was running a youtube blog with his brother). A lot of writers just want their work read, and therefore majorly support libraries, and other places where their books can be accessed. (Godix also has a story to back this up)

Writers and Editors want the same thing: the audience, and they will usually go to where that audience can be reached.

AMVs (or at least fanvideos) might be older than you think. Do you remember the days of VCR2VCR? before there was internet sharing? Maybe writing technology has been around longer than the video age, but I don't see how this keeps the org from being a library. People were creating and sharing their videos at conventions long before the org or youtube existed. The internet just helped them to find a wider audience.

Libraries originally didn't pop up so people could access free books. PUBLIC libraries service that feature. Many original libraries didn't use to be that way, they were some rich guy's private collection of books. Repositories of knowledge for a school or a college, much like many of the guides here.

Libraries = have stocked shelves whether writers choose to donate books or not.
The org = has nothing if editors choose not to donate amvs.

Libraries = go out and find books to add to their collection.
The org = makes editors come to it, bringing their amvs with them.

The proxy account makes me think that somewhere along the line this policy was changed to suit someone who didn't want their video listed here. Still either way the collection is being created, the method is a null point.

Big Bold Bottom Line (aka, the main point): The purpose of a library is to provide poor people with the same books rich people can afford. The purpose of the org is to create and encourage editors to make and continue making amvs so that the hobby doesn't die out.

Once again there is more than one kind of library. That is the purpose of a public library... what about a private library? my personal private library of DVDs isn't to provide anyone with free access to DVDs. Screw that, if I were to lend out DVDs I probably wouldn't get them back! I'm sure that a school library isn't there to specifically supply books to anyone, it's there as a resource for the people attending the school. Not just anyone can go to a school library and borrow books.

Is that more clear? Because I don't like derailing NME's rant here. Maybe a mod can break this into a seperate "Org vs Libraries" thread. Then I can repeat myself ad nauseam until I find the right words to get my point across.

Oh you are pretty clear, however I think that your definition of a library and how one works, is rather limited. Even if some of the aspects of the org are unlike a PUBLIC library that doesn't mean that the org isn't essentially a library of amvs.

(wow I edited this too many times lol)

[BasharOfTheAges]

Y'know, the only reason I called this place a library in the first place was that, like a library, we don't allow porn and we have rules against being an insufferable prick to other people (or at least guidelines) - those were the only things NME gave as what he wanted to do that he couldn't and seemed to be the crux of his immature argument. Every other point of comparison after that was just gravy. Harping on that tangent is pretty divergent to the point. I mean, it's an interesting discussion and made this thread have value if people want to skip the first two pages of nonsense, but it is kinda tangential.

[Arigatomina]

Go out find popular amv and put it in the catalog. You want to talk about people not having the control after they upload, if we were to "stock our shelves" the way libraries do then we would have more pissed off people.

If the org were a library... It would be out there looking for new vids and asking the editors' permission to host them here on the org.

Okay? I never did and would never suggest that the org take people's videos without permission.

...and I'd like to see more viewer related features on this site.

So would I. But like you said, the current view is that this site is for editors only. I'm talking about what the org actually is (in my opinion), not what I'd like it to be.

Please tell me you are only speaking for yourself.

No, I was talking about the people who have trickled away from the org in the last few years, around the same time ops died out and QCs became something you hold your breath and hope for. Those editors. I just switched hobbies because I was being harrassed here and decided there were more fun things to do with my time. I hope to get back into amvs and when I do, I have a website with my own hosting that gets a lot of traffic. I won't need the org to provide me with an audience. In fact, I'd get a friendlier audience far away from the org. ^^;

I bet a lot of authors would stop writing books if they heard that all the libraries were going to shut down.

If so, they should do it now. Libraries are becoming as out of date these days as newspapers. It's all digital now. Why bother going to a library when you can download the ebook without leaving your home? Why buy a heavy space consuming stack of paper when you can read your news online? Why bother checking movies out at the library when you can download and burn your own copy in a few minutes? That's why I kept harping on the fact that libraries don't need a lot of visitors to continue to be supported. They get fewer visitors every year just like magazines get fewer subscribers. We maintain libraries because we like the idea, not because they're still being used the way they were intended to be.

...what about a private library? I'm sure that a school library isn't there to specifically supply books to anyone, it's there as a resource for the people attending the school. Not just anyone can go to a school library and borrow books.

True. But the org isn't that kind of library, either, because anyone can come to the org and download videos. They don't even have to sign up if they use the direct download links.

Even if some of the aspects of the org are unlike a PUBLIC library that doesn't mean that the org isn't essentially a library of amvs.

What kind of library is it, then? We agree it's not a public library. It's not a teaching library like you find at universities because anyone can come in and get a library card without paying tuition to attend the school. It's not a private library because the org doesn't keep the videos it has collected all to its lonesome, but rather shares freely with anyone interested in getting a card. What other kinds of libraries are there? It's definitely a database, but a library implies there are actual copies of the things listed available to be 'browsed through' if not 'checked out'. The org doesn't even fulfill that requirement since it lists tons of vids that were never actually made.

/This is a really fun to discuss. But, yeah, it's not going anywhere and it's totally off topic. Sorry. We've got mods (admin?) in this thread. Smack me for being off-topic so I have to drop it and stay away for a while. I won't hold it against ya. I'm addicted, I can't quit on my own. ;p

It's called the first sale doctrine.

Thanks. I'm googling that asap. I want to know how it works with video rentals as well. And what exactly constitutes "private screening" on that screen that pops up at the start of every movie. ;p

And how many times have we seen videos reuploaded and available on dozens of different accounts?

Members do that, not the website itself. And unlike on the tube, when people see it happening here and report it, the mods here delete those videos for us. For me, that's one of the org's biggest selling points. You're only allowed one account and you can only upload your own videos to that account. Those who are caught breaking those rules actually get in trouble here, unlike the tube where you have to threaten legal action before they'll bother enforcing their own rules.

[BasharOfTheAges]

It's called the first sale doctrine.

Thanks. I'm googling that asap. I want to know how it works with video rentals as well. And what exactly constitutes "private screening" on that screen that pops up at the start of every movie. ;p

That's a public performance license issue. Though those are a bit more nebulous wrt the law. Groups like the MPAA, and sports leagues like the NFL and MLB often try to state in very broad terms the rights they claim to have as if they were the force of law - even when those assertions are sometimes bunk (talking or writing about those games without the consent of the league is illegal? the hell it is). Major League Baseball even tried to claim they owned player's stats so they could sue fantasy leagues at one point. It's no wonder people don't know.

[godix]

If so, they should do it now. Libraries are becoming as out of date these days as newspapers. It's all digital now. Why bother going to a library when you can download the ebook without leaving your home?

Because libraries are shifting to digital too. Many libraries subscribe to a service (Overdrive is the most common AFAIK) which allow loaning of e-books. You have to put up with DRM crap, but it's worth it for access to half a million e-books without having to pay a dime.

[JaddziaDax]

Okay? I never did and would never suggest that the org take people's videos without permission.

Libraries don't need to ask permission to obtain copies.. We ask people to upload their own stuff to elevate drama. Also the PROXY account... apparently at one time the org DID go out and take people's videos without permission. Apparently the policy on the org has changed since then though I was never putting words in your mouth, just pointing out the fact that we have in the past obtained our material in a different way than now.

So would I. But like you said, the current view is that this site is for editors only. I'm talking about what the org actually is (in my opinion), not what I'd like it to be.

The difference here is that I'm talking about the site itself, not the people on it, in terms as to why I'd equate the org to a library. Granted the people on it can sway the direction the site takes, but in terms of the site itself the org can still be easily compared to an online library of sorts.

No, I was talking about the people who have trickled away from the org in the last few years, around the same time ops died out and QCs became something you hold your breath and hope for. Those editors.

You presume to speak for all of them?

You said:
"Editors might not continue to make amvs if viewers stopped visiting the places where amvs are shared. Editors might not continue to make amvs if org and tube style amv-sharing places no longer existed."

So you are saying this is the reason all of them quit making amvs? are you saying lack of viewers is the one reason they all quit? If that were the case, I would think that they would just go to where the viewers are now rather than just quit. That is if they are actually dedicated to the hobby.

Though I don't think its a matter of dedication. I would think that perhaps things came up in their life that is more important than making videos.

If so, they should do it now. Libraries are becoming as out of date these days as newspapers. It's all digital now. Why bother going to a library when you can download the ebook without leaving your home?

This statement presumes that you have a computer to download that ebook with.. lots of people these days go to libraries to use their computers and access the internet.

Why buy a heavy space consuming stack of paper when you can read your news online? Why bother checking movies out at the library when you can download and burn your own copy in a few minutes?

Some people still like the feel of the paper in their hand. They like the smell of the ink and glue. The second question also assumes that a person has access to a computer connected to the internet and then knows where and how to download movies.

That's why I kept harping on the fact that libraries don't need a lot of visitors to continue to be supported. They get fewer visitors every year just like magazines get fewer subscribers. We maintain libraries because we like the idea, not because they're still being used the way they were intended to be.

Actually we don't need a lot of visitors to be supported either, although a lot of us act like it's the end of the hobby if we don't get more.

If the hobby dwindles then the bandwidth usage goes down, and we don't have to pay as large bandwidth fees. The people who are still really into it will probably try hard to keep the site alive if they are dedicated enough.

True. But the org isn't that kind of library, either, because anyone can come to the org and download videos. They don't even have to sign up if they use the direct download links.

Not every video has a direct link, an indirect link or even a local link. The links are extra. It's the listing that is the essential information about the video.

The org doesn't even fulfill that requirement since it lists tons of vids that were never actually made.

how do you know every single video listed without a link wasn't made? yes maybe some of them probably weren't made, but there's no proof to that statement either way unless we want to track down every person who has a "no" link.

Smack me for being off-topic

Why? this is the off topic forum I believe it's perfectly legit to go on tangents here.

All in all: Maybe the org is a "new" kind of library... I'm not saying that it has to be a library but just that this site is equatable to one, and I can understand why people use this analogy.