1385
Crunchyroll
(lemy.lol)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
1385 points (98.1% liked)
People Twitter
7904 readers
1695 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The workers already got paid. It's executives that are being "stolen from." ( I'm too broke to buy it anyways)
That’s irrelevant. That’s not the case with all media, especially anime, when the creators are the owners and executives of many studios. Even if it was, it doesn’t change the calculus that the work is being sold.
If you weren't gonna buy it anyway and since the creator doesn't lose anything, how can it be stealing?
And on top of that, it offers the creator exposure and creates new fans who one day might buy some of their products.
Another example: if I go to an art gallery and look at paintings every day without ever buying anything, is that stealing? I'm ingesting their art daily for free. No, I'm not. That's the purpose of art galleries. But painting has been a thing for thousands of years, we've had time to adapt to it. Not the same thing with digital media. It came about after all these definitions and laws. Which is why we're having this conversation. And because corpos are greedy, we'll probably keep having this conversation forever
I think you'll find that the vast majority of art galleries are not free. And, they tend to rotate their content regularly, so you have no control over what you have access to. Pretty much everything this thread is complaining about Crunchyroll doing.
I'm talking about stores that sell paintings, not museums. Unless you pay to go to those where you live. I've never paid to enter a store before
Well, your analogy is even more flawed. I hardly think a painting store is going to be OK with you treating their stock like you own it. Also, once they sell a painting, it's gone and you no longer have access to it. Just how exactly do you propose an artist make an income if their output should be free for all to peruse as they see fit? Exposure doesn't put food on the table.
Not that I am in any way defending the fine art business which is nothing more than a giant money laundering scheme for the filthy rich.
They'll never admit this because it invalidates their entire point.
See above reply. Not talking about museums or whatever. Talking about the stores where artists sell their paintings
If they're selling a physical product, then you viewing the painting temporarily while you're in the store is not the same as being able to view it whenever you want or to physically have it in your home. You cannot buy "used" intangible goods. You can buy "used" paintings and those paintings can be materially changed by being "used".
Yeah, the downvotes in here scream of "I can't refute your point, so I'm just going to downvote you!" Do they think creators should just give away their creations and hope money falls on them from out of the sky?
Yes, if we all ignore the multiple times the point in question has been refuted.
I haven't seen someone explain how a digital creator is supposed to make money without charging, y'know, money for their product.
Maybe the question we should be asking isn't whether or not piracy is theft, but instead whether or not piracy is harmful.
The makers of Hangul Word Processor in Korea had to be bailed out by the government because despite the fact that their software is installed on almost every single computer in the country, and is most certainly on any computer used in any official capacity, almost no one paid for it. That means that at least some part of my tax dollars were used to support a software company I abhor. Their always-running updater shows ads in the taskbar. (At least it did when I was forced to use it.) The actual word processor is janky and crap, but at this point they're so in bed with the government, they're never going away. All because everyone and their dog pirated their software back when Korea's PC industry was sweeping the country.
Nintendo sold more Nintendo DS Lites in Korea than games. Retailers sold flash carts loaded with games right beside the units. Who's going to pay $50 for a single game when you can pay $50 for a hundred of the exact same games? The next console released by Nintendo (WiiU) never came to Korea. I wonder why.
Maybe piracy isn't theft by some outdated definition of the term, but it most certainly isn't not harmful either.
I think the underlying issue is that the digital product is by its nature infinitely copyable and requires a different system/approach then the old physical distribution model. I don't think digital creators are today struggling for ways to monetize their work, but having issues convincing consumers of the value of that work. People are getting squeezed and it is changing how much (or even if) they spend on entertainment, art, etc. A major part about anything's value that keeps getting overlooked (by companies, creators, and often experts) is that the consumer does ultimately decide what that value is. With something that can be endlessly copied with little to no cost the assigned value drops, and we see in this current economic space more and more. Piracy is nothing but a byproduct of tech and market forces. I don't really think it is necessarily harmful or the core issue. I don't think gov bailouts are the fault of piracy, and more so using Nintendo as an example of a victim steels me in the other direction. As for the definition of theft, as has been said over and over here, it is not outdated and is very, very scary to think of the implications of a world where the definition is changed to include software piracy.
I get that it sucks being on the shit end of a shift in spending habits (hell, I sell drugs for a living and see the reduction in recreational spending firsthand). But to think that people are going to not bootleg, pirate, blackmarket trade, make knockoffs or such is, has and always be naive.
Yes, Nintendo is pretty disgustingly anti-consumer in a lot of cases, but in the case of the DS in Korea, I think they were entirely justified in just not releasing their next console here. Why bother when it's going to get immediately hacked and sold chipped in every little video game store with a pile of burned discs next to it? If you're selling something, and you know one of your customers is going to take your thing and copy it and resell it, why on Earth would you ever sell anything to them ever again?
I agree we shouldn't immediately label piracy as theft, but we definitely shouldn't dismiss it as totally harmless, either.
I looked into the wii thing a bit and I don't think it was the R4s and what not that had them not release the wii in Korea (at least not until 2019 for some odd reason). They released it in Brazil for shits sake, if risk of piracy was an issue I don't think they would have. I think the reason they did not release in Korea in a timely was just an odd choice (the wii had a few of them) and I would assume the same rational for the gamecube also not releasing in Korea. If it had something to do with piracy then I can assure you places like Brazil (November 26, 2013), Mexico (November 29, 2012) or South Africa (November 30, 2012) would also not see these consoles.
Actually now that I am thinking on it did South Korea not until fairly recently have a ban on Japanese electronics or media? Maybe the old Japan/Korea relations play a role in Nintendo's neglect?
This whole rabbit hole was neat, and thanks for that. However I do think this is a great example of a folk tale or rumour becoming the foundation of an idea that is just not actually true but feels true. And in time these examples used over and over become accepted as true, like the effectiveness of allied bombing in ww2 or that Margret Thatcher somehow invented soft-serve ice cream 20 years after it became popular. I don't think piracy is always harmless, but honestly in the grand picture of the world today I would say it is mostly harmless and so far down the list of "things to solve". Re-esablishing basic property rights to non rich people is much higher and even then I doubt it is in the top 100.
While I don't doubt that that could also be part of the reason it never released here, it is a fact that the DS sold more hardware than games here in 2007.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS
And yeah, as far as issues plaguing the world today, software piracy is pretty far down the list of ones that need immediate attention.
It's stealing because you watched it. If you didn't watch it and didn't buy it or steal it, then nothing has been stolen. The entire crux is that you're consuming and ingesting the product they're selling without paying for it.
Additionally, if you're making the argument that you can't count "potential" sales of something as theft then you can't also make the argument that "potential" exposure is valid. Either both potentials are valid or neither is and, if they both are, then it's theft.
And you've just proven my argument for me with your art gallery examples. Art galleries explicitly give people that access. You pay for that access. If you don't pay for it, you don't get to look at those paintings without buying anything because you already had to buy something to even get to look at the paintings. Unless the creator is explicitly giving you access for free, you're stealing if you're ingesting or consuming something that they made for which they are charging.
Ok, what if the creator says it's ok to pirate their stuff. Is that still stealing?
No, of course not. They're explicitly allowing you to have it for free. It can't be piracy if they're not selling their work. The entire premise is that, if they're selling it, then the trade is payment in exchange for their work.
That's just factually untrue. The 'creators' are just animators that work for animation studios that get paid by companies like funimation, amazon and Netflix to publish content and those middle men reap the majority of the benefits. Very very rarely do actual individual people make a percentage of whatever a work earns. It's just middle men executives that earn that.
I would argue that piracy helps make them more money anyways. The actual money is in merchandise. If I'm able to pirate an anime and really like it I'm more likely to spend money on merchandise VS me not bothering to watch a show and not buying merch.
Here's an article proving that the actual creators don't make much money at all and it's not because of piracy.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/2/20677237/anime-industry-japan-artists-pay-labor-abuse-neon-genesis-evangelion-netflix
It's not factually untrue. You can't make that kind of generalization when it objectively does not apply to every studio and every distributor.
Everything else you've said is pointless because you're only arguing about a subset of content. I'm arguing about all content. People who make the content deserve to be paid for the fruits of their labor. If you don't pay the distributors, then they stop distributing that content and the people who made it are out of jobs. Netflix, Amazon, and Funimation aren't going to pay those people to produce more content if people steal it. It's literally as simple as that.
You guys are all bending over backwards to defend the very thing that is keeping the situation the way it is and forcing creators to work for these giant distributors. We're literally using the internet, a place where creators can self-publish their content, and you guys are pretending that piracy is not theft. It's madness.
The very thing keeping the situation the way it is very much not piracy or can it be placed at the feet of the general consumer. That you think the mess of giant distributors we have today is the fault of digital piracy is actually madness.
My guy, with anime 90 percent of the content comes from light novels or Manga. The reason they get turned into anime is because they're popular. Netflix Amazon funimation and other distributers often just bid on anime projects and don't specifically order one particular series.
Of course they deserve to be paid but I'm arguing that pirating doesn't cut into their pay because they've already been paid before the anime even comes out.
If buying digital products isn't owning then pirating isn't theft. Funimation just said fuck you to all their consumers who 'bought' their digital products.
These are distributors and they don't have a monopoly on anime or manga. They just happen to be the producers who pay for the anime and manga that you like. That's not an argument against my point.
Nonsense. This is an entirely different argument than what I'm making. I think it's false advertising and theft just as much that these companies use the term "Buy" for something you don't actually own. That is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is theft. Two wrongs don't make it right.
I'm not arguing about Funimation's actions. I've already said multiple times that that is also theft. That doesn't make piracy not theft.
The same disturbers that regularly drop content that people pay for and the same disturbers that claim you own something?
Not at all what I'm arguing. Dropping content and claiming you don't own something that they position as "buying" is stealing too. I'm not arguing that and have not said what you're claiming anywhere. You're arguing a straw man.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Bro you've left 140 comments on this thread alone? Do you need help or is piracy such an issue that the world collectively needs to get together to fix this.