Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Sci-Fi/Fantasy » Anime Misc. » Anime piracy and illegal streaming
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260801 is a reply to message #260772] Tue, 15 July 2014 11:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/15/2014 1:32 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

>> Copyright only affects the right to copy something. Hence the
>> name.
>
> Copyright affects the right of the owner of same to sell the product.
> Lack of defense of the right to copy (Hence the name.) renders the
> copyright materially void.
>
> The record industry and the TV networks at least get this.
>
> If you can't stop me from copying your work, it's no longer your work
> to sell.

That is a lie.
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260898 is a reply to message #260801] Tue, 15 July 2014 19:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Inu-Yasha is currently offline  Inu-Yasha
Messages: 172
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/15/2014 11:27 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 7/15/2014 1:32 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Copyright only affects the right to copy something. Hence the
>>> name.
>>
>> Copyright affects the right of the owner of same to sell the product.
>> Lack of defense of the right to copy (Hence the name.) renders the
>> copyright materially void.
>>
>> The record industry and the TV networks at least get this.
>>
>> If you can't stop me from copying your work, it's no longer your work
>> to sell.
>
> That is a lie.
Dave, I agree with you and call BS on Darkstar. It is only 'his'
opinion, and he is living a big lie that if you repeat something (in
this case just stupid with a capital S), it will become truth.

Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^-^

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260910 is a reply to message #260898] Tue, 15 July 2014 21:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:21:22 PM UTC-7, Inu-Yasha wrote:

> Dave, I agree with you and call BS on Darkstar. It is only 'his'
> opinion, and he is living a big lie that if you repeat something (in
> this case just stupid with a capital S), it will become truth.

The only way you deal with that is ceasing the speech.

Good luck, until I choose to.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260911 is a reply to message #260801] Tue, 15 July 2014 21:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:27:17 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> On 7/15/2014 1:32 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

>> If you can't stop me from copying your work, it's no longer your work
>> to sell.
>
> That is a lie.

Why? You (are supposed to) have the copyright, correct?

You have the RIGHT to COPY -- hence the term.

I do not.

If I steal something from you without recompense, retribution, or consequence, was it ever yours to begin with -- that thing or any rights associated with it?

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260918 is a reply to message #260911] Tue, 15 July 2014 23:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo is currently offline  Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo
Messages: 287
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/15/14 8:57 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:27:17 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 7/15/2014 1:32 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> If you can't stop me from copying your work, it's no longer your work
>>> to sell.
>>
>> That is a lie.
>
> Why? You (are supposed to) have the copyright, correct?
>
> You have the RIGHT to COPY -- hence the term.
>
> I do not.
>
> If I steal something from you without recompense, retribution, or consequence, was it ever yours to begin with -- that thing or any rights associated with it?
>


Sure it was. I've had people steal money from me. It was mine. I didn't
choose to make a fuss over it because it wasn't worth the effort. That
doesn't mean the money wasn't mine, just means that I decided that
enforcing my rights by calling in a police investigation was not worth
the effort. The amount stolen was trivial.

The fact that you do not CHOOSE to bring out the big guns to enforce
something is irrelevant to whether or not you COULD, and whether the law
would recognize your RIGHT to do so. The law, in fact, EXPLICITLY SAYS
that you DO NOT HAVE TO DEFEND copyright to retain it; you may choose to
enforce it only under certain circumstances if that suits you.

This, I should note, is explicitly different from *trademark*, which
DOES still have the provision that you MUST defend it against any
infringement, howsoever large or small, of which you become aware. This
was also the case with American copyright law up until we signed the
Berne convention, which made copyright much more resilient and no longer
so vulnerable to misuse.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260919 is a reply to message #260918] Wed, 16 July 2014 00:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Inu-Yasha is currently offline  Inu-Yasha
Messages: 172
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/15/2014 10:09 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 7/15/14 8:57 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:27:17 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2014 1:32 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> If you can't stop me from copying your work, it's no longer your work
>>>> to sell.
>>>
>>> That is a lie.
>>
>> Why? You (are supposed to) have the copyright, correct?
>>
>> You have the RIGHT to COPY -- hence the term.
>>
>> I do not.
>>
>> If I steal something from you without recompense, retribution, or
>> consequence, was it ever yours to begin with -- that thing or any
>> rights associated with it?
>>
>
>
> Sure it was. I've had people steal money from me. It was mine. I
> didn't choose to make a fuss over it because it wasn't worth the effort.
> That doesn't mean the money wasn't mine, just means that I decided that
> enforcing my rights by calling in a police investigation was not worth
> the effort. The amount stolen was trivial.
>
> The fact that you do not CHOOSE to bring out the big guns to
> enforce something is irrelevant to whether or not you COULD, and whether
> the law would recognize your RIGHT to do so. The law, in fact,
> EXPLICITLY SAYS that you DO NOT HAVE TO DEFEND copyright to retain it;
> you may choose to enforce it only under certain circumstances if that
> suits you.
>
> This, I should note, is explicitly different from *trademark*,
> which DOES still have the provision that you MUST defend it against any
> infringement, howsoever large or small, of which you become aware. This
> was also the case with American copyright law up until we signed the
> Berne convention, which made copyright much more resilient and no longer
> so vulnerable to misuse.
>
>
Yay! filtered, rest at last.

Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260928 is a reply to message #260918] Wed, 16 July 2014 02:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:09:34 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 7/15/14 8:57 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>> Why? You (are supposed to) have the copyright, correct?

>> You have the RIGHT to COPY -- hence the term.

>> I do not.

>> If I steal something from you without recompense, retribution, or consequence, was it ever yours to begin with -- that thing or any rights associated with it?

> Sure it was. I've had people steal money from me. It was mine. I didn't
> choose to make a fuss over it because it wasn't worth the effort.

Then it's not your money.

It's theirs.

Why?

Effectively the basis of the result of the One Piece decision -- effectively, the inability of a company to defend their IP to the point they would be instantaneously bankrupt by doing so leads to one conclusion:

The conclusion of: "Possession is nine-tenths of the law."

It's one of the main reasons the Castle Doctrine exists in some states. It should exist in all. The only reason you own something is that you have the ability and right to prevent me from robbing you blind -- or, at the very least, you have the ability to exact violence under the law (whether the law itself or under the concept of self-defense) to stop me.

The moment you cannot, you cease ownership, of basically anything.

The only reason you don't own a product in a store is all the people who can rough you up and/or kill you if you decide to take it without giving due recompense.

Violence (as a function of law) is the only ability to retain control of ownership, whether that ownership is that of physical or intellectual property.

Since you refuse to defend your money, it's not your money. And, in matter of fact, it never really was. (Unless you spent it before the violence of stealing it, in which case they never got to attempt possession without retribution/consequence.)

> That doesn't mean the money wasn't mine, just means that I decided that
> enforcing my rights by calling in a police investigation was not worth
> the effort. The amount stolen was trivial.

But that meant that amount was no longer yours, and never really was to begin with, because the defense of that ownership is REQUIRED to assert the ownership.

You getting robbed, and allowing that robbery to go unchallenged, is the counterexample to your claim.

The problem with your stand is: Doesn't that give the robbers the empowerment to know they have an easier mark to try a second robbery?

> The fact that you do not CHOOSE to bring out the big guns to enforce
> something is irrelevant to whether or not you COULD, and whether the law
> would recognize your RIGHT to do so.

But without the assertion of the right, you don't have it.

I mean, you have the right to life, correct? (I don't think a person has that as an "inalienable right", but that's a different argument -- one surrounding what happens when someone cannot exercise inalienable rights in any manner without sufficiently disturbing the rights (inalienable or otherwise) of others.)

If someone were to eliminate you, without challenge, did you ever have that right, or was that life only meant to be owned by the person eliminating you, rather than you yourself?

Again, the law allows you to challenge it, but it doesn't do much good sans the challenge, does it?

Same concept here. You have the right to copy, but, without assertion of that right, the contract you have along with that copyright is factually unenforceable, and, hence, void.

SOME entertainment venues get it, and you've seen significant restrictions on the Internet because of that.

> The law, in fact, EXPLICITLY SAYS
> that you DO NOT HAVE TO DEFEND copyright to retain it; you may choose to
> enforce it only under certain circumstances if that suits you.

But then you can't enforce the contract granting you exclusive distribution rights, rendering that contract VOID. Then, you lose the right to sell me your anime, because that right depends on that exclusive distribution. It would be fraud otherwise, because there would be no way I would purchase a dime of anime sans that exclusivity -- there'd be no point and it would be stupid for me to do so (a stand most anime fans actually had when I was buying anime!).

This is why the pirates, at that point (those you refuse to enforce with) would have a superior license of distribution of that anime (illegal, yes, but a superior license nonetheless), and, hence MORE right to distribute the anime than the legal licensee in the first place, because of the amount of piracy involved.

Hence, not only does the company licensee not own the license, nor does the licensor in Japan even own their original product anymore. All contracts then become void, because, as you should realize from basic economics, supply goes infinite, demand becomes irrelevant.

> This, I should note, is explicitly different from *trademark*, which
> DOES still have the provision that you MUST defend it against any
> infringement, howsoever large or small, of which you become aware. This
> was also the case with American copyright law up until we signed the
> Berne convention, which made copyright much more resilient and no longer
> so vulnerable to misuse.

I would actually assert the opposite! If the Berne Convention did that, it actually opened up the work in the United States to that level of misuse.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #260945 is a reply to message #260928] Wed, 16 July 2014 08:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo is currently offline  Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo
Messages: 287
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/16/14 1:21 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

>
> The only reason you don't own a product in a store is all the people who can rough you up and/or kill you if you decide to take it without giving due recompense.


Sooooo... by your standard, when a company decides not to prosecute a
shoplifter (which has happened MANY times) and even let them keep what
they took (which has also happened many times -- generally because the
person was starving), the company's given up their ownership of
**EVERYTHING IN THE STORE**?

A successful shoplifter -- not deterred by the threat of violence, and
never caught -- also means the store OWNS NOTHING?

You're a funny guy.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261110 is a reply to message #260945] Wed, 16 July 2014 21:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:48:50 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 7/16/14 1:21 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

>> The only reason you don't own a product in a store is all the people who
>> can rough you up and/or kill you if you decide to take it without giving
>> due recompense.
>
> Sooooo... by your standard, when a company decides not to prosecute a
> shoplifter (which has happened MANY times) and even let them keep what
> they took (which has also happened many times -- generally because the
> person was starving), the company's given up their ownership of
> **EVERYTHING IN THE STORE**?

YES. It, in fact, is one of the big concerns when issues come up where security staff is, in fact, not allowed to take requisite action to detain people who are suspected of shoplifting, for the EXACT REASON YOU STATE.

It literally gives the public open season on **EVERYTHING IN THE STORE**, as you put it -- and they'd be right.

> A successful shoplifter -- not deterred by the threat of violence, and
> never caught -- also means the store OWNS NOTHING?

That is precisely correct. In fact, it seems to be operational in that way at several stores in my own area.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261142 is a reply to message #260911] Thu, 17 July 2014 04:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/15/2014 6:57 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:27:17 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 7/15/2014 1:32 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> If you can't stop me from copying your work, it's no longer your work
>>> to sell.
>>
>> That is a lie.
>
> Why? You (are supposed to) have the copyright, correct?
>
> You have the RIGHT to COPY -- hence the term.

Wrong. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to make copies. It
gives them the right to stop other people from making copies...if they
so choose.
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261245 is a reply to message #260560] Thu, 17 July 2014 12:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nick Roberts is currently offline  Nick Roberts
Messages: 60
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Member
No Message Body
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261246 is a reply to message #261110] Thu, 17 July 2014 13:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/16/2014 6:28 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:48:50 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 7/16/14 1:21 AM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> The only reason you don't own a product in a store is all the people who
>>> can rough you up and/or kill you if you decide to take it without giving
>>> due recompense.
>>
>> Sooooo... by your standard, when a company decides not to prosecute a
>> shoplifter (which has happened MANY times) and even let them keep what
>> they took (which has also happened many times -- generally because the
>> person was starving), the company's given up their ownership of
>> **EVERYTHING IN THE STORE**?
>
> YES. It, in fact, is one of the big concerns when issues come up where security staff is, in fact, not allowed to take requisite action to detain people who are suspected of shoplifting, for the EXACT REASON YOU STATE.
>

Please cite an example of a store being charged with selling goods it
does not own because it fails to control shoplifting.

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261337 is a reply to message #261142] Thu, 17 July 2014 21:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:08:46 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> Wrong. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to make copies. It
> gives them the right to stop other people from making copies...if they
> so choose.

That's where it's all fucked up on your part.

If the sole manner of enforcement is at the complete election of the IP holder, and they refuse to do so, they have ceded such right as a manner of not only definition, but of law as well.

And, in that case, any financial enticement they choose to make (with anybody) based on that copyright and ownership becomes an active fraud, because of the fact that no sane person should purchase anything they otherwise wouldn't without the requirement to purchase to obtain/consume the product.

It's like going to McDonalds (OK, Burger King if you don't think McDonalds to be food) and not having to pay for the food. They can always get more -- _for their purpose_, the supply is, until TSHTF on a general scale, seen to be semi-infinite.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261338 is a reply to message #261245] Thu, 17 July 2014 21:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:21:06 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:

> Tell me, does this also apply to Patents? i.e. if you don't defend
> them, you've surrendered all rights?

If it doesn't, it should, because if you refuse to defend your patented work, how do you have the right to come back and pick and choose who gets to steal your innovations?

It's effectively the same thing.

> Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
> can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Just so you know: I don't believe in that. Not at all. Too much malice out there to accept otherwise.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261339 is a reply to message #261246] Thu, 17 July 2014 21:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:08:45 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> Please cite an example of a store being charged with selling goods it
> does not own because it fails to control shoplifting.

It should be charged with something -- and not just the fraud of selling goods it refuses to defend.

You see, here's what you don't get:

You have no rights others can take from you violently, and you also have no rights you refuse to defend with violence.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261354 is a reply to message #261337] Fri, 18 July 2014 01:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/17/2014 6:23 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:08:46 AM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to make copies. It
>> gives them the right to stop other people from making copies...if they
>> so choose.
>
> That's where it's all fucked up on your part.
>
> If the sole manner of enforcement is at the complete election of the IP holder, and they refuse to do so, they have ceded such right as a manner of not only definition, but of law as well.
>
> And, in that case, any financial enticement they choose to make (with anybody) based on that copyright and ownership becomes an active fraud,

No. It doesn't.

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261363 is a reply to message #260560] Fri, 18 July 2014 06:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nick Roberts is currently offline  Nick Roberts
Messages: 60
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Member
No Message Body
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261561 is a reply to message #261354] Fri, 18 July 2014 20:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:13:07 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

>> And, in that case, any financial enticement they choose to make (with anybody) based on that copyright and ownership becomes an active fraud,
>
> No. It doesn't.

You're a liar and you know it, David.

Fraud is enticement to a financial transaction with material false (or withheld) information, where full disclosure means no financial transaction.

Purchase from any entity which cannot defend the license or copyright is fraud, because there's no way, for example, I would purchase from them without the legal or violent force to do so.

That force comes from that contract, which, when unenforceable, becomes void.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261562 is a reply to message #261363] Fri, 18 July 2014 20:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Friday, July 18, 2014 2:32:31 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:

> If only Unisys' lawyers had the benefit of your experience they could
> have advised Unisys that their patent on LZW compression didn't exist
> any more. Then Unisys could have avoided all the bad publicity when
> they demanded a license fee from anyone who had developed a GIF
> encoder.

It comes down to the enforcement of the patent-holder. Was it enforced? Could Unisys have taken the gamble they wouldn't?

I mean, consider: Had they chosen not to enforce their patent against violation, the violation becomes LEGAL (else, you could not even play at the concept of presumed innocence), which, at that point, places into question the legality of the original patent.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261563 is a reply to message #261562] Fri, 18 July 2014 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo is currently offline  Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo
Messages: 287
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/18/14 7:05 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 18, 2014 2:32:31 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:
>
>> If only Unisys' lawyers had the benefit of your experience they could
>> have advised Unisys that their patent on LZW compression didn't exist
>> any more. Then Unisys could have avoided all the bad publicity when
>> they demanded a license fee from anyone who had developed a GIF
>> encoder.
>
> It comes down to the enforcement of the patent-holder. Was it enforced? Could Unisys have taken the gamble they wouldn't?
>
> I mean, consider: Had they chosen not to enforce their patent against violation, the violation becomes LEGAL (else, you could not even play at the concept of presumed innocence), which, at that point, places into question the legality of the original patent.

You miss the point. They hadn't enforced that patent FOR NINE YEARS.
GIF encoders had been being developed all that time. Then suddenly they
come on and say "hey, all you guys, actually, we own that stuff".

By YOUR OWN STANDARDS, they didn't; they'd ignored it and allowed all
use of the GIF encoders to go completely unchallenged.

Yet the law UTTERLY disagrees with you, and allowed them to go claim
something that they had ignored for nearly a decade. They held the
patent, they owned it.

Once more; the fact that you choose -- or do NOT choose -- to enforce
such things is NOT a statement about whether you own it. In COPYRIGHT
LAW, in fact, it is EXPLICITLY STATED that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO choose to
enforce. You may do so as and when you wish -- for instance, ignoring
fan activities that you don't consider worth pursuing, but suing people
who try to make money from your stuff.

You are wrong. You are wrong logically, you are wrong morally, and you
are wrong legally. Suck it up and admit it JUST FOR ONCE. It'll be good
for you.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261574 is a reply to message #261561] Fri, 18 July 2014 22:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/18/2014 5:02 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:13:07 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>> And, in that case, any financial enticement they choose to make (with anybody) based on that copyright and ownership becomes an active fraud,
>>
>> No. It doesn't.
>
> You're a liar and you know it, David.
>
> Fraud is enticement to a financial transaction with material false (or withheld) information, where full disclosure means no financial transaction.

And what would the false information be?
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261614 is a reply to message #261563] Sat, 19 July 2014 10:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Inu-Yasha is currently offline  Inu-Yasha
Messages: 172
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/18/2014 7:23 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 7/18/14 7:05 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 18, 2014 2:32:31 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> If only Unisys' lawyers had the benefit of your experience they could
>>> have advised Unisys that their patent on LZW compression didn't exist
>>> any more. Then Unisys could have avoided all the bad publicity when
>>> they demanded a license fee from anyone who had developed a GIF
>>> encoder.
>>
>> It comes down to the enforcement of the patent-holder. Was it
>> enforced? Could Unisys have taken the gamble they wouldn't?
>>
>> I mean, consider: Had they chosen not to enforce their patent against
>> violation, the violation becomes LEGAL (else, you could not even play
>> at the concept of presumed innocence), which, at that point, places
>> into question the legality of the original patent.
>
> You miss the point. They hadn't enforced that patent FOR NINE
> YEARS. GIF encoders had been being developed all that time. Then
> suddenly they come on and say "hey, all you guys, actually, we own that
> stuff".
>
> By YOUR OWN STANDARDS, they didn't; they'd ignored it and allowed
> all use of the GIF encoders to go completely unchallenged.
>
> Yet the law UTTERLY disagrees with you, and allowed them to go
> claim something that they had ignored for nearly a decade. They held the
> patent, they owned it.
>
> Once more; the fact that you choose -- or do NOT choose -- to
> enforce such things is NOT a statement about whether you own it. In
> COPYRIGHT LAW, in fact, it is EXPLICITLY STATED that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO
> choose to enforce. You may do so as and when you wish -- for instance,
> ignoring fan activities that you don't consider worth pursuing, but
> suing people who try to make money from your stuff.
>
> You are wrong. You are wrong logically, you are wrong morally, and
> you are wrong legally. Suck it up and admit it JUST FOR ONCE. It'll be
> good for you.
>
>
>
>
Or better yet, just shut up!

Inu-Yasha
Feh!! ^_^

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261615 is a reply to message #260560] Sat, 19 July 2014 09:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nick Roberts is currently offline  Nick Roberts
Messages: 60
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Member
No Message Body
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261710 is a reply to message #261563] Sat, 19 July 2014 20:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Friday, July 18, 2014 4:23:03 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 7/18/14 7:05 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

> You miss the point. They hadn't enforced that patent FOR NINE YEARS.
> GIF encoders had been being developed all that time. Then suddenly they
> come on and say "hey, all you guys, actually, we own that stuff".

That is disingenuous at best, because how is anyone supposed to be able to innovate if they don't know which is an innovation and which is theft?

You run into the same problem with the PS3 controller. If we actually allowed that degree of disingenuousness, then the very real possibility exists that every PS3 ever made with that controller is, in fact, an illegality of the patent, I believe, from Logitech (if I remember the enforcement correctly).

It would be functionally impossible for anyone to come up with a new innovation, because where does one draw the line between innovation and theft, sans enforcement?

> By YOUR OWN STANDARDS, they didn't; they'd ignored it and allowed all
> use of the GIF encoders to go completely unchallenged.

Exactly. Failing that, it would actually be impossible for any innovation in that field to be (legally) done at all, because where does one (sans enforcement) draw the line between an innovation legally obtained/found and one stolen?

You are actually proving my point, without realizing it. Under the standard as you state it, it would be a complete chilling effect on all material innovation, since, sans enforcement, no one could make anything of any real import without the material possibility it runs afoul of the law.

And it's roughly the same reason that licensing and localizing anime becomes a fraud under selective enforcement: The terms of the agreement under which you are able to license it are VOID the moment you lose the exclusive rights.

> Yet the law UTTERLY disagrees with you, and allowed them to go claim
> something that they had ignored for nearly a decade. They held the
> patent, they owned it.

Which should've been struck down by any sane judge. I never accused the legal system of being sane.

You realize what this means? No one can realistically create ANYTHING legally, because, chances are, someone has the patent for just about everything..

> Once more; the fact that you choose -- or do NOT choose -- to enforce
> such things is NOT a statement about whether you own it. In COPYRIGHT
> LAW, in fact, it is EXPLICITLY STATED that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO choose to
> enforce. You may do so as and when you wish -- for instance, ignoring
> fan activities that you don't consider worth pursuing, but suing people
> who try to make money from your stuff.

And there's your problem: Because WHEN YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ENFORCE, YOU LOSE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. At that moment, your license, copyright, and right to even localize become UNENFORCEABLE, and hence VOID.

The piracy-loving fandom was, sadly, CORRECT when it said that no sane anime fan should ever purchase anime in that situation, because any enticement to purchase had deliberately withheld the condition that the only basis on which they could force purchase was a legal farce.

This is what I've been trying to tell you for years: Under your interpretation, the entire anime industry (and, frankly, all of the current entertainment industry) is an illegal fraud.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261711 is a reply to message #261574] Sat, 19 July 2014 20:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Friday, July 18, 2014 6:04:48 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> And what would the false information be?

That you are the party I must purchase from for legal consumption, and that you have the right and the ability to have the exclusivity of distribution.

That statement comes from the legal right given by the licensor, but which comes on the condition that the exclusivity of the distribution rights can be upheld.

When it cannot, you end up with a situation that the fandom is probably two years past that anime and on to the current product they are stealing off the Internet, and any thought of exclusive distribution, sans enforcement, is farcical.

You have no right to sell me anything (physical or IP) you can't be violent toward me if I attempt to steal it.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261712 is a reply to message #261615] Sat, 19 July 2014 21:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:54:41 AM UTC-7, Nick Roberts wrote:

>>> If only Unisys' lawyers had the benefit of your experience they
>>> could have advised Unisys that their patent on LZW compression
>>> didn't exist any more. Then Unisys could have avoided all the bad
>>> publicity when they demanded a license fee from anyone who had
>>> developed a GIF encoder.

> It was not enforced for about the first 5 years of the existence of
> GIF. Thereafter they tried to enforce it in this area. I have no idea
> whether they enforced the patent in other applications.

But, at that point, the entire GIF encoder would be illegal back that 5 years -- at which point it comes down to a matter of knowledge or that they let the violation stand, hence, become legal...

> Have you, by any chance, heard of GNU? Free Software Foundation, and
> all that? Until 2006, when the whole thing became moot
> because the patent expired, they had an article on their main web site
> stating that the GNU website (which is huge) is a GIF-free zone.
>
> The reason for this is that they also have lawyers, and it was the
> opinion of their lawyers that Unisys could expect to win if they
> followed up their threats and sued.

That depends on how long they sat on it. Again, as I told Sea Wasp, all innovation must cease the moment you allow for selective enforcement in that situation, because, at that point, you'd be hard pressed to find any innovation at all which does not come from a stolen product or concept of some sort.

>> I mean, consider: Had they chosen not to enforce their patent
>> against violation, the violation becomes LEGAL (else, you could not
>> even play at the concept of presumed innocence), which, at that
>> point, places into question the legality of the original patent.
>
> You are now claiming that the original patent may not have been legal?

Once they select not to enforce it, yes.

What IS a patent? I'll let you answer that question with your "trained professionals", and then tell you exactly why it's wrong.

Because the most important concept in anything of that ilk is EXCLUSIVITY. If I own the IP/copyright/trademark/patent, I AM THE SOLE ENTITY WHICH CAN DECIDE WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH IT.

I am, as far as that property is concerned, God.

If I give up that right, I can't go back and reassert it later. That becomes a great money-maker for lawyers who now have to slice through all the spaghetti and decide where the legal innovation ends and where "my property" starts.

When I buy the license for an anime, I am being given the ABSOLUTE and EXCLUSIVE rights to distribute the anime in the relevant jurisdiction, under the contract given.

Piracy from the Internet renders that contract IMPOSSIBLE, hence unenforceable, and hence void.

I really find it hard to understand how you can come to another conclusion.

> No doubt you know more than both Unisys' lawyers and GNU's lawyers.

I would say, at this point, the old line about "a good start" with respect to lawyers, but even that might go over your head.

Lawyers are there for one sole purpose and interest: THEIR OWN.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261722 is a reply to message #261711] Sat, 19 July 2014 22:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/19/2014 5:53 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 18, 2014 6:04:48 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> And what would the false information be?
>
> That you are the party I must purchase from for legal consumption,

There can always be other legal sources for merchandise...so no.
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261737 is a reply to message #261710] Sun, 20 July 2014 01:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo is currently offline  Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoo
Messages: 287
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/19/14 7:49 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 18, 2014 4:23:03 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 7/18/14 7:05 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

>> Once more; the fact that you choose -- or do NOT choose -- to enforce
>> such things is NOT a statement about whether you own it. In COPYRIGHT
>> LAW, in fact, it is EXPLICITLY STATED that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO choose to
>> enforce. You may do so as and when you wish -- for instance, ignoring
>> fan activities that you don't consider worth pursuing, but suing people
>> who try to make money from your stuff.
>
> And there's your problem: Because WHEN YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ENFORCE, YOU LOSE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.

No, you don't. The law determines what your rights are. Your
interpretation is at odds with the law. You are wrong. Understand these
words? You. Are. Wrong.

If the law doesn't determine those rights, then it's determined by
what's proper and just in a more abstract sense... and again, you're
wrong, because in the abstract sense I don't lose my rights just because
some people are dicks. They may choose to ignore my rights, and I may,
equally, choose to ignore THAT because dealing with those particular
dicks may be too much of a PITA for me to bother with... while another
set of dicks may well be worth it because they pose a greater threat to
me directly, rather than being an annoyance.

Someone copying my book for no cost because they're gonna read it
themselves? Eh, big deal. Not worth chasing. Someone selling my book and
pretending they're a legit seller? Much bigger deal. I'll send my
publisher's lawyers after them. And that's my -- and my publisher's --
both legal and moral right to MAKE that choice. At ANY time.

Only in the sociopathic sense is your thesis true, but you must
understand that sociopaths -- people who actually ONLY refrain from
doing things that they want to do because of fear of punishment -- are
quite a small proportion of society. Most people, once they get past the
toddler stage, have at least some general sense of what is in fact right
to do, and what is wrong to do, and have internalized it so that they
can judge such things independent of some external threat.

The fact that you cannot, or will not, do this, says volumes more about
you than it does about anyone or anything else.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261800 is a reply to message #260560] Sun, 20 July 2014 13:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nick Roberts is currently offline  Nick Roberts
Messages: 60
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
Member
No Message Body
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261873 is a reply to message #261722] Sun, 20 July 2014 19:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:10:07 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> There can always be other legal sources for merchandise...so no.

Not necessarily. The only basis under which you would have the right to force purchase for consumption is as a function of the exclusive rights you were granted.

If no one, because of the level of piracy, can have that exclusivity in any real fashion, then there may be no non-fraudulent source for that merchandise.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261874 is a reply to message #261737] Sun, 20 July 2014 20:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:34:41 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

>> And there's your problem: Because WHEN YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ENFORCE, YOU LOSE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.
>
> No, you don't. The law determines what your rights are. Your
> interpretation is at odds with the law. You are wrong. Understand these
> words? You. Are. Wrong.

You are being given, if you are given the license, EXCLUSIVE rights to distribute within the jurisdiction of the license.

If you cannot ensure that your distribution is THE ONLY distribution within that jurisdiction, you lose that license, because you lose the exclusivity on which the license was derived.

You have literally defrauded the Japanese of THEIR property otherwise.

This is where you don't get it: Unless you are trying to redefine the concept of EXCLUSIVE (which, given today's merry band of idiots online, would not surprise me), I can't see how you can draw that conclusion.

If I steal your work and publish it as my own, and you do nothing about it, it is NO LONGER YOUR WORK. Regardless of the cheek required to do so, your name on your work is not sufficient to make it yours.

> If the law doesn't determine those rights, then it's determined by
> what's proper and just in a more abstract sense... and again, you're
> wrong, because in the abstract sense I don't lose my rights just because
> some people are dicks.

That's completely wrong with respect to any right you have.

You lose the right to life if someone is a dick and kills you.

You lose the right to your (physical) property if someone is a dick and steals it.

In fact, that's the entire point of having rights -- it is to deal with the situations in which you are dealing with dicks, whether they be from the government or otherwise.

You are COMPLETELY wrong there, and that goes far beyond the present discussion.

> They may choose to ignore my rights, and I may,
> equally, choose to ignore THAT because dealing with those particular
> dicks may be too much of a PITA for me to bother with...

And there's your problem, for which anime should be a perfect example of what happens.

Where do you draw the line? 2 such dicks? 20? 200,000 declaring open season on your work???

I mean, if someone stealing your work is too much of a PITA for you to bother with, maybe you need to reconsider your work...

> while another
> set of dicks may well be worth it because they pose a greater threat to
> me directly, rather than being an annoyance.

But that second set of dicks can point to the first set of dicks and ask "What difference is it between the two?"

Given decisions like the One Piece decision, I'm shocked some thief/pirate hasn't tried.

> Someone copying my book for no cost because they're gonna read it
> themselves? Eh, big deal. Not worth chasing. Someone selling my book and
> pretending they're a legit seller? Much bigger deal. I'll send my
> publisher's lawyers after them. And that's my -- and my publisher's --
> both legal and moral right to MAKE that choice. At ANY time.

But only through consistent enforcement do you have that right. It's one of the reasons I am refreshed to see actual criminal charges hit the table in Japan from time to time.

> Only in the sociopathic sense is your thesis true, but you must
> understand that sociopaths -- people who actually ONLY refrain from
> doing things that they want to do because of fear of punishment -- are
> quite a small proportion of society. Most people, once they get past the
> toddler stage, have at least some general sense of what is in fact right
> to do, and what is wrong to do, and have internalized it so that they
> can judge such things independent of some external threat.

No. That's the only reason one acts at all. You refuse to view numerous studies to understand that degree of "sociopathic behavior" is quite verifiably common. If they know they're not going to get caught, they're going to do it.

You don't fuck with someone's hot wife only because you will get the shit kicked out of you.

You don't steal from a store only because you will get arrested -- AND get the shit kicked out of you. (Often, and more and more in the community where I live, the first is NOT sufficient deterrent.)

No consequence? No law.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261875 is a reply to message #261873] Sun, 20 July 2014 20:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/20/2014 4:48 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:10:07 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> There can always be other legal sources for merchandise...so no.
>
> Not necessarily. The only basis under which you would have the right to force purchase for consumption

Purchase for consumption is not forced. It is offered.

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #261876 is a reply to message #261874] Sun, 20 July 2014 20:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/20/2014 5:03 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:34:41 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>>> And there's your problem: Because WHEN YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ENFORCE, YOU LOSE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.
>>
>> No, you don't. The law determines what your rights are. Your
>> interpretation is at odds with the law. You are wrong. Understand these
>> words? You. Are. Wrong.
>
> You are being given, if you are given the license, EXCLUSIVE rights to distribute within the jurisdiction of the license.
>
> If you cannot ensure that your distribution is THE ONLY distribution within that jurisdiction, you lose that license,

Not in the real world.

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262031 is a reply to message #261875] Mon, 21 July 2014 20:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:07:52 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> Purchase for consumption is not forced. It is offered.

Perhaps that's why piracy is so prevalent.

Consumption of a property requires purchase of the property in the relevant situations. Hence, forced.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262032 is a reply to message #261876] Mon, 21 July 2014 20:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:15:25 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

>> If you cannot ensure that your distribution is THE ONLY distribution within that jurisdiction, you lose that license,
>
> Not in the real world.

Which is why one has to question the legality of every such entertainment entity in same "real world"?

If that license does not give the holder absolute exclusivity with respect to the relevant distributions (which, especially today, would include online), then what in fuck all does the license pertain to at all?

Mike (This should be fun to listen to.)
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262040 is a reply to message #262032] Mon, 21 July 2014 23:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/21/2014 5:42 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 4:15:25 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>> If you cannot ensure that your distribution is THE ONLY distribution within that jurisdiction, you lose that license,
>>
>> Not in the real world.
>
> Which is why one has to question the legality of every such entertainment entity in same "real world"?

And the answer is, "It's legal". Any more questions?
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262117 is a reply to message #262040] Tue, 22 July 2014 16:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Monday, July 21, 2014 7:38:45 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> On 7/21/2014 5:42 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:

>> Which is why one has to question the legality of every such entertainment entity in same "real world"?
>
> And the answer is, "It's legal". Any more questions?

Fraud is the enticement to a financial transaction withholding key information under which the decision to take part in that transaction might be changed.

So fraud is completely legal now? When'd I miss that decision?

Mike (It would appear that piracy is legal too, given enough people do it that any enforcement instantly bankrupts the IP-holder? What now, Space Ca-Det?)
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262141 is a reply to message #262117] Tue, 22 July 2014 18:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/22/2014 1:50 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 21, 2014 7:38:45 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 7/21/2014 5:42 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Which is why one has to question the legality of every such entertainment entity in same "real world"?
>>
>> And the answer is, "It's legal". Any more questions?
>
> Fraud is the enticement to a financial transaction withholding key information under which the decision to take part in that transaction might be changed.

Actually the real definition of "fraud" is

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by
conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what
should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive
another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Oddly enough "You can always steal it instead and odds that this will
result in consequences are tiny" is not in fact information that sellers
are obligated to reveal. For that matter neither is "This same product
is being sold across town for half the price". And neither is, "This
product can also be downloaded legally (apart from a few cosmetic
alterations) at gutenberg.org". Once again, the answer to your question
is "It's legal". Now get over it.

--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262155 is a reply to message #262141] Tue, 22 July 2014 20:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Starcade is currently offline  Starcade
Messages: 130
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:36:34 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:

> Oddly enough "You can always steal it instead and odds that this will
> result in consequences are tiny" is not in fact information that sellers
> are obligated to reveal.

If it:

a) compromises the legal ability (whether anyone wants to admit it or not) to be entitled to sell (or even create or localize) the product
and/or
b) renders same sale an actual negative with respect to being an anime fan

.... yeah, that IS relevant. a) on bases like what I'm stating, b) on the bases of what most of the anime fandom was telling me during the boom.

But, yes, it's relevant -- otherwise you must answer the question everyone refuses to answer: WHAT ARE YOU BUYING?

I really don't think you get how important that is... It's the essence of intellectual property, that property goes beyond just the physical entity.

> For that matter neither is "This same product
> is being sold across town for half the price".

Technically (and more than technically), yes it is. It's one of the main reasons you see price-matching at many stores, because they know the omission of that material fact would mean that they getting that sale would not happen if that fact were known.

> And neither is, "This
> product can also be downloaded legally (apart from a few cosmetic
> alterations) at gutenberg.org".

Then, again, WHAT ARE YOU BUYING?

I've been asking this question FOR YEARS and you and all others have not come to a satisfactory answer.

> Once again, the answer to your question is "It's legal". Now get over it.

I love you, because you -- are -- WRONG.

Fraud is illegal (at least, last I checked).

Fraud, however, is also the only reason for the existence of most American businesses, and, frankly, all of the American anime industry.

The material omission of facts which would preclude a monetary transaction from taking place if that omission stands is FRAUD.

Every anime DVD I ever bought was FRAUD.

Every -- last -- one.

And, hence, every sale of every anime DVD I ever purchased was illegal.

Mike (There is such a thing as "statute of limitations" though, so you could make the case that it became legal over time, but, as a function of fraud, every purchase was illegal.)
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Re: Anime piracy and illegal streaming [message #262160 is a reply to message #262155] Tue, 22 July 2014 22:21 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
David Johnston is currently offline  David Johnston
Messages: 220
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
From Newsgroup: rec.arts.anime.misc

On 7/22/2014 6:21 PM, darkstar7646@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:36:34 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Oddly enough "You can always steal it instead and odds that this
>> will result in consequences are tiny" is not in fact information
>> that sellers are obligated to reveal.
>
> If it:
>
> a) compromises the legal ability (whether anyone wants to admit it or
> not) to be entitled to sell (or even create or localize) the product
> and/or

It doesn't do that.


b) renders same sale an actual negative with respect to being
> an anime fan

No, making you cry because you paid for something you coulda pirated is
not an actionable offense.

>
> ... yeah, that IS relevant.
a) on bases like what I'm stating, b) on
> the bases of what most of the anime fandom was telling me during the
> boom.
>
> But, yes, it's relevant -- otherwise you must answer the question
> everyone refuses to answer: WHAT ARE YOU BUYING?

A DVD. Or a download. Or commercial broadcast rights.

>> For that matter neither is "This same product is being sold across
>> town for half the price".
>
> Technically (and more than technically), yes it is.

Wrong again.


It's one of the
> main reasons you see price-matching at many stores, because they know
> the omission of that material fact would mean that they getting that
> sale would not happen if that fact were known.

I have never actually seen price matching at a store in my life. And
the only reason wny any store does it has nothing to do with any legal
or even moral obligation. It's just a sales gimmick they do when they
happen to be underselling the competition.

>
>> And neither is, "This product can also be downloaded legally (apart
>> from a few cosmetic alterations) at gutenberg.org".
>
> Then, again, WHAT ARE YOU BUYING?

Packaging. Maybe you don't _want_ a download from gutenberg.org. Maybe
you want an actual physical book. Maybe you're just willing to pay your
99 cents at Amazon to get a download that groups all of the Andre Norton
books together into a single book with a new "cover", and the ability to
jump between chapters.
--- Synchronet 3.13a-Win32 NewsLink 1.83
Pages (4): [ «    1  2  3  4    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Study of early manga
Next Topic: L-E Saizen release of Laughing Salesman 13
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Mar 28 10:54:51 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06135 seconds