Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

You're talking about Fair Use in terms of US accepted norms, but that's not the same as what is put forth in the Berne Convention. One can't reduce Japaneese copyright into that applied by the US courts. This particular thing falls into international copyright law and is a different ball of wax.

 

[border]

Librarys aren't considered the same I guess, I was referring to commercial rentals. But I'm sure you knew that.

Well if the issue is the ease of music's copying, then any loan or rental should be prohibitied..

I didn't think music rental was illegal, just too difficult and not marketable enough. It's too hard to keep people from damaging records and CDs, plus they tend to want to own music rather than listen to it for a couple days.

Cracker Barell rents audiobooks, so I'm pretty sure that it is okay to rent recorded audio.

 

[Tsubaki]

But what about TV shows... and even more grey TV shows that aren't licensed for American viewing?

It's not as gray as you think either.

First of all, most (anime) TV shows, especially in Japan, will come out on DVD anyway. It's an almost given. So are you saying it's ok to steal it only in the window of opportunity that it's broadcasted, but not when the release is out?

But the bigger thing is something that most Westerners neglect: Japanese people do not have free access to TV shows.

That is to say, either their locality determines the TV stations they get, ie Hokkaido people will probably not get any shows that aired on TV Osaka or even Tokyo TV. OR shows end up on pay satellite tv stations like WoWoW. Either way, there is an element of pay to view either by paying for a special service that allows you access to those channels or renting/buying a video in order to see it.

So people who claim that because the Japanese get the TV show for free, they are entitled to watching a show for free too... are incorrect.

 

[dark10x]

You pro-piracy people are retarded. There is no gray area. Piracy is piracy. If you're for it, you're just a cheap greedy bastard. I would much rather people admit that than hide behind their own garbage justifications.

Wrong topic for that, I'd say...

How can you be considered cheap for failing to purchase something that can't always be purchased?

 

[borghe]

Wrong topic for that, I'd say...

How can you be considered cheap for failing to purchase something that can't always be purchased?

actually the correct analogy would be how could you be considered to be diminishing a company's profits when you in fact cannnot add to a companies profits. If I could actually go out and buy an english copy of the entire Naruto series, I would. But I can't, so I am FORCED, yes I said it, FORCED to download fansubs.

any anti-piracy nutto that can answer me that gets a cookie.

 

[levious]

Well if the issue is the ease of music's copying, then any loan or rental should be prohibitied..

I didn't think music rental was illegal, just too difficult and not marketable enough. It's too hard to keep people from damaging records and CDs, plus they tend to want to own music rather than listen to it for a couple days.

Cracker Barell rents audiobooks, so I'm pretty sure that it is okay to rent recorded audio.

It's not allowed in the US, it was added to legislation in 1984 and falls right after the first sale doctrine. The language is "cannot rent phonorecords for profit," so I guess audiobooks don't fall under the same category as phonorecords. And that would also explain how a library can lend a record.

- edit: looking over language that I have, I don't see how an audiobook is not considered a "phonorecord," but I'm sure someone else could explain it.

It wouldn't be any harder to keep people from damaging CDs as it is with DVDs.

Online electronic music rentals is a new industry, and I don't know if they'll be blocked from doing buisiness the way stores were that tried to rent albums.

If I could actually go out and buy an english copy of the entire Naruto series, I would. But I can't, so I am FORCED, yes I said it, FORCED to download fansubs.

any anti-piracy nutto that can answer me that gets a cookie.

No one has a right to purchase whatever they want. The series in question is for sale and distribution in Japan only. And again, as I said before, certain things are illegal but not neccesarily actionable by a harmed party.

It'd be like saying, "Samurai Champloo is a completed series, yet not all episodes have aired so I am FORCED to obtain copies through connections I have with the studio."

 

[Phoenix]

Okay after research:

Article 8 of the Berne Convention gives the author of a work the exclusive right to authorize the translation of their works.

Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall enjoy the exclusive right of making and of authorizing the translation of their works throughout the term of protection of their rights in the original works.

So according to the Berne Convention which deals with international copyright (and does not respect anything with regards to fair use), the translation is actually a copyright violation unless the author gives you permission to do so.

 

[Phoenix]

actually the correct analogy would be how could you be considered to be diminishing a company's profits when you in fact cannnot add to a companies profits. If I could actually go out and buy an english copy of the entire Naruto series, I would. But I can't, so I am FORCED, yes I said it, FORCED to download fansubs.

Nah, you make a choice to download Naruto fansubs. You are not "forced" to do it. It is not a requirement of your existence for you to have access to Naruto fansubs.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Are you going to put up the $5000 I'll need to learn Japanese at a local community college so that I can understand the legitimate (yet untranslated) Japanese DVDs I'll be buying?

That's a great point. Because if you don't have your anime you will die a horrible, horrible death, right? So, with that in mind, it's ok to justify what you're doing because you don't know Japanese, and you'll die that horrible, horrible death if you don't get your fan-subbed-pirated anime fix.

 

[RevenantKioku]

What happened to the good ol' "Yes, I'm doing something illegal, but I don't give a fuck." attitude?

 

[borghe]

It'd be like saying, "Samurai Champloo is a completed series, yet not all episodes have aired so I am FORCED to obtain copies through connections I have with the studio."

No, it is nothing like that. What you are describing is an action or intent to make the material in question available. What I am describing is no intent or action to make the material available. Naruto (for example), has not been licensed or even rumored to be licensed for American distribution. And it is "illegal" for me as a Region 1 viewer to purchase a DVD player or device that is capable of viewing Region 2 DVDs. So I literally have NO WAY of seeing Naruto. None whatsoever. But more importantly I have no way to purchase Naruto and contribute revenue to Shueisha Inc., therefore it is technically impossible for me to deprive them of profits that I have no way of giving to them.

So yes, you are right.. I don't have a god given right to see the series. However they would have a hard time arguing that I am stealing from them and causing them losses when I don't have any legitimate way to get the series. Hence the grey area.

edit - I guess in all of this I am failing to see something. The entire point of copyright is to protect sales. It is there so people do not deprive the creator of money. I am confused about what happens when it is logiistically impossible for me to deprive the creator of a sale because I am unable to purchase it.

A comparable argument here I think would be Canadian DirecTV viewers. For years it was difficult to argue that anyone in Canada is stealing DirecTV because no one in Canada can subscribe to DirecTV. For someone to steal something, there has to be some sort of revenue or resource that is being lost in the theft.

Same thing here. There is no resource or revenue that is being lost when an American downloads and watches an unlicensed fansub. So the question I guess really isn't how is the copyright being broken. It has to be how am I using that infringement to deprive those companies of money? Breaking a copyright in and of itself can't really be considered illegal if there is no revenue or resource being lost as a result.

Now of course fansubs on the internet are still downloadable by everyone in the world, even in places where revenue is being lost as a result. And this I understand. But if an American group chooses to fansub an unlicensed show and distribute it to American viewers, where exactly is the damage?

 

[FnordChan]

FnordChan

 

[RevenantKioku]

So according to the Berne Convention which deals with international copyright (and does not respect anything with regards to fair use), the translation is actually a copyright violation unless the author gives you permission to do so.

Which is a good thing given the quality of some translations. Yikes.

 

[Shouta]

So according to the Berne Convention which deals with international copyright (and does not respect anything with regards to fair use), the translation is actually a copyright violation unless the author gives you permission to do so.

Article 2.3

(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.

Kind of conflicting no?

I'm working under the assumption that the right of translation is regards to commercial usage rather than free usage which resolves the conflict (at least in my head it does ).

 

[explodet]

What happened to the good ol' "Yes, I'm doing something illegal, but I don't give a fuck." attitude?

Because they're watching.
Yes, they are.
They're everywhere... *shifty eyes*

 

[Kobun Heat]

But if an American group chooses to fansub an unlicensed show and distribute it to American viewers, where exactly is the damage?

Easy. The damage comes when they DO decide to release it in the US but everybody already has the whole thing on their computer.

 

[borghe]

Easy. The damage comes when they DO decide to release it in the US but everybody already has the whole thing on their computer.

that isn't covered under US copyright law and I would be curious to know if that was covered under international copyright law... existing permissions are protected I know, but "potential" permissions are an entirely different thing.

a company can't say "Well, we might license it someday so we are being damaged." what they can do is license it to a company for domestic release or announce the intent to have their own domestic release in which case it would be certainly viewed as damages...

but afaik a company that refuses to release or make available a work in a region will have a very difficult time claiming damages or theft of revenue (the actual grounds for defending a copyright)... yes they can say they intend to release it, and that is what licensing is. if it isn't licensed they have basically made the statement that they currently have no intentions of releasing it in the region. sure they still could someday, but again we are talking about actual damages/loss of sales incurred from the copying.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Man, reading comprehension. Please. Did you completely miss the discussion he had with Phoenix?

He's saying the subtitling and the translation are derived works, and therefore legal. Not the actual movie itself. I would be interested to see if a format was developed whereby you could add the extra data to a disc at home by ripping a DVD and adding the subtitling or the translation to it and then re-burning it to use in a commercial DVD player. Then, only the audio / subtitle track would have to be distributed, and who knows if the work would be legal or not.

dude, that's what i am talking about... the translated and/or subtitled words... are you saying by translating the words that were spoken by the actors and putting them in a seperate file, they are no longer copyrighted?

 

[levious]

Article 2.3



Kind of conflicting no?

I'm working under the assumption that the right of translation is regards to commercial usage rather than free usage which resolves the conflict (at least in my head it does ).

I believe what you quoted (2.3) would refer to a translation done with permission of the original copyright holder. Then the translater would hold a copyright in the translated work as if it was his own new original work.

 

[The Faceless Master]

What happened to the good ol' "Yes, I'm doing something illegal, but I don't give a fuck." attitude?

that's exactly what i'm looking for... people try to make excuses instead of just admitting they are pirating bastards!

 

[Phoenix]

Article 2.3



Kind of conflicting no?

I'm working under the assumption that the right of translation is regards to commercial usage rather than free usage which resolves the conflict (at least in my head it does ).

No, they don't conflict at all. Article 2.3 says that translations of a work are just as protected as the original work.

 

[Mugen]

I haven't read the replies yet but shouldn't the anime studios from Japan worry more about people who's making money off their anime by selling them? Why don't they crack down on sites that sell bootlegs or something? Yes, fansubbing is illegal too yes but if they are really losing money from revenues then they shouuld concentrate more on anime bootlegs being sold not fansubbed anime.

 

[Kobun Heat]

a company that refuses to release or make available a work in a region will have a very difficult time claiming damages or theft of revenue (the actual grounds for defending a copyright)...

Maybe so, but I'm not talking about how hard a time they'll have in court. I'm talking about whether or not it's legal (it's not) and whether or not there is damage (there is).

 

[Shouta]

I believe what you quoted (2.3) would refer to a translation done with permission of the original copyright holder. Then the translater would hold a copyright in the translated work as if it was his own new original work.

Good point but at the same time, I think it could be used to defend a personal translation of a work from being taken by the original author as his own. It'd be interesting to see how all this really meshes out if we had an actual copyright lawyer around here.

No, they don't conflict at all. Article 2.3 says that translations of a work are just as protected as the original work.

So where does that put translations in general? Is Article 8 that encompassing?

 

[levious]

edit - I guess in all of this I am failing to see something. The entire point of copyright is to protect sales. It is there so people do not deprive the creator of money. I am confused about what happens when it is logiistically impossible for me to deprive the creator of a sale because I am unable to purchase it.

no, that's not the entire point of copyright. There are many ways to violate someone's copyright without depriving them of sales.

 

[Phoenix]

What happened to the good ol' "Yes, I'm doing something illegal, but I don't give a fuck." attitude?

Exactly. It's illegal, you aren't going to change your behaviors so just go on. Just realize that it IS illegal and that you choose to continue with the activity knowing that it is illegal. After all - ignorance of the law is not a defense.

 

[Shouta]

This has me interested now, I just emailed an IP lawyer with some questions about this. Hopefully, they'll respond.