Dragonball & YouTube

[desirecampbell]

If you do something that you know that is illegal and get caught and have to be punished, you did it to yourself. The only folks I ever hear complain about not liking laws are criminals.

This part of your post I have a problem with. True, most people who don't like certain laws break them, and thus, are criminals. But they're still citizens, they still have a right to disagree with any law. Disagreeing with a law and trying to get it changed is a right to people in many countries, including yours and mine. You say as much yourself.

Furthermore, there are many people who have no interest in breaking some laws, but still believe they are bad laws. I'm opposed to all the anti-smoking laws. I don't smoke and absolutely abhor people smoking around me, but I still believe they have a right to do it.


That said, I'd like to bring the topic back to the morality of 'piracy' (for lack of a better word). We can see that uploading and watching copyrighted videos on YouTube is against the TOS and is (probably) illegal and punishable by California Law. Whether that law should be changed or not is a more pressing issue.

So, is it immoral to 'pirate' in this manner? (see my previous posts, like this one).

[Godo]

The only folks I ever hear complain about not liking laws are criminals.

So you mean that women that want abortion are criminals? That maybe someone that has got raped and want abortion because of that she is going to give birth of he child of the raper is criminal?

Just face it, some laws are made for some specific persons, and there is only a need of 50,1% of majority for a law to get through.

[VegettoEX]

Uhhh....

Let's not compare being nerds for a TV show to abortion. Another lame diversion attempt. Argue properly, or don't argue at all.

[Godo]

Uhhh....

Let's not compare being nerds for a TV show to abortion. Another lame diversion attempt. Argue properly, or don't argue at all.

I meant this, and only this:

It's a personal opinion more or less who is criminal or not. Are all laws acceptable? Are all laws really democratic? Have really the people chosen that watching series like Dragonball on Youtube is illegal?
It's a personal view in the end. Please relate this to my previous post to get full comprehension.

I find it ridiculous that I have to be so precise to show my point. I think that a little thinking is fine too.
Now sorry if that offends you. It's no personal attack or something, just for you to know.

[veshira]

Well, Funimation apparently been ripping Dragon Ball Z episodes down from Youtube, because all I've been able to find are the old Ocean Group episodes. (I was trying to find a Japanese episode of the Saiyan Saga for reference, but alack, it'd been taken down.)

A few of my favorited AMV's have been taken down, too. Dammit Funi, don't take down the AMV's!

[Mr.Piccolo]

Well, Funimation apparently been ripping Dragon Ball Z episodes down from Youtube, because all I've been able to find are the old Ocean Group episodes. (I was trying to find a Japanese episode of the Saiyan Saga for reference, but alack, it'd been taken down.)

A few of my favorited AMV's have been taken down, too. Dammit Funi, don't take down the AMV's!

Yeah that's another thing.. I noticed some of my favorite AMVs are down as well. Do you have to put the copyright stuff after AMVs?

[Blitzen]

Do you have to put the copyright stuff after AMVs?

That's not the point. in 99% of the cases with AMVs, especially DBZ ones, you don't own the correct rights to either the songs or animation (and usually the programs to make them on ;3) and therefore it's illegal and generally does get removed blahblahblah.

[SkylarEC]

I'm not going to read every post in this thread. I'm sure it's mostly repetition. And I'm sure even this has been said, but I will say it anyways.

Have any of you read the FBI warning that comes up before every movie you watch? The one that says: "WARNING: Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhbition of copyrighted motion pictures and video tapes. (TITLE 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506)"

Baiscally, and as clear as can be, the posting of anything from dragonball is against the law. There's no more to it than that. I'll let you read on as to what the penalties are, but I will assure you that they are most severe. And on top of the Federal Penalties, you also stand the chance of beind sued by either, or both, Funimation or Toei.

The subject of morality is moot. It is no less silly than saying that the laws against robbing banks are against your own personal morals.


To answer the original question posted in this thread:

What are your views on Dragonball/Z/GT episodes and movies being hosted on YouTube? Do you think it should be allowed? Should you feel bad reporting profiles to Funimation that host them when they're not supposed to? What are your opinions?

The episodes, and movies should not be allowed on YouTube, nor any other service that does not have the license to exhibit them. It is the law.

Whether or not distribution of said episodes or movies is available in your country is irrelevant. If it is not available to you, then it is not available to you. Deal with it.

And furthermore, anyone who has the ability to watch videos on YouTube also has the ability to visit Amazon.com. End of story.

[desirecampbell]

The subject of morality is moot. It is no less silly than saying that the laws against robbing banks are against your own personal morals.

Well, yes and no. Arguments over whether or not any law is exactly as silly - that is, not silly at all, but the basis of my country (and to a lesser extent, yours).

If you can argue respectfully why robbing a bank shouldn't be illegal, and noone can argue the opposing point, then the law should be repelled.

Similarly, if you think a law should be upheld for no reason other than "it's a law", then your point is moot.

I'm not going to read every post in this thread. I'm sure it's mostly repetition. And I'm sure even this has been said, but I will say it anyways.

If you had read the thread, or at least the part I linked to specifically) you'd see that noone is arguing over whether or not it's illegal (filesharing is illegal in California, which is where YouTube is based, and everything on YouTube is under California jurisdiction, as per the TOS).

What is being repeated here is "I didn't read the rest of the thread, but it's illegal, so don't do it".



I'm still waiting for anyone to respond to my question: when, and why, is sharing wrong?

[Victator Supreme]

Baiscally, and as clear as can be, the posting of anything from dragonball is against the law. There's no more to it than that. I'll let you read on as to what the penalties are, but I will assure you that they are most severe. And on top of the Federal Penalties, you also stand the chance of beind sued by either, or both, Funimation or Toei.

The only risk is if you are an uploader. Its way too difficult to track down downloaders, and not worth thetrouble.

The subject of morality is moot. It is no less silly than saying that the laws against robbing banks are against your own personal morals.

Sorry to break it to you champ, but thats all I'm concerned with.

[SkylarEC]

Desiree, that is the exact response I was expecting to get, and I'll say that I agree with you one hundred percent.

Honestly I just didn't feel like getting into the ethics of arguing a law's validity, nor did I think it was appropriate in this instance. So, it's easier to take the lazy out and say that it doesn't matter.



As for your question, as to why file sharing is immoral. That is something for each person to decide on their own.

I think it comes down to a viscious double standard. Yes, it is causing companies to lose money, and that in turn causes the workers for that company to lose money, or theis jobs. Not many people I know would say that it is morally acceptable to prevent the wage working man from making his wages. But for reasons, that same sentiment doesn't hold out for the man making a million dollars a year.

People say that the band, that the movie producers, that whomever won't really miss the money they's lose from the sell of one song, or movie, or whatever. And that may be true, but when a million people don't buy the product, then that man is losing out on quite some income. And that will effect him.

What a lot of people don't think about, either by choice or ignorance (not in the insulting way), is that the lower in the company a worker stants, the more they will feel the hit of file sharing.


I can't tell you why something is moral, or immoral. Only you can tell that to yorself. You have your own beliefs and your own values. If file sharing is moral to you, then good for you. I personally don't believe in it. I also proudly own all of my own media.

[Anonymous Friend]

I'm still waiting for anyone to respond to my question: when, and why, is sharing wrong?

Because you can't share something that doesn't belong to you, it technically still belongs someone else. They have expressed that they don't want their property to be reproduced and spead around to other people. And if it was only at pre-approved times and places, and forms.

I was trying to come up with a nifty analogy but is 3am and i've just done a 12 hours shift listening to people bitch and moan about not having their shows listed on their cable screen and having to wait 1 1/2 on hold to speak to someone. But, I'll be back with something witty and spiffy and nifty and then you will know ...

[desirecampbell]

I think it comes down to a viscious double standard. Yes, it is causing companies to lose money, and that in turn causes the workers for that company to lose money, or theis jobs. Not many people I know would say that it is morally acceptable to prevent the wage working man from making his wages. But for reasons, that same sentiment doesn't hold out for the man making a million dollars a year.

What a lot of people don't think about, either by choice or ignorance (not in the insulting way), is that the lower in the company a worker stants, the more they will feel the hit of file sharing.

As I've said before, they don't "lose" money. True, they didn't gain any either - but that's very different from "losing" money. By not buying a DVD I'm not "taking money" from Funimation or Toei or Toriyama, I'm simply not giving them any. If I download a movie once, or if I download it a million times, noone "loses" a cent (well, okay, I pay for the bandwidth, but that's being nit-picky).

And you might not realise it, but your argument is classic fallacy; an appeal to pity. Don't download movies or these poor workers will lose their jobs'. It's not true, directly, and it's not a moral reason to not download movies.

People say that the band, that the movie producers, that whomever won't really miss the money they's lose from the sell of one song, or movie, or whatever. And that may be true, but when a million people don't buy the product, then that man is losing out on quite some income. And that will effect him.

I've brought this up before, as well. It's the same post I've linked to twice now. This will be the third time. If you read nothing else in this thread, read the post I've directed to you three times now.

Suffice it to say, that's how capitalism works. If someone makes something that noone feels they should have to pay for, or simply don't want to pay for, he fail. If his product is too expensive or of too low a quality for people to want to purchase, he will fail. It's noone responsibility to make sure someone stays in business.

I can't tell you why something is moral, or immoral. Only you can tell that to yorself. You have your own beliefs and your own values. If file sharing is moral to you, then good for you. I personally don't believe in it. I also proudly own all of my own media.

Good. As long as you realize that you'll be fine.

Remember, I've made arguements for filesharing from both a moral standpoint, and a functional standpoint. Noone has talked about it at all. (click the link. Do it. Read it. Don't make me link to it again).

Because you can't share something that doesn't belong to you, it technically still belongs someone else. They have expressed that they don't want their property to be reproduced and spead around to other people. And if it was only at pre-approved times and places, and forms.

Those are good points, but you're talking about 'ownership' from a law-based standpoint. That's important for this argument, but it's not the bottom line. I own this file, this sequence of bits. I own it the same way I own this file in the same way I own this DVD. I have it. It's right there. I don't own the rights to say I made it, or came up with the idea. I don't own the legal rights to make supplemental material and pass it off as official, or charge money for it. But I do own this DVD, and this file.

I was trying to come up with a nifty analogy but is 3am and i've just done a 12 hours shift listening to people bitch and moan about not having their shows listed on their cable screen and having to wait 1 1/2 on hold to speak to someone. But, I'll be back with something witty and spiffy and nifty and then you will know ...

How about this one: a DVD. A real, honest to goodness, DVD. I want to watch it with a friend. I do. He likes it, and I let him borrow it. He does. We have both broken at least one federal law already, and may have made the production company "lose money".

US federal law states that it is illegal to exhibit a home video. It does not explain what 'exhibit' means. Am I exhibiting it to my friend? How many friends would I need? Do I need to be there for it to be okay? Can I let him take it home and watch it?

If I let my friend borrow the DVD does this make the production company "lose money"? What about if he decides not to buy the DVD after watching it?

[SkylarEC]

My dear sir, you seem to have a handle on the basics of economics, that much is for sure. However, I will not argue with you about this topic. Not only do I feel this is an inappropriate place to argue the principalities, and thus the practicalities of a domestic economy (global even?); but I feel that if I were to have that argument, I would prefer for it to be with someone with a little more education on the issue under their belt.

I don't claim to know how things are run in Canada, as I have no real interest, but I can assure you that the United States is not a Capitalist country. Sure, we have twinges of Capitalism coursing throughout the nation, but the factof the matter is that the United States is much closer to being a Socialist Country.

No, Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with Communism, as is often mistaken. To see a Socialism at its purest, look no further than France.

This scale indicates three economic pronciples.
Capitalism Socialism Communism
|------------------------------|------------------------------|

Realistically, the US, and most of the free world, lies somewhere inbetween Capitalism and Socialism. The reason is that a pure Capitalist , or a pure Socialist society would crumble, just as a pure Communist society would.
This can not be argued, and is accepted as fact by most economists.


I say all this because in a pure Capitalist society, you would be absolutely correct in every point you make. However since the United States, and thus California, is not Capitalist, your argument becomes less viable.

that is not to say it is wrong. That is what makes this issue so complicated. There is no real wrong or right on this issue. That is why certain laws have been set up. And that is why there can be differing sides on this issue. Laws like the Copyright Act help clear up the matter.

Copyright laws define things such as "fair use" of a copyrighted item. Title 17, USC, §107 covers that quite nicely.

Things like AMVs, and even the people that post on YouTube are generally safe, as they are protected(?) by §506, which covers specifically what we are talking about: "the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000."

Also, in the United States, potential profits are treated exactly like actual profits, as proven in §504 of the same document. So if my scenario was fallcious becasue it was a "pity plea," then so be it. As it is also the same argument made by the Copyright Office.

And that same pitous argument is what makes the act, in my mind, immoral.


Now, that I have said what I have to say, I will leave this thread permanently. Good day, Mr Smith, and laissez-faire.

[_Jrinu_]

I really think you are making a bit too much of this guys.

There's really no need to bring economic systems into it.

It's really very simple.

One person buys a DVD, decides to rip the files, and put it on the internet. Now, all the people who want to watch it, can watch it for free.

Why is this a problem?

In addition to not gaining anything, these companies are now also losing money, because they are not being reimbursed for the money they spent making the dvds.

At least one fourth of the people who originally had intended to purchase these dvds legally re now watching them for free.

Let's continue.

Why is this illegal?

For the same reason it is immoral, it is also illegal to distribute copyrighted material (in this case episodes) without proper permission.

The companies that own this material have the right to sell these things to make a profit, and they should not have to lose money because people decide they'd rather watch it for free.

It's essentially the same thing as bootlegging. But without the profit. The fact that Youtube is a non-profit organization, doesn't realy change legality of the situation. It's just that in this scenario, people have decided to be a little nicer and give these episodes to you for free instead of charging you for a low-quality bootleg dvd.

And finally the last burning question:

Why doesn't Youtube do anything about this?

Because, as a non-profit organization (although they just made a shitload from Google) Youtube wants people to visit their site. And since their are so many things of an illegal nature on youtube, they decide to leave it up to the companies to remove the files, instead of doing it themselves.

Well, there's my two cents.

But please, continue your debate, I am rather enjoying reading it.

[VegettoEX]

Because, as a non-profit organization (although they just made a shitload from Google) Youtube wants people to visit their site. And since their are so many things of an illegal nature on youtube, they decide to leave it up to the companies to remove the files, instead of doing it themselves.

Uhh... YouTube's not "non-profit". Up until the Google aquisition (Hell, even after), they're just another generic Web 2.0 company with absolutely no business model. There's a huge difference between "non-profit" and "we don't know how to make any money off of this".

[Mr.Piccolo]

Because, as a non-profit organization (although they just made a shitload from Google) Youtube wants people to visit their site. And since their are so many things of an illegal nature on youtube, they decide to leave it up to the companies to remove the files, instead of doing it themselves.

Uhh... YouTube's not "non-profit". Up until the Google aquisition (Hell, even after), they're just another generic Web 2.0 company with absolutely no business model. There's a huge difference between "non-profit" and "we don't know how to make any money off of this".

Crap, I thought I would be the first to throw in the Google event in the forums.. well anyway, do you think the recent events with Google and You Tube played a part in the removal of Toei animations..?

[Victator Supreme]

Why doesn't Youtube do anything about this?

Youtube will take down anything if they are asked. I know I have taken to lableing my music videos with random letters to prevent this.

At least one fourth of the people who originally had intended to purchase these dvds legally re now watching them for free.

What are you basing this number off of?

[desirecampbell]

First, I want to say that SkylarEC makes a lot of good points, and that everyone should read his post (they should read the whole damn thread, but noone does that apparently). I don't even know what to make of it right now, I have to absorb the information for a while.


Jrinu, your post is less interesting. It's the same thing that's been said before.

You say that we should focus on aspects other than the economic ones... and then go on and talk about nothing but the economic aspects.

You're confusing laws with morality. You're implying that it's immoral because it's illegal. That is not the case, lawfulness doesn't breed righteousness.

In addition to not gaining anything, these companies are now also losing money, because they are not being reimbursed for the money they spent making the dvds.

You bring up, again, that filesharing causes someone to "lose money". Again, this is false. I can't make this clear, apparently. I've explained this before. A company spends money to acquire and produce a product. If I don't buy that product, for whatever reason, they don't "lose" money, they just don't gain any to cover the gamble they made. Yes, buying and producing a product is a gamble for the production company. They hope that they'll make what they spent back and hopefully a bit more.

But you go a step further and say that they not only "do not gain money" but they "lose money". This is not simply ignorance, this is directed misinformation. How does downloading a movie "lose" money for anyone? If I download it twice, do they lose more money?

It seems very 'nit-picky' to keep harping on this, but it's very important to understand that downloading a movie doesn't "take money away" from anyone.

At least one fourth of the people who originally had intended to purchase these dvds legally re now watching them for free.

I've no idea where this statistic came from. It's full of misinformation. How many people "originally intended" to purchase this release? Why did a quarter of them decide not to? Is it because they can watch it online for free? It it because they saw it online? Did they end up not buying the DVD? Why? You aren't just making shit up are you? That would seem really underhanded.

The companies that own this material have the right to sell these things to make a profit, and they should not have to lose money because people decide they'd rather watch it for free.

What? What?! People should be forced to pay for something that they can get for free, or don't want? WHAT?!

I never expected anyone to say consumers don't have the right to not buy whatever they don't want. Wow.


I'm beginning to think that J-Guy is cleverly trying to get us to believe that we owe something to the production companies. That we should pay for releases that are sub-par. That somehow being lawful is the same as being moral. J-Guy seems to be trying to convince us to get rid of our consumer rights. He might be an evil man - intelligent, but evil.


But then he calls YouTube "non profit". Maybe J-Guy's just confused on the issue and I'm reading way too much into it.

I still love J-Guy! I'm just a little worried about the little guy.





Anyway, what I've got now is "it's immoral because someone spent money to produce it". And that's flawed. Such a moral standing takes away a consumer's rights. Besides that, it erodes the capitalist system. If I can make something and people are morally compelled to buy it, I have no reason to make a quality product, I have every reason to charge outrageous amounts for crap.

[Domon]

But you go a step further and say that they not only "do not gain money" but they "lose money". This is not simply ignorance, this is directed misinformation. How does downloading a movie "lose" money for anyone? If I download it twice, do they lose more money?

It seems very 'nit-picky' to keep harping on this, but it's very important to understand that downloading a movie doesn't "take money away" from anyone.

But filesharing does cause a company to lose money. They're spending millions of dollers to produce and distribute the products, and if people don't buy their products, they don't "recover" the money lost in expense. If that pattern continue, they they'd stop producing the product since they're not making a profit and losing money.

I've no idea where this statistic came from. It's full of misinformation. How many people "originally intended" to purchase this release? Why did a quarter of them decide not to? Is it because they can watch it online for free? It it because they saw it online? Did they end up not buying the DVD? Why? You aren't just making shit up are you? That would seem really underhanded.

It seemed pretty clear from the post that this is a hypethical scenario. The concern over filesharing has never been over just one or two people downloading stuffs, but that millions may be doing this, and millions of dollars might be lost because of this.