Pirating Dragon Ball (discussion)

[Dbzfan94]

Super has set the bar quite low. It’s better now, since the art and animation have improved since the start of this arc, but the writing is still awful. If I turn off my brain completely for 20 minutes, it’s enjoyable. But I find that difficult to do and often end up annoyed while watching.

Ah, finally, someone's speaking my language.
Honestly, I'm convinced that in 10 years, people will start to wonder why anyone liked Super in the first place.
Maybe I'm just a grouch, but I really don't get the hype for Super.

Robo, I've disagreed with a lot of the stuff you've said on this forum. But THIS right here is exactly how I feel. In my opinion, DBS is "new" and thats why people love it. A few years from now when that hype dies down, the rose-tinted glasses will come off and get slammed just like GT does.

But thats a topic for another day.

on topic, my thoughts have already been said by others many times. I own all of DB, Z, GT and the movies/specials on DVD. I have no interest in buying Super,so Crunchyroll is the only way I legally have to watch the show. I dont condone pirating, but I do enforce supporting the official release whenever possible.

[SuperCyan2]

Hello to all,

I registered quite specifically just to post my thoughts on this topic. I've been visiting this community as a guest for sometime now and this thread is without a doubt one of the biggest hypocrite things I've seen coming from Dragon Ball fans, maybe it doesn't apply to exactly all but to most.

So you say piracy is bad but then use an avatar that doesn't belong to you? Okay.
So you say piracy is bad but then want the Japanese broadcast audio? Okay.
So you say piracy is bad but then try to color-correct the episodes? Okay.
So you say piracy is bad but then you recover the background music? Okay.
So you say piracy is bad but then users on here share content via PM? Okay.
So you say piracy is bad but then you swap the music of the show? Okay.
So you say piracy is bad but then use DB content on YouTube videos? Okay.
So you say... And it goes on and on.

I'm on both sides of the coin because if you're only on one or the either you're losing quite a lot. Legally speaking, you can't get Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT broadcast audio on the Dragon Boxes nor an actual 'Complete BGM Collection' soundtrack so what happens in this case? Peeps share content among themselves privately, or not.

Also, it's quite delusional that there are Dragon Ball fans here who think Funimation would actually get permission to use the Japanese BA on their releases (they've not done a good Z release since 2011 but that's beyond the point) from Toei Animation. Everything that Funimation does in regards to Dragon Ball and other properties they need to ask the original Japanese companies/owners that own them otherwise they would get in serious trouble so yeah, forget about that "The JPN BA is on Sabat's hands so it's up to him" no.. it's not. It really isn't.

You lot who are against piracy (or pretend to be, anyway) need to remember that it's thanks to piracy that a lot of content has been preserved from being utterly and completely destroyed from existence. If memory serves, two European dubs of Anne of Green Gables and The Three Musketeers were recovered thanks to the fans and released officially on DVD otherwise those dubs would have vanished forever. Another one that springs to mind, DBGT's TV-Special Big Green Dub which has been kept in secrecy but someone out there at least has it. Just a few examples (not forgetting the obvious one, DB JPN BA).

Lastly, I've bought and spent a lot of money on official merchandise of Dragon Ball that I love having but then there's stuff one just can't get legitimately so that's where piracy comes in. Fans have to do the job which the company that owns the franchise should have but didn't.

[VegettoEX]

While your input and thoughts are always welcome, perhaps you could do so without barging in for a first post by calling people "delusional" over something they perhaps don't have a full grasp on; it's not like people are running around saying the sky is yellow and water is not wet. Please refer to our community guidelines, which as a newly-registered member I would hope you are quite familiar with. Thank you!

[Anonymous Friend]

But when it is all said and done, what they are doing is wrong, and they know it. Whether you take a physical disc of a shelf at a store or download a file without giving the creators their share, it is taking and using what does not belong to you; stealing. Legality of the term itself notwithstanding, you understand the concept. Even if the product is not available in your area.

Not really. It's a different concept from stealing. What's in question is the right to reproduce a certain product without authorization, or, in other words, something being "open source" or not. There's immediate practical differences between the two concepts as a result, like the correlation between the act in question and actual, demonstrable damage to the company, which is basically a certainty in the first case, but not an automatic consequence in the second case.

Framing the issue under the guise of moral absolutism doesn't help anyone at all, nor does it combat piracy or helps the industry.

If the only allowed use of a product is when the creators of the product recieves compensation for its use, and people decided not to give the proper compensation yet still use the product, couldn't that be infered as stealing their compensation?

Look at it this way:

I work at a convenience store. Throughout the day, we make coffee at regular intervals. We discard whatever is in the pot, full or empty, day in and day out, everyday. If we run out of coffee begore the interval, we immediately make more. If someone was to come into my store, grab some coffee and not pay for it, is it still considered stealing, seeing as it has no impact on us financially?

[Robo4900]

I'm on both sides of the coin because if you're only on one or the either you're losing quite a lot. Legally speaking, you can't get Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT broadcast audio on the Dragon Boxes nor an actual 'Complete BGM Collection' soundtrack so what happens in this case? Peeps share content among themselves privately, or not.

You lot who are against piracy (or pretend to be, anyway) need to remember that it's thanks to piracy that a lot of content has been preserved from being utterly and completely destroyed from existence. If memory serves, two European dubs of Anne of Green Gables and The Three Musketeers were recovered thanks to the fans and released officially on DVD otherwise those dubs would have vanished forever. Another one that springs to mind, DBGT's TV-Special Big Green Dub which has been kept in secrecy but someone out there at least has it. Just a few examples (not forgetting the obvious one, DB JPN BA).

Lastly, I've bought and spent a lot of money on official merchandise of Dragon Ball that I love having but then there's stuff one just can't get legitimately so that's where piracy comes in. Fans have to do the job which the company that owns the franchise should have but didn't.

Yeah, pirating things that you just straight-up can't get by buying official releases is totally fair. The legality of it says otherwise, but if you have no other option, then that's kinda what you have to do. Speaking as a die-hard Ocean dub fanboy, I'm very used to this type of logic, and from what I understand, people online generally seem to agree.

The point is, though; make an effort to support official release in ways you can. Sure, I can't buy the full Ocean and Blue Water dubs on DVD, but I can still buy the manga in one of the many different forms it's available in.

Also, it's quite delusional that there are Dragon Ball fans here who think Funimation would actually get permission to use the Japanese BA on their releases (they've not done a good Z release since 2011 but that's beyond the point) from Toei Animation. Everything that Funimation does in regards to Dragon Ball and other properties they need to ask the original Japanese companies/owners that own them otherwise they would get in serious trouble so yeah, forget about that "The JPN BA is on Sabat's hands so it's up to him" no.. it's not. It really isn't.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain ignorant.
First off, Toei straight-up don't care about the broadcast audio; they refused to take it when Kei offered it to them. If they cared anywhere near as much about it as you're implying they do, they would have taken it back when Kei offered it to them several years back.
Second, Toei have let Funimation do two HD Blu-Ray releases of Z. Much as we fans generally don't like the "Season" sets, Toei seems to approve of them, and they approved of the much-loved Levels too. And yet, Toei don't have any HD release of their own out for anything before Kai. If Toei were concerned about Funimation having a superior product for audio, video, or whatever, they wouldn't have let them do it in HD.
In theory, the fact Kai was in HD, and Funi have only done BDs of the Z series so far kind of works as an argument, except that Kai has top-quality audio on the Japanese side, and Funi's Blu-Rays contain cleaned-up Japanese audio for Z anyway. If Funimation having superior audio to Toei's releases was a concern, but Kai makes the HD video not a concern, then surely Kai's high-quality audio makes the audio not a concern? But if that wasn't the case, if the audio was a concern, Toei wouldn't have let Funimation put cleaned-up Japanese audio on their BDs; they would have insisted on keeping it as muffled and distorted as the raw Dragon Box audio.
Third, sure, Funimation's releases have been a bit crappy recently in terms of video, but aside from some issues with the style of redubbing of the Remastered dub(Which is largely down to opinions anyway), and some mixing issues in the dub tracks from the Season DVDs and the original Z DVD singles, the audio has always been pretty much top-notch. In particular, the BD vesion of the Japanese is rather nicely cleaned-up. No reason to believe they won't continue to do their best with the audio side.

Fourth, and finally, yes the broadcast audio is in Sabat's hands, but no one with any idea what's going on has said that Sabat himself is the one this is up to. What's been said is that Sabat will try everything within his power to get the audio used on an official release in the future. Funimation would do well to put it on a release next time they do a release. As for when that will be, who knows.
In any case, as I say, Chris Sabat says he'll try everything within his power. Funimation are infamous for wanting Dragon Ball to always seem modern, shiny, and new. The Japanese audio being rather poor has always been something that's held that back, and between that and the poor handling of the video, a lot of the hardcore fans have a lot of lost love for the modern releases. A modern release with the high-quality Japanese audio may very well attract a lot of new buyers, and regain a lot of favour with the hardcore fans, and it'll make the Japanese track fit in line with the modern feel they've always tried to go for with their post-2006 releases that aren't the Levels or DBoxes.

In short: Including the broadcast audio is something Funimation will almost certainly do next time there's an official release(And there will be another official release sometime. If there's one thing Funimation loves more than anything else, it's re-releasing Dragon Ball Z), and there's no reason to believe Toei would block them.
Sure, you can morally justify pirating the audio now, while it's still officially unreleased, but don't try to push that it will never come out; not only is that unnecessary, but it's rather naive to do so.

[SuperCyan2]

First off, Toei straight-up don't care about the broadcast audio; they refused to take it when Kei offered it to them. If they cared anywhere near as much about it as you're implying they do, they would have taken it back when Kei offered it to them several years back.

They won't use it because they have their pride and refuse to use something that was provided by fans. Something as important as the JPN BA needs the approval of the parent Japanese company.

Second, Toei have let Funimation do two HD Blu-Ray releases of Z.

One was cancelled very early and the second is plain shit.

[rereboy]

If the only allowed use of a product is when the creators of the product recieves compensation for its use, and people decided not to give the proper compensation yet still use the product, couldn't that be infered as stealing their compensation?

No, the law defines strictly what constitutes theft or stealing, just like it strictly defines what constitutes other type of crimes.

Every time someone tries to use the term "stealing" or "thief" in regards to piracy or any illegality regarding the reproduction of copyrighted material, they are, in fact, confusing and mixing up different legal concepts with different legal treatments.

And, what's perhaps worse, they do it to try to elicit an more obvious moral dimension to the issue, which is ill-advised because not only are the moral dimensions of actual theft and the non-authorized reproduction of copyrighted material on totally different levels, but trying to frame the issue under such a scope will not help anyone or tackle the issue.

Look at it this way:

I work at a convenience store. Throughout the day, we make coffee at regular intervals. We discard whatever is in the pot, full or empty, day in and day out, everyday. If we run out of coffee begore the interval, we immediately make more. If someone was to come into my store, grab some coffee and not pay for it, is it still considered stealing, seeing as it has no impact on us financially?

Theft and the non-authorized reproduction of copyrighted material aren't distinguished legally based on that.

The coffee was your property to do with it as you wish, even to throw away. If someone stole it from you, it stole the actual thing from you and you no longer can do anything with it (whether it's throwing it away or something else).

Copyright is a totally different concept. It exists to establish a monopoly regarding the reproduction of certain items. If someone reproduces it despite the copyright, you still have the thing to do as you wish, what happened was that your monopoly over the reproduction of the thing was put in check.

As for damages, it's certainly true that some theft might produce insignificant damages to the owner, but there is still a vast degree of difference between the correlation of theft and damages compared to the correlation of non-authorized reproduction of copyrighted material and damages.

[ABED]

I get that physical theft and taking someone's intellectual property, even if it isn't physical, are different in certain ways, but they are still both wrong and piracy is in fact a form of theft.

people online generally seem to agree.

Is that the barometer? Of course they will agree. People like free stuff and because all it takes is the push of a button, it allows them to rationalize theft easier than if they took a copy from a store.

Maybe this sounds harsh to some, but if you can't attain some TV show or movie you want to see legally, here's my advice - even if you don't see it, you'll live.

[rereboy]

piracy is in fact a form of theft

What is theft is strictly defined on the law. And what is piracy is strictly defined on the law. That's just confusing legal concepts.

On the matter of correlation between non-authorized reproduction of copyrighted material and damages (and indirectly the moral dimension of the issue for those who want to look at it that way), here's an interesting recent news article:

The EU Suppressed a 300-Page Study That Found Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales

The European Commission paid €360,000 (about $428,000) for a study on how piracy impacts the sales of copyrighted music, books, video games, and movies. But the EU never shared the report—possibly because it determined that there is no evidence that piracy is a major problem.

The Dutch firm Ecory was commissioned to research the impact of piracy for several months, eventually submitting a 304-page report to the EU in May 2015. The report concluded that: “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.”

The report found that illegal downloads and streams can actually boost legal sales of games, according to the report. The only negative link the report found was with major blockbuster films:“The results show a displacement rate of 40 percent which means that for every ten recent top films watched illegally, four fewer films are consumed legally.”

The study has only come to light now because Julia Reda, a Member of the European Parliament representing the German Pirate Party, posted the report on her personal blog after she got ahold of a copy through an EU Freedom of Information access to document request.

The European Digital Rights organization suggested in a blog post that the full contents of this report was intentionally suppressed, pointing to a 2016 academic paper by two Commission officials. The paper, “Movie Piracy and Displaced Sales in Europe,” only mentioned the part of the Ecory report that highlights the relationship between piracy and blockbuster film lost sales, and excluded the other findings of the report. Additionally, the paper didn’t even disclose that the cited information came from Ecory’s study.

[ABED]

piracy is in fact a form of theft

What is theft is strictly defined on the law. And what is piracy is strictly defined on the law. That's just confusing legal concepts.

They aren't purely legal concepts, they are moral concepts.

Whether it hurts sales or not, the fundamental issue is whether someone has the right to distribute their property on their own terms. Let's take another example - licensing. For instance, what if a TV show or political candidate could just use your music or artwork without your permission? Would you not want the ability to decide if they could?

[rereboy]

piracy is in fact a form of theft

What is theft is strictly defined on the law. And what is piracy is strictly defined on the law. That's just confusing legal concepts.

They aren't purely legal concepts, they are moral concepts.

Trying to frame the issue under moralism tends to put it under a black and white light that will not help anyone or tackle the issue. If you really want to view it morally, than take into consideration the full dimension, including reports like the one I quoted in my last post.

[ABED]

What is theft is strictly defined on the law. And what is piracy is strictly defined on the law. That's just confusing legal concepts.

They aren't purely legal concepts, they are moral concepts.

Trying to frame the issue under moralism tends to put it under a black and white light that will not help anyone or tackle the issue. If you really want to view it morally, than take into consideration the full dimension, including reports like the one I quoted in my last post.

I don't see why you would look at something through a purely legal lens and not discuss the moral issues. There are definitely many hard questions to answer, but that's what ethics is about - answering those sorts of questions, and then the law is a subsequent discussion.

If the article you cited is indeed true, then don't artists have the right to decide that for themselves? My counter is that the music industry is in the shitter due to things like Napster.

[rereboy]

I don't see why you would look at something through a purely legal lens and not discuss the moral issues.

In this specific case it just muddles the issue. Copyright exists mainly to protect economic interests. So, the best viewpoint to have regarding the issue is through the consequences to those interests and through the consequences to the industry at large and to creators. If we start looking at it through a concentrated moral lens, that perspective and why copyright exist is easily lost and then we start confusing things and equating it to actual theft, which is vastly different on every sense, and in terms of right and wrong that really doesn't help anyone.

There are definitely many hard questions to answer, but that's what ethics is about - answering those sorts of questions, and then the law is a subsequent discussion.

If the article you cited is indeed true, then don't artists have the right to decide that for themselves? My counter is that the music industry is in the shitter due to things like Napster.

Notice that nobody here is arguing the abolishment of copyright.

Indeed, I view copyright as necessary, particularly on a "macro" level, because, otherwise, creators would come up with something (a story, book, whatever), and then all the big companies would just get hold of a copy and sell it, without caring at all about the creator.

However, more on a "micro" level, which includes consumer piracy, by all indicators, the consequences and damages to industry, companies and creators are grossly exaggerated and overstated, being hard to even say with an acceptable degree of certainty in many cases if there exists negative consequences at all.

Furthermore, it's factually demonstrated that when quality, cheap services with easy access exist, piracy and non-authorized reproduction of copyrighted material greatly reduce in quantity. This confirms what has long been suspected to be the main causes of piracy and the like: easy access, quality and affordable price. Here's an article about services like that reducing piracy:

Internet piracy falls to record lows amid rise of Spotify and Netflix

Internet streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix have resulted in online piracy falling to its lowest rate in years, an official report claims.

Research commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which is tasked with fighting copyright infringement, found that 15pc of internet users illegally accessed films, music and other material between March and May.

This is down from 18pc a year ago and was the lowest recorded rate in the five years the study has been carried out.

Meanwhile, 44pc of internet users are using exclusively legal means, up from 39pc at the end of 2015. The remaining 31pc did not download or stream any online content in the three-month period. The Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Neville Rolfe, said “consumers appear to be turning towards legitimate streaming en masse”.

On-demand internet services, which allow subscribers unlimited access to a catalogue of music or videos and films for a monthly fee or via an advertising-funded model, have been accused of diluting industry revenues , and artists including Taylor Swift have restricted access on some platforms.

But the IPO’s report, carried out by research group Kantar Media, suggested a strong link between the rise of such services and falling piracy. 80pc of music listeners now use exclusively legal means, up from 74pc a year ago, and 31pc of all internet users listen to streaming services, up from 27pc.

The research showed that those using peer-to-peer file-sharing services – a popular way to pirate material – fell from 12pc to 10pc of all those who download or stream media.

“Online copyright infringement has been a running sore for the UK's creative industries for far too long. I am extremely pleased to see that there has been a decline in infringement and that consumers appear to be turning towards legitimate streaming en masse,” Baroness Rolfe said.

“There is however more to do. This Government is committed to fighting against IP theft in all its forms and supporting the hard work of our creative industries. I am pleased that we are joining forces internationally to improve our knowledge of online infringement."

The report showed that while spending on music and films is rising, spending on video games and TV shows is falling.

So, in short: yes, copyright is needed, but piracy and the like as it stands is mostly a non-issue that doesn't really much impact industry/companies/creators, and the way to actually combat it is not through tough penalties or moral speeches, but simply by proving easy, quality, affordable access to authorized products.

[VegettoEX]

My counter is that the music industry is in the shitter due to things like Napster.

No, record sales have occasionally gone down since the advent of digital distribution, but the music industry as a whole is doing perfectly fine.

Lots of people in this thread appear to have already made up their mind on several issues without having done a breadth of research and analysis, and without consideration of not just angles, but with blind spots to entire areas of business. I would encourage you to get out there and do a little more reading.

[Professor Freeza]

My counter is that the music industry is in the shitter due to things like Napster.

No, record sales have occasionally gone down since the advent of digital distribution, but the music industry as a whole is doing perfectly fine.

I thought the record sales have jumped to new heights now. I see Queen sell Vinyls like hot fish and chips

[ABED]

My counter is that the music industry is in the shitter due to things like Napster.

No, record sales have occasionally gone down since the advent of digital distribution, but the music industry as a whole is doing perfectly fine.

Lots of people in this thread appear to have already made up their mind on several issues without having done a breadth of research and analysis, and without consideration of not just angles, but with blind spots to entire areas of business. I would encourage you to get out there and do a little more reading.

I'm going on what I've heard from industry insiders and musicians.

I see Queen sell Vinyls like hot fish and chips

That's a niche market.

In this specific case it just muddles the issue.

It doesn't. Ethics comes before legality. What do you think the issue is about fundamentally?

[SuperCyan2]

Speaking of music, it's annoying that sometimes fans have to go out of their way get the audio file, cut, clean, remove the voices, all that and then the BGM so much desired is finally available. This is seriously the job that the labels should be doing, not the fans themselves!

[ABED]

I get the argument about Netflix and such making things more affordable and bringing down piracy. Your argument isn't remotely new, but it's damn shame that people rationalize theft in their own mind and only stop doing it when it's cheap enough to buy a legal copy.

I don't care about what's "good" for the economy. I'm not a Utilitarian. I care about the individual. To have the right to something means to distribute it on your own terms.

And Mike, I have read a number of articles. The fact that my findings don't support your claim doesn't mean I haven't done my research.

[alakazam^]

It doesn't. Ethics comes before legality. What do you think the issue is about fundamentally?

Making it illegal and enforcing the law can make it stop, thinking it is wrong does nothing.

[ABED]

It doesn't. Ethics comes before legality. What do you think the issue is about fundamentally?

Making it illegal and enforcing the law can make it stop, thinking it is wrong does nothing.

But why would you make something illegal?