Why are so many DB creators becoming subject to Toei's wrath?

[MasenkoHA]

Because some people have recently brought it up on this very page.

When I said "It's their right" I meant in an all-encompassing, legal and philosophical sense. I'm just saying I'm mostly okay with it but you're more than welcome to disagree and I certainly see some of why you'd feel that way, as again, even I think this is overzealous.

I understand. I just think Japan has a somewhat backwards stance on copyright laws.

As opposed to the US where we keep extending copyright laws because a certain monopolizing company keeps lobbying..

[LoganForkHands73]

As opposed to the US where we keep extending copyright laws because a certain monopolizing company keeps lobbying..

If there is one thing I really do find objectionable about current copyright laws, it's how insanely long they keep getting extended. Mouse Company are probably the worst culprits but I think it's a more universal development across most countries, Japan included.

A full lifetime of about 80 years -- and maybe little bit extra so you can arrange for it to be in safe hands when you're gone -- I can understand. There's an elegance to that. You make something, it's yours for as long as you live, then it gets released into the wild for everyone else to pick some meat off the corpse. Fan works on the side will always exist, but you get to maintain some unique integrity until you eventually snuff it. Cool with me.

70 or 80 years after the original author's death is a bit of a pisstake IMO. If you want that, you're just Ozymandias-ing it. After well over 100 years, the overwhelming probability is that no one, perhaps besides some greedy executives who never really cared about you personally to begin with, will care enough to uphold your legacy, even if your work is really great and influential. You might get lucky and have a kid willing and able to inherit the "family business", like Brian Herbert with Dune, but that just guarantees they'll only be stuck in your shadow forever.

[JulieYBM]

We should abolish copyright laws and use an UBI system to insure that everyone--artist or not--has enough money to live, regardless of whether their work is popular enough or not.

[LoganForkHands73]

We should abolish copyright laws and use an UBI system to insure that everyone--artist or not--has enough money to live, regardless of whether their work is popular enough or not.

Based and just-abolish-it pilled.

[ABED]

We should abolish copyright laws and use an UBI system to insure that everyone--artist or not--has enough money to live, regardless of whether their work is popular enough or not.

Based and just-abolish-it pilled.

what does this mean?

[ZeroIsOurHero]

what does this mean?

It's Reddit-speak. "Based and red-pilled" basically means "You're a cool person for thinking this." Essentially, that post is saying "You're a cool person for thinking we should just abolish copyright law."

[ABED]

If that's the case, those are two truly awful and corrupt ideas. There are likely issues with copyright laws but to do away with Intellectual property rights is a baffling and horrible idea. That something is intangible doesn't mean there isn't a right of ownership.

[LoganForkHands73]

It's Reddit-speak. "Based and red-pilled" basically means "You're a cool person for thinking this." Essentially, that post is saying "You're a cool person for thinking we should just abolish copyright law."

Nonono, I meant the opposite (tbh, I don't keep up with Redditspeak phrases but I was under the impression the redpill thing was only used ironically these days)

I just thought it was funny. People have been evenly debating the pros and cons of current copyright law for like 16 pages and staying on-topic (impressive for a politically-charged thread), then Julie just teleports in out of nowhere and spits the iconic catchphrase, "nah mate, just abolish it and provide UBI "

And there it is. The explanation of the joke.

[ZeroIsOurHero]

Nonono, I meant the opposite (tbh, I don't keep up with Redditspeak phrases but I was under the impression the redpill thing was only used ironically these days)

I just thought it was funny. People have been evenly debating the pros and cons of current copyright law for like 16 pages and staying on-topic (impressive for a politically-charged thread), then Julie just teleports in out of nowhere and spits the iconic catchphrase, "nah mate, just abolish it and provide UBI "

And there it is. The explanation of the joke.

Sorry for misunderstanding. It's just that the redpill thing is sometimes used ironically, and sometimes used earnestly, and it was hard to tell which was which in your case. I agree that Redditspeak is a mess though (and that Julie's post was pretty funny).

[JulieYBM]

It's Reddit-speak. "Based and red-pilled" basically means "You're a cool person for thinking this." Essentially, that post is saying "You're a cool person for thinking we should just abolish copyright law."

Nonono, I meant the opposite (tbh, I don't keep up with Redditspeak phrases but I was under the impression the redpill thing was only used ironically these days)

I just thought it was funny. People have been evenly debating the pros and cons of current copyright law for like 16 pages and staying on-topic (impressive for a politically-charged thread), then Julie just teleports in out of nowhere and spits the iconic catchphrase, "nah mate, just abolish it and provide UBI "

And there it is. The explanation of the joke.

You should take the little blue pill called Estradiol instead, actually.


Anyway, yeah, I'm always going to argue for the most left option because I'm literally kept from life-saving medical operations because of our fucked-up system of doing things is geared towards making us dependent on corporations that we have zero control over.

Personally, I just think it's really ridiculous we treat this shit like a game and I have zero issues pissing on the idea of anyone carte blanche being allowed to monopolize ideas, especially under the artificial scarcity of capitalism.

[BlueChi]

Anyway, yeah, I'm always going to argue for the most left option because I'm literally kept from life-saving medical operations because of our fucked-up system of doing things is geared towards making us dependent on corporations that we have zero control over.

Personally, I just think it's really ridiculous we treat this shit like a game and I have zero issues pissing on the idea of anyone carte blanche being allowed to monopolize ideas, especially under the artificial scarcity of capitalism.

Trust me, were you to live under that policy, you'd feel much more skeptical of it in no time flat. You just can't give stuff away with no repercussions. Many people die waiting or grow severely ill over the time it takes for them to actually get treatment... or just an examination, even. There is no utopia, and people who believe in them just drag nuance to the dirt, along with those who suffer from those consequences. Although we're getting off topic so we'd better just stop here.

[LoganForkHands73]

If that's the case, those are two truly awful and corrupt ideas. There are likely issues with copyright laws but to do away with Intellectual property rights is a baffling and horrible idea. That something is intangible doesn't mean there isn't a right of ownership.

Don't sweat, it's not the case, I don't disagree with this at all.

I would have to see some pretty strong arguments to consider the idea of total abolition. Creators deserve to have their hard work protected somehow and getting rid of that protection leaves little incentive for original ideas (my only issue in my earlier post was how long it now lasts after death). As lovely and liberal as a copyright-free world may sound on paper, it's not so fun if you're a struggling writer finally getting your work published, then some jackass legally steals your work in 0.01 seconds and profits off it with no effort or consequences. "Why're you mad, it's just art, try getting a real job!"

I'm fairly sure there would be much further reaching repercussions to removing copyright, too. In many countries, doctorates and other qualifications can only be obtained by publishing original research. Without ANY copyright law or documentation whatsoever, couldn't someone just legally plagiarise their way through their entire education? How would you be able to prove their work was legitimate? There would be so much grey area to consider before anyone can think of smacking the abort button.

[LoganForkHands73]

Anyway, yeah, I'm always going to argue for the most left option because I'm literally kept from life-saving medical operations because of our fucked-up system of doing things is geared towards making us dependent on corporations that we have zero control over.

Personally, I just think it's really ridiculous we treat this shit like a game and I have zero issues pissing on the idea of anyone carte blanche being allowed to monopolize ideas, especially under the artificial scarcity of capitalism.

I mean, you have my sympathy, but what does copyright specifically have to do with any of this? If your main issue is with monopolisation of copyright by the big'uns (and I guess capitalism), which plenty other people here have strong opinions against, then fine, but just saying "abolish this abolish that" all the time with no elaboration doesn't add to the discussion.

You should take the little blue pill called Estradiol instead, actually.

Nah, cheers, one pill's all I need.

[jjgp1112]

If that's the case, those are two truly awful and corrupt ideas. There are likely issues with copyright laws but to do away with Intellectual property rights is a baffling and horrible idea. That something is intangible doesn't mean there isn't a right of ownership.

Don't sweat, it's not the case, I don't disagree with this at all.

I would have to see some pretty strong arguments to consider the idea of total abolition. Creators deserve to have their hard work protected somehow and getting rid of that protection leaves little incentive for original ideas (my only issue in my earlier post was how long it now lasts after death). As lovely and liberal as a copyright-free world may sound on paper, it's not so fun if you're a struggling writer finally getting your work published, then some jackass legally steals your work in 0.01 seconds and profits off it with no effort or consequences. "Why're you mad, it's just art, try getting a real job!"

I'm fairly sure there would be much further reaching repercussions to removing copyright, too. In many countries, doctorates and other qualifications can only be obtained by publishing original research. Without ANY copyright law or documentation whatsoever, couldn't someone just legally plagiarise their way through their entire education? How would you be able to prove their work was legitimate? There would be so much grey area to consider before anyone can think of smacking the abort button.

Yeah that's where I stand. As I've said a few times before, I have little faith in human beings to behave themselves in a world with no copyright protection. Art theft is horrendous enough as it is, I don't need some talentless clout chasing chucklefuck stealing my shit with no recourse.

[ZeroIsOurHero]

Yeah, I agree with all the people saying that copyright abolition is a bad idea. I disagree with it for the same reason I disagree with other anarcho-communist self-regulation policies: I simply don't trust people enough to let them regulate themselves. People are selfish, their main instinct is to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. A society with no copyright would be a society where that selfishness would be rewarded. Imagine putting insane amounts of effort and spirit into a personal passion project, only for someone to steal that project and make tons of money off it. Even if you are still getting paid a basic income, I imagine it must be horrible for an artist to not be able to benefit off their hard work. I don't want to get too deep into philosophy on a forum about a kid's cartoon, though.

[JulieYBM]

Anyway, yeah, I'm always going to argue for the most left option because I'm literally kept from life-saving medical operations because of our fucked-up system of doing things is geared towards making us dependent on corporations that we have zero control over.

Personally, I just think it's really ridiculous we treat this shit like a game and I have zero issues pissing on the idea of anyone carte blanche being allowed to monopolize ideas, especially under the artificial scarcity of capitalism.

I mean, you have my sympathy, but what does copyright specifically have to do with any of this? If your main issue is with monopolisation of copyright by the big'uns (and I guess capitalism), which plenty other people here have strong opinions against, then fine, but just saying "abolish this abolish that" all the time with no elaboration doesn't add to the discussion.

You should take the little blue pill called Estradiol instead, actually.

Nah, cheers, one pill's all I need.

Those things are ultimately all tied together, which perhaps I didn't make entirely clear, but mostly because I figured we all knew to look at history. Corporations horde and will continue to pull the Overton window rightward endlessly. Once they control how, when, and were you consume their product they'll work towards controlling other aspects of your life. They already control whether you get healthcare or not. Or a roof over your head. The rot is going to inevitably spread because that is what our system enables and demands. What's the compromise there? Half control over our lives?

And as I was saying earlier, we can alleviate financial concerns creators currently face with a UBI and social safety net. I'm not saying erasing the existence of creation (i.e. crediting so that historical information isn't lost). Actually, it's some real bullshit that the assistants for these comics aren't credited in every volume. I wonder who decided that that wasn't necessary and then normalized it across the industry?


Anyway, Toei's being stupid and we should laugh at them because *checks notes* some guy made a living talking about a product they made. Christ, what a bunch of whiners.

[capsulecorp]

Overton window

Just because this is a "pet peeve" of mine, this isn't really how "Overton window" is usually used. It doesn't measure partisan, left/right types of speech, its more like a circle that expands to include more things that are permissible to speak about.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling the "thread closing" window is drawing near and I for one will not mourn this one.

[JulieYBM]

Overton window

Just because this is a "pet peeve" of mine, this isn't really how "Overton window" is usually used. It doesn't measure partisan, left/right types of speech, its more like a circle that expands to include more things that are permissible to speak about.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling the "thread closing" window is drawing near and I for one will not mourn this one.

Hey, thanks, you're totally right. I'm a bad writer and couldn't think of a way to express what I wanted to say so I defaulted to the first thing that came tl mind.

[John Pannozzi]

We should abolish copyright laws and use an UBI system to insure that everyone--artist or not--has enough money to live, regardless of whether their work is popular enough or not.

It might be more realistic to promote Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/) as an alternative to copyright.

EDIT: But healthcare reform is also important, but that's off-topic.

[JulieYBM]

We should abolish copyright laws and use an UBI system to insure that everyone--artist or not--has enough money to live, regardless of whether their work is popular enough or not.

It might be more realistic to promote Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/) as an alternative to copyright.

Arguing from a position of compromise will inevitably lead to even more compromise (i.e. being pulled further toward the position of the opposite party). I'll stay at my position and make them come to me. I don't have anything to lose as it is.