Dragonball & YouTube

Post by **desirecampbell** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:23 am

Domon wrote: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.

Yup. That's capitalism.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:37 pm

And in capitalism, if there's no money to be made--or worse yet, money to be wasted away, then the company will not bother putting out a product. If filesharing goes out of control(I will not contest "how far" it is yet one way or the other), then products will stop being made since "everyone" can get it for free. Would you rather that they didn't print all those books, CDs and DVDs, since hey, you can just get them for free on the internet. Why pay the $20 when it's free? Why even make music and movies if there's no profit behind it? That's part of the arguement behind anti-filesharing; to prevent such a slippery slope from occuring.

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.

If you think a product is sub-par, then complain. Email or write a letter. Tell others the product is subpar, and tell them to complain also. That's how you get things to improve.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:30 am

And if noone supports what they like, it will stop being made. I'm sorry if I've not been clear on that, you should buy the things you wish to support.

I'll make this very clear: I never meant that companies should produce a product that noone buys, that would be crazy. They should make a product that people will buy. If people have the option of downloading said product for free, then the only ones who will pay for it will be the ones who truly wish to see it continue.

Filesharing is a new option for consumers, just like every advancement of technology. The law should not try and stagnate technology in an effort to give production companies an edge over consumers - production companies should change their business model to allow them to continue business.

Would you rather that they didn't print all those books, CDs and DVDs, since hey, you can just get them for free on the internet. Why pay the $20 when it's free? Why even make music and movies if there's no profit behind it? That's part of the arguement behind anti-filesharing; to prevent such a slippery slope from occuring.

That's not a slippery slope, that's capitalism. People stop buying a product (for whatever reason, let's say the company is charging more than most people are willing to pay coupled with the ability to borrow the product from their friends). Now the company decides that this product is not worth producing anymore - so they stop. Later, they see that interest in new products of a similar type, or the exact same products, is building. They decide that it would be worth it selling it again.

Filesharing doesn't force anyone to not go and buy the product, it simply gives them more options and power as consumers. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

If you think a product is sub-par, then complain. Email or write a letter. Tell others the product is subpar, and tell them to complain also. That's how you get things to improve.

I agree. Noone should purchase a product that they would want to see reproduced forever. Let's take the UUEs as an example. I don't want to pay 20 bucks for three episodes with atrocious video quality (frankly, the quality would have to be damn incredible before I paid seven bucks an episode). Now, these boxsets coming out (nearly 40 episodes for 50 bucks) is a great deal. I went and pre-ordered it as soon as I heard (got it for $20 actually, which made the deal incredible).

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:15 am

I'll make this very clear: I never meant that companies should produce a product that noone buys, that would be crazy. They should make a product that people will buy. If people have the option of downloading said product for free, then the only ones who will pay for it will be the ones who truly wish to see it continue.

The last sentence sounds a bit naive. The concern is that people won't pay for a product if they can get it elsewhere for free. If people don't pay for it, then the product won't continue. "The ones who truly wish to see it continue" will not be enough to justicify more of the product. Thus, discontined.

Filesharing is a new option for consumers, just like every advancement of technology. The law should not try and stagnate technology in an effort to give production companies an edge over consumers

The law is not about giving companines an "edge over consumers". They're around to protect the compaines' ownership of said products. They need the means to keep their properties from being stolen or falling into public domain. Without taking a stand on the issue, a company's claim on a property could weaken and even become lost, and thus they can't raise captial on it anymore.

Filesharing doesn't force anyone to not go and buy the product,

It doesn't "force", but it may compel them to not bother.

it simply gives them more options and power as consumers. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

Expect that they're not putting out money into the system, which is not how captialism is suppose to work. It's not a choice between paying for one version of something and paying for another version(which may or may not be better), but between either paying, or not paying but still getting the product. The latter does nothing for captialism.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:39 am

Domon wrote:The last sentence sounds a bit naive. The concern is that people won't pay for a product if they can get it elsewhere for free. If people don't pay for it, then the product won't continue. "The ones who truly wish to see it continue" will not be enough to justicify more of the product. Thus, discontined.

That's exactly my point. I'm not saying everyone will be happy with it, but at least it's fair. If there aren't enough people who support a product, the product line gets cancelled. If there are a lot of people who didn't buy it and then complain about it dying off, they know it did because they didn't support it.
And cancelling a production because of low interest is not indicitive of 'piracy'.
Take 'Daria' as an example. There are too few people who show interest in the show to convince MTV to produce DVDs of the series. This has little to do with 'piracy' as finding Daria online is not a simple matter (you can see every episode on YouTube, but at terrible quality, even for YouTube, sometimes without the original music, and sometimes cencored).

Domon wrote:The law is not about giving companines an "edge over consumers". They're around to protect the compaines' ownership of said products. They need the means to keep their properties from being stolen or falling into public domain. Without taking a stand on the issue, a company's claim on a property could weaken and even become lost, and thus they can't raise captial on it anymore.

Well, there's a difference between 'protecting their properties' and 'getting paid for it'. Noone who downloads a movie says they own the property (that is, I watched Daria on YouTube, I don't think I own Daria now). After obtaining the product through filesharing they gain no extra power over the property that someone who bought it wouldn't have.

Domon wrote:
Filesharing doesn't force anyone to not go and buy the product,
It doesn't "force", but it may compel them to not bother.
it simply gives them more options and power as consumers. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
Expect that they're not putting out money into the system, which is not how captialism is suppose to work.

It allows consumers more choice. Choice is generally good, and I can find no reason why it isn't in this case.
They're not putting money into something that they don't feel is worth the cost. That's capitalism.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:06 am

And cancelling a production because of low interest is not indicitive of 'piracy'.

Certainly not. But copying and distributing without the company's permission is piracy. Cancellation from low profit is one thing. Cancellation due to piracy is another. No one is saying, or has ever said that captialism isn't risky and that not buying a product is a crime(which seems to be the way you're interpriting some posts). What is being said is that filesharing is a form of piracy, and shouldn't be done.

Noone who downloads a movie says they own the property (that is, I watched Daria on YouTube, I don't think I own Daria now). After obtaining the product through filesharing they gain no extra power over the property that someone who bought it wouldn't have.

You're misunderstanding the arguement. No one will say they "own" the property. But filesharing and other forms of piracy does weaken the comapny's hold on the properties, since it's being distributed without their consent, and without any means to gain from it.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:53 am

Domon wrote:Certainly not. But copying and distributing without the company's permission is piracy. Cancellation from low profit is one thing. Cancellation due to piracy is another. No one is saying, or has ever said that captialism isn't risky and that not buying a product is a crime (which seems to be the way you're interpriting some posts). What is being said is that filesharing is a form of piracy, and shouldn't be done.

I know noone's saying that simply not buying something is, or should be, a crime. But many people are saying that filesharing should be a crime because it may lead to someone not buying something.
I understand why many people feel it is necessary to have laws in place to 'combat' piracy, but these laws seem to work against capitalism, and against technology. A business model that doesn't work because of new inventions (be they technological or social) should not be preserved simply because it would be difficult to change the company's business practices.

(Again, I'm going to bring up something that is far more important than filesharing. I use such an example not to encite intense emotions but because it is a simple example that noone will argue with)

Take slavery. Slavery was a great economic business standard. Any business that employed (as in 'make use of', not 'pay') slaves seemed to do better than those that didn't. When it became illegal, many businesses went under. Those that didn't had to change their business practices. It was difficult, but not impossible. The cotton industry was among the hardest hit, but such an industry still exists today.

If filesharing was legal and commonplace many businesses would need to change their business model. Many industries would not be as profitable as they once were, but would survive.

You're misunderstanding the arguement. No one will say they "own" the property. But filesharing and other forms of piracy does weaken the comapny's hold on the properties, since it's being distributed without their consent, and without any means to gain from it.

Oh, then I agree. I just don't see why that's a moral issue.
I agree that production companies would want to have policies and legislation in place to prevent people from sharing things - but that may erode the consumer's rights.

Discussing the reasons why filesharing should be illegal, from a structural point of view, is one thing. And has many different aspects. Piracy coorelates to both increased sales, and decreased sales - does it cause either one? Would outlawing filesharing overstep the bounds of legislation, and infringe on consumer rights? How would one police anti-piracy laws? Would it be possible at all, and at what cost?

Such a discussion can really only lead to more questions, and we don't have the answers to even those questions.

On the other hand, taking the issue from a moral standpoint means that no research is necessary, simply logical argument. But, there is no such thing as a 'correct' morality, so anyone and everyne is "right" in their moral choice. But noone's said 'why' they believe that filesharing is morally wrong. I'm not trying to bait some respose just to shoot it down - I'm just wondering if anyone has any reason to believe that sharing is immoral. I can't think of any reason myself.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:25 am

Take slavery. Slavery was a great economic business standard. Any business that employed (as in 'make use of', not 'pay') slaves seemed to do better than those that didn't. When it became illegal, many businesses went under. Those that didn't had to change their business practices. It was difficult, but not impossible. The cotton industry was among the hardest hit, but such an industry still exists today.

Ugu. Inappropriate comparsion. Comparing human right violations to copyright laws? That's just in poor taste.

As for the rest, I can only suggest asking a business major those questions. Are you in college right now? Perhaps you can ask a business professor those questions. (as for the one about enforcement... weren't DBZ videos removed from youtube awhile back?)

And if you feel that copyright laws are violating your human rights(which would seem to be the implication from your slavery comparsion), then lobby to change it. Don't just post on an internet message board. Write to your congressmen, encourage others to do the same, do the same with your local and state government. Make rallies and speeches, and persist in the effort until filesharing and other forms of bootlegging/piracy are decriminalized.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:21 am

Arrrgh...

(Again, I'm going to bring up something that is far more important than filesharing. I use such an example not to encite intense emotions but because it is a simple example that noone will argue with)

Just a comparison, repeat: just a comparison. And, I said nothing about human rights. I repeatedly mentioned consumer rights.

Domon wrote:As for the rest, I can only suggest asking a business major those questions. Are you in college right now? Perhaps you can ask a business professor those questions. (as for the one about enforcement... weren't DBZ videos removed from youtube awhile back?)

The questions can't be answered. That was the point. Filesharing (at the level we see now) has been around for far too little time for there to be any reliable statistical surveys.

And I was talking about filesharing in a more general sense, beyond YouTube. But the fact that YouTube can get rid of videos immediately, and that so many videos are up there for so long shows how difficult it can be to combat piracy.

Akira · Post by **Akira** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:09 pm

Well, VegettoEX made a good example. I think it was about sharing a handgun with a kid or something along those lines. In that case, sharing would be bad. It depends on what you are sharing. You asked someone to say when sharing would be bad. That is, if we take the -literal- meaning of your statement that was something along the lines of:

"I'm just wondering if anyone has any reason to believe that sharing is immoral. I can't think of any reason myself." -DesireCampbell

Well there is a case where it would be immoral, yet you just ignored his response and continued to say there was no way sharing could ever be wrong from your standpoint. I mean, we should take that as your meaning, and not try to read into it that you mean sharing of safe things only, right? I mean, someone like me may assume that you meant sharing of safe things, and not an extreme case like a gun, but I wouldn't want to assume something based on the general idea of what you were saying. I might end up misunderstanding. So what are you saying specifically? What is your point in this topic?

--------------------------------------------------------

Domon, I agree, comparing slavery to filesharing is outrageous. I guess I am not the only one that finds that in poor taste. You said the filesharing would spur people not to create anything if there was no incentive anymore to do so. That is a valid point in this whole discussion that is continually ignored. If the creators are not making anything anymore, then there is nothing new to share. A logical slippery slope fallacy. Makes sense to me, but it continues to go unaddressed by those on the opposing viewpoint.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:34 pm

Just a comparison, repeat: just a comparison. And, I said nothing about human rights. I repeatedly mentioned consumer rights.

You were talking about slavery as a business model compared to filesharing. It's flat-out wrong, inappropriate, and shows a lack of taste and perceptive on your part (if it's "just a comparsion", why not just use a less provoking example?). Really, try telling a black person that slavery "was a great economic business standard" and that it's comparable to filesharing. See what reaction you get.

The questions can't be answered. That was the point. Filesharing (at the level we see now) has been around for far too little time for there to be any reliable statistical surveys.

You've ignored my suggestions altogether. You're a guy in college. You have a tremendous opportunity to have your questions answered by an expert on the subject. Even if his/her answers are not what you're looking for, that person will be able to articulate the points faaaaaar better than anyone here can. Take a class, see if a professor is willing to take time to sit down and talk with you on this(hopefully there's one or two willing and able). Some courses will offer debate on current issues. Frankly, you should seek out the opportunity.,since you've so many questions about the issue. At the very least, you might gain some new insights or viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:11 pm

Akira, good point. I'd forgotten that one. It would be immoral to 'share' something with someone that would endanger him and those around him.

As far as I can tell, filesharing doesn't pose an immediate and direct threat to anyone's safety.

My point in posing the question was to gain more perspective. I was thinking solely in terms of filesharing, but trying to broaden the idea to physical objects as well. I had not thought about potentially dangerous items, but it is a valid point and should be explored as well.

You said the filesharing would spur people not to create anything if there was no incentive anymore to do so. That is a valid point in this whole discussion that is continually ignored

Arrgh... if by "continually ignored" you mean I talked about it repeatedly, then yes, I agree. If someone is doing something for a certain reason, and that reason no longer exists (for example, plating soccer so they can make the school team - and then the team gets cut) they then have no reason to continue doing it.

I just fail to see the problem. Production companies do this already. If a show doesn't sell well enough, they stop producing it. They do this whether the show is getting pirated or not. They do this whether the show is popular or not. They do this when they decide that a show is not making a substantial enough profit. Again, I fail to see where the problem may lay (ed. note: I want to say "lies" here, but it looks wrong typed out

).

As I've explained already, if a product is popular, but few people buy it, it will stop being produced. If the product is still popular, this lack of supply will drive up demand, making it more attractive to re-produce. Then again, if reintroduced the product might still have few buyers. This would lead me to believe that the production model is flawed, and needs to be changed.

The fact that business models can, and do, change with technological advancements is "a valid point in this whole discussion that is continually ignored [and]... continues to go unaddressed by those on the opposing viewpoint".

As for the "slavery" example. How about this then? There was a business model that did very well. It did well because there were laws in place to keep this practice legal. There were no moral or ethical reasons to have these laws, but they helped keep these businesses going. Then, the law changed and these businesses had to rethink how they did business. And everyone was better off in the end.

Is that better? Are you less angry now? My point was that business models can, should, and do, change. Arguing against that makes no sense.

Domon, I did not say that slavery was a good business model. I implied that it was bad, and that it's good that it has changed - I compared slavery to making filesharing illegal (perhaps my explanation above will clear that up more).

And I will look into asking someone more learned than I about my questions. I still hold that there's not enough evidence to give any answers, though. However I will seek out counsel on the matter.

MajinMetroid · Post by **MajinMetroid** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:00 pm

Domon wrote:Would you rather that they didn't print all those books, CDs and DVDs, since hey, you can just get them for free on the internet. Why pay the $20 when it's free? Why even make music and movies if there's no profit behind it? That's part of the arguement behind anti-filesharing; to prevent such a slippery slope from occuring.

Because you're passionate about your art.

YouTube helps me prove this point. No one posting their own content on YouTube is making any money but look at all the skits and songs and poems and everything that's on there. If you take away all the copyrighted material, all that's left is people sharing themselves in these ways.

Mr.Piccolo · Post by **Mr.Piccolo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:48 am

Dragonball and YouTube. If the episodes and movies are available to buy and your seeing them online for free, then its stealing. How does it get more complex then that? I understand depending on where you live can make obtaining these products difficult but if you have the understanding to go online and watch those products, then I'm sure you can tell the difference between right and wrong. Its just a matter of how cheap you want to be. If you can't afford dvds, how did you afford the computer your watching episodes from?

Post by **desirecampbell** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:21 am

Mr.Piccolo wrote:Dragonball and YouTube. If the episodes and movies are available to buy and your seeing them online for free, then its stealing. How does it get more complex then that?

If you go over to a friends house and watch a movie, and you didn't buy the DVD yourself, is that stealing? How is this different?

Casual Matt · Post by **Casual Matt** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:01 pm

desirecampbell wrote:
Mr.Piccolo wrote:Dragonball and YouTube. If the episodes and movies are available to buy and your seeing them online for free, then its stealing. How does it get more complex then that?
If you go over to a friends house and watch a movie, and you didn't buy the DVD yourself, is that stealing? How is this different?

In that case, your friend bought the DVD. You and him watch it.

With you YouTube, your 'friend' takes said DVD, makes a copy, and distributes said copy. This, if I am not mistake, is illegal. It is making a copy of material available to, not only you, but a vast number of people.

So to answer your question, watching a DVD is much different than copying it and distributing the copy/copies.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:10 pm

The Lecherous Muten Roshi wrote:In that case, your friend bought the DVD. You and him watch it.

With you YouTube, your 'friend' takes said DVD, makes a copy, and distributes said copy. This, if I am not mistake, is illegal. It is making a copy of material available to, not only you, but a vast number of people.

So to answer your question, watching a DVD is much different than copying it and distributing the copy/copies.

The crime you commit isn't "theft" it's "copyright infringment". Watching a video on YouTube isn't stealing.

The person who puts it on YouTube, assumedly, bought the DVD himself and is sharing it with people. Again, how is this different from letting your friends watch your video? Or letting them borrow it? Is it simply that more people are watching it on YouTube? How many people does it take for it to be "wrong"?

Casual Matt · Post by **Casual Matt** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:11 pm

desirecampbell wrote:
The Lecherous Muten Roshi wrote:In that case, your friend bought the DVD. You and him watch it.

With you YouTube, your 'friend' takes said DVD, makes a copy, and distributes said copy. This, if I am not mistake, is illegal. It is making a copy of material available to, not only you, but a vast number of people.

So to answer your question, watching a DVD is much different than copying it and distributing the copy/copies.
The crime you commit isn't "theft" it's "copyright infringment". Watching a video on YouTube isn't stealing.

The person who puts it on YouTube, assumedly, bought the DVD himself and is sharing it with people. Again, how is this different from letting your friends watch your video? Or letting them borrow it? Is it simply that more people are watching it on YouTube? How many people does it take for it to be "wrong"?

Like I said. The file on YouTube isn't the DVD. It's a copy of what is on it. That, sir, is the difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't all that 'FBI warning' stuff at the beginning of like every DVD or video tape basically say that it's a criminal offense to copy and distribute what you're about to watch, whether you're making money off it or not?

Post by **desirecampbell** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:36 pm

The Lecherous Muten Roshi wrote:Like I said. The file on YouTube isn't the DVD. It's a copy of what is on it. That, sir, is the difference.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't all that 'FBI warning' stuff at the beginning of like every DVD or video tape basically say that it's a criminal offense to copy and distribute what you're about to watch, whether you're making money off it or not?

It's also illegal to use the DVD for "exhibition". What does that mean? Showing it to groups of people? Like my friends? Is showing it to my friends illegal?

And making backups of things you've purchased legally is a perfectly legitimate act. There are many laws that make perfectly legitimate acts illegal. The DCMA makes it illegal to circumvent any copy protection, for any purpose.

Furthermore, laws are not set in stone. All laws can, and should, be challanged. If the law says something you don't agree with, it's important not to just give up "because it's the law".

My point here is this: is there any reason that watching these videos on YouTube would be morally wrong?

Casual Matt · Post by **Casual Matt** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:52 pm

desirecampbell wrote:It's also illegal to use the DVD for "exhibition". What does that mean? Showing it to groups of people? Like my friends? Is showing it to my friends illegal?

I'm not really a lawyer, and my knowledge here is shaky. So I'm afraid I don't have an answer. Though, this is the first time I've heard of this 'exibition' law.

desirecampbell wrote:And making backups of things you've purchased legally is a perfectly legitimate act.

Oh, I know. But backups are for personal use. Not for distributing over the net.

desirecampbell wrote:Furthermore, laws are not set in stone. All laws can, and should, be challanged. If the law says something you don't agree with, it's important not to just give up "because it's the law".

My point here is this: is there any reason that watching these videos on YouTube would be morally wrong?

My opinion? Laws are in place for a reason. That 'exibition' law I'm pretty shaky on, but when it comes to showing full episodes on YouTube when you can go out in to the store and buy them, I don't agree with it.