Dragonball & YouTube

Mr.Piccolo · Post by **Mr.Piccolo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:40 pm

There is a big difference between "sharing" a video with a friend at your house and sharing a video almost 20 million visitors each month online.If file sharing is so bad, now come people aren't so open about Napster and programs like that. Its almost like the idea of bootlegging: many of the members here complain about it, yet you make YouTube out to be different. Don't contradict yourselves.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:01 pm

Re: exhibition

A commerical release of a product(be it music or movie) is meant for private home viewing(just look at the FBI warning that pops up when the video starts, or at the back of the box where all the credit and legal information is). That means it's meant to be viewed only in the privatiy of your home and that you and anyone else that lives there are suppose to be the only ones to watch it. Now, showing this to a few friends(like they come over or there's a party going on) is not a violation of this law. That is, unless you're copying the product and giving those copies to your friends. That would be a violation of copyright laws.

Exhibition would be when you're screening the product to a group of people(whom would most likely have to pay you for it). Now, perhaps you wouldn't show off your movies and expect people to pay for it, but others would(and it has happened before), and that's what the "exhibition" part of the law is designed to protect against.

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?

You keep bringing up this "is it morally wrong" arguement. How are you defining "morally wrong"? Is it something that requires physical harm? An act against god? Really, I want to know just what you have in mind with that statement. As for the first part of the quote, if you feel that strongly about it, then you should be lobbying to change it, rather than posting on an Internet message board, which will do nothing to impose change.

Mr.Piccolo · Post by **Mr.Piccolo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:11 pm

A commerical release of a product(be it music or movie) is meant for private home viewing(just look at the FBI warning that pops up when the video starts, or at the back of the box where all the credit and legal information is). That means it's meant to be viewed only in the privatiy of your home and that you and anyone else that lives there are suppose to be the only ones to watch it. Now, showing this to a few friends(like they come over or there's a party going on) is not a violation of this law. That is, unless you're copying the product and giving those copies to your friends. That would be a violation of copyright laws.

Exhibition would be when you're screening the product to a group of people(whom would most likely have to pay you for it). Now, perhaps you wouldn't show off your movies and expect people to pay for it, but others would(and it has happened before), and that's what the "exhibition" part of the law is designed to protect against.

Curse you,Domon!I was gonna bring up this point as soon as I could get it here word for word. Either way I'm sure everyone gets the point. There is a huge gap between playing your movie with friends at home and sharing it on YouTube.

Steven Perry · Post by **Steven Perry** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:14 pm

Let's keep it simple, because all this talk about law is driving me crazy...

Akira Toriyama's got all the money he needs for a lifetime- I don't think he'd mind if he saw Dragonball on You Tube, as long as people are enjoying his work. Anyways, FUNimation's probably compensated themselves for the loss on You Tube by getting us to buy expensive UUEs, then re-releasing them at a much cheaper price, which we can't resist... so we buy them again. And watch it. And love it.

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

Wow... you could really change the world and the laws of the Human race with that kind of attitude.

Mr.Piccolo · Post by **Mr.Piccolo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:16 pm

Steven Perry wrote:Let's keep it simple, because all this talk about law is driving me crazy...

Akira Toriyama's got all the money he needs for a lifetime- I don't think he'd mind if he saw Dragonball on You Tube, as long as people are enjoying his work. Anyways, FUNimation's probably compensated themselves for the loss on You Tube by getting us to buy expensive UUEs, then re-releasing them at a much cheaper price, which we can't resist... so we buy them again. And watch it. And love it.

Akira is not the only one who benefits from DragonBall profits. Does it make the people that buy the DVDs stupid? If some people get it free, why not everyone else? It all adds up after a while..

Casual Matt · Post by **Casual Matt** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:52 pm

Domon wrote:A commerical release of a product(be it music or movie) is meant for private home viewing(just look at the FBI warning that pops up when the video starts, or at the back of the box where all the credit and legal information is). That means it's meant to be viewed only in the privatiy of your home and that you and anyone else that lives there are suppose to be the only ones to watch it. Now, showing this to a few friends(like they come over or there's a party going on) is not a violation of this law. That is, unless you're copying the product and giving those copies to your friends. That would be a violation of copyright laws.

Exhibition would be when you're screening the product to a group of people(whom would most likely have to pay you for it). Now, perhaps you wouldn't show off your movies and expect people to pay for it, but others would(and it has happened before), and that's what the "exhibition" part of the law is designed to protect against.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Makes much sense.

Mr.Piccolo wrote:
Steven Perry wrote:Let's keep it simple, because all this talk about law is driving me crazy...

Akira Toriyama's got all the money he needs for a lifetime- I don't think he'd mind if he saw Dragonball on You Tube, as long as people are enjoying his work. Anyways, FUNimation's probably compensated themselves for the loss on You Tube by getting us to buy expensive UUEs, then re-releasing them at a much cheaper price, which we can't resist... so we buy them again. And watch it. And love it.
Akira is not the only one who benefits from DragonBall profits. Does it make the people that buys the DVDs stupid? If some people get it free, why not everyone else? It all adds up after a while..

I agree with Piccolo-san, here. The fact of the matter is that there are people who make money because people buy DVDs. Ergo, if nobody buys DVDs and just torents everything or watches it on YouTube, then profits go down, and people stop making money, and would inevitibly stop making DVDs.

Watching videos on YouTube might not be the same as stealing, but if you watch something on YouTube instead of buying a DVD, you're effectivly making it so the store doesn't get their twenty bucks or so. Now, I realize this is much more complicated in that doesn't technically lose money assuming someone buys the DVDs they have for sale, but if torrenting, downloading, and filesharing gets out of control, eventually it could mean that someone else won't buy the DVDs.

As for putting full episodes on YouTube, there really isn't a debate. It technically violates copyright law. And if you don't care about a little thing called the law or you believe it's an unfair law, YouTube itself expressly tells you not to upload copyrighted material that you don't own.

Is it morally wrong to upload episodes of Dragon Ball on YouTube? Considering it violates copyright law and YouTube's terms of use, I'm going to say yes.

Mr.Piccolo · Post by **Mr.Piccolo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:55 pm

Also, if it isn't so bad, how come YouTube is removing those videos. Why remove something that is doesn't break any law or cause a problem?

MajinMetroid · Post by **MajinMetroid** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:42 am

Okay, hypothetically... What if a person owned "Doug's 1st Movie" on DVD and made a backup copy.

Then, years later, they bring the original to a white elephant gift exchange and a friend of theirs gets it.

But, the friend gets home later on and inside the original case is the copy, not the original. He emails the person asking "whudafxup?" The person looks and finds that they accidently put the original disc in their safety deposit box instead of the copy...

To make matters worse, the friend was only in town for the Christmas party and lives in Saudi Arabia. They can't just trade discs. If it was a crappy movie, the friend would just destroy it and that would be it but he's always wanted to see it.

What should I... I mean, this hypothetical person do? Who would be in trouble? The person or my friend?

Casual Matt · Post by **Casual Matt** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:52 am

MajinMetroid wrote:Okay, hypothetically... What if a person owned "Doug's 1st Movie" on DVD and made a backup copy.

Then, years later, they bring the original to a white elephant gift exchange and a friend of theirs gets it.

But, the friend gets home later on and inside the original case is the copy, not the original. He emails the person asking "whudafxup?" The person looks and finds that they accidently put the original disc in their safety deposit box instead of the copy...

To make matters worse, the friend was only in town for the Christmas party and lives in Saudi Arabia. They can't just trade discs. If it was a crappy movie, the friend would just destroy it and that would be it but he's always wanted to see it.

That's one hell of a hypothetical situation. Also, you remember Doug?

MajinMetroid wrote:What should I... I mean, this hypothetical person do? Who would be in trouble? The person or my friend?

Even though it was a mistake, technically your 'friend' would be at fault for selling a copy of a DVD. Also, if he sold the original and kept the backup, it might cause problems since you are only allowed to posess a "backup" copy of something if you own the original.

It's like roms and emulators of games. You're allowed to download roms of games you own and keep them. Otherwise you should delete them after 24 hours.

Post by **VegettoEX** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:06 am

The Lecherous Muten Roshi wrote:It's like roms and emulators of games. You're allowed to download roms of games you own and keep them. Otherwise you should delete them after 24 hours.

That's complete bullshit. The whole "24 hours" nonsense is just a load of excrement written by people trying to convince themselves that they're providing a service that's actually legal. You're not allowed to download ROMs at all, even if you own them. There's a fine line that can be drawn with creating your own backups (which is different than obtaining them from elsewhere, no matter that the end result is essentially the same), and then you *still* have a bunch of DMCA stuff coming into play.

I can't steal a car, test drive it for 24 hours, and then return it to the driveway I stole it from, even if I go out and buy the same model.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:32 am

The reason I bring up morality is because it's the only issue that's not being discussed here. People come in and explain how it's illegal, and why it's illegal, but we already know that. We know it's illegal (that's why we're having this conversation), and we know why it's illegal (which is based on RealPolitik ideas).

There are two points we can discuss here. One, the idea of filesharing being illegal from a functionalist perspective, and two, the idea of filesharing being illegal from an ethical perspective.

I maintain that looking from either perspective should show that filesharing is no more wrong than the introduction of the cotton gin. From a functionalist perspective, the laws are stagnating the capatalist process. The laws are in place to sustain an industry - and that is something that laws should not be doing. Laws should be in place to make sure that consumers and businesses are treated fairly. Laws should not be in place to keep a broken business model profitable - that stagnates the inventive process and the capitalistic process. The is no reason behind these laws except 'we don't want these companies to go out of business'. A company going out of business because of new technology is not unfair - it's the very basis of capitalism. Companies make products, sometimes they sell them, fewer times they stay in business. That's how we continue to have quality products, and innovation in technology.

If anyone has any reason why filesharing should be illegal, from a functionalist perspective - please share it.

If you look at filesharing from a moral standpoint, well, you get 'sharing is not wrong'. And I haven't been able to think of anything beyond that. If you have any ideas why filesharing should be illegal, from a moral standpoint - please share them.

I'd like to address a few posts, specifically:

You keep bringing up this "is it morally wrong" argument. How are you defining "morally wrong"?

I don't want to define morality (that's kind of the point). I want people to look at the situation from a standpoint of ethics; is this action ethical? is this action so wrong that it should be forbidden?

If I try and explain what "morality" is, I'd be missing the point. Morality is different for everyone.

As for the first part of the quote, if you feel that strongly about it, then you should be lobbying to change it, rather than posting on an Internet message board, which will do nothing to impose change.

Well, it's not exactly illegal here (it kind of is, and it kind of isn't... there's no real consensus yet)

Is it morally wrong to upload episodes of Dragon Ball on YouTube? Considering it violates copyright law and YouTube's terms of use, I'm going to say yes.

I don't want to bring up the 'civil rights' thing again... suffice it to say 'being illegal does not make it immoral'.

It's like roms and emulators of games. You're allowed to download roms of games you own and keep them. Otherwise you should delete them after 24 hours

Off-topic, but, roms and emulators are always illegal. I have no idea where this 24 hour, or one-month idea came from.

Mr.Piccolo · Post by **Mr.Piccolo** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:51 am

Off-topic, but, roms and emulators are always illegal. I have no idea where this 24 hour, or one-month idea came from.

Its just a front from the site or the provider of the files. Almost as if they are washing their hands with the situation. Youtube isn't doing that that though. They don't give you 24 hours. They delete the videos and suspend your account. If this stuff was ok, they wouldn't be doing that.When people bring up morals, it because a lot more opinion-based. People will be the crap about "Oh, well they make a lot of money, blah blah blah." In the real world, things are designed to work along with actual laws instead of morals because everyone has different values and perceptions, but the law is the law.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:53 am

I don't want to define morality (that's kind of the point). I want people to look at the situation from a standpoint of ethics; is this action ethical? is this action so wrong that it should be forbidden?

If I try and explain what "morality" is, I'd be missing the point. Morality is different for everyone.

But without a definition, this "morality" thing you keep bringing up is kinda vauge. Asking "is this act moral" is all fine and well, but what does it means? Is it something that I have look up in the Bible? Something different? It's kinda hard to approach the question without a clear understanding of what you have in mind.

Casual Matt · Post by **Casual Matt** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:11 am

VegettoEX wrote:
The Lecherous Muten Roshi wrote:It's like roms and emulators of games. You're allowed to download roms of games you own and keep them. Otherwise you should delete them after 24 hours.
That's complete bullshit. The whole "24 hours" nonsense is just a load of excrement written by people trying to convince themselves that they're providing a service that's actually legal. You're not allowed to download ROMs at all, even if you own them. There's a fine line that can be drawn with creating your own backups (which is different than obtaining them from elsewhere, no matter that the end result is essentially the same), and then you *still* have a bunch of DMCA stuff coming into play.

I can't steal a car, test drive it for 24 hours, and then return it to the driveway I stole it from, even if I go out and buy the same model.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Guess that'll learn me for trusting what those websites that have ROMs up for download say.

On a somewhat defensive note, I haven't downloaded a ROM in years, and now I'm glad.

desirecampbell wrote:
Is it morally wrong to upload episodes of Dragon Ball on YouTube? Considering it violates copyright law and YouTube's terms of use, I'm going to say yes.
I don't want to bring up the 'civil rights' thing again... suffice it to say 'being illegal does not make it immoral'.

Well, allow me to clarify. In my opinion, violating the law is immoral.

Victator Supreme · Post by **Victator Supreme** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:25 am

You're not allowed to download ROMs at all, even if you own them.

Yet I do anyway, funny how the world works.

I can't steal a car, test drive it for 24 hours, and then return it to the driveway I stole it from, even if I go out and buy the same model
You know comparing downloading to stealing

That analogy really doesn't work. I do not believe you are stupid, and you already realise that. But for the sake of the rubes at home, I'm going to explain why it doesn't work.

If you take a car and drive it for twenty four hours, somebody is minus one car. If you download the rom to Ice Climbers, nobody lost anything. Nintendo still has their master copy of Ice Climbers. The closest thing to a real loss is the off chance that if Ice Climbers were re released, you MIGHT not buy it. Those two scenerios are a thousend miles apart in terms of stealing.

The truth of the matter is their is no proper analogy for downloading. If you dislike it or think its immoral, thats one thing. But don't compare it to a car jacking or a real theft.

Well, allow me to clarify. In my opinion, violating the law is immoral.

How do you figure sports fan?

Post by **desirecampbell** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:32 pm

Mr.Piccolo wrote:When people bring up morals, it [becomes] a lot more opinion-based.

Yes - that's the point. One person gives his opinions about something, and explains why he believes that. Then another person will do the same. If their opinions differ they can discuss it and the reasoning behind their beliefs.

You make is sound like a bad thing.

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the laws legitimacy from a Realpolitik standpoint, doing that would be good too. Noone's doing that either. This whole thread is me going "why should it be illegal

", Victator Supreme saying the same things (but being rather abrasive), and everyone else going "it's illegal so it's wrong" and generally ignoring all the opposing points.

Mr.Piccolo wrote:People will be the crap about "Oh, well they make a lot of money, blah blah blah." In the real world, things are designed to work along with actual laws instead of morals because everyone has different values and perceptions, but the law is the law.
And having laws based entirely in the idea that they should be made to keep society functioning properly isn't a bad idea. But using absolving yourself of all responsibility because some higher power has passed judgement is not just stupid - but absolutely ludicrous. To say 'filesharing is wrong because it's illegal' is so ridiculous I actually feel bad for you.

Domon wrote:But without a definition, this "morality" thing you keep bringing up is kinda vauge. Asking "is this act moral" is all fine and well, but what does it means? Is it something that I have look up in the Bible? Something different? It's kinda hard to approach the question without a clear understanding of what you have in mind.
I kind of thought everyone knew what the definition of morality was.

Morality is a personal decision about what is, and isn't, "right". No ethical choice can be absolute, everyone's morality is different. We can still discuss different moral positions based on the reasoning behind them. The reasons you have for thinking something is 'right' or 'wrong' is very important.

The Lecherous Muten Roshi wrote:Well, allow me to clarify. In my opinion, violating the law is immoral.
Two words: "human slavery".

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:09 am

Two words: "human slavery".

Now I have to call foul on this. You've been called on at least three or four times now why comparing slavery to copyright laws is just plain appalling. As I've said before, this shows an utter lack of judgement and perceptive on your part. I now have to wonder about your motivation in continuing to bring up this "example". I hope you're not doing it to bait and be spiteful, but it sures comes across that way when you're making this "comparsion" repeatly.

And it really throws into question the legitimacy of this debate. It implies either that you actually think that the moral implications of slavery is comparable to whenever you can watch a tv show however you want(for starters, watching a tv show--let alone owning a tv-- isn't even a "right", it's a privilege), or that you think some of us would actually support slavery. Either way, it implies you're not of sound mind and judgement on this issue. I do hope I'm reading way too much into this, but seeing the slavery line repeated makes me wonder otherwise.

In short, stop this slavery comparsion. Now. If you want to use examples, use something that isn't so far reaching and offensive.

MajinMetroid · Post by **MajinMetroid** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:35 am

In my opinion, I don't think desire wants to compare piracy with slavery, he's trying to illustrate a point that human law isn't infallible.

However extreme, I think it's an effective counterpoint to the argument that the law is the law is the law and that it should be obeyed without question because it's the law. It's circular and flawed.

Am I saying no one should follow the law? Absolutely not. Laws are in place for the benefit of mankind. Some laws are in place for the sake of security and some are for the sake of freedom. Your point of view will determine which laws are more important to you. Question them. If you agree, great. But, in certain cases you may disagree and in those cases it may be important to you to speak out.

Here's an example. Back in the day, cavemen discovered fire. It was a miracle because for many many years, the cavemen had been accustomed to cold winters and uncooked meat. It was a revolution in their way of life. But, leader cavemen decided that the secret of fire should only be known to a select few because fire can be dangerous in the wrong hands. So, only the caves of the leader and his most trusted friends were warm while others slept in the cold and got sick off bad meat, all the while resenting them. One day, they banded together and took the fire and spread the knowledge of it to everyone. The leader wept, fearing that his people would burn themselves or use the fire as a weapon against each other. But, it made the tribes stronger because there was now less sickness. Occasionally people were burned and this weighed heavily on the leader but overall, his people were much better off with this new advent.

A lot of you advocate that if desire feels so strongly he should go to his congressman or whatever. Sure, that's a fine place to take it but perhaps a great starting point is with his peers.

Post by **desirecampbell** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:35 am

Domon, I'm getting sick of people getting offended about this. Every time I explain this I opint out that there's a big difference in the scale and reach of the example - but the underlying point is the same: lawfulness does not equal ethical.

Domon wrote:In short, stop this slavery comparsion. Now. If you want to use examples, use something that isn't so far reaching and offensive.

"Offensive"?! Like when someone claims that it's immoral to disagree with the government? What? I'm dumbfounded. I'd never expect this kind of reaction from a country that started a war because they disagreed with their government.

I'm trying to give an example that shows, unequivocally, that lawfulness doesn't equal morality. I'm not saying anyone here supports slavery (I've addressed this point specifically before -thanks for reading the thread). If you supported slavery, this would be a bad analogy. The very fact that you think I'm suggesting you're pro-slavery shows how little you grasp of the discussion. How would suggesting that you're pro-slavery help my argument? I bring up an example of an unjust law

I've been trying to explain that this law may not be fair or just. I've explained that it's only basis is to keep certain industries in business. I've explained why this is flawed. I've asked for alternate view points, and all I get is "it's the law". Thanks Mensa, I didn't realise that; how can I ever thank you for gracing us with your unflappable logic. Of course, "it's the law", how could anyone argue with that...

MajinMetroid wrote:In my opinion, I don't think desire wants to compare piracy with slavery, he's trying to illustrate a point that human law isn't infallible.

Thank you.

MajinMetroid wrote:A lot of you advocate that if desire feels so strongly he should go to his congressman or whatever. Sure, that's a fine place to take it but perhaps a great starting point is with his peers.

Thank you.

Domon · Post by **Domon** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:18 am

I'm starting to question your "but it's just an example" routine. You've pulled this comparsion at least three or four times now and been told why it's a poor comparsion to make in this context(and yes, I have read the thread). Really, do you not see how loaded and inflammatory the arguement is? I also wonder if you're upset because you're not getting the reaction you've expected from this "example". Rather than getting flustered and unable to response, they point out how poor and offensive an analogy it is(just now you seem rather upset that I took expection to it, despite all my attempt at sounding polite). And as I've pointed out before, why not just use a different example that isn't so extreme and senestive to so many? You said as much that you don't like using slavery and the civil right movement as examples. So why you just not use them? Using them so much seems complusive at least.

I never said that you're directy accusing me of being a supporter of slavery(or at least someone that would if slavery was still in place). But you are indirecty linking me and the rest of the opposition with such a thing and trying, however (un)sublely to bring them into a negative light. And of course when someone calls you out on it, it turns out they've grossly misinterpreted and overreacted to your words. Given the context and example in question, this seems rather convenient. Frankly, I don't understand how you can expect people not to find slavery such a far reaching and offensive example to use.

It also represent a conflict of interest in this debate. We're trying to discuss the morality of filesharing and how the rights of the consumer is being inflicted upon. Trying to bring down slavery(and all the human right issues associated with it) to a comparable level can be seen(and probably is) trivializing the issue and may be aruged by some as irresponsible and immoral(I don't claim to be able to make that particular arguement myself, but certainly others could).

Kanzenshuu

Dragonball & YouTube

Who is online