How do you feel about the internet & copyright laws?

As someone who utilizes various methods to obtain media from the internet, i've always felt that copyright laws exist to protect the people who own certain media. A common example would be downloading an album that was leaked before it was released in stores or downloaded years after the album was first released. Does this actually bring harm to the artist who made the album?

Do you consider this theft? Or do you consider this to be one of the freedoms that the internet gives us?

As i get older, the lines tend to blur between right and wrong. Usually it doesn't matter to me anymore. I've become numb due to having been able to consistently find and then a short time after, obtain what i was looking for. But i like to think i still have a sound moral compass.

I started thinking about making a post like this due to this happening just a little earlier today.

I was browsing reddit when a link brought me to this website where i found the uncensored Renai Sample available for download. Wasn't Renai Sample licensed by Fakku or am i misunderstanding something? Either way, i support Fakku because i love it so i was taken aback when i saw this hosted on another site. You can probably understand my internal struggle (basically contradicting myself) because i paid for the beautiful paperback and digital copy. Thus the debate within myself began.

"Is this right? I spent hard earned money for this, why are others able to get it for free? Isn't this detrimental to Fakku? Why am i making a big deal about this?" Doesn't this happen all the time? If i hadn't spent my hard earned money on this, would i feel the same way? Probably not."

With the recent success(?) of the Net Neutrality movement, and all the past bills like CISPA or some other disgusting derivative of the bill, are we, the users of the internet, over stepping bounds or do you think this is something else?

Hi, what you seem to be experiencing is a phenomenon known as 'jealousy' and 'indigence'. In this case, you paid money for something that you see other people receiving for nothing. (Though they don't get a shiny book for reading something online.)

As for whether or not this hurts Fakku, it probably hurts about as much as video game or movie piracy does. You need to remember that people who pirate aren't necessarily people who would have been customers anyway, so you can't measure loss in the traditional sense. I am not saying it doesn't hurt, but generally it piracy counts for a fraction of sales.

Also, copyright law and net neutrality and CISPA all have very different purposes, and comparing them would be technically incorrect (even if they may have overlapping effects). Net neutrality deals with preventing ISPs from shaping internet traffic for money, and CISPA would allow security agencies like the NSA to data mine and spy on US citizens through the internet in a way nobody likes similar to phone tapping.

I personally feel a lot more confident in my purchases if I've already seen the show in question. I buy anime DVDs all the time, even though I could just find the whole thing for free online. Why is that? Because there's something intrinsically rewarding about owning physical property. They are hard to find where I live, and also expensive, but I buy them partly for that reason. I get a shiny box set to put on my shelf, bragging rights to my friends, and the satisfaction that comes with supporting my favorite artists. I don't think piracy really hurts things at all. Tons of people download music for free rather than buy the album, yet concerts are always sold out. Why is this? Because the experience of being in a stadium full of people and seeing your favorite artists in person can't be copied.

I wouldn't say jealousy or indignant. It seems I failed to convey what i was trying to express. As far as the content in question goes, the Fakku release is by far much better than the other released content. Resolution, size and overall picture quality is all different but that's beside the point i'm trying to make.

The internet is an open forum containing all kinds of information, but what i'm asking or really probing at is whether or not we have "rights" to it.

This would be similar to someone writing a song on a bar napkin and someone else finding it and putting their name on it. If it's out there, and someone can access it, does it necessarily mean that it's theirs? Acknowledging the fact that piracy only involves people who wouldn't be customers in the first place, is it their "right" to use the information however they want?

My answer to the above question is yes. They have taken the "right" to do whatever they want with this information because unless the police come knocking on their door, they don't have to answer to anyone. Copyright claims and other internet problems only come to light when it's about something personal or something that would result in a loss of revenue. While the loss in question would be very small compared to the loyal customers who continuously put money into a company, is that small percentage something that should be ignored?

I bought Renai Sample to support Fakku. To find that the product is being given away without even a mention to the ones who made it possible doesn't make me jealous, it just emphasizes the lack of class that people can have and that is what upsets me. It is contradictory of me to say that what they are doing is wrong because if they have the information, they can do what they want with it.

Is this something you agree with?



You would one of the loyal ones i mentioned. I agree that there is a rewarding feeling when you support a solo artist or a group of them and have something tangible to show for it. Bragging rights all the way!

What about new shows that have yet to be released on dvd? How would you watch the show and come to a comfortable conclusion that, "yes, this is something I would spend my money on"? Torrenting? Streaming? Or perhaps a crunchyroll subscription? Or would you rely on a third party to let you know that is indeed worthy of being purchased? Probably not the last option but can you see my point? If future series/sequels are decided by how well BDs/DVDs sell right after they are released, doesn't that mean that websites hosting crunchyroll rips or fansubbed raws are doing the anime industry a disservice in the long term?

Mod edit: don't double post

Just keep in mind that Fakku still hosts illegal content.
And none of this whole deal between Fakku and Wani Magazine would have been possible if it wasn't for hentai exposition to the world thanks to pirating hentai manga. So I just don't mind if something I bought was or is still avaialble for free somewhere else.

You make an excellent point. I personally have never watched any anime that was still being released. I'm still trying to catch up with all the old stuff. I suppose if I did watch something still in production, I would try to watch it via an officially licensed website (for example, Funimation's official website). I do realize that initial sales are usually the deciding factor on whether the show gets a second season or not, so I would do everything in my power to get money in the production company's hands. It's in my best interest as a consumer to do so.

Looking past initial sales, though, I honestly don't believe unofficial streaming sites have much impact at all on sales. Most anime have already made the vast majority of their sales by the first year or so after release. If anything, unofficial sources just raise awareness of the product and help to make it more popular. I wouldn't have paid money to see FMA no matter how good I heard it was. But after finishing it and deciding for myself how I felt about it, I had no issue with paying $80 for the two box sets, because I knew what I was buying was a consistently good product--from start to finish (yes, I did like FMA's ending). I was a happier customer overall because I had consumer confidence.

Edit: Not to plug another forum, but AltF4 of SmashBoards posted an excellent and informed essay on the topic of copyright and IP law some years back. It's a really good read if you have the time. I thought it might help fuel the debate here, and I feel better just posting the link rather than plagiarizing his work.
http://smashboards.com/threads/intellectual-property-law.214870/

Here's the thing with the piracy argument: it's different from stealing because no tangible object is lost, nobody is automatically bereft an item if someone pirates a game. The bar napkin would be an ill-suited example because it'd be more like you could just magically pop another, identical napkin for yourself. (Also you wouldn't really 'claim ownership' of said napkin)

With regard to copyright law, however, piracy is and always will be a gray area. You can say (like I mentioned before) that all "losses" cannot be measured directly because people who pirate are not necessarily customers. The other side of the argument says they could be.
All legal issues aside, I feel piracy has been a good vehicle for dissuading bad video game industry tactics, such as extremely bad DRM. (see: Spore, AC:2)

Though from what you say, it seems you feel piracy should be allowed but you frown upon it?

Notes:



>You can't pay it

Morally and to practical effects you're free of guilty. Then, let's apply this to copyright in a new clause. Consuming pirated products isn't illegal for minors and disabled people. Just like it isn't illegal neither for those in the extreme poverty line of their countries as long they can verify that. It is not illegal neither for government's use declared low or mid-low income by the U.N. This benefit can also be expanded to (non extreme) poverty line and mid income government's for medicines, books and more needed products to warrant the right to access to information, education, health and more.

Distribution: Forbidden unless they can effectively only aim the product to the public who can legally consume it. For practical effects this most likely will only apply to companies and natural people who offer their piracy to government's or relevant institutions like museums and akin. And governments themselves, of course.

>You can pay it, but the price is absurdly high for your standards

This is caused by the mismanagement of, often, multi-national companies, failing at considering local inflation. Or, in the case of important products like medicines, an abuse of the free pricing, exploiting humans' capacity to pay what they can't pay for medicines, books and akin. Morally and to practical effects you're free of guilty. This one, though, is often tricky to tackle. You can include in the previous clause that products priced over certain % of the poverty cut point are also exempted, being lower the % for important products. That can't cover all the issues produced by this point, but at least should tackle the most exaggerated cases.

Distribution: Copyright holder should fix it's own abuse or screwup. If they don't do that or don't express any interest in doing so after 12 months of making commercial use of the copyright, then distribution is allowed in the countries (obligatory blockage by country for digital stuff) where the product is still not properly priced. Charging is forbidden for digital stuff. If copyright holder rectify their prices, then alternate distributors have a window of 6 months (3 for digital) to stop distributing the copyrighted product.

>Lack of official access of the product in your country

Blah. Pretty much the same as above. You only require of a single official distributor, even if that distributor have troubles distributing the product country-wise, just to avoid abuses. Though this can be refined a bit quite easily.

Distribution: Ditto.

>Nonsensical commerce after 20 years

Copyright should disappear if you are commercing for 20 or more years if in the last five years in a row (averaging separately) you aren't even selling the 0,1% of the sells of the first year and at least 5 copies per year. If you want to hold your copyright for far more time, then don't start commercing with it until later or just make an effort to sell over the 0,1% of the first year in a year each four years to give it some sense. Digital sells should have a counter verifiable by law, too, and this isn't for copyright alone.

Has a person who bought all the current releases, i can care less if someone torrents it off the five sites i found it on since before i bought puni. That why i bought it later. Not everyone can afford to buy porn. We are all pirates in one way or another if you like hentai or anime.

Even Jacob said we are what we are and i have not the time nor will to stop people from sharing the digital release or scans of the original. The purpose of the books is to get them out since Wani ask them to be off the site... this way it still out there.

Now if someone uses the high quality digital release and get them printed and bound and sell them cheaper then maybe that would hurt Fakku bottomline. The digital is basically a freebie for the book. Only reason it out is for fapping purpose and some people can't afford the shipping/could be illegal in that area/digital only people.

Plus i have a issue with the dubbed releases anyways. They always using 5.1 english but 2.0 stereo Japanese dub. So i only buy the stuff i want in english and not aniplex usa... fuck them and 49-99$ vol releases. At least Viz and Funimation at lease gives complete sets or season sets at $49 down. Streaming lack quality. At least psn store and apple lets you download better encodes. /bias
Easier for me to mux the english with the japanese BD rips...99% of the time.

Also the whole it's expensive line... In my youth it was higher. Vol 1 of Video girl Ai was 39$. Ranma 1/2 complete set was 120$ a season. I use to buy fansubs off ebay and VCD pirate disk since 28.8/56k was toooooooooooooooo slow. circa 1997.

I gave that article a read and it was fantastic. It truly embodies what this debate focuses around. Highly recommend others do the same. It's well worth the read.

I also feel that after a certain period of time (definitely after the initial sales have become logged) fansub groups and streaming sites do offer in a sense, free publicity. I myself would never have heard of the glory that is Fate Stay Night had i not been constantly been checking uploads on my go-to anime source. Have I bought any Fate merchandise? Oh yes, but this took place years after it came out. The group that made the adaptation certainly didn't profit but i do believe i put my money in the right place. So in a way, "pirating", or really just copying the information that's already out there, resulted in money being put back into the anime industry.

One thing i took away from AltF4's article was the idea that information, like an idea cannot be owned by one person. It is free and should remain so. This has always been my idea of the ideal cyberspace. It's only when money is involved that things get complicated. Such as the endless copyright extensions which truth be told, i had no idea about. So thanks for posting the link! I have more information than when i began this thread. +1 for learning. :)

So perhaps the question now isn't whether or not users have rights to information but rather, what steps are still needed until this new space has become a separate entity from the "flesh and steel" world. Is this even possible? This will probably become super sci-fi which i'm not at all against.



I see the error in my comparisons but the key point in the napkin example is that you can take someone else's work and put your name on it. Information without a source may as well be yours even if it's some derivative of something else. In this case, the one who wrote the song is now without a claim to it, but that's getting into copyright problems and what i was addressing what the information that was up for grabs.

With regards to piracy, i think that it's only as gray and the law makes it out to be. It will stay a gray area for as long as the idea of an IP (intellectual property) lawyer exists. The laws by themselves are very easy to understand but it becomes very convoluted very quickly in the case of a DRM or even in the example AltF4 gave of taking clips and using them for personal projects.

DRMs are nasty little add-ons to a product i'll never pay for. I started this thread not to say that i frown upon piracy, or that others should stop sharing information that is not theirs to share. I simply wanted to bring focus to the idea that information sharing has evolved to the point where if something is out there in digital format, a few minutes later, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it. I shared the "internal struggle" i had that later became a guilt free feeling because what i stumbled across has been happening for years and i'm not the first to bring it up. I even stated in the beginning that i utilize various methods of obtaining media on the internet so frowning upon it would be a huge contradiction of character.

Mod edit: Don't double post

The ownership 'napkin' problem is not a problem exclusive to the internet, however. I'd even argue that it's not a problem you'd associate with the internet over anything else. People can claim ownership of something anywhere else just as easily if you don't put your name on it.

Umm... I think you may have DRM confused with something else. DRM is just copy protection applied to various things, notably games. In the past, it was why you needed a crack to play pirated video games. More recently companies like Ubisoft introduced DRM that forces you to authenticate online before you can play your game. Steam itself is form of overarching DRM, as any games you buy on Steam can only be played through the client. You never *pay* for DRM, it's generally included in the product.

Also last thing: I ask that you please keep your replies to one post. I've edited for you twice now.

My mistake. I hadn't realized replying twice would merge the two posts even if there was a short time between them.

DRM as I understand it, is an add-on the the company which releases the game or other media puts into the product that forces your product to become unresponsive if authentication fails on your end. It's like a nasty virus. I used the term "add-on" without providing any context but it's an extra bit of code that's optional and unwanted if it doesn't actually add more content to your game.

This was a huge controversy when xbox one came out with rumors of needing online authentication in order to use your play any games. Microsoft were quick to remove this "feature" and it's a good thing they did. They probably wouldn't be able to compete with other brands had they kept it the same.

Most of the time the games that have DRM aren't games I would play anyway. Games like GTA come to mind. Games that use the success from previous games to entice people to buy the same game as before just with a different story. I realize this isn't always the case but I don't play a whole lot of console games. The games I play don't require any sort of authentication which is great.

I would also agree with you when you said the napkin issue wouldn't just be something internet based. Piracy does include physical media as well as its digital counterpart. However, when it comes to piracy of a book or something other than the latest PirateBay news, no one hears about it. Which isn't to say it doesn't happen but I feel that the focus is being shifted towards the internet because of how much easier it is to pirate something if it's digital.

The unique problem with DRM is that you need to connect to Internet to being able to use your purchased product. Of course that on some places like the U.S or South Korea isn't a trouble anymore as you have Internet everywhere, but on the rest on the world, Japan and Europe included, if you don't live in a city your access to Internet is shaky and sometimes inexistent. That should not be a problem anymore as the time flies, but it was quite a thing 10 years ago when DRM was introduced and not even U.S was able to guarantee all it's population Internet access. This is still a problem with portable machines, like you can't play Diablo III on your powerful tablet on the car as signal goes crazy.

Some DRM controls are also a bit annoying, like some games makes you wait a while, like if you were a thief when you've already purchased the game. Finally they have proven to be supremely ineffective as a sea of crack and illegal downloads will appear no matter what you do. Also DRM has produced some few rare false-positive cases and that should never happen, that is an insult to the buyer.

The unique method that works against piracy is actually using consoles who are hard to emulate and deconstruction, while making OSs without relevant exploits. Hyper sized games are also a good deterrent for piracy on most the world, though they are also a deterrent for digital purchasing.

Pretty much sums up my issue with DRM. Some also cite the fact that it's almost impossible to remove from your computer (and impossible to do so legally), but to be fair, that's the entire point of the software. If I'm not mistaken, though, companies aren't required to disclose whether they use DRM in their products or not, are they? If that's the case, they definitely need to disclose if their product is going to make permanent changes to your hardware.


I'm glad someone found the link to be helpful, but I'd be careful calling it an article if I were you. He did use sources to back up his claims, yes, but a lot of them are from Wikipedia--hardly concrete evidence. There's also some clear biases and generalizations as well. I posted the link because AltF4 made some good talking points, not because he was right or an authority on the subject. Take it with a grain of salt. It's an opinion-piece--nothing more.

That's a problem with the whole hardware and software industry. For example my laptop HP has installed an Apple virus like ghost program that was impossible to remove without doing advanced techniques. I investigated and I removed it as it can also steal personal information and so, ugh. Anyway, we should have an international law forbidding on offering ghost programs that installs alone and programs without uninstalls.

Totally agreed. The bottom line is: companies should not be able to collect data on their clients (be it personal or otherwise) without fully disclosing when they're doing it and precisely what they're gathering. Governments shouldn't have that right. Why should a commercial industry?

It isn't about data collecting alone (that I completely agree it should be forbidden as well without informing), it's also a right to control what you want to have installed and what not in your computer, cellphone and whatever. For that you need that any software to be transparent about informing it's installed and not ghostly like, and also have your generic but always needed uninstall.

The problem with this is that companies within this industry can be personified as a representative like Ronald McDonald for Mcdonalds Corp. This alone gives the company the same rights as you and i to that information. Information that we would otherwise not want to be released. How they go about obtaining this information is one matter, but in almost every instance where you click "I Agree", there is a clause or option that states that "usage data" will be sent to "help 'the company' better service their customers' experience" when something is being installed onto your computer. Whatever this usage data is, it's never specified when or what is being recorded, which SHOULD be addressed.

However, it is my opinion (and i'm expressing this to perhaps come from a different perspective so as to give a counter argument) that if a company chose to specify every detail about what was being recorded, everyone who didn't stop and think about what these things meant would panic. Similar to the facebook messenger app that everyone was freaking out about when the permissions list for android was grossly over-exaggerated in an article written by someone who did not understand how android works. So to keep things simple, and if I were the head of a company that did monitor people's "usage data", i would keep the data acquisition process as vague as possible but still clear enough to let people know that data will be collected. To maintain a level of trust with my clients, i would explicitly say that "this information is for records use only and will never be shared with third party organizations". But then this creates a situation where all of this "usage data" is collected and stored in one place.

Opportunities to better oneself should always be available, this much is true for people and companies alike. The data that they collect, that they are entitled to acquire, would produce results in the form of future products, updates, and continued success as a business. Why would we hold back progress in that regard? All of the data that the company has collected now forms a base from which we would build our newest version of software or newest product.

If we force companies to forfeit the ability to collect data (via ghost programs or other means), wouldn't that go against the idea of an "open internet"? There would be a biased hold on information that companies can receive.

1. Information must not be collected without your authorization. Things like "you brought certain game" or "you registered your account here" are not authorizations. All you accept by doing those things are accept the rules of the community of turn, or in nuts, you will respect their laws and they will respect yours.

2. Information request should never include extortion, pressure, unrelated benefits nor anything similar. This include things like "you can't access to our service if you don't accept we're gonna spy you all the day ;)".

3. If you accept to give your information because you truly believe they will make a good use of it or you don't care, then you must also have the option available anytime to stop giving more information. If it is a program, then you can uninstall it from your life, for example. If it's a page, then you can set the option back and end with that. Though I think it's fine that your previous information given can be irreversible if company wish so, but you still should have the right to hide it from public at least.

4. Information request should never use things like "click accept here", never. An authentic authorization only comes when the user wants to give that information, and that can be done in non-obligatory menus, so you don't bother or trick nobody. Small suggestions can be done, though, but they must not spam or stalk you.

5. Legal enforcement have the right to request and force agreement anytime they have valid and public reasons to do so. Communities have right to force request to see certain information for moderation tasks, but those process must be public to the userbase at least (the content itself not necessarily).

If you think about it, it's frikking exactly as right to information works in the physical world. We call it fraud when it isn't accomplished like that. There is not any reason why in the digital world must be different except of course companies massive lobby to prevent it and people not requesting it because disinformation and some just don't care.

Note: Basic Internet protocols are fine, like knowing your IP, navigator, flag, OS and so. It can even be expanded a bit. Though program must still not be ghostly and must have an uninstall.

It doesn't merge them, it ends up as two separate posts, which I don't allow in this section.


Wrong. It's not optional, you don't really have any say in whether or not the product has DRM. That's up to whatever company publishes the content.


Oh yes, piracy is definitely associated with the internet. However, piracy is *not* the same as claiming ownership of something. By pirating a movie or a game you do not claim that you created it, nor would you be fooling anyone by saying you did.


Wrong. "Always-online" is a type of DRM, but it is by no means the only. For example, CD keys are a form of DRM that have been around forever.


I'd actually say that lower price points and ease of acquisition for legitimate purchases works the best against piracy. I've almost stopped pirating games entirely since Steam and praisethelordGabenandhissales happened.


I'm not sure you've ever designed an OS before but um... yeah, good luck with that.


Oh... oh boy.
You do realize your point #3 invalidates points 1, 2, and 4? If you don't like that a program or web service is collecting your information, it's really as simple as not using it. It is... really that simple. When people were in an uproar that Facebook was cataloging their profile information I was in disbelief. This is information you voluntarily added to your profile. I support privacy, but here's the thing: If you put information on the internet, people can see it.
It's the essence of trading something you have for something you want. In this case, you want a service or program but they want your information for market research. If you don't like that, don't use it.
Real life is no different. If you have to apply for a job, credit card, passports... you have to give them lots of information. There's no fraud here. Nobody is forcing you to get these things.

In any case, this is also waaaay off topic now. If you want to argue privacy standards on the internet, why not make a topic about it?