Except we got the Wii here in the US before Japan got the Wii. Talk about a weird approach if they expected lesser sales here, especially given that Japan is home to Nintendo.
I suppose it is entirely possible they expected high demand here, but they received higher demand than planned. I don't, however, think Nintendo shorted the US any more than it had to due to production constraints and launches elsewhere. I certainly doubt they'd do so over something as trivial as just making quarterly numbers.
You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs.
Actually, I'd say that's false. You're thinking far too short term. A side that resorts to killing POWs will only infuriate the enemy they are fighting, causing them to show little restraint towards your troops that are outgunned, caught in an ambush, or in another situation where they would become prisoners. Killing POWs will only result in more casualties for both sides as prisoners aren't taken. Further, if the enemy finds out about POWs being killed, they will not surrender. Why not fight to the death if you will be killed either way? Then there are the effects on morale, as your troops question whether they really should be slaughtering a threat rendered helpless. Sure, in the short term it might work out for you, especially if you're heavier on firepower, but it's not a winning long term strategy. So really, we don't kill POWs because (a) we don't want our POWs to be killed, (b) we wish to give the enemy a reason to surrender, and (c) the disruptive effect on morale weakens our fighting forces. Sure, we may also say we don't kill POWs because it is barbaric or wrong as that boosts morale, but the reality is there's no benefit to doing so.
Landmines, on the other hand, at the very least buy time for the troops that deploy them. Chances are enemy troops will not adopt a fight to the death mentality because they have encountered a barrier. Morale is likely to be boosted as a smaller force holds off a larger threat with minimal casualties. The detriment comes well after the war, when the mines detonate on innocents, and so minelaying has a number of benefits in wartime, and no real detriments during wartime.
Now, regardless of utility, I happen to think it is not okay to deploy dumb mines. I'd be a lot more okay with them if there was a field-wide kill switch programmed into each one, such that the field can be given an order to detonate, leaving nothing behind after the war was done. Frankly, I'd like something like that to be mandatory by agreed international convention, where all fields must be detonated after a conflict ends.
But really, this whole designation about what is or is not barbaric is silly. War is barbaric. War is not about what is okay, it is about what has utility. Killing people, whether they've been designated an enemy or not, is not okay. These are people we're talking about, with lives and families and jobs and houses, and war kills them. I think any conventions we can adopt to lessen the impact of war, during or after is good and noble. But let us not be confused about what war does, and instead think about war in terms of utility, as there is nothing that anybody should find okay about the whole ordeal.
Huh. Last I checked the UK was a member of the European Union, which sort of implies that living in the UK is living in Europe.
Or did you mean to say that UK policy is not policy of Europe as a whole? That's a point that isn't exactly relevant to the comment; you can live in Europe at be affected.
By all means, do. All I'm hearing is that people who don't respect what they're using hurt themselves or others. I'd argue for mandatory gun training and registration. Anybody who cannot show proper respect for the weapon doesn't get one. As far as I know there are not rigorous, mandatory classes before one can own a gun. That's a problem. People aren't being trained properly. Just this training is unlikely to cut down the injury from malicious users, but would go a long way towards addressing accidents.
Thing is, the primary purpose of a baseball bat is to hit a baseball during a game in order to have fun. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.
There is such a thing as recreational shooting. Trap, skeet, target, any of those ring a bell? I've never shot at anything living and I'm quite certain that I haven't used a weapon improperly because of that. I wouldn't even make the claim that I've used guns for things outside of their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. The wielder of that gun chooses the target. It is a gun's purpose to kill as much as it is a bat or club's.
unless of course the blade is more like a sword, but then swords shouldn't be allowed either
Because I'm sure it'd be easy to prevent the sale of any sort of metal that could be fashioned to hold an edge. I'm pretty sure those kids weren't permitted to have guns in the school either, and yet there they were. That's my whole point, it's the murderousness of certain individuals, not the tool they use to do the murdering. Don't claim removal of one object that can be used to kill will prevent murderous individuals from murdering. It won't.
And although some might get hurt in the process, a bunch of people can jump on the knife wielder and pin him to the ground. While he has a gun, he can shoot them all before they can even reach him.
Thanks for the laugh there, one of the best things I've heard in a while. Given the size of a general classroom and roughly 25 people in it, your average shooter would have real troubles trying to track that many objects rushing him, aiming and firing at the targets, and actually hitting and killing these targets. Factor in the number of rounds a gun holds, rate of fire, and the actual proximity of the groups of victims and if the mob mentality actually formed you'd have nearly the same situation as with a knife. But the mob didn't form, not that you can really blame them for it. I don't see why it'd have gone differently with swords.
Yet, in a whole school where there were what, some hundreds, maybe thousands of people (I really have no idea of the size of the school), nobody had what they needed to inflict lethal damage to the shooters in order to protect themselves.
Which leads to the next point, why are guns so restricted that when somebody does have one and begins to use it illegally that it turns into a slaughter? Can you imagine how differently things might have gone if just the teachers had guns? How about if 20% of the student body was carrying?
The general idea that I've always assumed from a society that has many guns being carried is that there's no way to shoot somebody when there are others around since they'll all just draw on the threat. Of course, that requires people to overcome their apathy towards others, which may be a large flaw. But shooting to kill in a crowd with guns is probably a good way to have people shoot to kill you quickly. As far as one on one gun battles in the back alley, well, any fight away from others is going to favor the element of surprise, with or without guns.
And no, never the momentary homocidal impulse, sorry. I can imagine a course of action that would lead to death, but I've never considered actually killing anybody.
Oh, also, people who have been shooting tend to have traces of gunpowder on themselves. Not necessarily damning like another's blood, but still noteworthy.
Even though all those pre-firearms weapons can be used for killing people, they are all much safer to "use", as one can hardly accidentally kill someone with them.
Three words, proper gun safety. When people are taught properly and know well enough to fear and respect the gun as a weapon then there aren't so many problems. When people get sloppy and forget their gun is loaded or let their eight year old play with a loaded, unlocked gun then you get trouble. If you can't observe proper gun safety you have no business owning a gun. There are many people who have no trouble whatsoever owning and maintaining their guns safely.
Further, it isn't like guns are the only things that cause accidents or injury. In third grade one of my better friends took a baseball bat to the head after accidentally walking up behind somebody taking practice swings. He was hospitalized for a week. The doctors said 1/4 inch further back and he'd have died. In high school (and a nice suburban one at that), somebody took a skateboard to another kid and put him in a coma for two weeks, nearly killed him. Authorities had no time to step in on that one. None of the other kids in the hall thought to intervene. These two are lucky to be alive, they could have easily been killed by an object other than a gun.
Results in 14 dead and 24 wounded, welcome to Columbine.
What, that was four kids, premeditated intent to kill, right? You don't think they could have come up with a plan to get that many using live blades? It might involve a little more cunning than walking in and starting to shoot, but we're talking about cutting down unarmed people. Please enlighten me to what action a teacher is going to take to step in and prevent that.
Face it, guns help kill people.
Absolutely they help kill people. I'm not arguing they don't. I'm merely stating that people will kill people regardless of the existance of guns. If anything, guns provide a more equal playing field for that killing. Instead of the physically strong abusing the meek or even the average, anybody has the capability to inflict lethal damage. I'm not claiming anybody should want to, but merely removing guns wholesale won't stop the killing.
It isn't that guns kill or cause people to kill. The gun is only a danger in the hands of somebody irresponsible or malicious.
Yeah, I can see it now A car pulls up, the windows roll down the bows and arrows come out.
Sure, why not? A crossbow could easily be used for such short range combat, is relatively compact, and taking up a space no larger than a rifle can easily launch an arrow at speeds in excess of 300 feet per second. It doesn't fire as fast, but if you're a sure shot or have a couple people at it then it doesn't matter so much.
Or, if you prefer, a van with a group of thugs just rolls up, the thugs jump out, rip somebody from their car and beat them bloody. You think the gangs of the world are just going to pack it in because there aren't any means of killing as convenient as a gun?
But do you seriously think it makes the world a better or saver place if everybody has access to a gun?
Yes. It isn't that difficult for criminals to procure guns. It's even easier for a physically strong person to turn any old item, like a baseball bat, into a weapon. A law against guns merely means somebody who commits a crime with one has committed two crimes. That isn't prevention. It makes nobody safer. The deed is done.
It also means denying an object that would level the playing field to the average Joe who's being threatened by the burly punk with the bat. I think the world would be safer (perhaps not for violent criminals) if everybody was taught how to properly handle, care for, and use a gun, self defense laws were more sane, and more people carried. Perhaps then crime perpetrated by those except for the truly desperate would fall when every person on the street has the potential to return lethal fire.
I'm not saying anybody should desire to use their guns. Part of being responsible with a gun is not using it unless you are absolutely forced to. The last thing a person should want to do is to unleash lethal firepower. But to ban something so useful on account of the actions of people who just use whatever weapon is most convenient isn't going to stop those people.
Why? Then we'd just kill each other with bows, swords, knifes, clubs, and pretty much any instrument that can be fashioned into a weapon. Clearly history is full of killing before guns were created. Our murderousness is by no means the fault of a gun or any other inanimate object. The removal of these objects from society isn't going to make it a better place. Even if we could remove all potential weapons we'd still just resort to using fists.
If anything, guns are a boon to society, as they are an equalizer. With guns, it isn't just the strong that can kill, but also the meek. As such, they can act as a deterrent, as even the frail looking old lady could be packing lethal firepower.
Now, if you're arguing that the world would be a great place if everybody refused to make or use anything as a weapon, that's another thing. But then all it takes is a single person to ruin that and everybody else is at a disadvantage. I think we're probably better off just having powerful deterrents, even if it isn't as dreamy as world peace and love.
Let's be honest here. The USB stick as a distribution method is fairly useless. Most people are going to carry between 0 and 1 USB sticks with them at any given time, and those that do can typically fill more than 128 MB pretty easily. So at best, the stick is reusable for those with tiny storage needs that don't already have a USB stick. Maybe grandma needs one and it'd make a nice secondhand gift?
So this leaves the consumer with an option to purchase a useless distribution medium which costs much more to make than a CD or two. But the album art, photos, and videos, you say. What, because those haven't been put into ta data track on a CD by a billion other bands? CDs are a digital medium too, and next to nobody is going to reuse this drive.
Sadly, all the music could be put on a couple CDs uncompressed with a third CD just for videos, MP3 copies of all the songs, album art, etc, throw in a little liner booklet and it'd still probably cost less for the consumer. This isn't really that cool, it's just a different distribution that will sound worse, cost more, and play in fewer locations.
But if you don't know which is on and which is off, how is toggling the switches going to help you? Or are we assuming as well that the switches indicate on and off, and not just that there are some switches in an indeterminate state controlling some bulbs also in an indeterminate state? We're just adding assumptions, aren't we? And what if the bulbs are fluorescent and don't give off heat? And we have to assume all the bulbs are currently working properly. The problem is clearly flawed as stated.
Aesthetically, there's simply too much clutter, noise, and garbage out there. Most times ads are crammed into a page layout, destroying what some quantity of effort attempted to make visually pleasing. Ads are garrish, they don't fit in, they disrupt the flow of a site. So, in part, I block ads because they're eyesores. Okay, that's most of the reason.
I'm not an impulse buyer. An ad isn't going to make me click through to purchase a product. Word of mouth from reputable sources is about the only thing that's going to make me favor one product over another apart from specifications. I could rationalize it by claiming I'm doing the advertiser a favor, not wasting their money to view an ad which won't affect me, but that's poor rationalization. Screw the advertisers. I don't care about their products and I don't care about their ads. I'm capable of looking at spec sheets provided on a slew of companies sites on my own and finding people I know who have some experience with the product I'm looking at.
Blocking ads may harm content providers, but I couldn't care less. How often do content providers cross the line from having ads to host content to hosting content to sell ads? How many sites start that way? I'm sorry if some sites are so popular they need to pay bandwidth bills, but if somebody wants to spread their message they can do it without ad revenue. Heck, they could write cleaner HTML without so many images to start. Heck, that might even improve the whole user experience. And while I enjoy some sites that survive on ad dollars, I wouldn't shed a tear if any of them went offline tomorrow and never came back. There will always be others.
It's a lot like public TV. When you get down to it, some people enjoy the crud that's broadcast, but there isn't an ad supported show that a person could not do without. While there are significant costs to broadcast television, the barrier to entry on the net is pretty low, mirroring of useful content is typically easy, and almost anybody can do it. Let the ads die, it won't hurt the net any.
I won't argue much, because in a general sense I hold what you've said to be pretty much how it is. That said, I've met some fantastic coders that only developed their ability to code in college. Personally, I started coding original, not copied from a book, code when I was about 6. It's just something I do. And while I do deeply love the pure CS aspect of many problems, my job title is that of Software Engineer.
However, and this is a huge however, I've heard of very few people who knew things like which data structure to use when before taking a college course. People who haven't taken a rather intensive class on such probably aren't even aware of what, say, a red-black tree is, much less why it matters. Amortized analysis? Who cares so long as it even works?
During internships at much more business and much less CS minded companies, I've seen some pretty awful attempts to sort a bunch of numbers. Attempts that make bubble sort look great in both style and speed. I'm sorry, but a lot of people don't just arrive at things like quicksort. While it isn't entirely impossible to gain experience in these matters independently, it's certainly not commonplace. I thought I was good before college because I had a handle on some of this and knew I could learn. College still taught me a heck of a lot, even if I got next to nothing out of some of the entry level courses.
I highly recommend that anybody who is still in college and after a CS degree to get an internship in their field of interest as soon as possible if they aren't going to double major. A few years to learn about that topic from the implementation end only helps, and any experience at all is a big plus. But the ability to keep in mind how to properly implement the underlying code rather than just how to make it work in any old way is a big thing that CS graduates should walk away with.
While I'm not going to say you're wrong, as managers can be terribly short sighted, I have to ask a question. Have you ever tried to maintain code written by somebody that wasn't well trained in software engineering? While there are plenty of people with CS degrees that have no clue, there are very few people without direct computer science background that know what structures to use where in code, much less how to keep it clean and maintainable.
Proper project structure, data structures, access methods, commenting, documentation, security mindedness, and release planning aren't something that just happen. They get screwed up enough by people trained to think that way. The only way I can describe most code I've seen from non-CS people is hackish and ugly. Sure, it may result in something that works properly the first time written, but asking for a single small change may well result in reimplementing the better chunk of it.
In my opinion, it's best to get a project lead that has sufficient skills to wrangle proper specifications out of the people who need the application. Then they can hand out portions to programmers who are good at writing clean code, and everybody wins.
That's hardly the point. What this means is that somebody can release a different open driver actually done right which uses the hardware properly, instead of the mess of reverse engineering what can be reverse engineered and not utilizing the rest. This just gives a reference implementation, maybe not the best, but should expose what's needed to take full advantage of the hardware. That's why this is exciting.
I'll accept DRM as soon as it gives me a near monopoly on some content industry. I figure if it were working in my favor there's no reason to get so uppity about it.
The fact that I'm not terribly active in making or publishing content pretty much means I agree with never though. I don't want to be on the beating end of DRM.
I (quite unfortunately) haven't yet played Kill Doctor Lucky, though I've been meaning to. I can't include it in my list of favorites yet, but I've heard it's quite good. I've played some of the others you've listed and while good, I was trying not to just list out their catalog.
I've also been meaning to get my hands on US Patent #1, a game in which you race to build a time machine and make it the first patent. At the very least I'm a big fan of the premise of that one. It's clever.
I really have to second the proposal of adding Cheapass Games to your collection. There's a variety of skill levels to their games, from simple move your pieces to lay tiles properly and thwart others.
A few of my favorites are:
Devil Bunny Needs a Ham Spree! Hong Kong Edition The Great Brain Robbery Unexploded Cow Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition
There's a number of their games I haven't played, and more that I have that I haven't listed. However, there hasn't been one that I've played that I didn't really care for. Fun, often quick, always amusing.
No, I like the gas taxes. The problem is that certain greedy politicians are unhappy that more efficient cars are taking revenue from the gas taxes away. While neither a GPS system or a tollway is attractive, the tollway is more fair to Californians than the GPS system because it will target all drivers in California rather than just Californians. It also doesn't unnecessarily track everybody on the roads.
Besides, rush hour traffic means cars are idling for vast periods of time anyway. I live in an area far less populated than California's major cities and rush hour traffic frequently travels at ~15 mph and people are always stopping anyway. While it poses some problems for general highway travel in non-rush hour, the larger problem comes from everybody and their mother commuting at the same time and taking forever on the roads. And for those who can't be bothered to stop, the Illinois tollway I refer to has a speed pass lane where people just drive through at speed as it reads a little electronic card. I hate tolls too, and thankfully I don't live in a state with them. But I feel they're more attractive than being tracked every time my car moves.
By the way, rather than a GPS unit on every car, why not just institute a smart toll system instead?
And would you have to have such a system to be allowed to enter California via vehicle? Illinios and various other states at least just toll you at toll booths as you use the highways, regardless of where you're from or what equipment you have. It's annoying to have to stop every so many miles, but it works. It seems like California residents would get the shaft if out of staters were tearing up their roads with their high efficiency cars and not having to pay for it.
And taxing people for being responsible and using less fuel, making it so everybody pays the same regardless of impact on pollution doesn't seem so smart either. It's downright evil unless the gas tax is solely for road maintenence and nothing to do with some of California's cities' smog problems.
I respectfully disagree. As I responded to another poster, It is possible to take the high road and provided subtitled Anime for your friends as a hobby. Not every Fansubber is taking the high road.
Perhaps I have a biased perspective, but I've not found one anime available that can be purchased but not freely downloaded. There certainly exists some population selling the fansubbers efforts, but anything available is available freely, usually by multiple groups. There are some old, really rare things, but those aren't even purchasable. People with those want other rare things in trade.
Because of that, I've not run into any fansubbers who actually charge for what they do. Scratch that, I've never paid more than five seconds attention to them. I'd be silly to expect none exist, but I can only wonder if they make enough from it to make it anything less than a hobby with slightly lower losses. Put another way, I don't know why somebody would pay for an illigitimate sub over a free illigitimate sub, knowing neither is going to contribute to the media companies actually producing the anime. I expect they prey on those who don't know what's going on.
My opinion is that statement is unsubstantiated. There is a market for which product could be distributed, that is already stocked with freely available versions.... You cannot call network TV broadcasts free (as in Free Beer). A 30 minute crap Friends episode actually contains 8 minutes of advertisements and promos on broadcast TV.
But I do view them the same way. So there's 8 minutes of periodic interruption. It still doesn't cost a dime to the viewer. Somebody with the show taped can easily fast forward, or, if it matters because they really like the episode, take the time to edit out the commercials. All it takes is two VCRs and 20 minutes. If a tape isn't convenient, computers these days have made it easy enough for anybody so inclined to move video onto their computer with maybe a $40 device.
Further, TV episodes have been available online for quite some time now. DVD sets of TV shows are still being released. That's one to one the same as downloading anime. It's less complicated than taping and moving to a computer for arbitrary playback but with the same benefits. TV shows are what I consider free to the end user.
All of that isn't to mention that there is an associated bandwidth cost to downloading anime. If bathroom breaks and snack runs during TV ads get to be considered a cost, bandwidth has to be moreso. Personally, I count it as an incidental cost, like ads, not to be added to the score. But either way both are in the same ballpark for cost.
We can agree to disagree on the potential market dynamics. But you have to understand that the market for network TV shows is not the same market segment for Anime.
I can see the difference at the present point in time. Give it time is all the response I can make, but I obviously can't make promises. The current older generation of the US still sees animation as a genre and not as a medium. They don't think there's a way an animated "cartoon" could tell a story to anybody but kids.
This is changing. Movies like The Incredibles and Shrek show it can reach both. I'd argue The Incredibles was focused far more on adults than kids. Anime is something that Japanese businessmen watch. While it is their culture's to own, it shows that it has the potential to reach network TV levels. Animation, particularly in anime style, will become an accepted and possibly widespread medium, whereas porn really cannot.
With the upcoming generations and how much anime is starting to grow in the US, it should make its move eventually. Right now Cartoon Network has opened up some time. I hear there's an exclusively anime channel on some pay for tv service. It's just a difference in views on animation being a genre or a medium for the time being. If you've watched any serious anime you should know which one is the truth.
But that is a business risk, and my opinion is that someone who understands it and loves it should take that risk.
And maybe some fansubbers will go on to take that risk at some point. But fansubbers aren't doing it for the money. They aren't doing it for business reasons. From what I gather they care more about sharing their experience than the business end of anything. They buy the DVDs of works they dub to keep the studios bringing anime to the US. That's fanatacism, not business.
Allowing the underground to operate is already handing over their work for nothing. I fail to see how the studios can count on a profitable market to open up where freely available movies are already present.
There's implicit "rules" to the underground that at least the people doing the subbing tend to follow. Allowing the underground to operate within these parameters has not hurt them in the past. And you know, who'd think there'd be a market for the Friends series DVDs or Seinfeld or any of that crap. Clearly it ran on TV for free before DVD distribution and people could tape it. How can the publishers expect any sort of market when people already have had free access to the show? It's a terrible argument. If it were a good argument either nobody would release DVDs of past TV shows or everybody would laugh at their poor business sense.
Where you fail to see a predictable market from free distribution, I fail to see a market at all without it. The media companies haven't been that successful in selling new consumers of their animations. Spirited Away, an amazing recent work, internationally recognized, was still dismissed by many, many people in the US as a cartoon. Anime isn't mainstream enough to get even a half hour free airwave spot on a weekend. At least retail stores welcome the high margin DVDs, but still only the limited stock of what's licensed here. The people who want more anime, uncut stuff that may be too "risky" to market to the US, the ones who want a TV channel of subs not dubs, they are the ones pushing anime on others. The media companies may be the drug lords, but apart from the underground they're without an effective pusher.
But maybe this is just a case of turning a blind eye until the scene is big enough to not need the pushers. Maybe we're reaching the point where they feel it's no longer making anime more popular, but cutting into sales that may occur in the future.
Oh, and your link is prefaced with:
Before we begin, I should make one thing absolutely clear: while this is a guide to getting anime for free or very little, I in no way condone piracy of any sort. I own all of Kare Kano fansubbed, but I'm the first in line to get the domestic DVDs, and the same goes with Furi Kuri and a number of other titles. People invest years and millions of dollars to make anime, and the least we can do is give them a few bucks. Never, ever get fansubs of a show that is licensed in The West. I don't care how much of a penniless college student you are, hell is a very hot place, and I think that you'd rather be out 30 bucks for a DVD then burning there for all of eternity. That being said, there are a lot of shows that are not licensed for distribution in North America, or where ever you are, and those shows are fare game.
Doesn't sound like he's too keen on not purchasing what you like when available. Then he goes on to explain how to get stuff. We already know it's being done. That's what we're discussing. The fact that some sellers exploit the fansubbers and the clueless buyers remains, but downloading anime online there's no money passed normally. If anything he's encouraging an audience to find what they like and then shell out a few bucks when it's licensed.
As I posted in another response, some Fansubbers should form a corporation and enter into a distribution agreement with Anime studios to become a distributor.
That's an interesting proposition, but I think it misses the point of both why and how the fansubbers operate. Entering a distribution agreement with the Japanese studios, unless I'm totally off base, would involve licensing the work. The studios, who may turn a blind eye to the underground, aren't going to want to hand over their work for nothing. It sets a bad precedent for business. Leaving the underground alone ensures they can keep lucrative licenses in the US while getting their fill of promotion in a less than authorized way. Why this studio, who has a purchasable winner with Genshiken I might add, wants to keep people from being exposed so they can line up for their releases is a question many are asking.
So, if fansubbers need cash to license, they become a normal distribution channel, trying to recoup costs. They're already sinking money into the necessities of doing what they do for free, an expensive license just isn't going to happen from a dozen college kids putting off their homework. That kind of capital requires investors, which means free distribution is out. Promotion of the genre and exposure to what's available in Japan but not the US is their primary goal.
As for seperation of fansubbers and sellers, it's easy. Any seller that sells for a single cent more than media and shipping costs is exploiting the fansubbers and tarnishing what it is they're doing. Ebaying a vcd set falls into that unless it's a dutch auction to cover shipping plus the $1 for the CD-Rs. But that doesn't happen. Further, almost anybody who's hooked enough to be buying fansubs is probably spending enough that they could get a moderate speed line themselves. And since the sellers tend to sell sets, the anime is often licensed, again going against the MO of fansubbers.
Re:Titles not otherwise available?
on
Fansubbers Under Fire
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You don't seem to understand the premise of fansubbing if you think there's money involved. These are groups of people who dedicate their time to translation for nothing other than doing it. The fansubbers aren't in the packaging and distribution for money business, they're in the this is my hobby mode.
There are people that sell fansubs on ebay or where ever else. These are not, in the vast majority of cases, the fansubbers themselves. Many sub groups put things like "Not for sale, rent, or auction. Please stop distribution when licensed." up in the opening or the little middle sequence. People who sell fansubs are widely regarded as the scum of the earth.
The argument for letting these groups operate is twofold. First, they do so with content not licensed in the US, so no US licensee is harmed. I don't know what cross-country copyright agreements have to say, but stateside nobody has rights to publish it when fansubbers do their work. Second, they selflessly promote anime. There've been a number of fansubs I've seen with better quality control in the subs than the later official releases. They don't make money. They let people who won't just randomly buy a DVD with no knowledge of the content get a feel for what they want to buy. Dropping $20 for three episodes is easier when you know it's something you'll watch a few times rather than watch once and quit out of disgust.
Anime DVDs make up about half my DVD collection, which is by no means small. The total sum of anime DVDs I've bought without seeing at least one episode prior: 0. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but I know a rather large group of people, in person, who do exactly the same.
There are arguments against allowing it as well, but if any media company thinks anime would be where it is in the US today without letting the fans run rampant, well, they're crazy. The people watching fansubs are the same people introducing anime to friends and family with a religious zeal. Given the article even speaks of them as "cartoons" like they're for kids or something should give a better picture of the initial resistance that's now being overcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Except we got the Wii here in the US before Japan got the Wii. Talk about a weird approach if they expected lesser sales here, especially given that Japan is home to Nintendo.
I suppose it is entirely possible they expected high demand here, but they received higher demand than planned. I don't, however, think Nintendo shorted the US any more than it had to due to production constraints and launches elsewhere. I certainly doubt they'd do so over something as trivial as just making quarterly numbers.
You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs.
Actually, I'd say that's false. You're thinking far too short term. A side that resorts to killing POWs will only infuriate the enemy they are fighting, causing them to show little restraint towards your troops that are outgunned, caught in an ambush, or in another situation where they would become prisoners. Killing POWs will only result in more casualties for both sides as prisoners aren't taken. Further, if the enemy finds out about POWs being killed, they will not surrender. Why not fight to the death if you will be killed either way? Then there are the effects on morale, as your troops question whether they really should be slaughtering a threat rendered helpless. Sure, in the short term it might work out for you, especially if you're heavier on firepower, but it's not a winning long term strategy. So really, we don't kill POWs because (a) we don't want our POWs to be killed, (b) we wish to give the enemy a reason to surrender, and (c) the disruptive effect on morale weakens our fighting forces. Sure, we may also say we don't kill POWs because it is barbaric or wrong as that boosts morale, but the reality is there's no benefit to doing so.
Landmines, on the other hand, at the very least buy time for the troops that deploy them. Chances are enemy troops will not adopt a fight to the death mentality because they have encountered a barrier. Morale is likely to be boosted as a smaller force holds off a larger threat with minimal casualties. The detriment comes well after the war, when the mines detonate on innocents, and so minelaying has a number of benefits in wartime, and no real detriments during wartime.
Now, regardless of utility, I happen to think it is not okay to deploy dumb mines. I'd be a lot more okay with them if there was a field-wide kill switch programmed into each one, such that the field can be given an order to detonate, leaving nothing behind after the war was done. Frankly, I'd like something like that to be mandatory by agreed international convention, where all fields must be detonated after a conflict ends.
But really, this whole designation about what is or is not barbaric is silly. War is barbaric. War is not about what is okay, it is about what has utility. Killing people, whether they've been designated an enemy or not, is not okay. These are people we're talking about, with lives and families and jobs and houses, and war kills them. I think any conventions we can adopt to lessen the impact of war, during or after is good and noble. But let us not be confused about what war does, and instead think about war in terms of utility, as there is nothing that anybody should find okay about the whole ordeal.
Yes. And when OS X runs on a Linksys WRT54G we'll call that slick too.
Huh. Last I checked the UK was a member of the European Union, which sort of implies that living in the UK is living in Europe.
Or did you mean to say that UK policy is not policy of Europe as a whole? That's a point that isn't exactly relevant to the comment; you can live in Europe at be affected.
And I could keep going...
By all means, do. All I'm hearing is that people who don't respect what they're using hurt themselves or others. I'd argue for mandatory gun training and registration. Anybody who cannot show proper respect for the weapon doesn't get one. As far as I know there are not rigorous, mandatory classes before one can own a gun. That's a problem. People aren't being trained properly. Just this training is unlikely to cut down the injury from malicious users, but would go a long way towards addressing accidents.
Thing is, the primary purpose of a baseball bat is to hit a baseball during a game in order to have fun. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.
There is such a thing as recreational shooting. Trap, skeet, target, any of those ring a bell? I've never shot at anything living and I'm quite certain that I haven't used a weapon improperly because of that. I wouldn't even make the claim that I've used guns for things outside of their purpose. The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. The wielder of that gun chooses the target. It is a gun's purpose to kill as much as it is a bat or club's.
unless of course the blade is more like a sword, but then swords shouldn't be allowed either
Because I'm sure it'd be easy to prevent the sale of any sort of metal that could be fashioned to hold an edge. I'm pretty sure those kids weren't permitted to have guns in the school either, and yet there they were. That's my whole point, it's the murderousness of certain individuals, not the tool they use to do the murdering. Don't claim removal of one object that can be used to kill will prevent murderous individuals from murdering. It won't.
And although some might get hurt in the process, a bunch of people can jump on the knife wielder and pin him to the ground. While he has a gun, he can shoot them all before they can even reach him.
Thanks for the laugh there, one of the best things I've heard in a while. Given the size of a general classroom and roughly 25 people in it, your average shooter would have real troubles trying to track that many objects rushing him, aiming and firing at the targets, and actually hitting and killing these targets. Factor in the number of rounds a gun holds, rate of fire, and the actual proximity of the groups of victims and if the mob mentality actually formed you'd have nearly the same situation as with a knife. But the mob didn't form, not that you can really blame them for it. I don't see why it'd have gone differently with swords.
Yet, in a whole school where there were what, some hundreds, maybe thousands of people (I really have no idea of the size of the school), nobody had what they needed to inflict lethal damage to the shooters in order to protect themselves.
Which leads to the next point, why are guns so restricted that when somebody does have one and begins to use it illegally that it turns into a slaughter? Can you imagine how differently things might have gone if just the teachers had guns? How about if 20% of the student body was carrying?
The general idea that I've always assumed from a society that has many guns being carried is that there's no way to shoot somebody when there are others around since they'll all just draw on the threat. Of course, that requires people to overcome their apathy towards others, which may be a large flaw. But shooting to kill in a crowd with guns is probably a good way to have people shoot to kill you quickly. As far as one on one gun battles in the back alley, well, any fight away from others is going to favor the element of surprise, with or without guns.
And no, never the momentary homocidal impulse, sorry. I can imagine a course of action that would lead to death, but I've never considered actually killing anybody.
Oh, also, people who have been shooting tend to have traces of gunpowder on themselves. Not necessarily damning like another's blood, but still noteworthy.
Even though all those pre-firearms weapons can be used for killing people, they are all much safer to "use", as one can hardly accidentally kill someone with them.
Three words, proper gun safety. When people are taught properly and know well enough to fear and respect the gun as a weapon then there aren't so many problems. When people get sloppy and forget their gun is loaded or let their eight year old play with a loaded, unlocked gun then you get trouble. If you can't observe proper gun safety you have no business owning a gun. There are many people who have no trouble whatsoever owning and maintaining their guns safely.
Further, it isn't like guns are the only things that cause accidents or injury. In third grade one of my better friends took a baseball bat to the head after accidentally walking up behind somebody taking practice swings. He was hospitalized for a week. The doctors said 1/4 inch further back and he'd have died. In high school (and a nice suburban one at that), somebody took a skateboard to another kid and put him in a coma for two weeks, nearly killed him. Authorities had no time to step in on that one. None of the other kids in the hall thought to intervene. These two are lucky to be alive, they could have easily been killed by an object other than a gun.
Results in 14 dead and 24 wounded, welcome to Columbine.
What, that was four kids, premeditated intent to kill, right? You don't think they could have come up with a plan to get that many using live blades? It might involve a little more cunning than walking in and starting to shoot, but we're talking about cutting down unarmed people. Please enlighten me to what action a teacher is going to take to step in and prevent that.
Face it, guns help kill people.
Absolutely they help kill people. I'm not arguing they don't. I'm merely stating that people will kill people regardless of the existance of guns. If anything, guns provide a more equal playing field for that killing. Instead of the physically strong abusing the meek or even the average, anybody has the capability to inflict lethal damage. I'm not claiming anybody should want to, but merely removing guns wholesale won't stop the killing.
It isn't that guns kill or cause people to kill. The gun is only a danger in the hands of somebody irresponsible or malicious.
Yeah, I can see it now A car pulls up, the windows roll down the bows and arrows come out.
Sure, why not? A crossbow could easily be used for such short range combat, is relatively compact, and taking up a space no larger than a rifle can easily launch an arrow at speeds in excess of 300 feet per second. It doesn't fire as fast, but if you're a sure shot or have a couple people at it then it doesn't matter so much.
Or, if you prefer, a van with a group of thugs just rolls up, the thugs jump out, rip somebody from their car and beat them bloody. You think the gangs of the world are just going to pack it in because there aren't any means of killing as convenient as a gun?
But do you seriously think it makes the world a better or saver place if everybody has access to a gun?
Yes. It isn't that difficult for criminals to procure guns. It's even easier for a physically strong person to turn any old item, like a baseball bat, into a weapon. A law against guns merely means somebody who commits a crime with one has committed two crimes. That isn't prevention. It makes nobody safer. The deed is done.
It also means denying an object that would level the playing field to the average Joe who's being threatened by the burly punk with the bat. I think the world would be safer (perhaps not for violent criminals) if everybody was taught how to properly handle, care for, and use a gun, self defense laws were more sane, and more people carried. Perhaps then crime perpetrated by those except for the truly desperate would fall when every person on the street has the potential to return lethal fire.
I'm not saying anybody should desire to use their guns. Part of being responsible with a gun is not using it unless you are absolutely forced to. The last thing a person should want to do is to unleash lethal firepower. But to ban something so useful on account of the actions of people who just use whatever weapon is most convenient isn't going to stop those people.
Why? Then we'd just kill each other with bows, swords, knifes, clubs, and pretty much any instrument that can be fashioned into a weapon. Clearly history is full of killing before guns were created. Our murderousness is by no means the fault of a gun or any other inanimate object. The removal of these objects from society isn't going to make it a better place. Even if we could remove all potential weapons we'd still just resort to using fists.
If anything, guns are a boon to society, as they are an equalizer. With guns, it isn't just the strong that can kill, but also the meek. As such, they can act as a deterrent, as even the frail looking old lady could be packing lethal firepower.
Now, if you're arguing that the world would be a great place if everybody refused to make or use anything as a weapon, that's another thing. But then all it takes is a single person to ruin that and everybody else is at a disadvantage. I think we're probably better off just having powerful deterrents, even if it isn't as dreamy as world peace and love.
Let's be honest here. The USB stick as a distribution method is fairly useless. Most people are going to carry between 0 and 1 USB sticks with them at any given time, and those that do can typically fill more than 128 MB pretty easily. So at best, the stick is reusable for those with tiny storage needs that don't already have a USB stick. Maybe grandma needs one and it'd make a nice secondhand gift?
So this leaves the consumer with an option to purchase a useless distribution medium which costs much more to make than a CD or two. But the album art, photos, and videos, you say. What, because those haven't been put into ta data track on a CD by a billion other bands? CDs are a digital medium too, and next to nobody is going to reuse this drive.
Sadly, all the music could be put on a couple CDs uncompressed with a third CD just for videos, MP3 copies of all the songs, album art, etc, throw in a little liner booklet and it'd still probably cost less for the consumer. This isn't really that cool, it's just a different distribution that will sound worse, cost more, and play in fewer locations.
But if you don't know which is on and which is off, how is toggling the switches going to help you? Or are we assuming as well that the switches indicate on and off, and not just that there are some switches in an indeterminate state controlling some bulbs also in an indeterminate state? We're just adding assumptions, aren't we? And what if the bulbs are fluorescent and don't give off heat? And we have to assume all the bulbs are currently working properly. The problem is clearly flawed as stated.
Aesthetically, there's simply too much clutter, noise, and garbage out there. Most times ads are crammed into a page layout, destroying what some quantity of effort attempted to make visually pleasing. Ads are garrish, they don't fit in, they disrupt the flow of a site. So, in part, I block ads because they're eyesores. Okay, that's most of the reason.
I'm not an impulse buyer. An ad isn't going to make me click through to purchase a product. Word of mouth from reputable sources is about the only thing that's going to make me favor one product over another apart from specifications. I could rationalize it by claiming I'm doing the advertiser a favor, not wasting their money to view an ad which won't affect me, but that's poor rationalization. Screw the advertisers. I don't care about their products and I don't care about their ads. I'm capable of looking at spec sheets provided on a slew of companies sites on my own and finding people I know who have some experience with the product I'm looking at.
Blocking ads may harm content providers, but I couldn't care less. How often do content providers cross the line from having ads to host content to hosting content to sell ads? How many sites start that way? I'm sorry if some sites are so popular they need to pay bandwidth bills, but if somebody wants to spread their message they can do it without ad revenue. Heck, they could write cleaner HTML without so many images to start. Heck, that might even improve the whole user experience. And while I enjoy some sites that survive on ad dollars, I wouldn't shed a tear if any of them went offline tomorrow and never came back. There will always be others.
It's a lot like public TV. When you get down to it, some people enjoy the crud that's broadcast, but there isn't an ad supported show that a person could not do without. While there are significant costs to broadcast television, the barrier to entry on the net is pretty low, mirroring of useful content is typically easy, and almost anybody can do it. Let the ads die, it won't hurt the net any.
However, and this is a huge however, I've heard of very few people who knew things like which data structure to use when before taking a college course. People who haven't taken a rather intensive class on such probably aren't even aware of what, say, a red-black tree is, much less why it matters. Amortized analysis? Who cares so long as it even works?
During internships at much more business and much less CS minded companies, I've seen some pretty awful attempts to sort a bunch of numbers. Attempts that make bubble sort look great in both style and speed. I'm sorry, but a lot of people don't just arrive at things like quicksort. While it isn't entirely impossible to gain experience in these matters independently, it's certainly not commonplace. I thought I was good before college because I had a handle on some of this and knew I could learn. College still taught me a heck of a lot, even if I got next to nothing out of some of the entry level courses.
I highly recommend that anybody who is still in college and after a CS degree to get an internship in their field of interest as soon as possible if they aren't going to double major. A few years to learn about that topic from the implementation end only helps, and any experience at all is a big plus. But the ability to keep in mind how to properly implement the underlying code rather than just how to make it work in any old way is a big thing that CS graduates should walk away with.
Proper project structure, data structures, access methods, commenting, documentation, security mindedness, and release planning aren't something that just happen. They get screwed up enough by people trained to think that way. The only way I can describe most code I've seen from non-CS people is hackish and ugly. Sure, it may result in something that works properly the first time written, but asking for a single small change may well result in reimplementing the better chunk of it.
In my opinion, it's best to get a project lead that has sufficient skills to wrangle proper specifications out of the people who need the application. Then they can hand out portions to programmers who are good at writing clean code, and everybody wins.
That's hardly the point. What this means is that somebody can release a different open driver actually done right which uses the hardware properly, instead of the mess of reverse engineering what can be reverse engineered and not utilizing the rest. This just gives a reference implementation, maybe not the best, but should expose what's needed to take full advantage of the hardware. That's why this is exciting.
The fact that I'm not terribly active in making or publishing content pretty much means I agree with never though. I don't want to be on the beating end of DRM.
I've also been meaning to get my hands on US Patent #1, a game in which you race to build a time machine and make it the first patent. At the very least I'm a big fan of the premise of that one. It's clever.
A few of my favorites are:
Devil Bunny Needs a Ham
Spree! Hong Kong Edition
The Great Brain Robbery
Unexploded Cow
Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition
There's a number of their games I haven't played, and more that I have that I haven't listed. However, there hasn't been one that I've played that I didn't really care for. Fun, often quick, always amusing.
Who cares? Linux runs on MIPS, and if I remember correctly, so does WinCE. If you want small fanless x86 try the lower speed VIA C3/Eden offerings.
Besides, rush hour traffic means cars are idling for vast periods of time anyway. I live in an area far less populated than California's major cities and rush hour traffic frequently travels at ~15 mph and people are always stopping anyway. While it poses some problems for general highway travel in non-rush hour, the larger problem comes from everybody and their mother commuting at the same time and taking forever on the roads. And for those who can't be bothered to stop, the Illinois tollway I refer to has a speed pass lane where people just drive through at speed as it reads a little electronic card. I hate tolls too, and thankfully I don't live in a state with them. But I feel they're more attractive than being tracked every time my car moves.
And would you have to have such a system to be allowed to enter California via vehicle? Illinios and various other states at least just toll you at toll booths as you use the highways, regardless of where you're from or what equipment you have. It's annoying to have to stop every so many miles, but it works. It seems like California residents would get the shaft if out of staters were tearing up their roads with their high efficiency cars and not having to pay for it.
And taxing people for being responsible and using less fuel, making it so everybody pays the same regardless of impact on pollution doesn't seem so smart either. It's downright evil unless the gas tax is solely for road maintenence and nothing to do with some of California's cities' smog problems.
Perhaps I have a biased perspective, but I've not found one anime available that can be purchased but not freely downloaded. There certainly exists some population selling the fansubbers efforts, but anything available is available freely, usually by multiple groups. There are some old, really rare things, but those aren't even purchasable. People with those want other rare things in trade.
Because of that, I've not run into any fansubbers who actually charge for what they do. Scratch that, I've never paid more than five seconds attention to them. I'd be silly to expect none exist, but I can only wonder if they make enough from it to make it anything less than a hobby with slightly lower losses. Put another way, I don't know why somebody would pay for an illigitimate sub over a free illigitimate sub, knowing neither is going to contribute to the media companies actually producing the anime. I expect they prey on those who don't know what's going on.
My opinion is that statement is unsubstantiated. There is a market for which product could be distributed, that is already stocked with freely available versions. ... You cannot call network TV broadcasts free (as in Free Beer). A 30 minute crap Friends episode actually contains 8 minutes of advertisements and promos on broadcast TV.
But I do view them the same way. So there's 8 minutes of periodic interruption. It still doesn't cost a dime to the viewer. Somebody with the show taped can easily fast forward, or, if it matters because they really like the episode, take the time to edit out the commercials. All it takes is two VCRs and 20 minutes. If a tape isn't convenient, computers these days have made it easy enough for anybody so inclined to move video onto their computer with maybe a $40 device.
Further, TV episodes have been available online for quite some time now. DVD sets of TV shows are still being released. That's one to one the same as downloading anime. It's less complicated than taping and moving to a computer for arbitrary playback but with the same benefits. TV shows are what I consider free to the end user.
All of that isn't to mention that there is an associated bandwidth cost to downloading anime. If bathroom breaks and snack runs during TV ads get to be considered a cost, bandwidth has to be moreso. Personally, I count it as an incidental cost, like ads, not to be added to the score. But either way both are in the same ballpark for cost.
We can agree to disagree on the potential market dynamics. But you have to understand that the market for network TV shows is not the same market segment for Anime.
I can see the difference at the present point in time. Give it time is all the response I can make, but I obviously can't make promises. The current older generation of the US still sees animation as a genre and not as a medium. They don't think there's a way an animated "cartoon" could tell a story to anybody but kids.
This is changing. Movies like The Incredibles and Shrek show it can reach both. I'd argue The Incredibles was focused far more on adults than kids. Anime is something that Japanese businessmen watch. While it is their culture's to own, it shows that it has the potential to reach network TV levels. Animation, particularly in anime style, will become an accepted and possibly widespread medium, whereas porn really cannot.
With the upcoming generations and how much anime is starting to grow in the US, it should make its move eventually. Right now Cartoon Network has opened up some time. I hear there's an exclusively anime channel on some pay for tv service. It's just a difference in views on animation being a genre or a medium for the time being. If you've watched any serious anime you should know which one is the truth.
If anything, the anime compani
And maybe some fansubbers will go on to take that risk at some point. But fansubbers aren't doing it for the money. They aren't doing it for business reasons. From what I gather they care more about sharing their experience than the business end of anything. They buy the DVDs of works they dub to keep the studios bringing anime to the US. That's fanatacism, not business.
Allowing the underground to operate is already handing over their work for nothing. I fail to see how the studios can count on a profitable market to open up where freely available movies are already present.
There's implicit "rules" to the underground that at least the people doing the subbing tend to follow. Allowing the underground to operate within these parameters has not hurt them in the past. And you know, who'd think there'd be a market for the Friends series DVDs or Seinfeld or any of that crap. Clearly it ran on TV for free before DVD distribution and people could tape it. How can the publishers expect any sort of market when people already have had free access to the show? It's a terrible argument. If it were a good argument either nobody would release DVDs of past TV shows or everybody would laugh at their poor business sense.
Where you fail to see a predictable market from free distribution, I fail to see a market at all without it. The media companies haven't been that successful in selling new consumers of their animations. Spirited Away, an amazing recent work, internationally recognized, was still dismissed by many, many people in the US as a cartoon. Anime isn't mainstream enough to get even a half hour free airwave spot on a weekend. At least retail stores welcome the high margin DVDs, but still only the limited stock of what's licensed here. The people who want more anime, uncut stuff that may be too "risky" to market to the US, the ones who want a TV channel of subs not dubs, they are the ones pushing anime on others. The media companies may be the drug lords, but apart from the underground they're without an effective pusher.
But maybe this is just a case of turning a blind eye until the scene is big enough to not need the pushers. Maybe we're reaching the point where they feel it's no longer making anime more popular, but cutting into sales that may occur in the future.
Oh, and your link is prefaced with:
Before we begin, I should make one thing absolutely clear: while this is a guide to getting anime for free or very little, I in no way condone piracy of any sort. I own all of Kare Kano fansubbed, but I'm the first in line to get the domestic DVDs, and the same goes with Furi Kuri and a number of other titles. People invest years and millions of dollars to make anime, and the least we can do is give them a few bucks. Never, ever get fansubs of a show that is licensed in The West. I don't care how much of a penniless college student you are, hell is a very hot place, and I think that you'd rather be out 30 bucks for a DVD then burning there for all of eternity. That being said, there are a lot of shows that are not licensed for distribution in North America, or where ever you are, and those shows are fare game.
Doesn't sound like he's too keen on not purchasing what you like when available. Then he goes on to explain how to get stuff. We already know it's being done. That's what we're discussing. The fact that some sellers exploit the fansubbers and the clueless buyers remains, but downloading anime online there's no money passed normally. If anything he's encouraging an audience to find what they like and then shell out a few bucks when it's licensed.
That's an interesting proposition, but I think it misses the point of both why and how the fansubbers operate. Entering a distribution agreement with the Japanese studios, unless I'm totally off base, would involve licensing the work. The studios, who may turn a blind eye to the underground, aren't going to want to hand over their work for nothing. It sets a bad precedent for business. Leaving the underground alone ensures they can keep lucrative licenses in the US while getting their fill of promotion in a less than authorized way. Why this studio, who has a purchasable winner with Genshiken I might add, wants to keep people from being exposed so they can line up for their releases is a question many are asking.
So, if fansubbers need cash to license, they become a normal distribution channel, trying to recoup costs. They're already sinking money into the necessities of doing what they do for free, an expensive license just isn't going to happen from a dozen college kids putting off their homework. That kind of capital requires investors, which means free distribution is out. Promotion of the genre and exposure to what's available in Japan but not the US is their primary goal.
As for seperation of fansubbers and sellers, it's easy. Any seller that sells for a single cent more than media and shipping costs is exploiting the fansubbers and tarnishing what it is they're doing. Ebaying a vcd set falls into that unless it's a dutch auction to cover shipping plus the $1 for the CD-Rs. But that doesn't happen. Further, almost anybody who's hooked enough to be buying fansubs is probably spending enough that they could get a moderate speed line themselves. And since the sellers tend to sell sets, the anime is often licensed, again going against the MO of fansubbers.
There are people that sell fansubs on ebay or where ever else. These are not, in the vast majority of cases, the fansubbers themselves. Many sub groups put things like "Not for sale, rent, or auction. Please stop distribution when licensed." up in the opening or the little middle sequence. People who sell fansubs are widely regarded as the scum of the earth.
The argument for letting these groups operate is twofold. First, they do so with content not licensed in the US, so no US licensee is harmed. I don't know what cross-country copyright agreements have to say, but stateside nobody has rights to publish it when fansubbers do their work. Second, they selflessly promote anime. There've been a number of fansubs I've seen with better quality control in the subs than the later official releases. They don't make money. They let people who won't just randomly buy a DVD with no knowledge of the content get a feel for what they want to buy. Dropping $20 for three episodes is easier when you know it's something you'll watch a few times rather than watch once and quit out of disgust.
Anime DVDs make up about half my DVD collection, which is by no means small. The total sum of anime DVDs I've bought without seeing at least one episode prior: 0. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but I know a rather large group of people, in person, who do exactly the same.
There are arguments against allowing it as well, but if any media company thinks anime would be where it is in the US today without letting the fans run rampant, well, they're crazy. The people watching fansubs are the same people introducing anime to friends and family with a religious zeal. Given the article even speaks of them as "cartoons" like they're for kids or something should give a better picture of the initial resistance that's now being overcome.