They'll still execute, they just won't be trusted.
Fine. They'll "execute", but since they're not trusted, not all of the features will work. Meaning that not all of the binary is "executing"... so I guess I was right after all.
but I can pretty much assure you that Linux wouldn't bother with this and if it did that someone would fork it
How would they fork it? You can't fork if it won't run, and it won't run if you don't have the key. The only way to fork would be if you could use the GPL to coerce the signers to give you that
Do people not understand how TCPA is trying to kill Linux? Trusted CPUs will be introduced. Then a decade later, 100% of new and fast CPUs will be trusted. Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, audio, and software will all be DRMed so that only Trusted OSes can run them.
Commercially-produced Linuxes will be able to remove traditional commands like "cp" and "dd" to qualify for trusted status, so Linux as software won't die. What will be killed is the open atmosphere where anyone can modify the software and then try it out without killing 90% of the other functions.
Frankly, if the GPL doesn't allow me to sign a binary, then the GPL is broken
Conversely, if the GPL allows me to sign binaries on a system where unsigned binaries don't run, then the GPL is broken, because it's got a loophole allowing GPL'd works to be effectively seized by corporate programmers with no compensation.
much open-source software is already signed by the creator / distributor, so you know that the binary you got was actually made by him.
Sure, you can sign binaries. But if you give that binary to someone, and he later demands the source code from you, you'd better include the private key along with it.
Otherwise, once he recompiles and finds that his new binary doesn't match the one you supplied, you are in breach of contract and could be arrested for criminal copyright infringement (that is, in a bizarre alternate dimension where the police enthusiastically pursue such crimes).
Some people might argue that the binary itself isn't modified by the signing, and that the "sign" is just a tiny file distributed alongside (basically a hash of the binary that's been signed, rather than the whole thing). Hashes are technically partial copies of the original work, but they such a small proportion of the source material that they are usually considered to fall under Fair Use.
However! Fair Use has 4 factors to consider, and size is just one of them. Economic impact on the original author is another. And since keys used in TCPA operate to so completely subvert the intent of the GPL, they are indeed working strongly counter to the original software's author.
But let's step away from the legalities and look at it from a practical standpoint: What is the GPL meant to do? It's there to ensure that the users of software are able to modify the software, to stay in control of their own computing lives. TCPA is trying to create exactly the opposite effect: the central goal of TCPA is that a DRM-controlled video/audio file you play on the computer screen cannot be ripped by some other program and stored in a non-copy-protected file.
In short, it is trying to prevent the addition of certain key features to software. It wants to prevent software progress. And that is completely against the spirit (not to mention letter) of licenses like the GPL.
If we had not patented it, anyone could take the idea, implement it and make money from it without paying us a cent
Oh no! And then we'd have a competitive economy, where companies struggle against each other to provide better service or lower prices!
Good thing patents are there to protect monopolists and save them from needing to keep on working to stay ahead! That whole "free market, invisible hand, survival-of-the-fittest" stuff was just baloney.
The whole system really exists only for one purpose: as a trojan horse to implement something called "remote attestation" in PCs.
Trusted Computing is genuinely pursuing security as long as you understand that it's the end-user who is evil and needs to be held back. It protects entertainment companies from members of the public, making it the exact opposite of "user friendly".
Re:Linus Torvalds himself has blessed DRM
on
TCPA Support in Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Linus himself said DRM is ok, as long as it's used in the interests of the user.
Linus is not a lawyer. More importantly, he's not even a free software or open source evangelist. Unlike RMS or ESR, he doesn't even hang out with lawyers or devote serious thought to legal matters.
Since DRM is a combined legal-technical area, it falls outside Linus's expertise, and his opinion carries little weight. (From a practical standpoint, TCPA is incompatible with the Linux philosophy of open-source modifications)
It's very simple: 1. Linux is distributed under the GPL (and other licenses). 2. To comply with the GPL, end-users must be able to acquire the source code (which means everything they need to reproduce the binary executble, with or without modifications). 3. If you don't comply with the GPL, you are committing copyright infringement, a federal offense.
But from the other direction: 4. Trusted computing means that all binaries are signed with a secret key. 5. The Trusted CPU will not execute binaries that weren't signed with that key. 6. In this way, it is impossible for end-users to create modified binaries to add/remove features from the software.
The GPL is too much in conflict with Trusted Computing to ever allow them to work correctly together. To obey the GPL, end-users must have access to everything needed to rebuild working binaries- which includes the secret key. But for Trusted Computing to work, it must be impossible for end-users to get the key- otherwise there's no point.
So, Linux or Trusted Computing. Choose one, because you can't have both.
A series just takes 2-4GB of hard disk space, and allows me to watch the whole thing without ever fumbling with the disks (and risking scratches in the process).
Ripping a DVD to disc is quick and painless. (You can even include multiple audio tracks and soft-subtitles). Then you've got it on your HD and a optical backup! (That scheme would work better if DVDs had a higher episode count so less space was wasted...)
If Evangelion *WASN'T* about the robots, but actually about the character development, then why are the evas featured...
If you count, it's a 24 episode series where they are attacked by monsters 12 times, so there is a "robot fight" in only half the episodes. If it was really all about the evas, then it wouldn't have gone through to the last 30 seconds of the first episode before Shinji even gets inside the cockpit.
Furthermore, this is a spoiler, but only one episode of Evangelion featured a robot. It was called "Jet Alone", and it's nuclear reactor was unsafe. There were no robots anyplace else... although there were things that looked like robots, so confusion is understandable.
If the company's business model is structured so that... the company still hasn't made a profit on the show -- then they need to check their business model.
That's another strawman. Even if a company is still making a profit, it doesn't prove that fansubs aren't reducing their total profits.
That's equivalent to stealing Bill Gate's car because he can easily afford more.
Still, one must understand why Americans get this wrong- because in the USA, 100% of animation is either humourous (South Park), or targeted at children, or usually both.
In America, there's a separate term for non-humorous adult animation (like Aeon Flux): off the air.
This is natural. If you do it for your own satisfaction, you would not stop working until the result is great.
Wrong. Many people actually achieve satisfaction through high speeds. There are genuine zero day fansubbers who record a show at 19:00, subtitle it, and start the upload at 23:15. Multiple groups may race to be the first to release a top show.
Gee, that's my point - company after company allows it's lust for cash to kill its revenue stream.
Ok, I really can't keep on going with someone who proudly demonstrates a total ignorance of even the Dow Jones Industrial Average. That would be insanity!
In actuality if you want to watch anime, you will probably only know about 400 kanji by the time you can begin to understand it and maybe 600 or so by the time it just starts to make sense.
That's doesn't make sense... to watch anime, you need to understand about ZERO kanji. (Unless you're Chinese and already know the characters) Understanding spoken Japanese can be tremendously easier than learning to read/write it. Especially within the somewhat restrictive genres of most anime programs.
And since most anime is aimed at children, they frequently put little hiragana next to the kanji to make it easier (in the unlikely event that you really do need to read something).
I hope you understand my point, alot of things still aren't available from a licensed agent of the japanese companies producing anime which implies their is still a rather large market for fansubs for things that may or may not ever come here...
So yet again, someone has pointed out that not all fansubs are harmful. And once again, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of fansubs (by volume of distribution) are zero-day translations of sure-fire titles like GITS, Witch Hunter Robin, and One Piece.
on my favorite fansub torrent site either (& right now their is more OST's & 'Manga' than anime on it)
Ok, so you admit right there that the fansub site is mostly used for OST, which is even less ethical. It's exactly as bad as trading MP3s of American-made music, as the ameliatory excuses of fansubs don't apply: there is no need to translate/localize it, there is no such thing as a "Region 2" CD player, and companies like CDJapan or Amazon.co.jp are ready and willing to legally sell you any of that.
The gender changing in Sailor Stars is different, the Sailor Stars are guys normally, but when they transform they're girls.
The gender changing in Ranma 1/2 is different, Ranma is a guy normally, but when he transforms he's a girl.
Hint: SMStars is unpublished not because they change gender (because seriously, the dubbers have already demonstrated a willingness to voice against gender), but because they wear fetish-inspired black-leather bondage harnessess.
those idiots would react to characters who change from male to female and have females in love with them in male form.
In that case there is the excuse that magic is involved, marking the situation strongly as unbelievable fantasy. They'd be more offended by an actual plausible non-hetreosexual relationship, like say, oh, two girls falling in love and moving in together. Maybe on of them could be a violinist, and the other an automobiler...
For comparison, notice that the Sugartime episode of Postcards From Buster is in a lot more trouble than Spongebob.
Ah, so it was fine for you to do it, but no one else should be allowed.
Back in the day, the "Fansubber's Code" was actually legal. Japan hadn't signed the Berne Convention yet, so their copyrights were not protected internationally.
That places you firmly in the hypocrite camp.
No it doesn't. As I've already explained 11 times on this thread, in the past fansubbing was helpful (or at least nonharmful) to the companies producing anime, because there was truely no American market to speak of. That situation ended at least 10 years ago.
As I've also already explained a few times (although other posters have gone into it more explicitly), "illegal" is not identical to "immoral" or "wrong". Everyone breaks a few laws each day (speed limits if you have a car, etc), and its not a real problem. People can recognize when an illegality has a genuine negative effect, and when it's frivolous.
That places you firmly in the hypocrite camp. But isn't that one of the ad hominems you tossed my way?
No, I never wrote anything resembling that. What I called you is an "ignoramus".
You can argue all you want, and I do not wish to stop you. It is the statement
I already explained that completely three times now, and won't do it again. You don't only not understand WHY I proved it- but you also don't even know WHAT I proved. You can't even manage to correctly reprint the statement in question!
I personally do not know much about anime. But I received little data to see the connections in your argument.
I really must learn to let these admissions of ineptitude stand on their own. The sembelance of coherency in your first posts has long-since evaporated.
In fansub, there is no copyright yet on the translated anime, except for the one that is valid in Japan only.
Are you in cryonic suspension or something?
What you claim was only true from between 1984 and 1987. The very first long-forgotten VHS fansubs were indeed legal, but I suspect that more than 50% of today's fansub-viewers weren't even born before Japanese copyrights started extending to the USA.
ShuttleOne counted as a huge stepping stone to orbital vehicles, as you can see in their newer ventures toward such a project.
There is no such thing as "ShuttleOne". If you just make-up space project names from your own imagination, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.
So it does have quite a bit to do with building orbital vehicles.
If, on the other hand, you meant to say "SpaceShipOne, and you're actually suggesting that the project had any relationship at all to reaching orbit, then you also appear too ignorant to deserve a serious response.
Technically I believe Apple has had the first 3D desktop environment since 10.2
No. They're a popular "research" topic, so dozens if not hundreds of 3d desktops have been implemented before. Why, even Disney had one before Apple did.
I think that buying anime here is a waste because you are giving more support to the US dubbing community than the Japanese stidio that made the content to begin with.
True, a fansub-viewer who mails $5/ep to the original producers should feel beyond-reproach. It's really unfortunate that the only plausible way to legally acquire most anime shows is to buy DVDs, which represent a 95% expentiture in dubbing and mastering services that provide zero value to a viewer who knows how to read.
And it's also quite unfortunate that although watching an episode off TV and P2p cost the viewer a similar amount (zero dollars in both cases, but wasted time skipping ads or searching websites depending).
Talk about utopian solutions: in the best case, there would be no "daily TV" at all. Every movie or series episode would immediately come up for paid download as soon as it's finished, and the price would automatically drop as time goes by. (Advertisers could still purchase those shows for sponsored broadcast, but without excluding a la carte viewers). Or, a group of people in a large theater could each pay that money to view it together on a big screen.
Quick math: the upcoming Superbowl will have 150,000,000 viewers (50% of the USA), and a spot costs $5,000,000 for 60 sec. That's $0.04/viewer/minute. Normal (non-sports) TV has a ratio of 1 ad minute per 6 content minutes. So say one 22 minute show earns just $0.14/viewer. (I suspect my numbers are far off because viewers pay more attention to ads during the Superbowl than any other program, so the rates are probably higher than just viewer headcount would support. But I don't know the ad rates for typical TV)
That's all the income a TV company gets, so if you were directly paying for TV, instead of it being ad-supported, it'd be under $1/show (possibly under $0.15/show, as I just calculated). The enormous gap between $0.15/show and $6/show for typical DVD price suggests there is a large marketplace opportunity in that gap for the first company that discovers a way to directly bill viewers for programming.
(Possibly, that way could be more philsophical than technical, although presently the DRM movement is trying to use a combination of laws + technology, when moralistic acceptance and/or "misdemeanorism" could be a better strategy)
EULA's have been proven to be invalid after you pay for a product.
Wrong. Triply-wrong (which works out to be right, I suppose).
1. EULAs haven't been proven invalid in the USA. The most recent court decision was pro-EULA. 2. However, EULAs are invalid according to a sensible reading of the legal principles, so hopefully a higher court will reverse that bad ruling. 3. But it doesn't matter, because MMORPGs do not use EULAs. EULAs are for software, the use of their servers is covered by a traditional service agreemet (like a phone or electricity bill) which is valid as normal.
invalid after you pay for a product.
Notice that with WoW or another MMORPG, you sign that agreement before paying the monthly bills. EULAs for software you already have are invalid; service agreements for things a company is promising to give you in the future are fine. (Mutual exchange of consideration and all that)
Point of order: please demonstrate that corporations are interested in a free market
Irrelevant. Corporations are not in fact pro-free-market. All they are is greedy, and want to continue making money. For a corporation, "sane" = "greedy".
Claiming that fansubs increase corporate profits is wrong... but even if they did, corps could release their own freebie subtitled samplers to get the same advertising effect.
Downloading a song doesn't EQUAL a lost sale on a 1:1 ratio. It does create a small, but non-zero chance that a person who would've bought a song will stick with the MP3.
Driving my car 10 kph above the speed limit doesn't EQUAL turning a small child into a bloody explosion. But it does create a small chance that innocent people will die needlessly.
If anything, fansubbing works like free advertising.
No. That's denying the possibility of people watching a fansub once, and enjoying the show, but having no desire to see it again (nor enough guilt to go pay $30 for something they've already got in hand).
Any reasonable person must admit that fansubbing has both a positive side (more publicity) and negative (undercuts sales). The only question is which of those has a greater total dollar effect and outweighs the other. This is something that's impossible to scientifically prove, because you can't really survey people about illegal activities and expect honest answers.
However, in my own experience, it looks very clear that the time when fansubs were a financial plus for the anime industry have long since passed (I'd say the switch happened between 1993 and 1997, although arguably it was as far back as 1988). The dual growths of the Internet and the international anime market are the reasons for this change.
The idea that anime companies (like, oh, Sony) couldn't get cheap advertising and market research to exceed whatever they get from fansubbers is simply absurd.
I'd imagine one my attempt to rebut me by asking why haven't anime companies worked harder to quash fansubbers, if they're harmful to them? The answer is the same reason that Fox TV isn't going after P2p "The Simpsons" traders: because they simply haven't got around to it yet. (a study just found that Simpsons is the #1 show on P2p, followed by "Family Guy" and "Friends"). In the case of trading native USA TV, the fact that it's harmful is inescapable, as there is no possible way to interpret it as helpful free advertising. Its just a case of corporations being slow to react to changing environment conditions. Once a couple lawsuits set a strong precedent, expect the threat letters to fly quickly.
AC: If you studied economics, you'd learn that demand isn't the kind of thing that, once created, lasts forever.
In fact, I have studied economics, and that's why I know you're wrong. The following claim flies in the face of normal Adam Smithian capitalist theory:
Without continued help from fansubbers, the anime industry 20 years from now would bring 'Ghost In The Shell 12:
That would only happen if corporations mysteriously stopped pursuing revenue in known markets. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that fansubs were somehow abolished, and further suppose that this actually lead to a decreased USA demand for anime.
In that unlikely occasion, any sane corporation will make up for the lost publicity by cheap additional measures. For an easy fix, they could release the first 10-20% of the episodes as free online samples. (Even allowing them to be freely distributed in unmodified form, so they don't even have to pay for bandwidth).
These companies have made money by stealing market research from fansubbers, they need continued research to keep their own costs low
That one is so funny, I don't even have to bother refuting it. (Hint: If it were true, then the original Japanese domestic anime industry would've never existed)
Slashdot Mirror
They'll still execute, they just won't be trusted.
Fine. They'll "execute", but since they're not trusted, not all of the features will work. Meaning that not all of the binary is "executing"... so I guess I was right after all.
but I can pretty much assure you that Linux wouldn't bother with this and if it did that someone would fork it
How would they fork it? You can't fork if it won't run, and it won't run if you don't have the key. The only way to fork would be if you could use the GPL to coerce the signers to give you that
Do people not understand how TCPA is trying to kill Linux? Trusted CPUs will be introduced. Then a decade later, 100% of new and fast CPUs will be trusted. Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, audio, and software will all be DRMed so that only Trusted OSes can run them.
Commercially-produced Linuxes will be able to remove traditional commands like "cp" and "dd" to qualify for trusted status, so Linux as software won't die. What will be killed is the open atmosphere where anyone can modify the software and then try it out without killing 90% of the other functions.
Frankly, if the GPL doesn't allow me to sign a binary, then the GPL is broken
Conversely, if the GPL allows me to sign binaries on a system where unsigned binaries don't run, then the GPL is broken, because it's got a loophole allowing GPL'd works to be effectively seized by corporate programmers with no compensation.
much open-source software is already signed by the creator / distributor, so you know that the binary you got was actually made by him.
Sure, you can sign binaries. But if you give that binary to someone, and he later demands the source code from you, you'd better include the private key along with it.
Otherwise, once he recompiles and finds that his new binary doesn't match the one you supplied, you are in breach of contract and could be arrested for criminal copyright infringement (that is, in a bizarre alternate dimension where the police enthusiastically pursue such crimes).
Some people might argue that the binary itself isn't modified by the signing, and that the "sign" is just a tiny file distributed alongside (basically a hash of the binary that's been signed, rather than the whole thing). Hashes are technically partial copies of the original work, but they such a small proportion of the source material that they are usually considered to fall under Fair Use.
However! Fair Use has 4 factors to consider, and size is just one of them. Economic impact on the original author is another. And since keys used in TCPA operate to so completely subvert the intent of the GPL, they are indeed working strongly counter to the original software's author.
But let's step away from the legalities and look at it from a practical standpoint: What is the GPL meant to do? It's there to ensure that the users of software are able to modify the software, to stay in control of their own computing lives. TCPA is trying to create exactly the opposite effect: the central goal of TCPA is that a DRM-controlled video/audio file you play on the computer screen cannot be ripped by some other program and stored in a non-copy-protected file.
In short, it is trying to prevent the addition of certain key features to software. It wants to prevent software progress. And that is completely against the spirit (not to mention letter) of licenses like the GPL.
If we had not patented it, anyone could take the idea, implement it and make money from it without paying us a cent
Oh no! And then we'd have a competitive economy, where companies struggle against each other to provide better service or lower prices!
Good thing patents are there to protect monopolists and save them from needing to keep on working to stay ahead! That whole "free market, invisible hand, survival-of-the-fittest" stuff was just baloney.
The whole system really exists only for one purpose: as a trojan horse to implement something called "remote attestation" in PCs.
Trusted Computing is genuinely pursuing security as long as you understand that it's the end-user who is evil and needs to be held back. It protects entertainment companies from members of the public, making it the exact opposite of "user friendly".
Linus himself said DRM is ok, as long as it's used in the interests of the user.
Linus is not a lawyer. More importantly, he's not even a free software or open source evangelist. Unlike RMS or ESR, he doesn't even hang out with lawyers or devote serious thought to legal matters.
Since DRM is a combined legal-technical area, it falls outside Linus's expertise, and his opinion carries little weight. (From a practical standpoint, TCPA is incompatible with the Linux philosophy of open-source modifications)
It's very simple:
1. Linux is distributed under the GPL (and other licenses).
2. To comply with the GPL, end-users must be able to acquire the source code (which means everything they need to reproduce the binary executble, with or without modifications).
3. If you don't comply with the GPL, you are committing copyright infringement, a federal offense.
But from the other direction:
4. Trusted computing means that all binaries are signed with a secret key.
5. The Trusted CPU will not execute binaries that weren't signed with that key.
6. In this way, it is impossible for end-users to create modified binaries to add/remove features from the software.
The GPL is too much in conflict with Trusted Computing to ever allow them to work correctly together. To obey the GPL, end-users must have access to everything needed to rebuild working binaries- which includes the secret key. But for Trusted Computing to work, it must be impossible for end-users to get the key- otherwise there's no point.
So, Linux or Trusted Computing. Choose one, because you can't have both.
A series just takes 2-4GB of hard disk space, and allows me to watch the whole thing without ever fumbling with the disks (and risking scratches in the process).
Ripping a DVD to disc is quick and painless. (You can even include multiple audio tracks and soft-subtitles). Then you've got it on your HD and a optical backup! (That scheme would work better if DVDs had a higher episode count so less space was wasted...)
If Evangelion *WASN'T* about the robots, but actually about the character development, then why are the evas featured...
If you count, it's a 24 episode series where they are attacked by monsters 12 times, so there is a "robot fight" in only half the episodes. If it was really all about the evas, then it wouldn't have gone through to the last 30 seconds of the first episode before Shinji even gets inside the cockpit.
Furthermore, this is a spoiler, but only one episode of Evangelion featured a robot. It was called "Jet Alone", and it's nuclear reactor was unsafe. There were no robots anyplace else... although there were things that looked like robots, so confusion is understandable.
If the company's business model is structured so that ... the company still hasn't made a profit on the show -- then they need to check their business model.
That's another strawman. Even if a company is still making a profit, it doesn't prove that fansubs aren't reducing their total profits.
That's equivalent to stealing Bill Gate's car because he can easily afford more.
Not all animations are cartoons.
Still, one must understand why Americans get this wrong- because in the USA, 100% of animation is either humourous (South Park), or targeted at children, or usually both.
In America, there's a separate term for non-humorous adult animation (like Aeon Flux): off the air.
This is natural. If you do it for your own satisfaction, you would not stop working until the result is great.
Wrong. Many people actually achieve satisfaction through high speeds. There are genuine zero day fansubbers who record a show at 19:00, subtitle it, and start the upload at 23:15. Multiple groups may race to be the first to release a top show.
Gee, that's my point - company after company allows it's lust for cash to kill its revenue stream.
Ok, I really can't keep on going with someone who proudly demonstrates a total ignorance of even the Dow Jones Industrial Average. That would be insanity!
In actuality if you want to watch anime, you will probably only know about 400 kanji by the time you can begin to understand it and maybe 600 or so by the time it just starts to make sense.
That's doesn't make sense... to watch anime, you need to understand about ZERO kanji. (Unless you're Chinese and already know the characters) Understanding spoken Japanese can be tremendously easier than learning to read/write it. Especially within the somewhat restrictive genres of most anime programs.
And since most anime is aimed at children, they frequently put little hiragana next to the kanji to make it easier (in the unlikely event that you really do need to read something).
I hope you understand my point, alot of things still aren't available from a licensed agent of the japanese companies producing anime which implies their is still a rather large market for fansubs for things that may or may not ever come here...
So yet again, someone has pointed out that not all fansubs are harmful. And once again, it doesn't change the fact that the majority of fansubs (by volume of distribution) are zero-day translations of sure-fire titles like GITS, Witch Hunter Robin, and One Piece.
on my favorite fansub torrent site either (& right now their is more OST's & 'Manga' than anime on it)
Ok, so you admit right there that the fansub site is mostly used for OST, which is even less ethical. It's exactly as bad as trading MP3s of American-made music, as the ameliatory excuses of fansubs don't apply: there is no need to translate/localize it, there is no such thing as a "Region 2" CD player, and companies like CDJapan or Amazon.co.jp are ready and willing to legally sell you any of that.
The gender changing in Sailor Stars is different, the Sailor Stars are guys normally, but when they transform they're girls.
The gender changing in Ranma 1/2 is different, Ranma is a guy normally, but when he transforms he's a girl.
Hint: SMStars is unpublished not because they change gender (because seriously, the dubbers have already demonstrated a willingness to voice against gender), but because they wear fetish-inspired black-leather bondage harnessess.
those idiots would react to characters who change from male to female and have females in love with them in male form.
In that case there is the excuse that magic is involved, marking the situation strongly as unbelievable fantasy. They'd be more offended by an actual plausible non-hetreosexual relationship, like say, oh, two girls falling in love and moving in together. Maybe on of them could be a violinist, and the other an automobiler...
For comparison, notice that the Sugartime episode of Postcards From Buster is in a lot more trouble than Spongebob.
Ah, so it was fine for you to do it, but no one else should be allowed.
Back in the day, the "Fansubber's Code" was actually legal. Japan hadn't signed the Berne Convention yet, so their copyrights were not protected internationally.
That places you firmly in the hypocrite camp.
No it doesn't. As I've already explained 11 times on this thread, in the past fansubbing was helpful (or at least nonharmful) to the companies producing anime, because there was truely no American market to speak of. That situation ended at least 10 years ago.
As I've also already explained a few times (although other posters have gone into it more explicitly), "illegal" is not identical to "immoral" or "wrong". Everyone breaks a few laws each day (speed limits if you have a car, etc), and its not a real problem. People can recognize when an illegality has a genuine negative effect, and when it's frivolous.
That places you firmly in the hypocrite camp. But isn't that one of the ad hominems you tossed my way?
No, I never wrote anything resembling that. What I called you is an "ignoramus".
You can argue all you want, and I do not wish to stop you. It is the statement
I already explained that completely three times now, and won't do it again. You don't only not understand WHY I proved it- but you also don't even know WHAT I proved. You can't even manage to correctly reprint the statement in question!
I personally do not know much about anime. But I received little data to see the connections in your argument.
I really must learn to let these admissions of ineptitude stand on their own. The sembelance of coherency in your first posts has long-since evaporated.
In fansub, there is no copyright yet on the translated anime, except for the one that is valid in Japan only.
Are you in cryonic suspension or something?
What you claim was only true from between 1984 and 1987. The very first long-forgotten VHS fansubs were indeed legal, but I suspect that more than 50% of today's fansub-viewers weren't even born before Japanese copyrights started extending to the USA.
ShuttleOne counted as a huge stepping stone to orbital vehicles, as you can see in their newer ventures toward such a project.
There is no such thing as "ShuttleOne". If you just make-up space project names from your own imagination, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.
So it does have quite a bit to do with building orbital vehicles.
If, on the other hand, you meant to say "SpaceShipOne, and you're actually suggesting that the project had any relationship at all to reaching orbit, then you also appear too ignorant to deserve a serious response.
Technically I believe Apple has had the first 3D desktop environment since 10.2
No. They're a popular "research" topic, so dozens if not hundreds of 3d desktops have been implemented before. Why, even Disney had one before Apple did.
I think that buying anime here is a waste because you are giving more support to the US dubbing community than the Japanese stidio that made the content to begin with.
True, a fansub-viewer who mails $5/ep to the original producers should feel beyond-reproach. It's really unfortunate that the only plausible way to legally acquire most anime shows is to buy DVDs, which represent a 95% expentiture in dubbing and mastering services that provide zero value to a viewer who knows how to read.
And it's also quite unfortunate that although watching an episode off TV and P2p cost the viewer a similar amount (zero dollars in both cases, but wasted time skipping ads or searching websites depending).
Talk about utopian solutions: in the best case, there would be no "daily TV" at all. Every movie or series episode would immediately come up for paid download as soon as it's finished, and the price would automatically drop as time goes by. (Advertisers could still purchase those shows for sponsored broadcast, but without excluding a la carte viewers). Or, a group of people in a large theater could each pay that money to view it together on a big screen.
Quick math: the upcoming Superbowl will have 150,000,000 viewers (50% of the USA), and a spot costs $5,000,000 for 60 sec. That's $0.04/viewer/minute. Normal (non-sports) TV has a ratio of 1 ad minute per 6 content minutes. So say one 22 minute show earns just $0.14/viewer. (I suspect my numbers are far off because viewers pay more attention to ads during the Superbowl than any other program, so the rates are probably higher than just viewer headcount would support. But I don't know the ad rates for typical TV)
That's all the income a TV company gets, so if you were directly paying for TV, instead of it being ad-supported, it'd be under $1/show (possibly under $0.15/show, as I just calculated). The enormous gap between $0.15/show and $6/show for typical DVD price suggests there is a large marketplace opportunity in that gap for the first company that discovers a way to directly bill viewers for programming.
(Possibly, that way could be more philsophical than technical, although presently the DRM movement is trying to use a combination of laws + technology, when moralistic acceptance and/or "misdemeanorism" could be a better strategy)
EULA's have been proven to be invalid after you pay for a product.
Wrong. Triply-wrong (which works out to be right, I suppose).
1. EULAs haven't been proven invalid in the USA. The most recent court decision was pro-EULA.
2. However, EULAs are invalid according to a sensible reading of the legal principles, so hopefully a higher court will reverse that bad ruling.
3. But it doesn't matter, because MMORPGs do not use EULAs. EULAs are for software, the use of their servers is covered by a traditional service agreemet (like a phone or electricity bill) which is valid as normal.
invalid after you pay for a product.
Notice that with WoW or another MMORPG, you sign that agreement before paying the monthly bills. EULAs for software you already have are invalid; service agreements for things a company is promising to give you in the future are fine. (Mutual exchange of consideration and all that)
Point of order: please demonstrate that corporations are interested in a free market
Irrelevant. Corporations are not in fact pro-free-market. All they are is greedy, and want to continue making money. For a corporation, "sane" = "greedy".
Claiming that fansubs increase corporate profits is wrong... but even if they did, corps could release their own freebie subtitled samplers to get the same advertising effect.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. This is the same as saying that a downloaded song equals a lost sale.
Bzzt. Yet again, someone takes their intellectual cues from George W. Bush.
Downloading a song doesn't EQUAL a lost sale on a 1:1 ratio. It does create a small, but non-zero chance that a person who would've bought a song will stick with the MP3.
Driving my car 10 kph above the speed limit doesn't EQUAL turning a small child into a bloody explosion. But it does create a small chance that innocent people will die needlessly.
If anything, fansubbing works like free advertising.
No. That's denying the possibility of people watching a fansub once, and enjoying the show, but having no desire to see it again (nor enough guilt to go pay $30 for something they've already got in hand).
Any reasonable person must admit that fansubbing has both a positive side (more publicity) and negative (undercuts sales). The only question is which of those has a greater total dollar effect and outweighs the other. This is something that's impossible to scientifically prove, because you can't really survey people about illegal activities and expect honest answers.
However, in my own experience, it looks very clear that the time when fansubs were a financial plus for the anime industry have long since passed (I'd say the switch happened between 1993 and 1997, although arguably it was as far back as 1988). The dual growths of the Internet and the international anime market are the reasons for this change.
The idea that anime companies (like, oh, Sony) couldn't get cheap advertising and market research to exceed whatever they get from fansubbers is simply absurd.
I'd imagine one my attempt to rebut me by asking why haven't anime companies worked harder to quash fansubbers, if they're harmful to them? The answer is the same reason that Fox TV isn't going after P2p "The Simpsons" traders: because they simply haven't got around to it yet. (a study just found that Simpsons is the #1 show on P2p, followed by "Family Guy" and "Friends"). In the case of trading native USA TV, the fact that it's harmful is inescapable, as there is no possible way to interpret it as helpful free advertising. Its just a case of corporations being slow to react to changing environment conditions. Once a couple lawsuits set a strong precedent, expect the threat letters to fly quickly.
AC: If you studied economics, you'd learn that demand isn't the kind of thing that, once created, lasts forever.
In fact, I have studied economics, and that's why I know you're wrong. The following claim flies in the face of normal Adam Smithian capitalist theory:
Without continued help from fansubbers, the anime industry 20 years from now would bring 'Ghost In The Shell 12:
That would only happen if corporations mysteriously stopped pursuing revenue in known markets. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that fansubs were somehow abolished, and further suppose that this actually lead to a decreased USA demand for anime.
In that unlikely occasion, any sane corporation will make up for the lost publicity by cheap additional measures. For an easy fix, they could release the first 10-20% of the episodes as free online samples. (Even allowing them to be freely distributed in unmodified form, so they don't even have to pay for bandwidth).
These companies have made money by stealing market research from fansubbers, they need continued research to keep their own costs low
That one is so funny, I don't even have to bother refuting it. (Hint: If it were true, then the original Japanese domestic anime industry would've never existed)