Forum

I'm another one in the "I would watch the simulcast if they allowed it in my country" camp. I wonder, though, how FUNi would react if those theoretical Spanish subtitlers set things up so their vids could only be downloaded by IP's from Spain. They would have to use DDL only instead of torrents, but it could be done.

Hon'ya-chan wrote:

What I wanna know is how do you report such copyright violations in the first place? There's a site on the internet that is using a cosplay of a well known FUNi property in... "Adult Situations" in a for-profit venture. I tried to report it to FUNimation, yet I found not even a Customer Service e-mail link to use.

I'm pretty sure Funimation already knows the website you are talking about, (I on the other hand have no idea)

The reason why it hasn't been shut down is because it can't happen overnight. Then of course there are those legal "procedures" which must take place first to get a website shut down.

Yet another one of those 'I would watch streams if I could' non-americans here.

Actually, I don't really watch fansubs anymore (relying on import dvds instead), so this whole move to us-only streams worries me a lot. After all, we see more and more shows being available ONLY on streaming sites and not on dvd, which leaves everybody outside north america with no legal way to see them whatsoever. In the end, the move to streams could end up strenghtening fansubs, since those of us who've been importing will have no other options. :/

Quote:

Yeah, a great deal of the fansub audience is watching our simulcast instead.

They better be watching these simulcasts; some of the ad profits go back over to Japan.

Fansubs may be remain necessary for small, artsy anime that is unlikely to get streamed and might never be heard of if not for fan distribution, but real fans should be happy to see anime become legally available in their country.

Boycott groups who still do fansubs on streamed anime. If the crappy quality of streaming is an issue, lobby to get better quality from the streamers. Look into ISP maskers. Do not download DVD rips ever. Check out your local video rental and libraries for anime. Don't distribute fansubs after the shows are licensed. And maybe get to know other anime fans in RL so you can share your stuff.

It's up to fans to do something to fix copyright infringement as much as the enforcers.

Quote:

Bamboo: Going back to the territory bit, and how far your legal reach extends, I'm still a bit confused. Say Japan has rights for East Asia. Say Funimation has rights for Canada and the US. Can you shut down a Spanish fansubber in Madrid who is fansubbing Fullmetal Alchemist in Spanish? Even if you don't have a licensing agreement for Europe? Let's assume that no one else has that license either.

Evan: We can't shut them down just for fansubbing in Spain without rights to Spain, but we can certainly shut them down for distributing those fansubs (or making available for distribution) to the U.S.

Bamboo: So does that mean a US server has to be hosting it? Or simply that people in the US are downloading it from the Spanish server?

Evan: Just downloading it from the Spanish server is enough. It's up to the ISP in Spain to geo-block visitors from the U.S. Anime companies in the U.S. actually have the same burden. The internet is inherently unrestricted for inter-country traffic. So we have the task of employing the technology and managing the logistics of geo-blocking the content that we distribute. Those two hurdles, technological and logistical, can be quite time consuming. It's understanding why most ISPs don't bother.

The right to take down stuff is based on the DMCA, an American law, so unless a Spanish law is being violated, there is absolutely no right to claim that any company has the right to force a take down, and even then it has to be with the allowable remedies under Spanish law. It has been ruled by multiple courts in the US that having a foreign website that is accessible in the US does NOT give the US jurisdiction, so regardless of what activities are occurring on a website that the US can access, nothing in US law applies.

More importantly, the belief that foreign ISPs can be forced to blocked IPs based on US law is not only a very slippery slope, it is a ridiculous idea that this is a burden that they need to take on when they have no legal presence in the US. A website is not responsible for the actions of it's users, most countries have safe harbor provisions that prevent such legal action. This is the same reason the US ISPs are under no obligation to block Chinese IPs from a website that violates Chinese law, even if they are made aware of this by the Chinese.

Quote:

Evan: It's hard to be brief about fair use. I recently gave a presentation on intellectual property issues in documentary filmmaking and the bulk of it was about fair use. It lasted an hour and a half. But I digress! It's not about violating fair use. It's about violating copyright. To get specific, legally, even fair use is infringement. This is because the use is unauthorized and ostensibly violates one of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner laid out in 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Anyway, fair use is an affirmative defense to infringement. This means that the burden is on the defendant to prove fair use. The factors of fair use are laid out in § 107 of the same title of the United States Code that I referenced before. Of those factors, the big one is #4 "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”… hence our whet vs. sate the appetite approach. And the new use generally has to be for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. Parody and satire fall under criticism/comment. New uses that are sufficiently transformative and do not harm the potential market for the original work also tend to get by.

This is not completely true, especially when dealing with the DMCA, as with the ruling in the case Lenz v. Universal last year, it was ruled that in fact companies ARE required to considered fair use before sending a DMCA take down, link to information about the ruling.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/judge-rules-content-owners-must-consider-fair-use-

From the actual ruling

Quote:

...fair use is a lawful use of a copyright. Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright.

I like this guy's policy on amvs. Walt Disney had a similar idea on the concept back in the 50's with fan art. He knew full well that if he sued the fans, he'd lose the fans.

Still, whet not sate, that's a good way to say it.

Oh yeah, AMVs = win. I've watched (and as a result, purchased) series based on seeing them in AMVs, not to mention the music groups I've discovered (and CDs purchased). So long as nobody's charging for them, I think they do way more good than harm.

Oh boy. I really shouldn't post in this, but I've just got to say my piece. This topic goes well beyond the anime industry, and I see FUNimation making the same mistakes as the rest of them.

But, I'm going to start with this:

Evan wrote:

But does a person have a right to freely enjoy the art that someone else created? I don't think so.

Evan, you're not an artist. You're an ignorant business person who has no concept on how to sell services to distribute the content.

This is where the entertainment industry has fallen: ignorant decisions based on a belief people pay for content.

People have never, ever paid for content. It's always been $0.00. We've paid for the services which deliver this content.

Thus, to think for one second you, and others, believe people have to pay to view your works is insulting to the definition of art.

But let's not stop there. I've got much more to say.

Evan wrote:

While I'm adamant that I don't feel that "it's ok" for a person to enjoy my art for free and while I certainly don't think the world over has a right to enjoy my creations for free, I would probably be quite flattered if something of mine was taking the internet by storm and I wasn't getting a dime from it.

This is the crux of the problem in the digital age. People can't seem to separate the difference between content and distribution, often mixing the two under the guise of "Intellectual property".

Once again, you have the belief people should pay to view. That's absolutely absurd. But don't feel bad. You're not the only one.

Let's review this distinction.

Evan wrote:

We're making a huge effort with YouTube right now to video fingerprint our content for monetization.

Read this line over and over until it dawns on you what the issue is.

Don't you really mean to say you're monetizing the distribution system of YouTube to charge $0.00 for the content?

While some may argue I'm debating semantics here, I don't believe I am. There's a freakin' huge distinction between copyright (which FUNimation doesn't own) and intellectual property. When the line gets blurred, we run into this crap:

Evan wrote:

It's not about violating fair use. It's about violating copyright.

This blurring of the line occurs every day, often favoring the content/IP owner despite fair use intentions.
As an example: A woman uploads a video of a dancing baby. In the background, a licensed song is played. DMCA notice is issued, and the video is removed.

Fair use is destroyed instantly. While this is only one example, I can point to many, many more.

Why does this happen more? Because some ignorant fool believes people pay to view/listen to content.

Now, let's discuss why the digital era is so difficult for companies like FUNimation to adapt. We'll start with this:

Evan wrote:

Yeah, a great deal of the fansub audience is watching our simulcast instead.

This is good news, but I must ask the question: Where the hell was this option just a few years ago?

In fact, why is there not an option to allow users to download files to burn their own DVDs?

While I do understand there are some restrictions due to contracts signed with the studio/third parties, it's extremely difficult to believe this would cover every avenue of distribution by FUNimation.

But this is expected, given this entire industry is so damn secretive about the costs involved.

FUNimation's introduction into the "legal" streaming world is a reactive result, not a proactive one.

This, I've a problem with. Because with all the claims about copyright infringement protecting the rights of the artist, what you're really saying is these infringing acts cut into the profits of the distribution model.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the position, as a business, FUNimation should take to protect themselves. But in a world where digital distribution costs so much less than the plastic disk model, I'm stunned that FUNimation, like so many others, would spend our monies spent on DVDs to go after the infringing sites/people.

And for what? Most of the time, such costs are wasted as the outcome generally does nothing because another site/person takes their place.

Why can't FUNimation take a damn proactive approach to distribution? What the hell is so damn important to protect the model of selling plastic disks?

Now, for the positive side of things, just so this thread doesn't appear to be all rant based.

Evan wrote:

My question to you is, why would you watch a fansub rather than our simulcast?

I'll split this into two parts, just to be fair.
For licensed material, I will generally watch the ad supported site if, and only if, the ads are non-invasive. Stop the content midway to show me an ad, and I'm gone. I don't believe the web world needs to (or should) carry the idiotic dynamic of ad placement television shows do. The captive audience is dead. Deal with it.

We all know web ad revenues will never surpass those found on television, but this is the fault of the distributor for relying on a specific area within its business. If a fansub site takes away that much revenue, maybe it's freakin' time to start looking into other ways to generate revenue.
Here's a hint: Sell anime merchandise. It's a start, but certainly not the only one.

For unlicensed material, this comes down to availability, of course. I find myself watching older anime series via fansubs because the show is either no longer produced or was never licensed.

To be fair, though, I do my best to limit the unlicensed viewing strictly because there's more I can view of the older stuff which no longer affects "revenue". It's not a lost sale if the sale couldn't exist in the first place.

The last unlicensed show I watched was Clannad: After Story.

And believe me, this isn't easy. I've been dying to watch the second season of Shakugan no Shana. But I'm waiting by viewing other series.

My final input.
I kept my personal opinion about the copyright laws out of this thread, as I feel I've already sparked enough material to get the kids in a frenzy.

However, as a supporter of buying DVDs (the soon-to-be scarce good), I'm not going to be happy if costs are increasing from the stupid notion people pay to view.

If this continues, how long, Evan, do you think you'll remain employed by FUNimation if it does nothing to change its business model?

Because the company you work for isn't competing with "free".

It's competing with service.

The way I see it, there's no way the licensing system (aka IP protection system) will ever catch up enough to remove the delays in which fansubs eliminate.

Illegal or not, the consumers have spoken. It's quite clear this should be a wake up call to all involved in anime.

There's a ton of ways to generate revenue once the idiotic notion people pay to view is removed.

Instead, think about what people will pay for instead.

Here's an idea: Offer DVD downloads at $1 per episode. This removes the packaging, shipping, and other costs to distribute a plastic disk and should generate a larger profit margin.
(just don't use this as the only source)

I think FUNimation will be quite surprised to see just what people will pay for.

PetrifiedJello wrote:

For licensed material, I will generally watch the ad supported site if, and only if, the ads are non-invasive. Stop the content midway to show me an ad, and I'm gone. I don't believe the web world needs to (or should) carry the idiotic dynamic of ad placement television shows do. The captive audience is dead. Deal with it.

You realize they have commercial interruptions when they watch it in Japan, right? And when it's aired on American television? "The captive audience is dead?" If this post is any indication, the audience is spoiled.

vashfanatic wrote:

You realize they have commercial interruptions when they watch it in Japan, right? And when it's aired on American television? "The captive audience is dead?" If this post is any indication, the audience is spoiled.

Yes, I do. And spoiled isn't the word I'd use.

Call it consumer options. Because consumers have finally realized they have options. Those who bungle this option find themselves wondering why site "X" makes up for it.

I know people still watch ads, but they don't watch them over and over. Generally, the remote is used to change channels (or in many cases, the fast forward button is used). On the web, the attention span drops even more so.

People don't have a problem with ads, in general. But they do have a problem when they become intrusive, or worse, forced.

Not being able to fast forward a video on the web is one thing, but to hear how the entertainment industry is pushing to place locks on DVRs to prevent fast forwarding is appalling.

Why? Because if you really, really think about it, we're all paying for content regardless if we watch it or not.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of this industry telling me how and when I can enjoy the shows we're already paying for.

PetrifiedJello wrote:

Why? Because if you really, really think about it, we're all paying for content regardless if we watch it or not.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of this industry telling me how and when I can enjoy the shows we're already paying for.

Hmm... I'm thinking about it, and sans ads or buying the DVDs, I'm not sure how we're "all paying for content." Especially since you just argued we don't pay for content, just the means by which that content is distributed.

And to add onto your idea of merchandising: as someone who buys no real merchandise, I would still like to see more anime music being brought over stateside. Soundtracks don't get released, or only some of the soundtracks for a series get released, leaving the door open for a lot of online downloading.

vashfanatic wrote:

Hmm... I'm thinking about it, and sans ads or buying the DVDs, I'm not sure how we're "all paying for content." Especially since you just argued we don't pay for content, just the means by which that content is distributed.

You're right. Thanks for the correction.
Here's an example of paying for it: Let's say you buy a bottle of Mt. Dew. You just helped pay for a little old lady watching a rerun of "Walker: Texas Ranger" because the ad for Mt. Dew was played.

Now think about how much money is generated from a purchase of a new automobile, given they're the most frequent of ads.

Quote:

And to add onto your idea of merchandising: as someone who buys no real merchandise, I would still like to see more anime music being brought over stateside. Soundtracks don't get released, or only some of the soundtracks for a series get released, leaving the door open for a lot of online downloading.

Ugh. Music. The worse offender of all in the entertainment industry. You can probably see why it is so scarce. There's not much of a market for it.

Add in all the payola that's derived from just one song, and downloading becomes the only option people have.

But don't feel bad. Track down the artist and contact them and say "Yo, I just downloaded this song and I want to compensate you for it. Where can I send my payment?"
Heh.
The distributor will whine, but I doubt the artist will.
Wink

It's going to be a very bumpy road for the next few years. And it's all unnecessary.

Last edited by vashfanatic on Tue May 05, 2009 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total

So Petrified Jelo, I'm trying to figure out what the hell kind of business model you're proposing here: we don't have ads, we don't pay for anything unless it's dirt cheap, you can't sue for copyright infringement... how the hell are companies going to make any money? Do you want them all to go bankrupt?? The ideas you've proposed are preposterous from a financial point of view, and will do nothing to stop the illegal digital spread of these shows - something you don't seem to have a problem with!

As someone who has worked in fansubbing in the past (unlicensed series only), you have precisely the kind of attitude that is ruining the whole system. Stop feeling you have a right or an expectation to free products and remember that people actually put time, effort, and labor into the creation of those products. Fansubbers may be doing it for the love of anime, but the creators are doing it to earn a living, and they deserve to get some compensation for their work.

dan888 wrote:

The right to take down stuff is based on the DMCA, an American law, so unless a Spanish law is being violated, there is absolutely no right to claim that any company has the right to force a take down, and even then it has to be with the allowable remedies under Spanish law. It has been ruled by multiple courts in the US that having a foreign website that is accessible in the US does NOT give the US jurisdiction, so regardless of what activities are occurring on a website that the US can access, nothing in US law applies.

No, the DMCA is...

Quote:

The WIPO Copyright Treaty is implemented in United States law by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

...and EU countries are signatories to the WIPO copyright treaty.

bayoab wrote:

dan888 wrote:

The right to take down stuff is based on the DMCA, an American law, so unless a Spanish law is being violated, there is absolutely no right to claim that any company has the right to force a take down, and even then it has to be with the allowable remedies under Spanish law. It has been ruled by multiple courts in the US that having a foreign website that is accessible in the US does NOT give the US jurisdiction, so regardless of what activities are occurring on a website that the US can access, nothing in US law applies.

No, the DMCA is...

Quote:

The WIPO Copyright Treaty is implemented in United States law by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

...and EU countries are signatories to the WIPO copyright treaty.

So why aren't fansubbers simply hosting their things on norwegian servers or something then?

Forum - View topic
Chicks On Anime - Copyright Enforcement

My Happy Marriage Director Takehiro Kubota and Creating a New Fairytale

This Week in Anime - When A New Studio Takes Over Your Favorite Series

You and I Are Polar Opposites Volume 1 Manga Review

Hisaya Nakajo's Hana-Kimi Shōjo Manga Gets Anime

The ANN Aftershow - Could There Be More Evangelion on the Horizon?

In the Shadow of the Beast: The Kaiju Genre & Kaiju No. 8

Before You Discard Me, I Shall Have My Way With You Volume 1 Manga Review

Netflix Reveals Terminator Zero Anime to Premiere Worldwide on August 29

Kadokawa Co-Produces Anime for Garena Free Fire Battle Royale Shooter

Healer for the Shadow Hero Volume 1 Manga Review

This Week in Anime - The Anatomy of an Anime Waifu

GoFundMe Campaign Launched for Pokémon Voice Actress Rachael Lillis

Your Anime Rankings - Best of Spring 2024, Apr 29-May 5

Pop Star Crystal Kay on Singing Anime Songs and Growing Up Mixed-Race in Japan

The Dangerous Convenience Store Manhwa Volume 1 Review

Forum - View topicChicks On Anime - Copyright Enforcement

Forum

Forum - View topic
Chicks On Anime - Copyright Enforcement