Anime

[jetxl]

So it's illegal, but you can't get prosecuted?
Tarzan not understand.

EDIT after Farl's post:
There are websites that hosted movies (like spider-man 2) who DID got their ass sued.
By the company that holds the rights.

[Nacho]

Ok, I will try to explain... in an easy way...

There are homicides, rapes, violations, assessinations, bombs to deactivate...

Justice have no time to prosecute teenagers who do not want to pay for Anime.

[Esseb]

Downloading and offering anime for download is illegal. The companies who own the licenses generally look through the fingers because most fansub groups don't release anime that has been picked up by a company for release in the US, plus they probably play a very big part in ensuring anime is so popular. Unless lots of fansub groups suddenly start releasing anime picked up by a US company, there's probably not a great chance anyone will get prosecuted.

However, it is very much illegal, which was my point. I download anime myself, but at least I don't go around pretending I don't break any laws.

[Nacho]

Yeah, the main problem about this discussion is how useless it is, because, even proving that downloading Anime is illegal, I am sure that the people who deffends its legallity should go on downloading it...

EDIT after Farl's post:
There are websites that hosted movies (like spider-man 2) who DID got their ass sued.
By the company that holds the rights.

So... Tarzan undestands it's illegal? Does Tarzan understand that distributing things that are under license can be sued or prosecutd if the owner has enough power, or interest?

Which is Tarzan's position... Is it legal? It is but can't be prosecuted? Or it is illegal, since it's prosecuted?

No flip flop, please...

[DGMacphee]

Jet, I can't believe you're so lazy that you're asking me to check this out for you. You should check this out yourself.

First of all: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/archives/news/old/012099B.php

And this was before any licensing.

So, pwnd, bitch!

Next, the article I posted before does cite legal references from international law. These references are coming directly from the laws themselves, so why would you need references from textbooks when you've got references to the laws themselves? If you had bothered to read the article properly, you'd see that.

For example, it cites the Berne Convention. Article 2 of the Berme Convention sets out the definition of a protected work, such as "cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography" -- which is what anime is. Article 3 sets out the criteria, and I've read nothing that does not discount anime in that section. Article 5 sets out the rights, which include: "Authors shall enjoy... the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention." As far as I'm aware, all anime is protected by Japanese law (the country of origin). What applies to Japan in regards to anime, applies to other countries according to the Berne Convention.

Here is the actual text of the Berne Convention:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html

Here's a cut down version of the Berne Convention that focuses on specific parts we are discussing (useful for you, since I now how lazy you are not to go out and check this yourself):
http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/faq/international/faq01.html
http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/faq/international/faq02.html

Even though there are no specific court cases involving anime, that doesn't make it legal to download unlicensed anime. (Besides, I've still provided an example where a company has ask fansubbed to stop distribution. And why did the fansubbers stop? Because it is illegal and Sony was within their rights to threaten them with legal action). I mean, would you assume if hypothetically there were no civil cases involving copyright infringment restricted to just your country that it would be legel to infringe copyright despite the legislation put in place by your government? You see, just because there is no common law (i.e. law interpreted by judges, such as prior court cases), there's still statute law (i.e. law made by governments). To ask me to only cite court cases disregards an entire body of law, which is really stupid. I could just as well ask you provide an example of a court case where anime producers sued an anime distribution site and lost. There aren't any, just the same as there aren't any cases where producers have gone forth, sued, and won. But I can still quote statute law (as well as the link to the Sony legal threat). Thus, I don't need to strictly provide any common law basis when I can also quote statute law.

Let me put it another way: let's say I wrote an article and published it in a magazine in my home country, Australia. A German writer imports the Australian magazine with my article published and reads my article. He likes it so much that he decides to put his name on the article and sell it to a German magazine. They publish it. Now, are they allowed to publish it? No fucking way! It's my article! It was stolen! Can I prove it? You bet. The article was stolen word for word and mine was published before his was. Can I sue even though it was published in another country? Damn right! The Berne Convention affords me that right, even if I can't find another case as a pretext.

Here's the crunch: though, I can't cite a international copyright case involving anime (even though I don't need to, due to the statute laws and my example of a legal threat), I can cite cases where extraterritorial litigation has happened. For example, there's a famous defamation case called Gutnick vs Dow Jones. Dow Jones published an online article that made reference to Australian businesman Joseph Gutnick. The crux of the case revolved around whether the case could be brought to Australia from the US. The Australian High Court ruled that plaitiffs are allowed to sue for internet defamation irrespective of location. On November 15, 2004, Dow Jones settled the case and paid Gutnick $440,000 in fees and damages. While this example has nothing to do with copyright, it does show that extraterritorial litigation can happen. If Japanese anime producers wanted to sue online distributors, they'd be within their rights to do so under Japanese law. They haven't so far, but it doesn't mean they can't -- the means just hasn't been tested (Like I said, I'd like to see you provide an example of a court case where anime producers sued an anime distribution site and lost). But this shows that, while Japanese producers haven't sued, you can still do something illegal even if you're in another country. We're living in a world where boundries are being erroded on a daily basis. I can still do something in my country and get sued by someone else in another country.

Now, so far, I've quoted:
1) a case where a Japanese company asked fansubber to stop distributing an unlisensed anime title.
2) statue law
3) an example of internation law in action.

So far, you don't have anything that proves me wrong. All you have done is raised some criticism on the validity of the article I linked here, but you haven't given anything from a legitimate legal source that states, "Yes, downloading anime is legal." Where's your legal pretext? I've provided mine, so why don't you provide yours, instead of copying and pasting from only one mystical, unlinked FAQ that could have come from anywhere and then proceeding to call me lazy? Then again, I'd expect this from someone who can't understand the subtrext of Lord of the Flies and mistakes it for Lord of the Rings instead.


Some extra notes

Here's a quote from ADV producer David Williams: "I think it [fansubbing] can both hurt and help the industry. It can help the industry in some ways because it can help build awareness of the titles. It can also hurt the industry. I have a classic example that I've used quite often. We had a show that was fansubbed very heavily for the first part of the show but the last part wasn't. When that show was released in stores, the sales on the first part of that show were really low and the sales on the part that was not fansubbed, were really high. That's backwards from the way a normal sale works out. It normally starts out really high and then gets lower on the later volumes. So there's an example of where we can see that a lot of people that have seen the fansubs didn't buy the first part of it but they went out and bought the last part of it because it hasn't been fansubbed."

Here's another article on "unlicensed anime" being illegal: http://www.animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=954
I especially like the line that says, "In light of my limited knowledge of international copyright law, and my own common sense, it seems absolutely logical, rational and appropriate that the distribution of unlicensed anime is illegal. Anime is copyrighted in Japan, if not in North America also, and any distribution of copyrighted material without the express consent of the owner is theft."

Someone (though with no legal background) typed this handy FAQ of anime legality and ethics: http://members.tripod.com/~AvatarHR/legalfaq.html See Q2.22


I hope I have settled this matter once and for all, everyone. Now answer my question: Does anyone like Toyko Godfathers?

[Nacho]

I hope I have settled this matter once and for all, everyone. Now answer my question: Does anyone like Toyko Godfathers?

Sorry... my computer deleted the rest of the post accidentally... can you repeat it, please?

[DGMacphee]

Oh, you are absolutely adorable!! Have a Larry: 

[Nacho]

Thanks! So... And now, making a quick brief of  DG's post.. It says that for distributing Anime you can't use what in Spanish legal slang is called "Administrative silence".

Administrative silence is applied in some cases, and it means that "If you don't receive a negative, you must consider you petition accepted". That was for making some public burocracy more agile. All the laws which included the "administrative silence" are supossed to have a positive reply (Let's say, 95% of the cases)... So, it was easier for the administration to work in the cases denying the petition than the opposite.

The bad use of administrative silence, had made this legal form to fall into disgrace in the last revisits of the civil code. People (missunderstanding the law, or making a conscient bad use of it) just started to do the things without making the petition to it, because it was faily assumed that the administration was going to reply "yes".

What I see here is that you say somewhat that people providing anime is making use of "administrative silence", since they haven't been sued, or told not to go on with the activity.

That's a poor excuse since adminsitrative silence only works if you demmand permission to something. So, even assuming that laws concerning Anime allow to distribute them with administrative silence, you must prove that those WEBsites have demmanded permission to host and offer that Anime for download.

And I bet my balls they haven't.

So... Final summary (even "inserting" the old "administrative silence" form) of DG's post:

-You need to contact the owners of copyright of the Anime.

[DGMacphee]

The thing is that some people have been told they're not allow to provide unlicensed anime, as per my example of Sony with Ruroni Kenshin in 1999. But on the whole, most fansub distributors have been making use of "administrative silence".

[Nacho]

Yeah, but in the way it sounds to me that they've making use of administrative silence in fraud, which is:

A) Using administrative silence in cases where the law says there in no administrative silence (I am not sure if administrative silence is used here...)

and

B) Not consulting and assuming that the permission is given without even asking for it. (I am ALMOST SURE none of those webs have mailed the onwers asking for permission...)

[jetxl]

Yeah, the main problem about this discussion is how useless it is, because, even proving that downloading Anime is illegal, I am sure that the people who deffends its legallity should go on downloading it...

EDIT after Farl's post:
There are websites that hosted movies (like spider-man 2) who DID got their ass sued.
By the company that holds the rights.

So... Tarzan undestands it's illegal? Does Tarzan understand that distributing things that are under license can be sued or prosecutd if the owner has enough power, or interest?

Which is Tarzan's position... Is it legal? It is but can't be prosecuted? Or it is illegal, since it's prosecuted?

No flip flop, please...

It's legal.
I asked a friend who does busness law, and a co-worker who downloads indian movies.
They said the same thing. "It's legal."

I havn't seen tokio godfather because they don't sell much anime  in the Netherlands. :    (

[Nacho]

Ok, if your buddy says it's legal, go on with it... As said, it's very unlikely that anybody is going to make anything to you...

At least, nothing worse than anime does! 

[DGMacphee]

It's legal.
I asked a friend who does busness law, and a co-worker who downloads indian movies.
They said the same thing. "It's legal."

I havn't seen tokio godfather because they don't sell much anime  in the Netherlands. :    (

And on what basis did your business law friend say it's legal? Which part of the law did he cite? C'mon, you've just asked me to provide cases, but you've provided zilch, buddy. Other than some mystical business law friend (who possibly lives with the Easter bunny) who just said "It's legal" without any basis.

Go on, back up your claims.

As for your friend who downloads Indian movies, I don't give much credit to him since he's technically doing something illegal and trying to justify it with imaginary loopholes, just like people who download anime.

[Nacho]

Ok... During this lapse of time I've consulted THREE people speciallised in laws.

a) Only distributors may distribute Copyrighted stuff.

b) No one who is not owner of the copyright can distribute copyrighted stuff.

c) If someone who is distributing copyrighted stuff is not denunciated, it incurrs into ALLEGALLITY. That's the majority of the cases of anime distributors who do not have permission to distribute.

d) If they're denounced, they incurr into illegallity, and they may face monetary or prison penalties.

Since I've been quite annoyed with this post, I am seriously thinking in denouncing http://www.animesuki.com/ for violating the international coryright laws... In that way we'd have a real sollution to the discussion we have here.

So, your signature is not just annoying, but also illegal! wow, we have a record here! 

[jetxl]

I always comes back back to that, huh farl. 

B.t.w. linking to a site is not illegal.
Buha, in yo face, lawyer-wanabe.

[Nacho]

I am not a lawyer wannabe... I am a person with a career which include several subjects about laws (Introduction to civil laws, introduction to commercial laws, Tax laws...) That, and my SENSE of logical tell me that distributing stuff under license is not legal. Anyway, the people who has informed me about the copyrighted stuff are not lawyers wannabes, they're JUST lawyers.

And yeah, your signature still annoys me. Surprised?

[Las Naranjas]

and now back to the real topic. I have Tokyo Godfathers but I am yet to see it.

[jetxl]

farl, hanging around lawyers doesn't make you a lawyer, but a lawyer groupie.
But enough talk about Tokyo Godfathers.
Lest talk about Kasumi!

[Cluey]

Whoa, this thread got into a bit of a moral battle no?

Anyway, Kasumi has large breasts, thats her only character trait

I want to see Kai Doh Maru, anyone here know it/can recommend it?

And has anyone here seen Last Exile?  It's so very, very underrated.  Hardly anyone talks about it anywhere, not even  on <shudder>Gaia<shudder> but I notice everyone jumps at the chance to talk about Inuyasha.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=129  Hilarious.

[Esseb]

It's not a moral battle, it's about information. Jet X.L. is telling people that it's legal, we're telling people that it is not because we don't want people to have the wrong idea. Whether they download or not I don't mind.