30 Days of D-BOYS, Day 2

[tilmon]

( Day 1 here)
My first impression...of each member? Let me see if I can go in order as I learned them. Probably not. Probably some big fail coming up fast!

Comments

[tilmon]

Unless ACTA goes into enforcement, that isn't the case, at least not in the US. It's OK to dl things that are not under US copyright in the US. Probably OK to dl things that are not under Brazilian copyright in Brazil.

The problem, of course, is that the internet is international but the laws are national. So, people should police themselves. Like, I don't dl US stuff. It is easy for me to get it in so many other ways. But if I don't dl foreign things, how will I ever have them? If it is possible to buy them, I will. But if they aren't ever marketed, or are marketed in such a way that the access is restricted, that is effective censorship. The fact that it is a company doing the censorship rather than a government doesn't make it any less censorship.

Then there is the issue of being able to transform an item, such as add subtitles or re-cut for parody value. Unless you can upload and share the entire work as a team, such usually team efforts are effectively outlawed. And if you can't then share the transformation with other people? That's also an assault on freedom of speech.

So, unless they address these censorship concerns when they try to enforce copyright, there's a huge human rights problem that emerges. Yes, freedom of speech, including the freedom to hear speech (in all its forms), is a basic human right.

As far as buying as much as possible, I am all for that! After you have heard some songs or seen a movie by someone, if it is possible to buy their goods (available in your country, not priced like a luxury item when it isn't a luxury item, in the format/language you need it in, etc.), you should definitely buy it! You can't really call yourself a fan if you never buy the goods!

[makichan5]

It's different in France. That's why ^^
We have a law who says:
"Any complete or partial representation or reproduction done without the author's or assign's approval is illegal. It's the same for the translation, the adaptation or the transformation, the arrangement or the reproduction by an art or any process."
So, even if there don't be copyrights in my country, the scantrad and the fansub are illegal ^^;
I can understand the freedom of speech is important, but unfortunately, when we share something on internet and we don't have the rights from the author, it's like stealing him. We have good intentions, and want to show it to the others because it have to be see by the most of people. I share videos myself for this reason. But I can't lie to myself, and ignore it's a theft after all.

[tilmon]

The problem is gets back to content owners (and lets be real here--it is hardly ever the actual creator involved) wanting to shove universal copyright throughout the world without at the same time developing universal access. What they are doing is known as racketeering, carving the world up into little districts, restricting the flow of information, all so they can extract money from a cowed populace.

In the US, back in the days of slavery, if a slave ran away and was then caught where slavery was illegal, that slave was still returned his master. And you know why? Because the slave was charged with theft. Theft was not exactly the gravest crime that was happening, but the real crime--turning people into slaves--was not punishable. Remember that: Theft is not a worse crime than violation of human rights.

[makichan5]

But putting works of people without their permissions (and some of them said they are against scantrad and fansub) is a violation of human rights too!

[tilmon]

Let's see...what does the UN have to say about this?

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

and also:

" (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."

(UN Declaration on Human Rights, Article 19, 1948)

Yes, the UN Declaration also says

" (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

That particular safeguard was put into the Declaration out of the concern that governments might expropriate property, not that individuals or companies might experience some amount of theft. Elevating concern about property rights to a level greater than the free trade of political, cultural, artistic, and scientific content is foolhardy and dangerous for the advancement of human society.

I am all for content rights holders recouping their investment and making a profit. But if they will not themselves distribute their content in such a way that everyone can access that content, then the right to information supersedes their right to control the content and how it is distributed.

This really is bigger than fandoms or entertainment. If corporations have their way, they can just as easily buy up the rights to any content that is unfavorable to their interests and keep it from public consumption. Censorship by private entities is no less reprehensible or dangerous than censorship by governments.

There already exist plenty of opportunities for media companies to make their content available for a reasonable price anywhere in the world. That they refuse to take those opportunities raises questions about their real motives. It seems to me that they would rather control the public than make money. They would rather keep us separated by culture and language than allow the further progression of transnationalism that the internet has so far encouraged.