First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply #WTFU - Is TV Tokyo ruining Anime?
24306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Various
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16
That is not what I said.
I did not say they don't put any effort into making reviews.
I did not say that their individual senses of humor, tastes, editing styles, etc. aren't valid at all.

But at the same time... no theater critic would ever say that their review published in the New York Times or another major newspaper is equally valid to the production they're reviewing.
Definitely no book critic would say that, since they're working in the same medium.

But that's not even my point. My point is that, in the scheme of things, is this really enough of an issue to demonize the people who make the stuff we're all here to talk about, at barely any profit?

No one is getting beaten. No one spreading racism. No one is preventing anyone's work from being released at all. There's enough in the world that is worth getting worked up over and making this into a big fight is just bringing more unnecessary antagonism into people's lives.

_________________

Actually, if you notice, I said "Why don't they try text reviewing?", which more than implies that I think their ideas are valid enough without all of the frills. Their work is just as valid as a theater critic's work is. Now find a theater critic and ask them how they would feel if a director asked them to just use 3 photos instead of 5 in their review, but had no problem with any of the text, no matter how scathingly negative or anything.


...losing their jobs...

Hired by whom? Fired by whom? Since when are youtubers under contract as employees, and to whom? They're the proprietors of their own channels - it's not Youtube's job to keep them in business.
If I'm mistaken and you are talking about employees of Youtube or of TV Tokyo, please let me know.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

BlueOni wrote:
That right is part and parcel of the deal society made with copyright holders when it was agreed that the latter would be granted copyrights.


Society did not make a deal with copyright holders.
Society is a collective of people.

Not only that, but from my vantage point the statement implies that rights only exist when society deems it necessary. That in fact deals can be made over having rights. That rights are neither universal nor inalienable.

I refuse. There are no deals over rights. Particularly the right of ownership, which intellectual property falls under. The limits and mechanics of such a right might be arguable, but the fact that it derives authority from itself is not. The enforcement of ownership may occur through a policing body, and the mechanics upon which that policing body acts may be written as law by a legislative body, but a vague, unspecified group of people named "society" are not a legislative body, do not write laws, do not enforce laws, do not make deals with other groups of people, and do not have the authority to grant copyrights. Society is not a clearly defined decision making entity. And it does not get to specify a right any more than legislative fiat can specify that a circle is now a square.

A right is more fundamental than society. It does not need permission to exist in the abstract, and any person with the capacity to recognize it can seize such a right and write it into legislation. The process does not need multiple parties to be in agreement. There often will be parties in agreement, but that's carried out in legislation by individuals, not society.
51435 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/17/16 , edited 3/17/16

LavenderMintRose wrote:

YouTube is not obligated to host your videos. Youtube is also a private company. They can do what they want. Like someone else suggested, if you don't like their policies, take your content elsewhere. If your content is really that great, your audience will follow you and it'll be Youtube's loss.

I think you underestimating the difficulty of doing that. YouTube is the largest video sharing site in existence and is unrivaled. Content creators don't use YouTube because they love their policies. They use YouTube because they know that's how they'll maximize viewership. There's no doubt they'd lose much of their followers if they told everyone they were leaving YouTube to go to some little known website, regardless of what their content is. That's essentially suicide for any small-time reviewer. Especially if it's an anime reviewer, since that community on YouTube is extremely tiny to begin with. YouTube really won't lose anything from one anime reviewer leaving. In fact, YouTube has taken an active role in shutting down many of these channels, which is part of what people are complaining about.


Youtube is not obligated to let you use its platform to make a living.


No, but they are obligated to make sure their services are being used fairly. The problem here is that it's far to easy to abuse their flagging system. It's YouTube's responsibility to fix that.


I'm saying there should not be any outrage. If I were making a living entirely based on talking about someone else's work, and not making any work that isn't dependent on their work having an audience - a situation where my audience is, by definition, a subcategory of someone else's audience - and that other person told me to use less of their work, I would not call them a bully for that. After all, they're the ones writing stories and animating things. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2016-03-16/your-ultimate-guide-to-anime-ending-credits-part-i/.99852 < -- This is what they're bringing to the table, and then some. What am I bringing? "Top 10" of their work. "OMG I loved this" or "OMG I hated this"... of their work. That's what makes the reviewers' work less valid.
It's not about how much money anime does or doesn't make. It's about respect, and it's about not being antagonistic.


This part makes me question whether or not you've actually watched a single review in your life. It's not as simple as spending 5 minutes editing and uploading a video with you saying "this episode of One Punch Man was good. I give this 8/10. Goodbye." If that's all a review was, nobody would pay any attention to them. People watch reviews so they can know what people's opinions on certain things are and this is commonly done with an in-depth analysis of the subject being reviewed. If the reviewer is someone who has a track record of liking the same things you like, you might want to hear their opinions on stuff that you're not sure of. That doesn't apply to just anime. That applies to anything being reviewed, whether that's a game, a movie, or even a restaurant.

It's not just some person putting up a 5 second clip of something and saying "it was good." Nobody is trying to make money off of someone else's content, except for those people who actually upload other people's unedited content and claim them as their own. But that's not what we're talking about here. If you upload a video that features nothing more than you giving your thoughts on something, that's your own personal content and doesn't belong to those companies trying to flag your videos. It's ridiculous to believe someone else has the rights to your own opinions.


Here's the other thing - this isn't a journalistic issue. This is not, for example, a producer of a show with racist themes attacking or sabotaging reviewers who call out the racism in the show. This is not about some fact being silenced. This is a very minor issue. No, it's not wrong to use clips in reviews, but why is it so important that it's worth a huge fight? Why should people not in the wrong have to be the ones to do all the work? Because life's not always fair, because it's not really that much work, because it's your responsibility, not Youtube's, to protect your livelihood,

Also, aside from indignation at unfair enforcement of a rule, what value do the clips really bring to these videos? Are there real reasons why these reviewers' work would not be just as valid and complete in text with images as opposed to video?

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but it really looks like you're saying that if there's something unfair, it's wrong to try to fix it. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly think this way. Why should you have to pay the price to allow someone else to continue abusing you? That seems backwards. It doesn't make sense to condemn people for speaking up against a system that punishes them for doing something completely innocent and harmless. Sure it's not necessary to have a short clip in your reviews (I actually haven't seen any anime reviewer do this though) or even images for that matter. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to punish people if they want to express themselves that way.

I recall recently Chibi Reviews received a strike for an absurd reason. This guy never puts any of the anime content in his videos. It's always just a video of his face. So what did he get the strike for? A thumbnail that, just like the ones he puts on all his other videos, featured a heavily edited screenshot of the episode of the anime he was reviewing. That's it. He got flagged for a customized thumbnail. YouTube responded by disabiling his ability to upload videos using custom thumbnails. Thankfully the issue has since been resolved, but it's just another example of how easy it is to hurt reviewers over nothing.

The way YouTube's system is set up, a company (well, anyone really but in this case, we're talking about anime companies) can give Youtubers copyright strikes and claim the videos as their own. YouTube responds by punishing the channels before even investigating whether or not the claims were true. This isn't about anime reviewers making more money than animators, which is a pretty strange claim since anime reviewers don't even make anywhere near that much from their videos and their main source of income is often a combination of their YouTube channels, donations, and actual part-time jobs. Anyways, this isn't about that. This is about people, in this case the anime companies and networks, abusing YouTube's broken flagging system and harming innocent YouTubers.


My point is simply that, as "things in the world that are unfair" go, this is way, way down the ladder and not worth getting worked up over. The only reason I brought up the issue of animator pay is that it's clearly connected and the work that animators do is way more important, seeing as, as I said, the reviewers are dependent on the animators for things to review.

Actually, no. It's not connected. I'm not sure how you ever came to that conclusion.


Also, that's not the purpose of fair use. The purpose of fair use is for journalism, scholarly work, parody, etc. - to continue the conversation after the work is made, not so that second person can make a profit off of the same work. Making a profit off of someone else's work is not protected, even under fair use.

It's not the anime companies that have a sense of entitlement here...


How is having the freedom to give reviews not protected when all those other things you mentioned are? Are you even aware that it's possible to make money off of parodies and journalism on YouTube the same way reviewers do? I've already said this once in this post but I'll say it one more time. Reviewers aren't trying to make money off of other people's content. If you upload a video about you giving your opinion on something, that content belongs to you and no one else. Anime companies have no right to say something like "Chibi Reviews just spoke about our anime. We deserve the rights to his videos!"


Edit 3/ another point: The issue of youtube's dominance of the video-streaming field and whether that gives them an obligation to have more of a proactive role in protecting their content providers. Really, it doesn't. But it should, to some extent. But it doesn't. That's really the problem with modern technology setups and social media sites. It's also the issue with Amazon and ebooks (and other things, too). That has nothing to do with the question of, "Is overly strict copyright enforcement ruining anime?", or even, "Is overly strict copyright enforcement in this specific situation something that needs to be fought against or something that needs to be adapted to?" (which, my answer to the latter is, "~20/80: Take up the issue calmly with the people who are actually involved in it - that is, through emails and such, not through making a public scene and demonizing the same people your channel exists to celebrate as if that makes sense - and, in the meantime, adapt and focus on what you want from your channel - whether that's profit, to get your opinions out, to promote your favorite series, etc., none of that requires using clips.")


I'm confused here. Who do you expect anime reviewers to be writing emails to? Japanese companies? Good luck getting a response from a foreign company that has little to no interest talking to some guy outside their market. Not only would that be a lot of unnecessary work that would most likely have no results, it also doesn't fix the root of the problem. The issue here is mostly with YouTube. Their system is far to easy to exploit. Of course part of the problem is the people who take advantage of this, but the only long-term solution I can imagine is if YouTube were to reorganize their flagging system so that nobody could abuse it so freely. Their current policy is to listen to the people flagging videos and punish the YouTuber that owns the video without even looking into it. As someone else in this thread put it, it's guilty until proven innocent. It's basically the Salem Witch Hunts but for anime reviewers. All it takes is one company to point fingers at you and YouTube decides to burn your channel. You would have to put up an extraordinary fight to prove you're innocent.


LavenderMintRose wrote:

But at the same time... no theater critic would ever say that their review published in the New York Times or another major newspaper is equally valid to the production they're reviewing.
Definitely no book critic would say that, since they're working in the same medium.


Can you point to any anime reviewer saying that their reviews are just as valuable as the anime they're reviewing? This looks like you're trying to change the topic. I see no relation between a company trying to claim rights to someone's review about an anime and someone who writes a movie review and carries on with their normal life.


But that's not even my point. My point is that, in the scheme of things, is this really enough of an issue to demonize the people who make the stuff we're all here to talk about, at barely any profit?


You appear to be under the impression that the people who actually sit in a room animating these shows are the same as the companies who own the titles handing out strikes to everyone on YouTube.
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3/18/16 , edited 3/18/16
I think this video may need to be put into the mix for better understanding the context of what we're talking about here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqFAMOtwaI

I'm kind of surprised it wasn't in the OP, because this basically covers everything.


Nobodyofimportance wrote:

Society did not make a deal with copyright holders.
Society is a collective of people.

Not only that, but from my vantage point the statement implies that rights only exist when society deems it necessary. That in fact deals can be made over having rights. That rights are neither universal nor inalienable.

I refuse. There are no deals over rights. Particularly the right of ownership, which intellectual property falls under. The limits and mechanics of such a right might be arguable, but the fact that it derives authority from itself is not. The enforcement of ownership may occur through a policing body, and the mechanics upon which that policing body acts may be written as law by a legislative body, but a vague, unspecified group of people named "society" are not a legislative body, do not write laws, do not enforce laws, do not make deals with other groups of people, and do not have the authority to grant copyrights. Society is not a clearly defined decision making entity. And it does not get to specify a right any more than legislative fiat can specify that a circle is now a square.

A right is more fundamental than society. It does not need permission to exist in the abstract, and any person with the capacity to recognize it can seize such a right and write it into legislation. The process does not need multiple parties to be in agreement. There often will be parties in agreement, but that's carried out in legislation by individuals, not society.


Copyright holders are granted exclusive control of duplication and distribution of their creative works if they agree to yield this control after a set period and allow exceptions to this control for fair use purposes. Society agrees to fail to use its ability to duplicate and distribute works provided it will eventually claim the right to do so and maintains the right to fair use. That sounds like an arrangement between society and copyright holders to me. That law is the vehicle through which this agreement is recognised and enforced doesn't really take away from that, does it?
423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/19/16
Japanese companies by and large think copyright exists to be enforced and has no other purpose. They'll take down anime OPs and EDs, short clips and reviews even though it's clearly against their own interests. They're not thinking about the consequences of tolerating or taking down content, they just take it down. Because copyright.

The OP of Attack on Titan has been allowed to stay up for years, and it has 33 million views. It's a really cool OP and it's bound to make people interested in the anime, so it's very effective and zero effort advertisement. The OP was partially created as an advertisement to begin with (for the song). But most companies want to take down all OPs. They could settle for blocking them in Japan, but no. Everything must burn and nobody must be allowed to become aware of the anime or any of its associated music.

The anime industry is very business savvy, but they can't figure out this YouTube thing at all and keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.


Gafennec wrote:

One other thing needs to be observed. Companies not only have the right to defend their property, but also has a DUTY to defend their propety
. Meaning if they don't make a concerted and consistent stand to defend their property then it weakens their argument when seeking court satisfaction in relief against a predatory use of their property.
I think that only applies to trademarks, not copyright. Companies let people get away with copyright violations all the time and can still shut them down whenever they feel like it.
10 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/27/16
Today, I was just hit with my tenth claim this month on fair use covered content. I'm done. Help me fight back: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/899/078/184/the-fight-to-end-illegal-copyright-claims-on-youtube/
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.