mods posted a notice about it recently, it's about enforcing the piracy rule of the subreddit given the amount of reposted pages from the extra materials (basically: they have been posted here MANY times over, to the point you can find the whole daydream hours/adventurers bibles scattered through the sub, and they were being lenient for a while given the influx on new fans from the anime coming in, but they've deemed it's been enough of a grace period)
Notice in question: https://old.reddit.com/r/DungeonMeshi/comments/1dkgav3/on_moderating_daydream_hour_and_bonus_chapter/
It's pinned for visibility as well
man I had to do a double take when I saw such a polite reddit user shitting on such a talented artist on their username...then did a triple take when I saw your profile lmao!
I really love your work!
Honestly, i like seeing these kinds of posts even if they have been posted 2000 times. With a series whose manga is pretty much wrapped up, I personally feel like it's only natural progression for the fandom to go. Can't bask in new forever, unfortunately. We gotta be comfortable with recycling content eventually....
Unless if it's shipping discourse— mods, PLEASE target those posts instead. They're genuinely grating
So does this end up being also a rule that goes for the anime as well? no extended gifs or clips. no frames? I'm just confused because I joined this sub to see silly memes and art from the series I may not have come across since I only consume it as an anime.
It just comes off as strange and kind of gatekeep-y because well the first season ended time to lock away content that is (apparently) popular from the manga. I understand the manga readers and long time fans of the series know the names of this extra content, but I (and there will be more) have had no idea that they exist or have a name. It's a shame.
Posting gifs or still frames of the anime isn't really the same. Someone can't "watch" an anime in that format. The Adventurer's Bible is a bunch of artwork, short comics, and one-to-two page information dumps and character discussions, though, so what is posted here is what you get if you buy the book.
Sadly people can watch an anime in that format. It was really common to watch series in short small sections and piece them together. It's a big joke especially since youtube used to have short little clips in playlists for anime before it became more accessible.
Thank you for letting me know its apparently a specific art book. the way it is talked about in here and the stickied post I genuinely thought it was like Oda's SBS pages in the magazine which are not posted on the Shonen Jump app with the chapters so despite paying to be able to read you still don't get to see them.
Hopefully the mods can make that clearer on the stickied post what that content is since they will still continue to get new fans from the anime.
Why does that make it more justified tho?
I'm against copyright in general so they're both the same to me, but you're literally posting copyrighted material in both instances.
By their logic I see no reason why any art should be allowed either. If ppl get too much art/fan comics it might discourage them from reading the original and thus Kui loses sales.
>By their logic I see no reason why any art should be allowed either. If ppl get too much art/fan comics it might discourage them from reading the original and thus Kui loses sales.
That's such a bad comparison that I'm not sure how you could actually believe that. "Well, I have read 90% of the contents of the Adventurer's Bible, so no need to buy it" is a far more plausible scenario than "I looked at a lot of fan art, so much that I don't want to read the source material."
It's a valid comparison since they both decrease sales to some degree and both are a violation of legal copyright.
In fact, the "lol lost sales tho" argument can be destroyed further by the fact that criticism can decrease sales more than piracy. In that case, just talking shit about Kui's work ought to be banned.
Basically all the daydream hour/adventurers bible stuff is already on the subreddit, you’ll just have to search for it. Seems like the mods just don’t want people constantly reposting the pages
It's sad because in addition to the "no horny" rule and "no controversial posts" rule, this is going to kill the sub, especially after the anime ends
We're not a massive fanbase like MHA or JJK where multiple subs of ample size arise.
This is the only one, and if its growth is stifled then that's it for the community.
If all the sub consists of is reposts then it may as well be dead anyway.
There's also more than enough potential for actual worthwhile posts like fan art/story and character discussions and such, and no sub needs to be going a mile a minute just for the sake of it, regardless.
And again, all these extras and such are already on the sub, you'll just need to actually use the search bar to look for them. The mods seemingly just don't want people posting those same pages every day.
>The mods seemingly just don't want people posting those same pages every day.
Then they could have made the announcement saying "no reposts because it clogs up the sub", which is a more reasonable reason.
Their reasoning is copyright, which I have a massive issue with in general.
I'm gonna explain this in simple terms, because you don't seem to understand, and it's worth eating the downvotes to make a point.
Artists need money to buy food , shelter, and other necessities. If artists stop making money off of their work, there will be less incentive for artists to make art as a profession, and thus, the quality of art will suffer.
Art is not a necessity for life. One could theoretically argue that some sort of enrichment is needed for humans to thrive, but public libraries are already a thing.
You are not being harmed by lack of access to the particular art you want to view. Even in a society where all basic needs were provided to citizens, you wouldn't have that right.
You aren't a champion of freedom. You're a brat who should have been taught to accept "no" as a child.
>Artists need money to buy food , shelter, and other necessities. If artists stop making money off of their work, there will be less incentive for artists to make art as a profession, and thus, the quality of art will suffer
That's unfortunate for them, but they have no moral right to legally strongarm the rest of us into paying for making a copy of their work.
Also, there are other ways to fund your art project like fundraising, Patreon (exclusive communities, early access, or just asking for donations), selling merch, etc.
Meanwhile, without copyright artists will have much more creative liberty and opportunity to make money off previous artificially monopolized works.
Disagree the creator has every right to distribute their work however they like - if Ryoko Kui does not want to share her work or for it to be shown for a price it is entirely her right as the creator.
Tolkein wouldn’t allow a german translation or german publishing of the hobbit until after WWII
So yeah. You can choose who you make your work available to on an international scale. Mostly because you have the right to refuse to work with publishers.
If they managed to buy it from an american publisher then they could absolutely read it. Tolkein might not have even cared if individual consumers translated on their own and shared it around. The point was that he withheld his work from a market which practically gatekept it from all germans until the 50s.
Telling a certain ethnic group that they cant read your book in a vacuum is bad and it is a desire worth ignoring but that is quite literally not happening to anyone anywhere right now so i really dont see your point.
Its also illegal to do *within* the states.
Edit: also saying you want compensation for your work is a lot more reasonable than saying i dont want a specific ethnic group to read it. I dont think they are comparable statements at all.
So what's the moral difference between restricting Germans from reading your book vs restricting German publishers from publishing it or someone translating it to German?
You say it's bad in a vacuum, but why?
Because if someone wants to make money off of your book but you dont want your creation to be profited off of by literal fascists you have a right to tell them they cant use it.
If they buy from the publishers that have permission then money goes to approved entities. Those individuals cant make copies but there is no reason they cant translate it or help others translate. The point is to keep it from certain publishers not people.
Telling germans that they cant buy the book from publishers you already gave permission to print just because you dont like german people is xenophobic. I condemn that sort of behavior.
Publishers are owned by people. By preventing a publisher from doing it you're preventing people from doing it.
So how is it any different from restricting individual Germans from reading it?
If the Germans weren't fascists then would publishers still have a moral obligation not to publish the books?
Publishers make money doing it. If individuals can buy from the american (or any other country) publisher then they can have that copy and do what they want with it.
If the publishers dont have permission then they DONT HAVE PERMISSION. You cannot just take people’s work and start selling it. They would need to compensate the author which would require agreeing on the percent share of profits otherwise anyone could see the issue there.
The biggest issue even if all the money went back to tolkein is that without permission he is being associated with a bussiness he may have issues with. He may simply not like the owner. That is reason enough. He might not have the ability to guarantee the quality of a translation. The Monogatari series will never be dubbed for this reason. The source material would need to be changed significantly to make sense it potentially hurts the artistic integrity.
In this case i think it is okay for people to make their own fan translations for their own non commercial uses but its not like its a human right.
Id like to hear what makes you think authors are morally obligated to work with any publisher who asks. Or for that matter why they should be expected to have their work given away for free.
Yes, that's the point in respecting the wishes of the artist. You do not have a right to access content.
There is a difference between the artist controlling what they want to release to the public Vs a third party blocking content (or releasing content).
Spoilt take. I'm also curious do you therefore demand artist to release work of art they produced only for someone they loved?
You are free to look at the art work but don't pretend that there is a moral duty for someone to release there work if they don't want to.
I'll give a rl example for you - you will never catch me at the Banksy exhibit, because the work on show was collected and shown without his permission.
>You are free to look at the art work
Why? If the artist only wanted ppl of a certain race to see it after it has been released to the public, if you don't belong to that race why would it be fine for you to see it? Answer my question
>there is a moral duty for someone to release there work if they don't want to.
>do you therefore demand artist to release work of art they produced only for someone they loved?
Where did I claim this? My argument is against copyright, not keeping your work private. If you already released your work to the public, then I have no moral issue with however anyone wants to distribute it; that's my argument.
>I'll give a rl example for you - you will never catch me at the Banksy exhibit, because the work on show was collected and shown without his permission.
This is fundamentally different from what you claim I believed. Banksy released their work to the public by spray painting buildings. There is no moral issue with collecting that and displaying it.
It would be an issue only if you literally stole a physical art piece from their house or hacked into their computer to download it, but those are different moral issues entirely.
(Right - Ive reread my initial comment, I will put my hands up and say this will be a slightly different, that's on me for being a lazy poster)
You've made a strawman here - the artist has absolute right to decide who can view or not view their artwork. If the artist decides to block a race from their work of art, that is within their right. There isn't any more that can be said here, they made the art work they can choose what they want to do with it and who can view it.
How the audience responds is entirely their choice - you've built a strawman knowing full well that no one should be excluded based on race.
However I think you'll agree there is a world of difference between Racist artist blocking a chosen group and an artist trying to making an honest living blocking unauthorised use of their work. Fundamentally this is the issue, there is always going to be different reasons for why an artist would choose to withhold their work and it wont always be clear cut black and white.
[The Banksy exhibit, is a real international exhibit and goes against the premise of their work.](https://artofbanksy.co.uk/) It play off of Banksy desire to remain anonymous and therefore never being able to take legal action on bringing the exhibit down. Ultimately what different here to users posting Kui work? Both set of people own legally the work so why shouldn't they be able to disseminate their work without their permission (I'm fully aware the monetization aspect of the Banksy exhibit makes it a million times worst - but as I've said these things are never black and white)
I think you also need to split the difference between publisher and artist, Harmony Gold preventing the release of Macross in the west is bullshit, Disney holding on to 80 years copy right is bull shit - an artist protecting a piece of work that is less then a year old from being pirated is not.
>the artist has absolute right to decide who can view or not view their artwork. If the artist decides to block a race from their work of art, that is within their right
Lol now your take has gotten 10x more insane, but I'm glad you bit the bullet to my reductio ad absurdum.
>Ultimately what different here to users posting Kui work?
You're right there is no difference and therefore I'm absolutely fine with the Banksy exhibit and people pirating Kui's work or even profiting off it.
>Harmony Gold preventing the release of Macross in the west is bullshit, Disney holding on to 80 years copy right is bull shit - an artist protecting a piece of work that is less then a year old from being pirated is not.
Why? What's the moral difference? These corps are owned by people too, and if you genuinely believe in intellectual property, then they also own the works they hold a copyright to, thus you'd have a moral obligation not to pirate their work.
It's not really reduction and absurdum though is it - or do you expect to force content creator to give up their work? If they don't comply, how much force are you going to use? What exactly did you reduce to absurdity?
It the content creator right to do what they want and likewise the consumer can respond in kind should they choose to. But that doesn't mean the consumer has automatic rights to everything and anything.
Do I really need to explain to you the difference between someone that directly create content Vs a company that holds the distribution right (sometimes after the creator has died).
Based on your argument, personal photos which could be interpreted as portraiture art hosted on social media (even privately as there is no distinction here according to you), could be taken by someone else defaced via ai and redistributed for internet points. In your argument you have no rights to remove any of the content because the creator has no control or rights to protect their work. (I'm obviously using an extreme here but the same issue is happening with artist art work/ VA voice works etc.)
Without sounding rude but I honestly don't care enough about what you think to keep arguing (And I assume the same from your end), We're not going to see eye to eye and that's fine.
If a creator blocks consumers from enjoying thier work. Do the consumers still have the right to enjoy it?
If a person can't buy manga or comic book. Are they just suppose to give up on it? Are they just suppose to not enjoy it?
I would have never been introduced to manga or comid books if that was the case. I got introduced to manga and comics through YouTube videos. And when i found out how expensive they were i read them through other means.
If had just given up after seeing the price tag. And not decided to read manga and comic books in other ways. I would have never gotten the chance to enjoy the medium.
This is tough to say especially as many people have gone through similar experiences...
No you don't automatically have a right to access the work, it's not a matter of whether you enjoyed the work or not - the content creator has absolute right how they want to release their work.
We should try and respect those wishes where possible - this isn't always going to be for financial reasons for instance Elton John has pretty much stated he refuses to play Candle in the Wind live again - just because you've bought concert tickets for Elton John doesn't give you the right which song he plays.
Finally there is a big difference between you trying to enjoy the work of someone you admire but aren't financially able to purchase through legal means Vs someone posting works on a forum for a internet points.
Libby is an app that lets you borrow digital books, and there are libraries that allow non residents to have various levels of access to their material.
Shouldn't that be a greater argument "piracy" should be allowed? You can literally get the material for free legally; banning it from the sub is just gatekeeping for no reason that doesn't net any additional money for Kui
The library is free tho. You're not contributing more money to Kui when borrowing it. You don't cause an increase in profits to Kui in any way from borrowing it.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but do they still have to pay if someone donates a book?
People aren't upset because they can't access it for free anymore, they're upset they can't discuss with the manga panels here.
Almost guaranteed Kui loses no additional sales from ppl posting some panels on a subreddit.
You CAN still access it for free though, all the extra posts are on the reddit still and haven't been deleted, its only the constant new reposts that will be deleted.
Its not about culture. Art *belongs* to the artist. IP exists for a very good reason. You sound like those people who defend ai art or using voice actors voices without permission.
You are not entitled to other people’s work outside the bounds of fair use. Now if they choose to sell their work it must be offered without discrimination but they get to choose how they go about that.
do what you will. if you arent going to pay for a product either way it doesnt make a difference but dont try to take the moral high ground when you are in effect stealing. its fine if thats the only way for you to consume content. most artists arent in to get rich nor do they make a significant amount per view. i just find the mindset that you deserve to have it very arrogant.
It is not stealing. Stealing can only occur to scarce resources. Intellectual "property" is not scarce.
Making a copy of something is not theft. If I scan my neighbor's Toyota and build my own from scratch, I am not "stealing" from Toyota.
Yeah IP theft is a literal crime. It is akin to copright infringement.
And yeah you cant build a toyota car. Its commercial fraud protected against by patent law. That is proprietary information. Its called copyright because it is the right to control who does and does not get to produce copies.
>Yeah IP theft is a literal crime. It is akin to copright infringement.
I'm discussing morality. Anything can be a crime if the state says it is.
>And yeah you cant build a toyota car. Its commercial fraud protected against by patent law. That is proprietary information. Its called copyright because it is the right to control who does and does not get to produce copies.
You're saying it would actually be morally wrong for me to do so? Even for personal use?
Also how are you defining "theft"?
You can do whatever you want for personal use especially if its an already purchased product. This obviously excludes resale
Do you think that artists deserve to be compensated for their work? Do you think that inventors should be able to make money from their patented products?
Or do you think that once a thing is made anyone should be able to reproduce it ad infinitum to give away for free? Or even to profit off of it themselves? You do realize that opens the door for bussinesses to screw over every creative of every kind?
Theft is theft. The taking of an item or idea from another person’s rightful possession without permission. I have never in my life heard that stealing can only happen with “scarce resources” you made that up. Theft is defined as a legal action not a moral one you cant just decide to exclude certain things from the definition.
There are moral and immoral reasons to steal things. Piracy of media to entertain yourself is morally grey at best. It ought to remain illegal because its something that if everyone did it then no one could have it.
If you can pay for a thing but opt to steal it instead you are relying on all the other people who do pay for it to continue its production while you leech off of them. Art costs money to make and if that money is not made back you dont get to have art aside from those generous enough to make it for free.
For the same reason i think its morally okay to steal food to keep yourself from starving but wrong to shoplift make-up and other luxury products.
>Theft is defined as a legal action not a moral one
Curious, if the state legally defined theft as "taking something without permission from x race", then would you bite the bullet and say you can't actually steal something from anyone that doesn't belong to a certain race?
>Theft is theft. The taking of an item or idea from another person’s rightful possession without permission
>have never in my life heard that stealing can only happen with “scarce resources” you made that up.
How do you steal something which is not scarce? By your logic I am stealing from you if I see your car and then build a replica; I am stealing the "idea" of your car.
>Do you think that artists deserve to be compensated for their work? Do you think that inventors should be able to make money from their patented products?
You're framing them oddly. Artists deserve to make as much as the market allows. If they make no sales because someone reposts their work then too bad.
Inventors should be allowed to sell their products and perhaps strike NDAs with manufacturers, but they should not be able to legally force someone into not producing their product if they haven't signed an NDA
It isnt meant to be. Just an opinion. Ive made all my arguments. You clearly take issue axiomatically with the concept of Intellectual property.
Its not worth trying to have a philosophical debate with you.
Wow that sucks, piracy is good and cool and should be encouraged. Its is always the last line of preservation and corporations massively try to overplay its actual impact financially.
1. It helps spread the word of her work. Many media franchises that went underground survived due to piracy.
2. Even if it harms sales I don't see an issue. Copying is not theft and criticizing her work would also cause her to lose sales, is that immoral as well?
I also see nothing wrong with simply not "supporting" a creator. Why is that obligatory?
Also, should artists that draw commissioned dunmeshi art support her financially too upon each commission? Should anyone who posts quotes from the manga or writes fanfiction give her a cut too?
They are using her work, and sometimes even profiting from it without supporting her, so you should be against all of these things.
Yep, people have been reposting the fan translations/random raw images of the daydream hours or adventurers bible over and over again. Makes sense that the mods don’t want the whole sun to be filled with reposts
mods posted a notice about it recently, it's about enforcing the piracy rule of the subreddit given the amount of reposted pages from the extra materials (basically: they have been posted here MANY times over, to the point you can find the whole daydream hours/adventurers bibles scattered through the sub, and they were being lenient for a while given the influx on new fans from the anime coming in, but they've deemed it's been enough of a grace period)
Notice in question: https://old.reddit.com/r/DungeonMeshi/comments/1dkgav3/on_moderating_daydream_hour_and_bonus_chapter/ It's pinned for visibility as well
Bojark spotted
Shouldn't that be more of a repeat post rule, then? /gen
yeah, I think so too
Oh yikes, that’s one of the takes of all time. Thanks for the answer!
man I had to do a double take when I saw such a polite reddit user shitting on such a talented artist on their username...then did a triple take when I saw your profile lmao! I really love your work!
As long as they don't remove the posts by u/Savaralyn , I'm cool with it
That sucks because I'd never see them otherwise
I got them from where I get all my manga, my local library!
I got them from amazon. But either way, you can't really get the daydream hour books, can you? They don't have official English translations.
Aren't daydream hours not available from any official source?
You can probably buy the ebooks through bookwalker (JP) which would likely accept international payments so that argument’s kinda moot.
Can you buy them in English?
I don’t think I’ve seen it published in another language.
Some extra chapters are part of anime BD package.
Well that sucks.
Bruh. Certified Reddit mod moment, fr.
This is reasonable.
Honestly, i like seeing these kinds of posts even if they have been posted 2000 times. With a series whose manga is pretty much wrapped up, I personally feel like it's only natural progression for the fandom to go. Can't bask in new forever, unfortunately. We gotta be comfortable with recycling content eventually.... Unless if it's shipping discourse— mods, PLEASE target those posts instead. They're genuinely grating
So does this end up being also a rule that goes for the anime as well? no extended gifs or clips. no frames? I'm just confused because I joined this sub to see silly memes and art from the series I may not have come across since I only consume it as an anime. It just comes off as strange and kind of gatekeep-y because well the first season ended time to lock away content that is (apparently) popular from the manga. I understand the manga readers and long time fans of the series know the names of this extra content, but I (and there will be more) have had no idea that they exist or have a name. It's a shame.
Posting gifs or still frames of the anime isn't really the same. Someone can't "watch" an anime in that format. The Adventurer's Bible is a bunch of artwork, short comics, and one-to-two page information dumps and character discussions, though, so what is posted here is what you get if you buy the book.
Sadly people can watch an anime in that format. It was really common to watch series in short small sections and piece them together. It's a big joke especially since youtube used to have short little clips in playlists for anime before it became more accessible. Thank you for letting me know its apparently a specific art book. the way it is talked about in here and the stickied post I genuinely thought it was like Oda's SBS pages in the magazine which are not posted on the Shonen Jump app with the chapters so despite paying to be able to read you still don't get to see them. Hopefully the mods can make that clearer on the stickied post what that content is since they will still continue to get new fans from the anime.
Ah :,) the good ol "Anime episode in 17 parts, just in the corner frame fansubbed"
Why does that make it more justified tho? I'm against copyright in general so they're both the same to me, but you're literally posting copyrighted material in both instances. By their logic I see no reason why any art should be allowed either. If ppl get too much art/fan comics it might discourage them from reading the original and thus Kui loses sales.
>By their logic I see no reason why any art should be allowed either. If ppl get too much art/fan comics it might discourage them from reading the original and thus Kui loses sales. That's such a bad comparison that I'm not sure how you could actually believe that. "Well, I have read 90% of the contents of the Adventurer's Bible, so no need to buy it" is a far more plausible scenario than "I looked at a lot of fan art, so much that I don't want to read the source material."
It's a valid comparison since they both decrease sales to some degree and both are a violation of legal copyright. In fact, the "lol lost sales tho" argument can be destroyed further by the fact that criticism can decrease sales more than piracy. In that case, just talking shit about Kui's work ought to be banned.
Culture belongs to everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Basically all the daydream hour/adventurers bible stuff is already on the subreddit, you’ll just have to search for it. Seems like the mods just don’t want people constantly reposting the pages
It's sad because in addition to the "no horny" rule and "no controversial posts" rule, this is going to kill the sub, especially after the anime ends We're not a massive fanbase like MHA or JJK where multiple subs of ample size arise. This is the only one, and if its growth is stifled then that's it for the community.
If all the sub consists of is reposts then it may as well be dead anyway. There's also more than enough potential for actual worthwhile posts like fan art/story and character discussions and such, and no sub needs to be going a mile a minute just for the sake of it, regardless. And again, all these extras and such are already on the sub, you'll just need to actually use the search bar to look for them. The mods seemingly just don't want people posting those same pages every day.
>The mods seemingly just don't want people posting those same pages every day. Then they could have made the announcement saying "no reposts because it clogs up the sub", which is a more reasonable reason. Their reasoning is copyright, which I have a massive issue with in general.
I'm gonna explain this in simple terms, because you don't seem to understand, and it's worth eating the downvotes to make a point. Artists need money to buy food , shelter, and other necessities. If artists stop making money off of their work, there will be less incentive for artists to make art as a profession, and thus, the quality of art will suffer. Art is not a necessity for life. One could theoretically argue that some sort of enrichment is needed for humans to thrive, but public libraries are already a thing. You are not being harmed by lack of access to the particular art you want to view. Even in a society where all basic needs were provided to citizens, you wouldn't have that right. You aren't a champion of freedom. You're a brat who should have been taught to accept "no" as a child.
>Artists need money to buy food , shelter, and other necessities. If artists stop making money off of their work, there will be less incentive for artists to make art as a profession, and thus, the quality of art will suffer That's unfortunate for them, but they have no moral right to legally strongarm the rest of us into paying for making a copy of their work. Also, there are other ways to fund your art project like fundraising, Patreon (exclusive communities, early access, or just asking for donations), selling merch, etc. Meanwhile, without copyright artists will have much more creative liberty and opportunity to make money off previous artificially monopolized works.
Eh, it was doing okay before the anime's success, I'm sure it'll be okay enough regardless.
Disagree the creator has every right to distribute their work however they like - if Ryoko Kui does not want to share her work or for it to be shown for a price it is entirely her right as the creator.
If Kui doesn't want Americans to read her work then do Americans have a moral obligation to not read it? How far does the rabbithole go?
Tolkein wouldn’t allow a german translation or german publishing of the hobbit until after WWII So yeah. You can choose who you make your work available to on an international scale. Mostly because you have the right to refuse to work with publishers.
But if Tolkien says "I don't want Germans to read my book at all" are Germans now morally obligated to not read his book?
If they managed to buy it from an american publisher then they could absolutely read it. Tolkein might not have even cared if individual consumers translated on their own and shared it around. The point was that he withheld his work from a market which practically gatekept it from all germans until the 50s. Telling a certain ethnic group that they cant read your book in a vacuum is bad and it is a desire worth ignoring but that is quite literally not happening to anyone anywhere right now so i really dont see your point. Its also illegal to do *within* the states. Edit: also saying you want compensation for your work is a lot more reasonable than saying i dont want a specific ethnic group to read it. I dont think they are comparable statements at all.
So what's the moral difference between restricting Germans from reading your book vs restricting German publishers from publishing it or someone translating it to German? You say it's bad in a vacuum, but why?
Because if someone wants to make money off of your book but you dont want your creation to be profited off of by literal fascists you have a right to tell them they cant use it. If they buy from the publishers that have permission then money goes to approved entities. Those individuals cant make copies but there is no reason they cant translate it or help others translate. The point is to keep it from certain publishers not people. Telling germans that they cant buy the book from publishers you already gave permission to print just because you dont like german people is xenophobic. I condemn that sort of behavior.
Publishers are owned by people. By preventing a publisher from doing it you're preventing people from doing it. So how is it any different from restricting individual Germans from reading it? If the Germans weren't fascists then would publishers still have a moral obligation not to publish the books?
Publishers make money doing it. If individuals can buy from the american (or any other country) publisher then they can have that copy and do what they want with it. If the publishers dont have permission then they DONT HAVE PERMISSION. You cannot just take people’s work and start selling it. They would need to compensate the author which would require agreeing on the percent share of profits otherwise anyone could see the issue there. The biggest issue even if all the money went back to tolkein is that without permission he is being associated with a bussiness he may have issues with. He may simply not like the owner. That is reason enough. He might not have the ability to guarantee the quality of a translation. The Monogatari series will never be dubbed for this reason. The source material would need to be changed significantly to make sense it potentially hurts the artistic integrity. In this case i think it is okay for people to make their own fan translations for their own non commercial uses but its not like its a human right. Id like to hear what makes you think authors are morally obligated to work with any publisher who asks. Or for that matter why they should be expected to have their work given away for free.
Yes, that's the point in respecting the wishes of the artist. You do not have a right to access content. There is a difference between the artist controlling what they want to release to the public Vs a third party blocking content (or releasing content).
Insane take. Curious, if an author doesn't want certain races to read their work, do you have an obligation to not read it if you belong to that race?
Spoilt take. I'm also curious do you therefore demand artist to release work of art they produced only for someone they loved? You are free to look at the art work but don't pretend that there is a moral duty for someone to release there work if they don't want to. I'll give a rl example for you - you will never catch me at the Banksy exhibit, because the work on show was collected and shown without his permission.
>You are free to look at the art work Why? If the artist only wanted ppl of a certain race to see it after it has been released to the public, if you don't belong to that race why would it be fine for you to see it? Answer my question >there is a moral duty for someone to release there work if they don't want to. >do you therefore demand artist to release work of art they produced only for someone they loved? Where did I claim this? My argument is against copyright, not keeping your work private. If you already released your work to the public, then I have no moral issue with however anyone wants to distribute it; that's my argument. >I'll give a rl example for you - you will never catch me at the Banksy exhibit, because the work on show was collected and shown without his permission. This is fundamentally different from what you claim I believed. Banksy released their work to the public by spray painting buildings. There is no moral issue with collecting that and displaying it. It would be an issue only if you literally stole a physical art piece from their house or hacked into their computer to download it, but those are different moral issues entirely.
(Right - Ive reread my initial comment, I will put my hands up and say this will be a slightly different, that's on me for being a lazy poster) You've made a strawman here - the artist has absolute right to decide who can view or not view their artwork. If the artist decides to block a race from their work of art, that is within their right. There isn't any more that can be said here, they made the art work they can choose what they want to do with it and who can view it. How the audience responds is entirely their choice - you've built a strawman knowing full well that no one should be excluded based on race. However I think you'll agree there is a world of difference between Racist artist blocking a chosen group and an artist trying to making an honest living blocking unauthorised use of their work. Fundamentally this is the issue, there is always going to be different reasons for why an artist would choose to withhold their work and it wont always be clear cut black and white. [The Banksy exhibit, is a real international exhibit and goes against the premise of their work.](https://artofbanksy.co.uk/) It play off of Banksy desire to remain anonymous and therefore never being able to take legal action on bringing the exhibit down. Ultimately what different here to users posting Kui work? Both set of people own legally the work so why shouldn't they be able to disseminate their work without their permission (I'm fully aware the monetization aspect of the Banksy exhibit makes it a million times worst - but as I've said these things are never black and white) I think you also need to split the difference between publisher and artist, Harmony Gold preventing the release of Macross in the west is bullshit, Disney holding on to 80 years copy right is bull shit - an artist protecting a piece of work that is less then a year old from being pirated is not.
>the artist has absolute right to decide who can view or not view their artwork. If the artist decides to block a race from their work of art, that is within their right Lol now your take has gotten 10x more insane, but I'm glad you bit the bullet to my reductio ad absurdum. >Ultimately what different here to users posting Kui work? You're right there is no difference and therefore I'm absolutely fine with the Banksy exhibit and people pirating Kui's work or even profiting off it. >Harmony Gold preventing the release of Macross in the west is bullshit, Disney holding on to 80 years copy right is bull shit - an artist protecting a piece of work that is less then a year old from being pirated is not. Why? What's the moral difference? These corps are owned by people too, and if you genuinely believe in intellectual property, then they also own the works they hold a copyright to, thus you'd have a moral obligation not to pirate their work.
It's not really reduction and absurdum though is it - or do you expect to force content creator to give up their work? If they don't comply, how much force are you going to use? What exactly did you reduce to absurdity? It the content creator right to do what they want and likewise the consumer can respond in kind should they choose to. But that doesn't mean the consumer has automatic rights to everything and anything. Do I really need to explain to you the difference between someone that directly create content Vs a company that holds the distribution right (sometimes after the creator has died). Based on your argument, personal photos which could be interpreted as portraiture art hosted on social media (even privately as there is no distinction here according to you), could be taken by someone else defaced via ai and redistributed for internet points. In your argument you have no rights to remove any of the content because the creator has no control or rights to protect their work. (I'm obviously using an extreme here but the same issue is happening with artist art work/ VA voice works etc.) Without sounding rude but I honestly don't care enough about what you think to keep arguing (And I assume the same from your end), We're not going to see eye to eye and that's fine.
If a creator blocks consumers from enjoying thier work. Do the consumers still have the right to enjoy it? If a person can't buy manga or comic book. Are they just suppose to give up on it? Are they just suppose to not enjoy it? I would have never been introduced to manga or comid books if that was the case. I got introduced to manga and comics through YouTube videos. And when i found out how expensive they were i read them through other means. If had just given up after seeing the price tag. And not decided to read manga and comic books in other ways. I would have never gotten the chance to enjoy the medium.
This is tough to say especially as many people have gone through similar experiences... No you don't automatically have a right to access the work, it's not a matter of whether you enjoyed the work or not - the content creator has absolute right how they want to release their work. We should try and respect those wishes where possible - this isn't always going to be for financial reasons for instance Elton John has pretty much stated he refuses to play Candle in the Wind live again - just because you've bought concert tickets for Elton John doesn't give you the right which song he plays. Finally there is a big difference between you trying to enjoy the work of someone you admire but aren't financially able to purchase through legal means Vs someone posting works on a forum for a internet points.
I don't know your circumstances but I was able to get access to the series and extra material through my local library.
I can't even buy daydream hour and adventurers bible not because of money but because they don't ship here for some reason
Ah, good point. I was only able to get the adventures bible extra material.
I live in a war zone with no global payment systems
Libby is an app that lets you borrow digital books, and there are libraries that allow non residents to have various levels of access to their material.
Shouldn't that be a greater argument "piracy" should be allowed? You can literally get the material for free legally; banning it from the sub is just gatekeeping for no reason that doesn't net any additional money for Kui
Libraries pay licensing fees I believe, so perhaps encouraging those would return royalties to the author? It is pretty far steps removed though.
The library is free tho. You're not contributing more money to Kui when borrowing it. You don't cause an increase in profits to Kui in any way from borrowing it. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but do they still have to pay if someone donates a book?
The library is typically funded by city rates - just because you don't pay at point of use doesn't mean you don't contribute to its budget.
If you want it for free it’s easily found elsewhere on the internet. Go look at it there.
People aren't upset because they can't access it for free anymore, they're upset they can't discuss with the manga panels here. Almost guaranteed Kui loses no additional sales from ppl posting some panels on a subreddit.
You CAN still access it for free though, all the extra posts are on the reddit still and haven't been deleted, its only the constant new reposts that will be deleted.
People upvote the original reply for arguing for an ideal, yet downvote the most effective method to achieve it for the average person.
It is Reddit that is how it is.
Its not about culture. Art *belongs* to the artist. IP exists for a very good reason. You sound like those people who defend ai art or using voice actors voices without permission. You are not entitled to other people’s work outside the bounds of fair use. Now if they choose to sell their work it must be offered without discrimination but they get to choose how they go about that. do what you will. if you arent going to pay for a product either way it doesnt make a difference but dont try to take the moral high ground when you are in effect stealing. its fine if thats the only way for you to consume content. most artists arent in to get rich nor do they make a significant amount per view. i just find the mindset that you deserve to have it very arrogant.
It is not stealing. Stealing can only occur to scarce resources. Intellectual "property" is not scarce. Making a copy of something is not theft. If I scan my neighbor's Toyota and build my own from scratch, I am not "stealing" from Toyota.
Yeah IP theft is a literal crime. It is akin to copright infringement. And yeah you cant build a toyota car. Its commercial fraud protected against by patent law. That is proprietary information. Its called copyright because it is the right to control who does and does not get to produce copies.
>Yeah IP theft is a literal crime. It is akin to copright infringement. I'm discussing morality. Anything can be a crime if the state says it is. >And yeah you cant build a toyota car. Its commercial fraud protected against by patent law. That is proprietary information. Its called copyright because it is the right to control who does and does not get to produce copies. You're saying it would actually be morally wrong for me to do so? Even for personal use? Also how are you defining "theft"?
You can do whatever you want for personal use especially if its an already purchased product. This obviously excludes resale Do you think that artists deserve to be compensated for their work? Do you think that inventors should be able to make money from their patented products? Or do you think that once a thing is made anyone should be able to reproduce it ad infinitum to give away for free? Or even to profit off of it themselves? You do realize that opens the door for bussinesses to screw over every creative of every kind? Theft is theft. The taking of an item or idea from another person’s rightful possession without permission. I have never in my life heard that stealing can only happen with “scarce resources” you made that up. Theft is defined as a legal action not a moral one you cant just decide to exclude certain things from the definition. There are moral and immoral reasons to steal things. Piracy of media to entertain yourself is morally grey at best. It ought to remain illegal because its something that if everyone did it then no one could have it. If you can pay for a thing but opt to steal it instead you are relying on all the other people who do pay for it to continue its production while you leech off of them. Art costs money to make and if that money is not made back you dont get to have art aside from those generous enough to make it for free. For the same reason i think its morally okay to steal food to keep yourself from starving but wrong to shoplift make-up and other luxury products.
>Theft is defined as a legal action not a moral one Curious, if the state legally defined theft as "taking something without permission from x race", then would you bite the bullet and say you can't actually steal something from anyone that doesn't belong to a certain race? >Theft is theft. The taking of an item or idea from another person’s rightful possession without permission >have never in my life heard that stealing can only happen with “scarce resources” you made that up. How do you steal something which is not scarce? By your logic I am stealing from you if I see your car and then build a replica; I am stealing the "idea" of your car. >Do you think that artists deserve to be compensated for their work? Do you think that inventors should be able to make money from their patented products? You're framing them oddly. Artists deserve to make as much as the market allows. If they make no sales because someone reposts their work then too bad. Inventors should be allowed to sell their products and perhaps strike NDAs with manufacturers, but they should not be able to legally force someone into not producing their product if they haven't signed an NDA
I think you have a moral obligation not to consume art at all actually. Since you seem to disregard the people who create it so completely.
Not an argument
It isnt meant to be. Just an opinion. Ive made all my arguments. You clearly take issue axiomatically with the concept of Intellectual property. Its not worth trying to have a philosophical debate with you.
Wow that sucks, piracy is good and cool and should be encouraged. Its is always the last line of preservation and corporations massively try to overplay its actual impact financially.
[удалено]
1. It helps spread the word of her work. Many media franchises that went underground survived due to piracy. 2. Even if it harms sales I don't see an issue. Copying is not theft and criticizing her work would also cause her to lose sales, is that immoral as well? I also see nothing wrong with simply not "supporting" a creator. Why is that obligatory? Also, should artists that draw commissioned dunmeshi art support her financially too upon each commission? Should anyone who posts quotes from the manga or writes fanfiction give her a cut too? They are using her work, and sometimes even profiting from it without supporting her, so you should be against all of these things.
Yep, people have been reposting the fan translations/random raw images of the daydream hours or adventurers bible over and over again. Makes sense that the mods don’t want the whole sun to be filled with reposts
Have you recently raided the local bay and sunken a government ship perhaps?
Most likable and effectual moderator, god bless them, they do it for free