While piracy site owners responsible for billions in losses roam free, this case saw a suspect jailed for a minor offense.
losses
lmao, not how piracy works
? It is exactly how piracy works? What do you mean?
You can’t count all those as missed sales. Plenty of us were never going to buy it anyway. It also doesnt destroy stock. They can still sell their shit the same after we pirate it.
People need to stop seeing everything in black and white and put themselves in other’s shoes. I’m not siding with anyone. I buy and I don’t.
But if you were the creator, what would you think about your reasoning?
(now about the title story of this post, this is obviously madness, things gone too far)
Oh obviously what this post is about is a gross overreach and devastating to a young life for no reason at all. As a creator I have mulled this. Did I care if people ever snuck into any of my bands shows? No, but we were never famous. Would I care if people pirated the game I’m attempting to make? Once again, I’m not famous or selling anything to the tune of hundreds of thousands, and, I dont care, again. If people are listening to my music, or playing my game, or in anyway just enjoying things I made, I think I could live with that. Its not about the money, its about burring yourself in the collective zeitgeist for ages to come.
I do kind of agree, as I’m making art for myself. But at the same time, maybe that’s because I’m not in a situation where I depend on having to sell what I’m creating is what I mean
Thats fine, I am not either. But popular shit is the biggest target of pirating. Searching, I found one (1) game, an iOS game, that shutdown supposedly due to pirating. Here is the stack exchange. In the end it was actually due to a technical bug revealed because of the pirated accounts. So yeah, it has been a problem at least once before. But the frequency and depth of the affects seems greatly exaggerated.
“We were never going to buy it anyway” is a weak argument, considering that the explosion of Netflix, Crunchyroll, and other streaming services (before they turned to shit) proves otherwise.
If piracy didn’t cause financial harm, why did legal streaming platforms dramatically reduce piracy rates when they offered a convenient alternative? The answer is simple: People do pay when given the right option.
And the “it doesn’t destroy stock” excuse? That’s like saying sneaking into a concert isn’t theft because the band still plays for everyone else. It’s still taking something without paying for it.
How does a streaming service, where you pay a blanket cost instead of choosing individual media, prove people were willing to buy individual media? Do you think the advent of streaming services maybe offer3d the convenience of a bunch of stuff right there to go, instead of having to compile it yourself? I think thats where the true value was.
And sneaking into a concert isnt theft.
So you’re admitting that when given an easy, affordable way to access media, people chose to pay rather than pirate? Congratulations, you just proved my point.
The fact that convenience was a key factor doesn’t change the reality that these services turned former pirates into paying customers. If piracy wasn’t causing financial harm, and if people truly ‘weren’t going to buy it anyway,’ then streaming services wouldn’t have reclaimed those users as paying subscribers.
As for your last line—sounds like you cut off mid-thought. You were about to say something profound about why sneaking into a concert isn’t theft? Go on, I could use the laugh
No, they turned a shitty service into a good one and the pirates were willing to pay for the platform to access that media rather than surf the seven seas looking all over the place. It wasn’t the media itself that turned them into paying customers, so the record labels and movie studios dont have a point. It was the unified service that brought them in and how cheap it was. As soon as the price raised, the catalogue changed, everyone who was previously a pirate dusted their hats and wind jammers off again and left.
Listening to music isnt theft. You could argue that you are stealing the experience being provided, but you just sound like a stuffy cock saying that shit. Nobody, including the band if they are chill, cares that a few people snuck in, not even other attendees. If you do care so much, then you need some introspection.
Just to be clear, I don’t actually care about piracy. Do it or don’t, that’s your business. But saying piracy doesn’t cause losses is just wrong.
You just explained that when piracy was inconvenient, people chose to pay for a better service. That means they had money to spend but were pirating instead—until a better legal option came along. That alone proves piracy takes money away from creators.
And your concert take? Now we’re at ‘stealing is fine as long as nobody makes a big deal about it.’ If sneaking in isn’t theft, does that mean shoplifting is fine too as long as the store doesn’t notice?
Keep going, or don’t—this is an imperfect analogy, I was just trying to help you see why you are so staggeringly wrong
While the number is absolutely very exaggerated, they are indeed losing potential sale revenue.
According to local police, she bought the Bocchi the Rock! keychains for 90 yen each and resold them for 949 yen, making a total profit of approximately 2,500 yen (around $16) from three sales.
IMO this is the real crime.
Agreed, but this still seems wildly harsh.
Oh yeah for sure. There’s no denying that the arrest and jail time are outrageous.
Seems like a less bad version of dropshipping.
copyright law is Japan is weird and very uncool
The key differences are that they allow criminal punishment (such as this) though that’s not super common unless it’s egregious (like lots of money), this is pretty insane (though any criminal punishment for copyright violation is)
Registration is also automatic. In the us copyright is automatic as well but you have to register your copyright to sue for damages. In Japan this is not necessary, work is copy written upon creation and protections are granted without registration
The big one though vs us law is that they don’t have an exception for fair use. This is why manga and anime typically go to great (or minor) lengths to avoid saying names of products and chains. Unless they have a working relationship with the item/vendor/chain and explicit permission to do so they can be sued for having a character go to don quixote or whatever if donki decides their brand is damaged by being associated with some trashy manga.
Further complicated by the existence of doujin, which are all blatantly in violation of this system, but tolerated and even encouraged mainly because of cultural precedent. That said the doujin market is itself a complex and hypocritical beast filled with exploitation because of this. When works are small no one cares. When they are medium, free advertising. When they are too big to rival the brand it can cause issues and there has been precedent for shitty behavior here (shutdowns, poaching artists from circles, etc). Similarly disagreeable content can get you shut down (eg Pokémon and Nintendo banning sexualized doujin, kadokawa banning kantai collection doujin featuring rape, kodansha banning attack on titan doujin featuring “disagreeable political themes”)
While a weird case, the title is misleading (and probably ragebait). It implies fanmade goods, but she bought counterfeit keychains and resold them (for higher prices).
I can see being arrested for eating a succulent chinese meal but this is BULLSHIT. My dude, have you ever heard of Comiket or Etsy? Hell have you seen what Meta did with LibGen??!?!
Imagine getting busted for 16$, that’s either bad luck Brian mood or newbie fan just wanna try how China dodging all lawsuit
That’s why when something is in the law, assume that it will be enforced to the fullest.
Don’t touch anything non-CC or public domain.
