Go Back   the Magicball Network > Forums > MBN Main Forums > Off topic
Buy LBA1/Relentless from GOG.com Buy LBA1/Relentless from DotEmu Buy LBA2/Twinsen's Odyssey from DotEmu Buy LBA2/Twinsen's Odyssey from GOG.com Buy Little big Adventure from GOG.com or DotEmu Buy Little big Adventure 2 from DotEmu or GOG.com

Welcome to the Magicball Network.

You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Off topic General off-topic chat goes in here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26  
Old 2011-12-30, 15:57
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
If i understood the question correctly, then no, it doesn't.
If we're going to try and decide which country is more pedo, then the density of pedophiles is exactly what we look for.
Why would having twice the population affect the number of pedophiles per [some arbitrary unit] of population?
So enlarging the population from which this variable is drawn has no effect on the total?

Ex. I have 100 people and I have 10 people. I'm assuming that Obras is arguing that pedophilia is a variable which he claims is affected by censorship and/or lack thereof. So if 10 is Japan, out of that group, perhaps 2 are pedophiles. Out of the 100, say 15 are pedophiles (we won't make it 20 because then it would be a constant rate, correct?). Do we not take into account the larger population at all?

Similarly, I'm not "defending" anything Obras. There is pedophilia in both Japan and the US. However, I'm in favor of the censorship of these materials which you do not consider pedophilia. Just as I am in favor of significantly harsher penalties for pedophilia than the current judicial system permits.

Quote:
Such as US (but Italian too, for example, mind you) parental organizations freaking out over cleavage in anime, Sailor Moon being a prime example of that. It's not even full frontal nudity, just some lines showing breasts, and apparently it's enough to be considered obscene in the US and censored.
Sailor Moon, as well as any number of "softcore animes" (not tentacle porn, as far as I know) are on television every day in the United States (I know one of them is FUNimation network or something, because I have it on my television plan). Sailor Moon was on a local broadcast channel (i.e. free to anyone with a receiver) when I was in my teens. I think you need to understand that just because some censorship groups oppose things does not necessarily make it national policy. Just like groups have opposed professional wrestling, or Looney Tunes (for violent/racial content), etc.

Quote:
And when US-based search engine censor it in countries where it's perfectly legal for obvious reasons, just because it's illegal in the US, that's the US infringing on the sovereignity of other countries by forcing information to be filtered according to US law even in other countries.
If they don't like it, they need not use it. Welcome to the beauty of capitalism.

Quote:
And I'm sure someone outside the US would have created their own search engine and made it a success (the Russians have Yandex, for that matter) if it weren't for the presence of big American corporations such as Google in every single EU country, making it hard to viably compete against them.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. Google has become ubiquitous because people want their products and services. Apparently, most people are willing to put up with this small censorship in exchange for the myriad of services that Google provides.

Quote:
Believe it or not, some indie artists are already using the new model. The major artists don't because they'd lose most of their fanbase due to mainstream media not informing the people of the existence of such a model. The problem is, most people learn about things from the mainstream media (TV, radio, etc.), and the mainstream media won't broadcast about something that won't give them money. The mainstream media is itself part of the old mode and would need significant changes in order to become part of the new one.
Rubbish of the worst sort. In an age where artists have direct lines of contact with their fans on mediums like Twitter and Facebook, you make it sound like there is a police state mentality in the mainstream media. I have my own criticisms of the American mainstream media, but I don't see why the onus should fall upon the media in this case. It falls directly on the artists (and not "indie" artists) who have no problem with the current model, or else they'd attempt to change the formula (if it needs to be changed at all). They're making millions of dollars. What is their incentive to change?

Quote:
Just convince them by means of laws and bills to encourage the adoption of this new model.
That sounds a tad fascist, no?

Quote:
The Internet has endless possibilities for distribution, organize and use them so everyone benefits of it instead of rejecting and suppressing them.
We're not talking about feeding starving people. We're talking about downloading music.

Quote:
And BTW, a lot of present day artists aren't so much artists as they are byproducts of those very corporations. I'm referring to ones like Justin Bieber or Hannah Montana. For them to adopt a system that goes against the major corporations would be basically going against themselves.
You know, with the new model I'm talking about, artists need to be actually good in order to sell rather than selling just because they belong to the major labels etc. which guarantees them media exposure.
It kind of sounds strangely like an era from about 50+ years ago. Which didn't have digital distribution. Just vinyl records.

Quote:
I clearly recall you defending teenage rights year ago, then suddenly your view turned 180 degrees and you started supporting the conservative "people under 18 should have no rights" point of view.
I remember we had some debate or another about how teenagers should vote or some such nonsense. I don't remember an about face, but you're more than welcome to dig out the thread(s) if you'd like.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 2011-12-30, 16:12
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,487
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
double-j, you would have to put forward an argument as to why a bigger population alone can cause a higher percentage of pedophilia.
The way i see it, if we have a country A with 100 people and country B with 50 people. If country A has 20 pedophiles and country B has 5 pedophiles, that means that the people of country A consist of 20% pedophiles, and country B has 10% pedophiles.

In this case the people of country A are the bigger perverts.
The only thing country A would have to say in their defense would be that it's not their fault, because bigger population increases the percentage of pedophiles. This may be true but i can't think of how one can be a direct cause of the other.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 2011-12-30, 16:17
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
In this case the people of country A are the bigger perverts.
The only thing country A would have to say in their defense would be that it's not their fault, because bigger population increases the percentage of pedophiles. This may be true but i can't think of how one can be a direct cause of the other.
There may be other variables involved. I'm clearly not in touch with pedophilia like Obras. I'm just wondering how much the discrepancy in population may have to do with the discrepancy Obras mentioned. It seems logical to me that in a bigger population, there will be more of X if we assume that X exists in any population.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 2011-12-30, 16:38
Battler's Avatar
Battler Battler is offline
Welcome to Zirla!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Koper, Slovenia
Posts: 5,318
Send a message via ICQ to Battler Send a message via AIM to Battler Send a message via MSN to Battler Send a message via Yahoo to Battler
Quote:
So enlarging the population from which this variable is drawn has no effect on the total?

Ex. I have 100 people and I have 10 people. I'm assuming that Obras is arguing that pedophilia is a variable which he claims is affected by censorship and/or lack thereof. So if 10 is Japan, out of that group, perhaps 2 are pedophiles. Out of the 100, say 15 are pedophiles (we won't make it 20 because then it would be a constant rate, correct?). Do we not take into account the larger population at all?

Similarly, I'm not "defending" anything Obras. There is pedophilia in both Japan and the US. However, I'm in favor of the censorship of these materials which you do not consider pedophilia. Just as I am in favor of significantly harsher penalties for pedophilia than the current judicial system permits.
If you have 100 and 10 people. Of the 100 people, 50% are paedophiles. Of the 10 people, 25% are paedophiles. This means of the 100 people, 50 are paedophiles, of the 10 people, 2.5 are. This means if the 10-people group had 100 people instead, with the same percentage, it'd have 25 paedophiles, half of what the actual 100-people group has, so still less.

Also, by forbidding things such as lolicon and shotacon, you're outright forcing people with paedophilic or even ephebophilic (attraction to adolescent teenagers, which is NOT the same as paedophilia, despite popular opinion on the matter) fetishes/attraction to actually abuse people in order to fulfill their urges. Give them lolicon and shotacon, and they won't need to actually abuse anyone unless they're the extreme kind of paedophile or ephebophile. Allow lolicon and shotacon, and people will stop producing as much real child porn in your country because they'll have other outlets that don't harm children. It's as simple.

You're behaving as if lolicon and shotacon create paedophiles. They don't. They merely serve as an outlet for existing ones (or even non-paedophiles with casual ephebophilia, such as demential old men for instance). It's actual child abuse or simply nature that creates various kind of attractions.
Your logic here is the same as the logic of those Christian religious freaks who think homosexuality is a disease induced by evil influences and that therefore should be prevented.
A person is born a paedophile, they don't become one. Same for ephebophilia. So give them outlets that allow them to appease their urges without involving actual children or adolescents. That is, lolicon and shotacon. And most of them won't need to go at actual children.
Isolate them from society and persecute those that haven't abused a single child, forbid lolicon and shotacon, and they'll start abducting and abusing children because they'll be social outcasts anyway so they won't see why bother trying to behave like normal people and control themselves.

However, if we're to forbid lolicon and shotacon, then let's also forbid anything that depicts murder or drug trafficking. That includes GTA games. After all, by your logic, animated/drawn depictions of crime induce crime so they should be forbidden. I'm just saying, be consistent. Why should depictions of certain illegal acts be allowed, while others not?

Quote:
Sailor Moon, as well as any number of "softcore animes" (not tentacle porn, as far as I know) are on television every day in the United States (I know one of them is FUNimation network or something, because I have it on my television plan). Sailor Moon was on a local broadcast channel (i.e. free to anyone with a receiver) when I was in my teens. I think you need to understand that just because some censorship groups oppose things does not necessarily make it national policy. Just like groups have opposed professional wrestling, or Looney Tunes (for violent/racial content), etc.
Sailor Moon softcore? Don't make me laugh. It's a magical girl anime targeted at teenage girls. Not in the least erotic. Except first off, in the US there's the mania to have to re-target anime to 9-year-old children. Complete with changing the music to progressive crap and removing stuff like cleavage.

Second off, stuff like cleavage is "corrected" to make it disappear. Go read the Wikipedia article about anime censorship in the US. And it's not that much better in Italy, except in Italy, music is generally retained, as is Japanese writing (which is vehemently replaced with English one in the US, complete with replacing the metric units used in Japan with US Imperial ones) and in recent years, character names are retained too.

And the fact you just called Sailor Moon softcore shows you don't know much about anime.

Quote:
If they don't like it, they need not use it. Welcome to the beauty of capitalism.
And use what? European search engines which are far lower quality because not many people bother developing them?

But let me turn your own words against you. If the US people don't like search engines that show results their Christian conservative moralism deems "immoral", then they need not use it. The beauty of Capitalism and freedom of choice.

Quote:
That sounds a tad fascist, no?
So proposing to encourage the artists to adopt the new model by means of laws which give them control and freedoms of what to do with their own work is fascist? Not at all. More like it's the current laws that are fascist, giving the large corporations in power all the control and freedoms with their contractees' material and allowing unnaturally large sanctions for any move that dares lose the large corporations even a single penny of profit.

Quote:
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. Google has become ubiquitous because people want their products and services. Apparently, most people are willing to put up with this small censorship in exchange for the myriad of services that Google provides.
Google succeeded in the EU because no-one in the EU were developing their Internet services much, instead relaying on what the US was feeding them. You need to come look at the mainstream media here - whatever gets popular in the US, gets widely promoted by media here.

Quote:
Rubbish of the worst sort. In an age where artists have direct lines of contact with their fans on mediums like Twitter and Facebook, you make it sound like there is a police state mentality in the mainstream media. I have my own criticisms of the American mainstream media, but I don't see why the onus should fall upon the media in this case. It falls directly on the artists (and not "indie" artists) who have no problem with the current model, or else they'd attempt to change the formula (if it needs to be changed at all). They're making millions of dollars. What is their incentive to change?
The onus doesn't fall directly on the artists because the artists don't have control over their own work. It's the recording labels and studios have have the copyright, not the artists, directors, etc. And all those labels etc. are known to sue for millions of dollars when they lose even a single penny of profit. They had the law modeled on that.

And the media is needed for exposure. Not everyone has Internet access, not even in the US where a lot of people are still sitting on dial-up without possibility of upgrade and only use Internet for strict business because of that. TV etc. is still the main media outlet for most people. And when labels, studios, etc. pay good money to place their advertisements on TV etc., you can't expect the TV to devote space to other stuff.

Quote:
We're not talking about feeding starving people. We're talking about downloading music.
We're talking about record labels suing twelve year old girls demanding sums in 4-5 digits per song for merely downloading a song for personal use which by any logic makes the total loss of profit caused by her equal to the amount a song costs in a CD store. Which means the cost of the CD it was on, divided by the number of songs on that CD, plus add some to the price as a fine. Certainly not the 4-5 digits per song the labels demand.

Quote:
It kind of sounds strangely like an era from about 50+ years ago. Which didn't have digital distribution. Just vinyl records.
What does?

Quote:
I remember we had some debate or another about how teenagers should vote or some such nonsense. I don't remember an about face, but you're more than welcome to dig out the thread(s) if you'd like.
I remember you supported adolescent rights. Then a few years later when I complained to you on MSN about the then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger abolishing the right of 15 year olds to abort without parental permission, you outright flipped at me because I was against Schwarzenegger's abolishment. That sounds pretty much like an 180 degree turn to me.
__________________
Join #doki-doki on irc.ringoflightning.net for some nice chit-chat about anime, manga, and other aspects of Japanese culture now!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 2011-12-30, 16:51
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,487
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-J View Post
There may be other variables involved. I'm clearly not in touch with pedophilia like Obras. I'm just wondering how much the discrepancy in population may have to do with the discrepancy Obras mentioned. It seems logical to me that in a bigger population, there will be more of X if we assume that X exists in any population.
That's like saying that in a bigger population there will be a higher percentage of gingers (i.e. it isn't true).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 2011-12-30, 23:33
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battler View Post
You're behaving as if lolicon and shotacon create paedophiles. They don't. They merely serve as an outlet for existing ones (or even non-paedophiles with casual ephebophilia, such as demential old men for instance). It's actual child abuse or simply nature that creates various kind of attractions.
Your logic here is the same as the logic of those Christian religious freaks who think homosexuality is a disease induced by evil influences and that therefore should be prevented.
Are you saying you want to enable pedophiles? It certainly sounds that way.

Quote:
A person is born a paedophile, they don't become one. Same for ephebophilia. So give them outlets that allow them to appease their urges without involving actual children or adolescents. That is, lolicon and shotacon. And most of them won't need to go at actual children.
Isolate them from society and persecute those that haven't abused a single child, forbid lolicon and shotacon, and they'll start abducting and abusing children because they'll be social outcasts anyway so they won't see why bother trying to behave like normal people and control themselves.
Please stop treating pedophilia as if it is a benign disorder, as if it were influenza or the common cold.

Furthermore, they are already kidnapping, raping, and murdering children. It isn't some sort of agorophobia.

Quote:
However, if we're to forbid lolicon and shotacon, then let's also forbid anything that depicts murder or drug trafficking. That includes GTA games. After all, by your logic, animated/drawn depictions of crime induce crime so they should be forbidden. I'm just saying, be consistent. Why should depictions of certain illegal acts be allowed, while others not?
Because we have common sense?

Quote:
Sailor Moon softcore? Don't make me laugh. It's a magical girl anime targeted at teenage girls. Not in the least erotic. Except first off, in the US there's the mania to have to re-target anime to 9-year-old children. Complete with changing the music to progressive crap and removing stuff like cleavage.
I'm glad to know you are intimately familiar with an anime designed for pre-teen girls then.

Quote:
Second off, stuff like cleavage is "corrected" to make it disappear. Go read the Wikipedia article about anime censorship in the US. And it's not that much better in Italy, except in Italy, music is generally retained, as is Japanese writing (which is vehemently replaced with English one in the US, complete with replacing the metric units used in Japan with US Imperial ones) and in recent years, character names are retained too.
Again, you're making it sound like there is a vast conspiracy where anime is hunted down and burned before it is revealed to the eyes of innocent youngsters.

I say again: there are television networks dedicated to showing nothing but anime. It doesn't exactly ring as a 'persecuted' artform.

Quote:
And the fact you just called Sailor Moon softcore shows you don't know much about anime.
No do I claim to, or want to.

Quote:
And use what? European search engines which are far lower quality because not many people bother developing them?
Not our problem.

Quote:
But let me turn your own words against you. If the US people don't like search engines that show results their Christian conservative moralism deems "immoral", then they need not use it. The beauty of Capitalism and freedom of choice.
Certainly. But stop pretending that because you can't find child porn on Google is somehow an example of crushing corporate imperialism.

Quote:
So proposing to encourage the artists to adopt the new model by means of laws which give them control and freedoms of what to do with their own work is fascist? Not at all. More like it's the current laws that are fascist, giving the large corporations in power all the control and freedoms with their contractees' material and allowing unnaturally large sanctions for any move that dares lose the large corporations even a single penny of profit.
Contract law is quite old. Parties enter into a contract willingly. You make it sound like someone such as Elton John or Paul McCartney are held in bondage and forced to sign a deal that will render them to a lifetime of hard labor and impoverishment.

It simply isn't the case.

Artists are reaping profits just like the record companies are. Your support for piracy is acknowledged, but don't pretend that magically the people who generate the product you want to steal will somehow feel sorry for you and turn on what has made them wealthy.

Quote:
Google succeeded in the EU because no-one in the EU were developing their Internet services much, instead relaying on what the US was feeding them. You need to come look at the mainstream media here - whatever gets popular in the US, gets widely promoted by media here.
Why do I need to look at the European mainstream media if the problem is the artists? It's ironic, because on one hand, you seem to want government restriction over media - in this case music publishers and their subsequent supporters in the mass media. In another - child pornography - you seem to imply that eliminating any form of censorship would prevent and/or alleviate pedophilia.

Quote:
The onus doesn't fall directly on the artists because the artists don't have control over their own work. It's the recording labels and studios have have the copyright, not the artists, directors, etc. And all those labels etc. are known to sue for millions of dollars when they lose even a single penny of profit. They had the law modeled on that.
The artists...signed...the contract. They are compensated for their work on their terms or else they find another record label. Look at the history of artists like Ray Charles who fought for and won creative control of their records. Or even the Beatles, who started Apple as a means to control their work and their profits.

Where does, if not the artists, the onus fall upon? You say the media. To do what, encourage piracy?

Quote:
And the media is needed for exposure. Not everyone has Internet access, not even in the US where a lot of people are still sitting on dial-up without possibility of upgrade and only use Internet for strict business because of that. TV etc. is still the main media outlet for most people. And when labels, studios, etc. pay good money to place their advertisements on TV etc., you can't expect the TV to devote space to other stuff.
"Other stuff"?

Quote:
We're talking about record labels suing twelve year old girls demanding sums in 4-5 digits per song for merely downloading a song for personal use which by any logic makes the total loss of profit caused by her equal to the amount a song costs in a CD store. Which means the cost of the CD it was on, divided by the number of songs on that CD, plus add some to the price as a fine. Certainly not the 4-5 digits per song the labels demand.
Did they not break the law?

Quote:
What does?
Artists requiring talent yet not requiring piracy as a means to achieve success.

Quote:
I remember you supported adolescent rights. Then a few years later when I complained to you on MSN about the then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger abolishing the right of 15 year olds to abort without parental permission, you outright flipped at me because I was against Schwarzenegger's abolishment. That sounds pretty much like an 180 degree turn to me.
I take any MSN conversation with you with a grain of salt after your random survey/poll/what have you where you falsely claimed to interview dozens of us for some half-brained theory or another you had.

Regardless, it matters little to me, especially now that you've specified the issue which was under discussion, which was abortion, something I have consistently been against.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 2011-12-31, 00:26
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Quote:
Did they not break the law?
People that step on the grass should be shot, after all, they broke the law.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 2011-12-31, 00:42
Battler's Avatar
Battler Battler is offline
Welcome to Zirla!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Koper, Slovenia
Posts: 5,318
Send a message via ICQ to Battler Send a message via AIM to Battler Send a message via MSN to Battler Send a message via Yahoo to Battler
Quote:
Are you saying you want to enable pedophiles? It certainly sounds that way.
No, I'm saying I want to give people with parahilias harmless outlets so they don't need to start committing crimes in order to fulfill their urges.

Quote:
Please stop treating pedophilia as if it is a benign disorder, as if it were influenza or the common cold.

Furthermore, they are already kidnapping, raping, and murdering children. It isn't some sort of agorophobia.
Paedophilia, just like any other paraphilia, is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent people. Attraction, not abuse. Abuse is just a result of paedophilia. Ephebophilia is sexual attraction to adolescents below the age of consent. Again, attraction. Not abuse.

A lot of paedophiles and ephebophiles abuse. This doesn't mean all do. But feel free to show me whatever hard evidence you might have at hand to prove every single person who's sexually attracted to children, even goes near children.

Quote:
Because we have common sense?
Your common sense is dictated by the Bible anyway.

Quote:
I'm glad to know you are intimately familiar with an anime designed for pre-teen girls then.
Sailor Moon is designed for girls aged 14 and up. Definitely not what I'd call pre-teen.

Quote:
Again, you're making it sound like there is a vast conspiracy where anime is hunted down and burned before it is revealed to the eyes of innocent youngsters.

I say again: there are television networks dedicated to showing nothing but anime. It doesn't exactly ring as a 'persecuted' artform.
How many of those networks actually show ALL anime in their full, unedited forms, without exceptions? I'd dare say not many...

Quote:
Not our problem.
Yeah, I know. Your country is too busy waging useless wars for oil to care about this kind of things.

Quote:
Certainly. But stop pretending that because you can't find child porn on Google is somehow an example of crushing corporate imperialism.
Lolicon and shotacon aren't child porn because they don't depict real children and because no real children are involved in their production. It's no different thant books such as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita for example, do you want to tell me that book should be banned? Or movies based on that book? Just because it depicts an adult sexually attracted to a 12 year old girls?
Let's go to the other extreme... you want to ban Michelangelo's David just because it so happens to be a naked underaged boy?

Quote:
Contract law is quite old. Parties enter into a contract willingly. You make it sound like someone such as Elton John or Paul McCartney are held in bondage and forced to sign a deal that will render them to a lifetime of hard labor and impoverishment.

It simply isn't the case.

Artists are reaping profits just like the record companies are. Your support for piracy is acknowledged, but don't pretend that magically the people who generate the product you want to steal will somehow feel sorry for you and turn on what has made them wealthy.
I don't want to steal anything. To steal is to prevent another person from rightfully owning it. By pirating, I don't prevent other people from rightfully owning music.

Sure, people like The Beatles or Queen can do what they want, but I'm talking about artists such as Hannah Montana, Justin Bieber or Britney Spears. They and the labels they're signed to are co-dependent, one can't live without the others and neither is willing to make the first step to making the old model collapse.

Quote:
Why do I need to look at the European mainstream media if the problem is the artists? It's ironic, because on one hand, you seem to want government restriction over media - in this case music publishers and their subsequent supporters in the mass media. In another - child pornography - you seem to imply that eliminating any form of censorship would prevent and/or alleviate pedophilia.
I'm against all censorship. I simply propose ONE major label to do the first step towards the abolishment of the old model.

And I'm against forbidding lolicon and shotacon. But I'd pay to see all real child porn permanently removed from the surface of the Earth with all the people involved in its production and consumption sentenced to death camps, tortured like the worst animals, burnt at the stake, then buried in the worst communal graves with their tombstones clearly stating that they were child abuser pricks and that their graves should be spat on.

Quote:
The artists...signed...the contract. They are compensated for their work on their terms or else they find another record label. Look at the history of artists like Ray Charles who fought for and won creative control of their records. Or even the Beatles, who started Apple as a means to control their work and their profits.

Where does, if not the artists, the onus fall upon? You say the media. To do what, encourage piracy?
Again, the co-dependence with the labels and artists such as Bieber or Spears.

Quote:
"Other stuff"?
Stuff not coming from major labels or producers.

Quote:
Did they not break the law?
They did but they should be punished according to what they did and not demand from them as many damages as if they actually were the ones doing the massive distribution of pirated material. What the labels etc. do is like charging someone $1 million for having stolen a $2 loaf of bread from a shop.

Quote:
Artists requiring talent yet not requiring piracy as a means to achieve success.
Talent? A lot artists in the old era also got popular just because they so happened to have appealed to the right label at the right time. Back then like now, artists signed to minor labels with far less media exposure wouldn't become as popular as those signed to major labels with much more media exposure, even if they had much more talent.

Quote:
I take any MSN conversation with you with a grain of salt after your random survey/poll/what have you where you falsely claimed to interview dozens of us for some half-brained theory or another you had.

Regardless, it matters little to me, especially now that you've specified the issue which was under discussion, which was abortion, something I have consistently been against.
Wow, you still take all MSN conversations with me with as grain of salt because of how I was a few years back? And I thought I was immature here.
__________________
Join #doki-doki on irc.ringoflightning.net for some nice chit-chat about anime, manga, and other aspects of Japanese culture now!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 2011-12-31, 00:50
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 8,100
Piracy - theft, that's rich.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Encyclopaedia Britannica
Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.
The definition does not apply, and will never apply to making, or downloading a copy.

If anything In terms of intellectual property an act of theft should be understood as claiming the authorship of someone else's work and not as spreading the work against the authors wishes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Copyright infringement is a wholly different matter and has legally nothing to do with theft. It is a breach of a contract, in which the author claims the supposed right to control the creation and spread of copies. In no sane system of law is a breach of such a contract an offence prosecuted ex officio.

Claiming that the authors suffer any financial losses due to the breach of this contract is false - as shown by recent surveys based on which the Swiss government has legalised piracy this year. Not to mention illogical - there is no evidence or a common sense basis to assume that a person would buy a product if they had no means of acquiring it for free from the internet. IF anything this works as free promotion/advertisement and a widening of the possible client base.

The thing is, that the US has pretty shoddy laws regarding patents and copy right, and would like to push it's legal interpretations of these issues into other countries throats through economic pressure and/or international deals such as "ACTA". And although it's just prudent on your end - protecting your own interest, it is objectively a deplorable practice.
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 2011-12-31, 01:16
Battler's Avatar
Battler Battler is offline
Welcome to Zirla!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Koper, Slovenia
Posts: 5,318
Send a message via ICQ to Battler Send a message via AIM to Battler Send a message via MSN to Battler Send a message via Yahoo to Battler
I fully agree with everything Jasiek said. Well said, Jasiek.

And yes, Switzerland has decided to keep piracy legal for personal use.
Link: http://www.digital-digest.com/news-6...sonal-Use.html . One country that does it right.
__________________
Join #doki-doki on irc.ringoflightning.net for some nice chit-chat about anime, manga, and other aspects of Japanese culture now!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 2011-12-31, 09:58
Streg's Avatar
Streg Streg is offline
Or Emi (was StreGGy)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Italy (Citadel Island)
Posts: 5,430
Send a message via MSN to Streg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasiek View Post
there is no evidence or a common sense basis to assume that a person would buy a product if they had no means of acquiring it for free from the internet.
+1
__________________
YouTube channel:
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 2011-12-31, 12:40
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Just to play the other side for a second: Piracy can be the equilivent of theft if the person was going to buy it anyway and didnt. I have no dought some people are like this.

The mistake is the jump from "some" to the assumption of all.

This problem is emphised even more in recent laws (SOPA) which completely breaks the idea of "innocent untill proven guilty" - you can get your site pulled for a mere accusation of copywrite infringement without even knowing who accused you and with no appeal.

Quote:
Claiming that the authors suffer any financial losses due to the breach of this contract is false - as shown by recent surveys based on which the Swiss government has legalised piracy this year.
Thats a average remember, if someone pirates LBA rather then getting it from GoG the authors do suffer.
The stats show, however, that overall the industary is better of or neutral from piracy.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 2011-12-31, 13:42
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,487
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasiek View Post

Not to mention illogical - there is no evidence or a common sense basis to assume that a person would buy a product if they had no means of acquiring it for free from the internet.
Yeah right.
true story:
I bought a "hacked" ps3, i downloaded all my games.
When I realized that to use features such as online play, or to play the more newly released games, I'd have to start buying games- I gave up the hax and started buying the games I really liked. How's that for a common sense basis?

----
That said I do agree that the record industry is providing a service which is no longer needed (that is, the distribution of music via physical copies).
A business whose service is not needed or wanted has no justification to exist.
The real debate is whether people should pay for online distribution or whether artists should make their money from performances only, like they used to do before we could record music. (not that i'd care to enter such a debate right now)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 2011-12-31, 15:27
Jasiek's Avatar
Jasiek Jasiek is offline
Do the evolution.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You forgot Poland.
Posts: 8,100
Well then you're a phoney, a big fat phoney.

There's still however no reason to assume that that is the usual case. Especially in court where one is innocent until proven guilty - and that's often forgotten when an industry representative waves his clients "losses" as if they're beyond all dispute.

Besides, your case shows how the industry should operate if it wants to survive in a hopefully inevitable reality where most information is free - to try and encourage people to buy their product by giving them features they can't get otherwise.

Darkflame that's still not theft, unless you bust into a store and take a physical copy, or break into someone's computer. A breach of copyright is a violation of a civil contract, not a crime like theft.
__________________
Little Script Adventure
Join the Little Script Adventure team
Download Little Script Adventure
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 2011-12-31, 16:23
Battler's Avatar
Battler Battler is offline
Welcome to Zirla!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Koper, Slovenia
Posts: 5,318
Send a message via ICQ to Battler Send a message via AIM to Battler Send a message via MSN to Battler Send a message via Yahoo to Battler
Quote:
A breach of copyright is a violation of a civil contract, not a crime like theft.
How much of a contract is it when the terms are unilaterally imposed by the industry and the end user never gets the opportunity to sit down and discuss the terms? All the end user can do is either fully agree and accept all the terms (however in no verifiable way) or disagree and be supposed to return the product.
__________________
Join #doki-doki on irc.ringoflightning.net for some nice chit-chat about anime, manga, and other aspects of Japanese culture now!
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 2012-01-01, 04:46
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasiek View Post
Darkflame that's still not theft, unless you bust into a store and take a physical copy, or break into someone's computer.
I said the equilivent of theft.
ie. has the exact same result on the authors.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 2012-01-01, 06:24
Streg's Avatar
Streg Streg is offline
Or Emi (was StreGGy)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Italy (Citadel Island)
Posts: 5,430
Send a message via MSN to Streg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
Yeah right.
true story:
I bought a "hacked" ps3, i downloaded all my games.
When I realized that to use features such as online play, or to play the more newly released games, I'd have to start buying games- I gave up the hax and started buying the games I really liked. How's that for a common sense basis?
get an xbox instead.but still no online gaming.
on the other hand I have to say that I downloaded Saints Row 2, but I really liked it. I liked it so much I bought it. And then I bought Saints Row 1 and 3. That's my way: I only buy what really takes me. A demo isn't enough, imho. You gotta explore every little part of a game before deciding you need to buy it. But probably if I couldn't play it before buying it I would have never bought it. If people just bought a game because the demo or the trailer was great they would put always less and less effort into making softwares.
__________________
YouTube channel:
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 2012-01-01, 09:26
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin View Post
Yeah right.
true story:
I bought a "hacked" ps3, i downloaded all my games.
When I realized that to use features such as online play, or to play the more newly released games, I'd have to start buying games- I gave up the hax and started buying the games I really liked. How's that for a common sense basis?
I was just about to say the above (replace ps3 with 360)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 2012-01-01, 16:30
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Your still only two people.
Just because you, apperently, dont buy stuff unless forced too doesnt mean the rest of us are the same.
Theres tones of stuff I have first pirated and then purchased without any features missing. Also tones I didnt (mostly due to bugs, or that I simply didnt play or enjoy it much anyway). Of the few things I pirated and then didnt go on too buy in some form, I normaly picked up the sequal instead.

Hell, often when it comes to PC games even when I get a boxed game I end up pirating it anyway as having a no-cd patch/no-drm version is often a lot more convient.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 2012-01-01, 21:34
Reek's Avatar
Reek Reek is offline
Party animal
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: israel
Posts: 9,487
Send a message via ICQ to Reek Send a message via MSN to Reek
well listen to mister "i'm a better person than you because i buy all my video games". maybe if you knew that ps3 games in israel cost more or less twice what they do in the uk (and that the price of a newly released ps3 game can reach almost 1/4th of what it cost to buy the actual console) you wouldn't be so judgmental.

also, what do you mean "you're still only two people"?
seriously, what does that mean? only two people...in the forums? in the world? if you think that:
having games for free vs. having to pay for all games = same total amount of games sold

than you're delduded
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpaceGuitarist
there's no room for subtleties, which are so important in personalities such as mine.

Last edited by Reek; 2012-01-01 at 21:51.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 2012-01-01, 23:20
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
I wasnt judgemental in the slightest.
I was merely stateing that you didnt represent everyone and using myself as a counter-example. I didnt bring morality into it at all.

There is no way what I said was "judgemental". (In fact if your reading what I said as me being "i'm a better person than you" thats you judgeing me, not visa versa.)

And its two people out of a forum thread, obviously, no need to be rude about it.

Quote:
if you think that:
having games for free vs. having to pay for all games = same total amount of games sold

than you're delduded
Again, dont be rude as I never said anything of the sort. Your argueing with a strawman and not what I said.

In fact, I dont even think you read Jasiek correctly - as he effectively said that not every download would be a purchase anyway and you replied "yeah right". Which is commonly a remark used to mean someone is wrong.
To my knowledge no one here is claiming that every download is a potential purchase gone.

--

My arguement is simply;
You dont need to force people to buy legal copys by restricting access or using DRM - plenty of us will do it anyway.

The fact that you (for whatever reason) didnt start buying untill you had features taken away and then suddenly did start buying (despite the apperent expense) is no reason why everyone should be forced to have DRM/content restrictions.

Having everyones content restricted for the sake of your scenario is "guilty till proven innocent" - and yet its something the media industary is pushing heavily for.
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff

Last edited by Darkflame; 2012-01-02 at 00:23.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 2012-01-02, 11:24
Axx's Avatar
Axx Axx is offline
The return of
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,677
[HighlyDubiousStatisticalMethod]If you think about it, there are 20 active posters in this thread, 6 of whom have participated in the piracy discussion, 2 of whom have stated the above, thats 33.3% mate!

Think of all the moneys they're loosing out on!
[/HighlyDubiousStatisticalMethod]
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 2012-01-02, 14:19
Darkflame's Avatar
Darkflame Darkflame is offline
Classic
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sol, Earth, NL
Posts: 23,836
Send a message via ICQ to Darkflame Send a message via AIM to Darkflame Send a message via MSN to Darkflame
Unfortuntely, thats the method the industary use's.
When they arnt just making things up:
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/t...tic-skepticism
__________________
http://fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
-
Phones & Tricorders & Blobs & Bombs & 3D Printers & TVIntros also;stuff
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 2012-01-02, 22:31
Double-J's Avatar
Double-J Double-J is offline
Magic Ball Master
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 15,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battler View Post
No, I'm saying I want to give people with parahilias harmless outlets so they don't need to start committing crimes in order to fulfill their urges.
Any reputable evidence that the urges of pedophiles - not a victimless crime, mind you - can be satiated or 'cured' by such "materials"? Or is this some theory you've come up with?

Quote:
Paedophilia, just like any other paraphilia, is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent people. Attraction, not abuse. Abuse is just a result of paedophilia. Ephebophilia is sexual attraction to adolescents below the age of consent. Again, attraction. Not abuse.
Ah, your theory then. I suspected as much. Because the abuse more often than not goes hand in hand. It is abnormal, deviant behavior.

Quote:
A lot of paedophiles and ephebophiles abuse. This doesn't mean all do. But feel free to show me whatever hard evidence you might have at hand to prove every single person who's sexually attracted to children, even goes near children.
Rebuttal: Would you let your 5-year-old in a room with a known pedophile? Hey, the pedophile even has a cool shotacon magazine to show your son! They can read it together. <3


Quote:
Your common sense is dictated by the Bible anyway.
Good. I'll take Judeo-Christianity over whatever you're selling.


Quote:
Sailor Moon is designed for girls aged 14 and up. Definitely not what I'd call pre-teen.
Whatevs.


Quote:
How many of those networks actually show ALL anime in their full, unedited forms, without exceptions? I'd dare say not many...
How many networks show any of the other issues you mentioned - such as murder or even profanity - in their unedited forms? Not many, at least graphically.

Try to watch Scarface (1983) on any American television network (with the exception of premium stations like HBO or Cinemax, which are purchased with the purpose of being uncensored). It is comical how much the film is edited.


Quote:
Yeah, I know. Your country is too busy waging useless wars for oil to care about this kind of things.
Like Axx said: gibberish at it's very worst. Good to see though, saves me time.

Quote:
Lolicon and shotacon aren't child porn because they don't depict real children and because no real children are involved in their production. It's no different thant books such as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita for example, do you want to tell me that book should be banned? Or movies based on that book? Just because it depicts an adult sexually attracted to a 12 year old girls?
Common sense.

Quote:
Let's go to the other extreme... you want to ban Michelangelo's David just because it so happens to be a naked underaged boy?
Common sense.


Quote:
I don't want to steal anything. To steal is to prevent another person from rightfully owning it. By pirating, I don't prevent other people from rightfully owning music.
See what Axx said.

Quote:
Sure, people like The Beatles or Queen can do what they want, but I'm talking about artists such as Hannah Montana, Justin Bieber or Britney Spears. They and the labels they're signed to are co-dependent, one can't live without the others and neither is willing to make the first step to making the old model collapse.
The music industry is more than three people and their labels.

Quote:
I'm against all censorship. I simply propose ONE major label to do the first step towards the abolishment of the old model.
With "laws and bills" to create that "one major label," right?

Quote:
And I'm against forbidding lolicon and shotacon. But I'd pay to see all real child porn permanently removed from the surface of the Earth with all the people involved in its production and consumption sentenced to death camps, tortured like the worst animals, burnt at the stake, then buried in the worst communal graves with their tombstones clearly stating that they were child abuser pricks and that their graves should be spat on.
I'm confused. You want to be benevolent towards pedophiles, yet you have created some irrational blood grudge against those who produce materials that could, by your theory, satiate their desire?

That's probably going over your head though.

Quote:
They did but they should be punished according to what they did and not demand from them as many damages as if they actually were the ones doing the massive distribution of pirated material. What the labels etc. do is like charging someone $1 million for having stolen a $2 loaf of bread from a shop.
Never said the law was perfect, I just stated that they broke the law. Maybe the punishment doesn't fit the crime. But of course, ignorance of the law - or the repercussions for breaking it - is no excuse.

Do I think a granny who downloads an old record should be tossed in jail or pay millions? No. Do I think they should not break the law? Yes. A real crossroads there/

Quote:
Talent? A lot artists in the old era also got popular just because they so happened to have appealed to the right label at the right time. Back then like now, artists signed to minor labels with far less media exposure wouldn't become as popular as those signed to major labels with much more media exposure, even if they had much more talent.
Some of the biggest Western artists emerged from places like Motown or Sun Records, which were very small operations (in the case of Motown, run out of what amounted to someone's house) that embraced talent.

Of course, you're still missing the point, but I digress.

Quote:
Wow, you still take all MSN conversations with me with as grain of salt because of how I was a few years back? And I thought I was immature here.
That's life.

Last edited by Double-J; 2012-01-02 at 22:40. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 2012-01-02, 23:42
Battler's Avatar
Battler Battler is offline
Welcome to Zirla!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Koper, Slovenia
Posts: 5,318
Send a message via ICQ to Battler Send a message via AIM to Battler Send a message via MSN to Battler Send a message via Yahoo to Battler
Quote:
Any reputable evidence that the urges of pedophiles - not a victimless crime, mind you - can be satiated or 'cured' by such "materials"? Or is this some theory you've come up with?
With urges I meant attraction per se, without the actual act of child abuse. I quoted some people speaking to this regard on the bottom of this post, as well as people pretty much proving not only paedophiles read lolicon or shotacon.
So in short, lolicon and shotacon are consumed by a wide range of people (at least in Japan; and if you want to rebut this, please do it with some hard facts or evidence) and no child is abused in their production. Real child porn is only consumed by paedophiles and child abuse is not only involved but THE thing that makes its production even possible. That and there's no hard evidence that proves lolicon or shotacon are linked to any kind of increase of paedophilia. In fact, as per what I quoted on the bottom of this post, there seems to be a correlation with the increase of lolicon and shotacon and a decrease of paedophilia in Japan.
I'm all open to rebuttals though, provided they include some hard facts or evidence. Granted, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation but it's still an interesting fact to point out.

Quote:
Ah, your theory then. I suspected as much. Because the abuse more often than not goes hand in hand. It is abnormal, deviant behavior.
First off, how do you conclude it's my own theory? Based on what evidence?

Second off, you're essentially saying this: most people who consume lolicon or shotacon will either consume real child porn too, or abuse children, or both. And of course without providing a single shred of evidence and instead using straw man arguments such as "common sense" which has never been considered evidence in court, or "everyone knows". Provide me some valid evidence and I'll agree with you. Show me some evidence that links specifically lolicon and shotacon to actual child abuse, and I'll believe you.

Quote:
Rebuttal: Would you let your 5-year-old in a room with a known pedophile? Hey, the pedophile even has a cool shotacon magazine to show your son! They can read it together. <3
I wouldn't. But unless said paedophile actually abuses children or consumes actual child porn (lolicon and shotacon excluded), I'd simply ignore the paedophile. And I'd have no problem letting my child in a room with a known consumer of lolicon or shotacon, unless there was enough evidence said consumer was an actual paedophile.

Quote:
How many networks show any of the other issues you mentioned - such as murder or even profanity - in their unedited forms? Not many, at least graphically.

Try to watch Scarface (1983) on any American television network (with the exception of premium stations like HBO or Cinemax, which are purchased with the purpose of being uncensored). It is comical how much the film is edited.
Thanks for misunderstanding completely. When I talked about butchering of anime, I included blood etc. as well. I pretty much stated you can't watch ANY anime in its full, unedited form on TV, in neither US nor Europe. My complaint is mainly about the fact they take anime targeted at 15 year olds, such as Dragon Ball, and re-target it at 9 year olds for completely no reason when Japan produces tons of anime actually targeted at 9 year olds which America or Italy could just as easily import and show unbutchered, saving even money they spend on editing the thing otherwise.

Quote:
Like Axx said: gibberish at it's very worst. Good to see though, saves me time.
Maybe it's gibberish, but not like you never say gibberish yourself.

Quote:
Common sense.
Sorry but provide some arguments, not "common sense" which in the scientific community is not an argument at all. Especially because "common sense" is terribly subjective and culture-specific. What's common sense in US, might not be so in Japan or Pakistan for example.
Not to mention, I asked about Nabokov's book which is an international bestseller and the only thing you responded, is "common sense". That doesn't tell me anything, for the aforementioned reasons (common sense being subjective and most of all, culture-specific). Sorry but I, not having grown up in the US, have no idea what is common sense in the US. Same for Japan. So expecting me to understand what is common sense in US, is a bit obnoxious and nationalistic as it assumes all the world thinks like the US does.

Quote:
The music industry is more than three people and their labels.
Yes, I know that very well. I just used those three as an example of what still spins the old model.

Quote:
With "laws and bills" to create that "one major label," right?
No major label, but a completely label-less system where artists distribute their music directly and get paid for it directly. It'd reduce the cost of music for the end users as well as there'd be less middle man to make profit therefore less to add to the price.
Please, show me how many actual artists lobby against piracy and how many record label representatives do it? And how many of the artists that do lobby against piracy are actual artists comparable to Paul McCartney and how many are in the Justin Bieber clan.

Some artists could be said to engage in piracy themselves, Queen being the prime example who officially published their entire video catalogue (including entire live concerts as officially released) on their Queenofficial channel on YouTube. And that didn't exactly cause them to become poor.
But then Queen do have copyright for their own material, under their own company called Queen Music Ltd, which exclusively licenses distribution rights to Universal Music/Island Records (Hollywood Records in US) but obviously still lets them distribute their own stuff in any way they wish. And if the label bitches, they pretty much revoke the exclusive license and find another label to give it to. Same as The Beatles have their own Apple Records.

But artists like Justin Bieber or Britney Spears who are famous because of the labels and who'd pretty much enter oblivion if becoming self-distributed because I seriously doubt they are actually able to write what they sing so they'd be left without songs to sing, won't do what Queen or The Beatles did.

Also to quote from what Jasiek linked - at the moment there's a very uneven footing between emerging artists. Those who so happen to appeal to one of the major labels, get it easy while the rest struggle. A new model with direct distribution would even the footing a lot as all artists would be subjected to the same conditions. Then the end users would be the ones chosing whom they'll listen to and who just isn't worth it. Popularity would be once again based on talent rather than on appeal to major labels.

Quote:
I'm confused. You want to be benevolent towards pedophiles, yet you have created some irrational blood grudge against those who produce materials that could, by your theory, satiate their desire?

That's probably going over your head though.
This pretty much summarizes your debate skills. I specifically distinguished between lolicon/shotacon and real child porn. You decided to completely ignore the distinction I made, creating an inconsistency where none was. Which pretty much nullifies the point you were trying to make here.

Quote:
Never said the law was perfect, I just stated that they broke the law. Maybe the punishment doesn't fit the crime. But of course, ignorance of the law - or the repercussions for breaking it - is no excuse.

Do I think a granny who downloads an old record should be tossed in jail or pay millions? No. Do I think they should not break the law? Yes. A real crossroads there/
If it's illegal to pirate, then by all means, punish piracy. But punish it in a way that corresponds to the crime rather than in a way that makes those supporting the law profit as much as possible while being terribly disproportionate. Until the US understands that, it remains no better than the People's Republic of China where theft is punished even by death in some cases.

Quote:
Some of the biggest Western artists emerged from places like Motown or Sun Records, which were very small operations (in the case of Motown, run out of what amounted to someone's house) that embraced talent.

Of course, you're still missing the point, but I digress.
Well you're right here.

Quote:
That's life.
No it's flat out immaturity if you keep negative feelings about a person for actions committed years before and aren't able to get over them.
Also the fact you're unable to debate with someone without getting your reading of a person's statements clouded by your personal opinion about the person whose statements you're reading is also worth mentioning. The proper way to debate is to evaluate the claims and statements regarding of who is making them. That is, judge the claims not the claimer.

Also for some quotes about lolicon, taken from here (and further referenced in the article):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon .

Quote:
The legal status of lolicon manga and anime that portray children involved erotically with adults has changed with time and is currently under intensive debate in Japan.[12][64] A Japanese non-profit organization called CASPAR has claimed that lolicon and other anime magazines and games encourage sex crimes.[41] According to Galbraith, Yasushi Takatsuki has noted that sexual abuse of minors in Japan has declined since the 1960s and 70s, which "roughly coincides with the increasing presence of fictional lolicon".
Specifically the last sentence. So actual sexual abuse of minors in Japan has declined roughly since the increased presence of lolicon. Interesting, isn't it?

Quote:
Galbraith feels that this is not an argument that lolicon "compensates for or relieves real desires", but instead that lolicon imagery does not "reflect the desires" of readers, or inspire them to commit crimes.[18] It has been suggested that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might actually increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.
Exactly what I'm saying here.

Quote:
Cultural critic Hiroki Azuma said that very few readers of lolicon manga commit crimes.
Another thing worth nothing.

Quote:
He states that in the otaku culture, lolicon is the "most convenient [form of rebellion]" against society. Azuma says that some otaku feel so "excluded from society" that they "feel as if they are the sort of 'no good' person who should be attracted to little girls".[17]
Not exactly relevant but interesting to point out as it proves that not everyone person who reads lolicon or shotacon even is attracted to minors.

Quote:
Sarah Goode describes the accumulation of lolicon materials as being "a medium through which disaffected men may choose to express their sense of anomie and disconnection with society". When questioning the relationship of lolicon to "finding children in real life sexually attractive", Goode presents the argument of a lolicon fan "that even if I could be classified as a kind of anime lolicon, it'd NEVER translate into RL pedophilia. This is predicated on the belief that the anime lolis I like DO NOT EXIST in RL."[9]
Nice said here. Not everyone who reads lolicon or shotacon, is a paedophile. This proves it quite well.

Quote:
Setsu Shigematsu believes that lolicon manga should not be equated to photographic or adult video lolicon materials which involve real children; instead she argues that lolicon represents an artificial sexuality, turning away from "three dimensional reality" and redirecting sexual energies towards "two dimensional figures of desire".[8] Akira Akagi writes that in lolicon manga, the girl represents cuteness, and that it is not her age which makes her attractive,[6] and furthermore, that lolicon fans project themselves onto lolicon characters, identifying themselves with the girl.[18]
Another well-said thing.

Quote:
Lolicon manga has been and is marketed to both boys and men.[24] Sharon Kinsella wrote that lolicon manga was a late-1980s outgrowth of girls' manga,[31] which included yaoi and parodies of boys' and adult manga.[66] This occurred as more men attended amateur manga conventions and as new boys' amateur manga genres appeared at Comiket.
Oh another thing pointed out here - lolicon is read by young boys too. Surely you can't say that a 12 year old boy is a paedophile or a pervert because he reads something that depicts a girl roughly his own age in a sexual situation.

Quote:
Kinsella distinguished between the attitudes toward gender of amateur lolicon manga and that of male fans of girls' manga.[31] While parody manga created by women ridicule male stereotypes and appeal to both male and female fans, lolicon manga "usually features a girl heroine with large eyes and a body that is both voluptuous and child-like, scantily clad in an outfit that approximates a cross between a 1970s bikini and a space-age suit of armour"[31] This latter feature expresses both fear of and desire for young women, who have become increasingly powerful in Japanese society.[67] Kinsella noted dominant British and American genres and imports of animation video in the 1990s derived from lolicon manga, suggesting women, and therefore also men, in all of these countries have gone through similar social and cultural experiences.[68]
To quote specifically:
Quote:
Kinsella noted dominant British and American genres and imports of animation video in the 1990s derived from lolicon manga,
So UK and US first derive their stuff from lolicon manga, then one day decide it's suddenly wrong? Interesting and doesn't surprise me in the least.

Quote:
Ito characterises otaku as having more affection towards the anime and manga world than for a realistic world, saying that to the otaku, the two-dimensional world portrayed becomes "more real". Ito views the preference for young girls as sex objects in manga and anime to be due to a change in Japanese society in the 1970s and 1980s. Ito says that at that time, boys felt that girls were "surpassing them in terms of willpower and action". However, as the boys believed girls to be the weaker sex, the boys began focussing on young girls "who were 'easy to control'". Additionally, the young girls of lolicon exist in the media, which Ito points out is a place where one can control things however they want.[7]
So lolicon etc. is simply a matter of cultural expression. Once again read not only by paedophiles, which further proves it's not the same as actual child porn which is consumed only by paedophiles, apart from the fact production of actual child porn involves sexual abuse of children which is filmed/recorded in order to make child porn, while production of lolicon or shotacon does not involve any of that.
__________________
Join #doki-doki on irc.ringoflightning.net for some nice chit-chat about anime, manga, and other aspects of Japanese culture now!

Last edited by Battler; 2012-01-03 at 00:20.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RPGLBA NEWS) How is the project leader? CrazyBee Fan Games 31 2016-11-17 13:32
LBA Speedracing [December 2008 / January 2009] Kitarii General 44 2009-02-08 16:08
What Happened on the 19th Of June 2006? Axx General 17 2008-08-22 21:38
Korean LBA 2... Battler LBA Modifications - General 9 2005-03-16 22:08
n00b of the month award - December morshem Off topic 47 2003-12-29 00:49


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:06.


News Feed
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, the Magicball Network