Comcast Targets Unlicensed Anime Torrenters 352
SailorSpork writes "According to a thread on the forums of AnimeSuki, a popular anime bittorent index site, Comcast has begun sending DCMA letters to customers downloading unlicensed fan-subtitled anime shows via bittorrent. By 'unlicensed', they mean that no english language company has the rights to it. The letters are claiming that the copyright holder or an authorized agent are making the infringement claims, though usually these requests are also sent to the site itself rather that individual downloaders. My question is have they really been in contact with Japanese anime companies, or is this another scare tactic by Comcast to try and reduce the bandwidth use of their heavier customers now that their previous tactics have come under legal fire?"
Re:Anime is porn.. (Score:3, Insightful)
- Series' length is small enough to let people that don't like sitting around for days on torrents download them, yet large enough to cause a impact
- Large fansubbing community, some of which compete (so a lot of different versions of the same thing floating around)
- Community that rabidly encourages watching new shows, partially because a lot of anime is so similar, and again, partially because of the short series length of each
- Otaku have the time and devotion to put into managing daily torrents/downloads
- Generality of the genre - it's like saying "there's a lot of people that watch sitcoms"
- There are a lot of nerds on the Internet, period!
I don't care for most anime (most of it seems to be robots, ninjas, and loli) but the people that do are very devoted to the genre. I'm not surprised that it would account for a lot of traffic.
Re:what is this anime thing ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, animated shows can tackle any subject matter. You don't need block buster CGI effects since everything is animated anyway. So anime shows can feature sci-fi, fantasy, or ridiculous action themes much more easily than an american tv show can.
There are some people who like it because it's Japanese and exotic and weird, but all in all I don't think that's the primary reason. It's simply that the animated medium allows more flexibility and creativity than live action, but is stigmatized in america as being childish.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the CRIA shutting down Demonoid, despite the fact that due to the levies we pay up here on media and players, it's been ruled multiples times by the courts that downloading for personal usage is legal. Also that uploading is legal, as obviously to download, someone has to upload.
The recording industry body still shut down the site, which was hosted in Canada, despite the fact that A) really all they SHOULD be allowed to do is demand the removal of music torrents, and B) torrents which, in the host country, were perfectly legal anyway.
Re:Will it ever stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
When we have another choice besides dial-up.
Re:Seems to be a slight misconception (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what is this anime thing ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The people that are truly obsessive only make it an easy outlet for me.
Little incentive for them to stop it (Score:2, Insightful)
Comcast however, has a direct interest in stopping this: it eats up bandwidth. So I would guess they are either mostly or completely behind this rather than the copyright holders. I wonder if they even have permission from the copyright holders to send these out.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems to be a slight misconception (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically nothing, that's exactly what happened. Worse, the person that got served had no clue (and still doesn't seem to realize) that they didn't get the notice because of downloading, but because of sharing. How many other people are there that don't know how torrents work who are in the same position?
Standing back and looking at it, it's a great tactic. Torrenters will turn sharing off to avoid these notices, which in turn will cut down on availability, hitting the torrent concept squarely where it benefits most. Sources become fewer with more infringement per source, making them more profitable to persue legally.
It's simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
nor do they REALLY care, all they care about is what costs them money and that is people USING the service they paid for
a wee bit more then others. (oh the horrible crime!!!)
It is simply the assumption that bittorrent + lots traffic = illegal. No need to verify, just roll out the DMCA crap.
Comcast expects that teir 'stupid customors' won't know how to properly respond and hope that they simply won't have the resources
to put up any fight. It the same as the *AA thugs say, BitTorrent or ANY type of P2P file distribution is ALWAYS used, by ALL users,
to share copyrighted content and only if THEY have full control over the distribution (which can never fully happen in P2P) can they
believe that anyone MIGHT be 'less of a criminal' (but they should probably pay them anyway, since all people are obviously evil).
It's Comcasts + MAFIAA ongoing attempt to make P2P illegal, not just by law but also by peoples believes.
If you tell them often enough that it's a horrible HORRIBLE crime, then at some point people (especially by those who do not use/understand)
will believe it and that's when you get stupid juries that award x billion for having some bittorrent client installed.
Distribution (without profit) of unlicensed content is fully legal, but like i said, Comcast doesn't even know it is unlicensed Anime
and nor do they care. They didn't care what content was distributed when they simply killed p2p connections before. It was p2p, that's enough.
So the MAFIAA wants you to remember:
P2P = bad = crime... obviously you should feel really REALLY bad the next time you download a WoW patch... (you criminal!!!)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
But you won't hear about issues with foreign licenses in the Japanese media. You'll hear about Japanese P2P users and programs like Winny and Share.
And any actual fan would know that fansubs are copyright violations anyway and that unfavorable reactions should be unsuprising and you should support the creators ANYWAY instead of bitching when they get annoyed with your running roughshod over their rights.
Re:Anime is porn.. (Score:0, Insightful)
No thank you, I'd much rather just watch after having been subbed so I don't have to sit there and ruin my viewing experience rewinding when I have to double check what I just heard.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Says you.
1. I defy you to cite examples of Japanese anime houses (not US dub shops) objecting to the fansubs of unlicensed shows.
2. No US media company would ever have bought hard-to-categorize shows like Death Note, Nana or Prince of Tennis before the fansub community proved that there was a market for such shows among western viewers. Fansubs are basically free market research for the distributors.
3. The big money in US anime distribution comes from dubbing shows with English-speaking actors and putting it on cable TV. When a show is released to DVD as a subtitle-only set (such as season 2 of SuperGALS!, or the "Uncut" editions of Seasons 1 & 2 of Sailor Moon,) sales have been lackluster at best. Fansubs don't cut in to TV viewership numbers on Adult Swim. If anything, they boost ratings and DVD sales, because by the time, for example, Death Note hit cable TV last month, the show was one of the hottest word-of-mouth topics at anime conventions and on web forums for over a year. No amount of traditional marketing could have done for that show what a few dozen "L" and "Misa" cosplayers at each and every con last summer accomplished to get people curious about it.
Ah, the free market (Score:4, Insightful)
I see some people come up with the logical question, why still use comcast. Because we have no choice people reply. But aren't you americans, the country of the free market that should ensure plenty of competition? How come I as a socialist live in a country with multiple ISP's whose competition is mandated by the goverment, creating a free market and ensuring that any ISP that tried to pull this will be out of business very soon (it is very hard here to even find an ISP who still uses traffic limits other then the speed of your connection)
Shut up the reply then usually is.
Americans seem to be brainwashed when it comes to the free market, they been told that goverment regulation is bad and will scream about it at every opportunity but are totally unable to regonize the results of it.
If comcast is truly the only alternative in some areas, then that is clear evidence the free market does not work. WIth current tech there should be at least two options, cable and adsl, in all areas, using the cable and phone network that any reasonable goverment should have mandated should be available to all homes.
With both networks it is also trivial to mandate open access so that there is a difference between the company operating the cable and the actual ISP.
Is there truly no alternative to comcast (an ISP that charges tripple for a better service DOES count as an alternative, quality costs money) and if so, why are americans so utterly incapable of spotting that this is wrong and needs to be fixed, by the state, because IF it is true it is clear evidence that the free market doesn't work.
I can predict right now that this post will be modded down by an american who just cannot accept that the free market don't work, and get comments spouting why goverment interference is bad without actually ever touching the end result, that in goverment regulated areas people got choice and freedom, and in free areas people have restricitons and are at the whim of their ISP.
Re:There is no "draw" to anime. It's not popular. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're saying is akin to, "murder must be legal, since being murdered is legal, and for somebody to be murdered, somebody must be doing the murdering".
One possible rationale behind laws that say downloading is illegal while uploading isn't, is that there is no practical way for somebody who is merely using a network download can possibly know whether the copyright holder has authorised such distribution. For all you know, the downloads may be sanctioned.
However, when making a file available, you're expected to clear it with the copyright holder. On some level this makes sense, as long as you think along the lines of traditional producer->distributor->consumer lines, and expect normal people to be passive consumers.
The fact that the Internet doesn't actually universally work that way any more, however, has changed the balance. Everybody's uploading and downloading these days, often uploading and downloading the same file simultaneously.
To apply the same logic to modern peer to peer technology, you'd have to change the distinction from uploader and downloader, to a distinction between the person who ripped, encoded, and put the first copy online in the first place, and everybody else. That would effectively decriminalize peer to peer file sharing, although files would still enter the system illegally. Once they're in the system, they'd effectively be fair game though.
I'd prefer the changes to go a bit further myself. Non-commercial copyright infringement should be downright legalized. The copyright system was conceived in the age of the printing press being an instrument of power in the hands of relatively few people -- not a society where practically everybody has access to a global information and media exchange network -- an own personal printing press if you may.
Re:Ah, the free market (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't think I missed the point at all. To sum up the original post - "you Americans think the free market solves everything. See, it doesn't!"
I was simply pointing out this has nothing to do with the free market, as utilities are typically regulated monopolies. Now, I would agree with you when you say these monopolies could be regulated much better, but that wasn't the argument I was responding to.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other letters that equal perjury when you fill something out falsely too. Forms and publication going to the IRS and so on. So when the law says so, then it has the full force of law just as if you were to lie to the courts specifically.
It also appears that you are missing who the Perjury is intended to. It is intended for the author of the letter not the recipient of it. You when filling out and sending the letter, are certifying that you are telling the truth.
And BTW, if you were to send a letter out saying under the penalty of treason or some other legal construct, you "could" be charged with misrepresenting yourself or the backing of a law. It changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it can get you into a lot of trouble if you intentionally misrepresent legalities in order to force someone to do something.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
That used to be the case. More and more I've seen digisubbers whose attitude is "Yes, it's been licensed, but we don't want to wait until they put it out, so we're going to keep subbing/releasing/distributing." I wish I could say these were a tiny minority of subbers, but I don't think so anymore.
This hobby has changed quite a bit since the days when I and my friends would spend $75-$150 on an imported laserdisc and hook it up to an Amiga 500 with a genloc card and a script file to record a VHS fansub.
Re:DMCA requires the *copyright holder* to issue (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC the standard safe harbor takedown procedure envisions the service provider as controlling the distribution of the materials in question. The service provider receives the takedown notice from the copyright holder, removes the materials, then waits for a counterclaim by the purported infringer. If a counterclaim is offered, the materials are restored unless the copyright holder promptly files suit against the purported infringer. In this procedure, the copyright holder and infringer don't have any contact at all, except as mediated by the service provider.
So that much, at least, is kosher.
The point of this procedure, which was drafted back in the era of services like AOL, is give the service "safe harbor" -- defined responsibilities which if fulfilled, are all the provider is REQUIRED to do. This doesn't prevent them from doing more, although it might not be advisable. It also doesn't prevent some fourth party from sticking their oar in for some reason, which is what I think is going on here.
IANAL, but it seems to me in the case of P2P, the service provider and alleged infringer are one and the same: the individual. Comcast is no more involved in what goes up or down on a P2P offering than the phone company would be if the user was leasing a line to an ISP. Comcast doesn't have the ability to take down individual files, and so can't comply with a copyright holder's takedown notice, other than by shutting off the subscriber's service, which is MORE than they are required to do under safe harbor, and in fact would be dangerous for them if the situation weren't covered under their TOS with the subscriber.
Comcast can claim they are issuing a DMCA safe harbor takedown on behalf of the copyright holders, but that doesn't make it true. It may be within its legal rights to shut off the subscriber's service if it thinks that subscriber is violating copyright laws including DMCA. They can claim they are doing so because the Moon is made out of cheese, but that doesn't make it so.
If DMCA really worked this way, it would be the most dangerous law ever. I could shut down a political party's web site a day before the election by filing a DMCA takedown notice with the party's ISP. The ISP could then choose the pull the plug on the party's internet service, claiming safe harbor. It would send notification to the party, and the party would have to receive the notification and respond to it in order to have their service restored, which might be after election day.
Now, the ISP doesn't have to choose to take advantage of safe harbor. They could decide to take the chance I'm making a spurious claims. On the other hand, if they were sympathetic with my political view, they could piously claim safe harbor while cutting off web communications, email, even phone service to party headquarters. They would duly restore services after their notice was sent (by registered snail mail) and the response received (likewise by snail mail).
No, Comcast is sticking its oar in here for its own purposes. It is, after all, a content vendor, so perhaps it sees its own subscribers as potential competitors. It probably doesn't like YouTube very much, but it can't do anything about it without running into a team of well financed lawyers. Fans trading bootleg movies are a different matter.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, what is it then? Obviously, it's not "free" - you're paying the levy. I can see how people could easily use the rationale of "well, I'm paying for something - I should get something for it", and proceed with downloading. I mean, what is the money supposed to be paying for?
Taxes (a levy is a tax) are typically used to support things like roads, police, health care (in some countries). There are a few roads that you drive where you are asked to pay a little more (toll roads, both government run and private), but they are not the norm. Typically we expect that if we are all compelled to pay for something then there is some personal or societal benefit to it. Taxes pay for schools for example, but not everyone paying those taxes have kids in school. Yet it's justified because having more people in society educated benefits everyone in that society. So what is the benefit of the music/copyright levy if you're not allowed to download? Maybe it benefits the copyright holders - but they are the ones *not* paying the tax. Is it like welfare? Well, welfare benefits society as a whole, since the indigent can eat and live without resorting to robbery and theft. But copyright holders are typically rich, not starving in the street.
Now, you could argue that the levy mitigates the loss of revenue due to illegal infringement. But all retailers have shoplifters and other criminals that cause losses. Sure the folks buying merchandise in the store are paying a little extra to make up for the shrinkage that the store incurs. But copyright holders have the same ability - to raise prices to cover any perceived losses. Why the levy on everyone? Why an extra tax on every consumer for a specific business, when other businesses subject to losses are not compensated?
The only conclusion possible is one of these:
- The levy is in place so that citizens are provided with free digital content, or
- The government is corrupt and officials have engaged in a quid-pro-quo with the entertainment industry to provide them with revenue that they have not earned.
I want to think that my government is doing The Right Thing, soRe:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they're revenue comes from the sales of tickets and dvds and broadcast distributors, etc. That is what they earn. The levy provides them some additional revenue based on the sale figures for a loosely related commodity - money they didn't earn. To me, the availability of blank media often *increases* the amount of revenue they can make from the channels that actually pay for that content - that is, it increases demand for their product. So the levy paid to them is money that they did not earn, because it has nothing to do with the market forces that set prices for their product.