What Lawyers Can Learn From Manga 357
jedigeek links to this article from Lawrence Lessig, writing "This article explains the interesting phenomenon of dojinshi, and why dojinshi helps fuel the production of original manga. From a western-perspective, dojinshi breaks copyright laws, but, according to the article's author: 'The law is a rough-edged tool. It was not crafted by geniuses of economics.' In a time when laws like the DMCA exist and are being exploited, this is certainly food for thought."
Preaching to the choir (Score:3, Insightful)
Better yet, write something ORIGINAL!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better yet, write something ORIGINAL!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anime originality (Score:5, Insightful)
Originality is one of the rarest things around. We've all been exposed to so many different stories, movies, etc that there's really not much we haven't seen. If one in 10,000 artists actually does something original, how do you propose to build an economy off of that?
Re:Anime originality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anime originality (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like the entertainment economy that's doing very well today?
"Does it occur to you guys that most of the stories worth telling have already been told?"
Did it occur to you that there's a lot more to content than getting from act I to act IV?
Was the interesting part about Ghostbusters the way they defeated Zuul, or was the interesting part about it watching these 3 guys (eventually 4) start an unusual business?
I swear, people ridiculously over-value plot.
Re:Here's one - flame away (Score:3, Interesting)
I think my husband is addicted to eBay
It all started one day when I noticed my husband, Mark, was spending a little more time than usual checking his email. I wandered into the office to see what he was up to. "What're you doing Honey?"
"I'm just surfing on eBay."
"For anything in particular?"
"Sticks. Pool sticks. Mickey found a good deal on a Huebler, so now I'm trying to find one." That's my hubby: like the matching pea in a pod, whatever his best friend Mickey had, Mark would soon possess, and vice versa.
"How much?"
"Mickey got his for $175.00. Then he found a Meucci for Carol. Some models retail for twice that."
I shook my head a little, gave him a kiss on the cheek and said, "Ok, have fun."
Just a couple of days later he was at it again. "What are you looking for now?" I quizzed.
"Sticks."
"But, I thought you found one the other night."
"I did. Now I'm looking for one for you." He looked up at me with a pleading glance, "You want your own pool stick, Honey?"
"But, I don't play pool often enough to own my own stick."
"I can get you a purple one!" he beamed as he tried to appeal his case to me.
"Honey, I don't need a stick. I hardly ever go out when you shoot pool. I can just borrow yours when I do."
The next night he was at it again. "Honey! I want to show you something!" He shouted from upstairs. Once upstairs Mark proudly turned the monitor toward me so he could display his new find.
"Look Honey, a purple one!"
He clicked the Back arrow, and then clicked on a web link he had saved. "And here's a green one. You like green, don't you?" I could already tell that I was going to be the proud owner of a Huebler whether I wanted one or not.
"I found a neat trick. Look." he said as he pointed to the monitor. "A lot of people spell Huebler wrong. So if you search for the stick using the misspelling, you'll find a bunch that hardly anyone is bidding on, because most people are searching for the real name. See, the purple one is spelled 'Hubler'. It's only up to $75.00, and there's only three people bidding on it." He clicked another link, "And here's a Meucci, but it's spelled 'Meuchie', so the search function can't find it."
"You're already bidding on the stick? But I told you I didn't want one."
"But it's a great stick. Trust me honey. Now we can all have our own."
"You can have two if you really want them, but I don't need one. And, by the way, what are all of those boxes that keep showing up in the mail?"
He flashed a big, proud grin, "Car parts."
"You're buying car parts online? Isn't that a little expensive? Can't you just go to the junkyard like you usually do?"
"But you can't find the kind of parts I need in a junkyard. I ordered ashtrays for my Monte Carlo. You can't get '87 ashtrays from any of the junkyards around here. And I found door locks for it too. They're the kind with the knobs on the end instead of the straight ones."
"How much for new door locks?" I asked.
"Fourteen bucks, plus shipping."
I rolled my eyes. "Whatever! I'm going back downstairs."
A few days later Mark called for me to come upstairs again.
"Don't tell me, eBay. What did you find now?"
"Just because I love you so much, and you're the most wonderful wife in the world..." he bribed as he turned the monitor toward me. There on the display was an enlarged photo of a diamond ring. "Do you like it?"
"Honey", I pronounced the syllables distinctly putting a little emphasis on the 'eee' part, "That's very sweet of you, but I don't need another ring." I held up my ring finger to him, presenting a seven-diamond marquee band, "You just bought me this one a few months ago, and I love it. You know I don't wear a lot of jewelry."
"But, I would get it for you if you wanted it. You know, most wives would be happy that their husband wanted to buy them a new ring."
"I leaned down to kiss him, "Then you should be glad I'm not like most wives. Please, no ring. Ok?"
"Ok. Your loss."
Over the next few weeks there were more rings for him to show me. Mark had moved onto gemstones, prodding with, "You want a birthstone don't you?" I finally caved on the birthstone, if he could get it for under $50.00, which he did. It was surprisingly nice for the money. Apparently the woman selling it forgot to put in a reserve price on the item. This meant that she would have to sell it at whatever the final bid was.
Then there was the pretty sapphire with a triangle shaped diamond on either side for $175.87. The diamonds were
I had to admit I was happy with some of his little finds for me. But the small packages were starting to show up daily. I had long lost count over the past few months. I had given up on asking about car parts and paintball guns, and had insisted on no more jewelry. Since we were the proud owner of two new (used) Hueblers, I felt safe there would be no more of those.
I was wrong. Even though each pool cue came with it's own case, Mark claimed he needed to buy a special case that could carry two sticks. Ok, I reasoned; that made some sense. But what were we going to do with the two empty single cases? Then he needed a stick just for breaking. I tried to argue that one down by pointing out that a bar cue was quite sufficient for the task, but lost to his enthusiastic and passionate energy.
After a few months and I don't know how much money, I got paged upstairs again. "Your Mom likes these, doesn't she?" he asked, as he pointed to a listing of Caroling dolls, better known as 'suffocating people' around here. That's my clever Honey's nickname for them because he says when you put them in a glass display case, they all look like they're gasping for air.
Putting his generous spirit aside, my hands were on my hips now. I had had enough. "Honey! You're buying for my mother now? Don't you think you're taking this eBay stuff a little too far?" I glared at him in a way that only an angry wife can, "Honey, I think you are addicted to eBay. You haven't stopped since you started. You've run out of things to buy (thank God!), so now your shopping for other people. You need to stop. You know I love you, but you need to stop. I don't want to see another package come into this house!"
A dark cloud seemed to settle on the house for the next couple of days. Mark moped about. He shopped, but didn't bid. I swear he was going through withdrawal. I felt guilty, but we had a deal as husband and wife. We gave each other a lot of leeway with our lives; we trusted each other completely to always do the right thing for the marriage. But if one of us decided the other was starting to cross from the gray into the black, and was called up on it, they would stop whatever the offending thing was. End of story; no arguments. Sulking, yes. Arguing, no.
Finally, I couldn't take his misery anymore. "Honey, listen: you can't possibly need anything else from eBay. You've bought it all already." He just scowled, and mumbled something I probably didn't want to hear anyway. "Why don't you look for things that you can sell, instead of trying to buy everything? Maybe you can sell the pool cases you have left over?"
A seed planted; I left.
After a few days, I noticed Mark was digging through our closets and rummaging up in the attic. He had managed to dig out a couple of items that might sell on eBay. Digital camera in hand, he photographed his items and dutifully posted them to the site. Not a bad beginning, but now he was on a new quest. If we weren't using it anymore and it contained even a nominal value, he was selling it.
He had in the garage some of his own car parts, left over from cars long gone, that he posted. Amazingly everything sold and sold quickly. I guess you need to know your automobiles, but there are some models of cars that are harder to find parts for than others. And there are silly things (to me anyway), like the fact that a 1987 Corolla was sold with small mirrors and large mirrors. Apparently the large ones are hard to find and he just happened to have a couple. He had a spare alternator from an old car that got totaled before he ever got to put it in, and it too sold quickly. Mark had only bought a couple of items for himself in the last couple of months, for which I said nothing. The tides had shifted and the balance restored. The money was coming in now instead of going out.
On one very rare day, our teenage daughter, Cherie, decided to clean her room. Two large garbage bags were placed in the garage, and I knew I would need to go through them. She had a bad habit of throwing away small items that were still perfectly good, instead of putting them in the yard sale pile. Sure enough, there were a couple of small wooden boxes stuffed in the bags along with a lot of leftover school papers and used notebooks. I pulled the boxes out and placed them on top of the trash barrels then tied the bags back up.
It wasn't too long before Mark eyed the boxes and brought them over to his workbench. Inside one of the boxes was a large plastic bag. It was filled with what looked to be pen tips, the kind that are used on old fountain pens. He asked me where they came from. I recalled Cherie was attempting to learn calligraphy at one point, so they must have come from then. But they were very old pen tips. Someone must have given them to her a long time ago.
Mark diligently went on eBay and did a little research. Lo and behold, these ???? pen tips were for sale all right, and were selling well. He found one guy who sold a dozen tips for $45.00. We had fifty tips in the bag. It turned out that they were indeed very old, and were not in production anymore.
Mark thought about this for a while. Should he sell the whole bag with all fifty tips in one fell swoop? Or should he farm them out a little at a time? If he sold them all, he might get a good price, but who would want to buy them? Possibly another dealer. But it seemed feasible to him that an ordinary person would have no use for fifty tips. His research showed that they lasted about two to three years, depending on use. So he opted to sell them in smaller quantities.
Digital photos ready, he posted his newfound treasure. He placed three separate auctions with three pen tips each. He made sure he clearly listed the name brand and model numbers, and in the photo he had one of the tips out of the box so it could be properly viewed. Wow! Who knew so many people were hot for pen tips? After seven days on auction, his top one sold for $26.00. Imagine, $26.00 for just three pen tips that were on their way out to the trash. The other two sets sold for $19.00 and $17.00. And he still had forty-one left to sell. It was nice to see the smile back.
Clearly on a different path now, Mark was always looking for something good to post. Jewelry and pool cues were no longer on his mind. The only thing he bought lately were old novels written by Norah Lofts, that his mother loved to read. Since they were written in the 70's and are very hard to find, eBay proved to be the perfect hunting ground.
One weekend we were at the closing end of a yard sale of a co-worker who was moving away. As most good yard-sellers do, they try to unload a lot of stuff at the end, or they throw it away. The man gifted Mark with a car model kit that he had never built. The box was fairly ratty, but the model kit itself was still inside its protective plastic bag. It was of a 1969 Corvette, 1/20th scale. It had all of the decals and came with real rubber wheels, which, so I am told, are supposed to be fairly rare.
Mark took his photos. He now had a large piece of wood painted a light cream color, so he would always have a clean backdrop to clearly display his items. He tried to research the Corvette model, but he couldn't find one just like it. He looked at some of the prices that other models were going for, and they auctioned for anywhere between fifteen and one hundred dollars. Mark preferred to start his auctions off with a very low bid, and let the auction take off. If he wanted $25.00 for an item, he would start it at $5 or $10 and let the bidders bring it up. He noticed if he started too high, or placed a high reserve on an item, the final sale price never really crept up. There is something about winning an auction from another person that fuels the bidding process.
A master at this now, Mark dutifully typed up the full description so it would be ready to copy and paste into the eBay auction description form. He didn't leave anything out, even describing that the original owner was into Vettes but never found the time to build the model, and that he didn't want to keep it for himself because he too, did not have the time to do it any justice. Apparently this model was also unique in that it could be built three ways: blown dragster, exciting custom and stock open 427 roadster (whatever any of that means - I just copied this stuff from his description). It also had vinyl seatbelts and floor mats, which most model makers don't bother with anymore. In addition to his detailed description, he cross-linked his advertising by mentioning to check his 'other auction' for the 1969 Corvette Model, on an old Corvette Dealer brochure that he had also picked up at the yard sale and vice versa. (Who knew old dealer brochures were collectible?)
The auction began with a starting bid of $6.00. Within one day it was up to $56.00. By the end of the third day, it had gone over the $150.00 mark. Then Mark received an email from a gentleman in Argentina. It turned out that Mark had listed that he would only ship to the United States or Canada. Mark quickly realized that it was a little silly to cut himself so short, when his auction was being viewed by the entire world. The guy from Argentina mentioned that he would like to bid on the model, but Mark said he couldn't. So, Mark quickly corrected this by sending an email back and basically saying, "Hey, if you don't mind paying the extra for foreign shipping, go ahead and bid on it." Then he posted a correction to his auction description and mentioned that he would indeed ship to a foreign country, but to please remember that it was a lot more costly to do so. And so the bidding war began.
The next day the auction heated up again and at last glance had reached $203.00. Considering the bid increments were only $1.00 each that demonstrated a fairly active day. By the end of the seventh day, Mark's new determined friend in Argentina had worked the final sale to $247.00. He was going to own that Corvette model and nothing was going to stop him. And so the story goes: a dusty little model car kit, pulled from the trash at the last minute, started out at $6.00 and ended up selling for $247.00 plus another $25.00 to ship by air.
Yes, life is good around here again. Hubby is happy. Wife is happy. Man in Argentina is happy. And the kid? Well -- we never did tell her about the pen tips.
Oh yeah, copyright 2003 by me
Re:Lessig is NOT your friend (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Lessig's day job [stanford.edu]: Teaching "Constitutional Law" and "Law and Virtual Worlds" courses at Stanford University.
What we see here is a relationship between a law professor, the law, the Constitution, and virtual worlds. Since the law, the Constitution, and virtual worlds all came into existence, and are perpetuated, independently of Mr. Lessig, it seems clear that the purpose of Mr. Lessig as a law professor can only be understood in terms of its relationship to these things, and that he is not autotelic at all.
I could argue that perhaps Mr. Lessig has created the field of "Law and Virtual Worlds" specifically in order to perpetuate his own existence as a law professor, but I'd have to disregard the fact that virtual worlds, the law, and the intersection of the two, exists independently of his own existence as a law professor. Even if Lessig is one of the first to enter this field, we already have a word for that: pioneer. And when the pioneer has created the field which he then enters, we often use the term "genius". If Lessig is truly autotelic (which seems unlikely), then he is in good company, along with Jonas Salk, Neils Bohr, and Alan Turing, among others.
And why shouldn't he teach law? Study of the law does not make one an IP parasite. Teaching the law does not make one a greedy hypocrite. Teaching the law during the week, and applying one's knowledge of the law on weekends to promote justice and uphold fair play seems rather more laudable than the pursuits of the stereotypical lawyer.
Perhaps the Troll would care to offer some counter-examples that distinguish Mr. Lessig as a greedy hypocrite, rather than the admirable figure the documented evidence seems to present?
Couple of things.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, slash is big in japan.. except they actually have the talent to do slash with art, rather than slash with badly-spelled-web-log-entries.
*sigh*
I was given a book on how to draw Manga.. and the
"rules" of character design, etc, are very very interesting.
Maeryk
Re:Couple of things.. (Score:5, Interesting)
author?
price?
review?
Re:Couple of things.. (Score:5, Informative)
Author: "A Society For The Study Of Manga Techniques"
#PP: 116
ISBN# 4-88996-042-2
Published 1999, subtitle "Compiling Characters"
It goes in depth into design and shaping of characters.. including that manga SMILE, and the eyes, and (apparent lack of) nose, as well as shading techniques, and how to use pen, ink, pencil, tone sheets, and other items to make your manga look "real".
Also covers lettering, position of word bubbles and position of characters to convey action, emotion, etc.
It also goes to explain how the Hero is always one head taller than the Villain, who is 1/2 to 1 head taller than the lead female, and the comic relief is almost *ALWAYS* 3 heads tall, with his own head being 1/3 of that three.
It kind of goes into the un-written dynamic of characters that we all noticed when watching StarBlazers for the first time, but didnt realize WHY we were noticing.
As for price, I have no idea. It was an Xmas gift from my Mom several years ago.
oh.. and it has manga-boobies, too!
maeryk
Re:Couple of things.. (Score:2)
Re:Couple of things.. (Score:5, Informative)
Japanese, like any other language, is almost exactly as complex as it needs to be - several thousand years of linguistic development tends to remove the bloat.
of course, why the Japanese don't drop the kanji and use kana exclusively is beyond me -- it seems that it would make all sorts of things easier
It only seems easier to you that way because you read things like manga where kanji is not necessarily vital. If you read a Japanese novel, you'd see why kanji are required - reading with kanji is about ten times faster than pure kana.
Re:Couple of things.. (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree. In part, kanji offset the lack of spacing between words. As a student of the language, I find that, when I see a huge block of kana, it's next to impossible to read; kanji interspersed through it make it either an order of magnitude easier to read (if I actually know the kanji) or slightly easier(if I don't, because that means I probably don't know the word either)
Kanji are fairly regular, you know...
Re:Couple of things.. (Score:2)
there is even DragonballZ slash, for petes sake!
it scares me. It sometimes makes me wonder if the Internet is such a *good* place after all.
I usually differentiate by "fanfic"= nothing impossible by the specific rules of nature, "slash" = things that are quite usually impossible by the rules of nature. (And dont forget that Pern slash, for all your dragon-luvin needs!)
maeryk
What lawyers *can* learn from hentai (Score:5, Funny)
new and better ways of tentacle rape that they can then apply to their clients.
Oh, wait...
The law (Score:2, Interesting)
(If we could do this, cruel and blatantly odd laws that allow such travesties as the DMCA, etc. wouldn't be allowed to exist.)
Re:The law (Score:2, Interesting)
Fundamentally, that's what a Democracy is supposed to be doing, isn't it? Though with the idea that everyone has to verify it before it's "released" (passed). We of course live in a Representative Democracy, wherein we appoint "experts" to do this job for us.
Your suggestion sounds like something you might call a "Contributor Democracy", where anyone who wants to participates in the process of formulating the laws.
Only problem is, how does the "release" mechanism work? In open-source, you just release a program when you want to, and people use it if they choose to. That won't quite work with a law: someone says "people shouldn't be allowed to do such and such", and then those who want to follow it do so. Or cops/judges choose which ones they want to enforce. Doesn't seem like that would be too effective.
But it's an interesting idea!
Re:translation please? (Score:3, Insightful)
it's that simple.
really.
Re:The law (Score:4, Insightful)
Before technology made that theoretically possible, having elected representatives was probably supposed to get as close to that as practically possible. Of course there would need to be VERY strong community stability controls to prevent the law swinging wildy with fads. Even something as simple as a slashdot discussion has layers of moderation and meta-moderation, and you still get a ton of junk posts just because they can. Something like the Linux kernel depends on a trusted dictator, which is works when you can have many different software implementations and ignore all but the effective ones. We can't afford to allow that with laws, we have to pick ONE right law for everyone before implementation.
Today, I think the biggest barrier to progress towards the community ideal is that in America campaign contribution money can apparently override logic via blitz advertising for votes. That effectively breaks "one man, one vote". I'm not an American nor do I live in America so I can't directly participate in that process, but it still affects me at home because those policies are exported via political pressure on other countries.
DMCA-like policy is only one of a number of unpopular policies that are being pushed on legislatures worldwide by corporate lobbying. In most countries corporations don't have as much influence over politics, so more and more internationally we are seeing government-to-government pressure from American politicians who are apparently legally allowed to owe big contributors big favors.
Maybe American campaign finance reform is the way to break that barrier down, make American individuals votes count more than dollars again, and other individuals in their own countries too.
Where I live, political campaigning by individual politicians is limited to 6 weeks before the election and must stop the day before the election. Individual electorate politicians have a campaign budget limited to merely thousands of dollars, enough for volunteers to put up posters and local some local media advertising but not enough to blitz the mass media. Penalties for exceeding this spending limit go beyond removal of that individual from office. The budgets for political parties are not as limited, but any party that can prove signed up membership of more than a certain number of people can get government contribution towards equal TV advertising time. This means that campaign money is not essential to a party getting a message publicised. No guarantee people will watch, but still a better chance.
Not having to listen to a two-year run-up to every four-yearly election is one of the minor benefits of fairer campaign finance, the major one is that people's votes would count for more in making the law.
Pfft... Lawyers need money too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's how they get themselves paid.
Why would they want anything else? They coach their clients strongly to persue every available legal option by using the tried and true "scare tactic" marketing technique: "If you DON'T sue them, think what the NEXT person might do - you don't want your product to get away from you!".
Re:Pfft... Lawyers need money too... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is called their ethical duty. Because otherwise, the business person will sue their lawyer for malpractice when one of the "next persons" actually does something bad to them.
Re:Pfft... Lawyers need money too... (Score:5, Informative)
It's the lawyer's duty to warn the company of what can go wrong legally, but somebody should call marketing and PR to to find out what can go wrong if they do go forward with the lawsuits.
Sometimes, the business benefits more from Person 1's actions are so much greater that the risk of Person 2 should be accepted, and dealt with when Person 2 comes forward.
Re:Pfft... Lawyers need money too... (Score:2)
-
Re:Pfft... Lawyers need money too... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this isn't true in many other areas, where a legal staff works to expoloit ever more exotic interpretations of the law, and strategies to counter said interpretations.
Even worse are the ambulance-chasers, both literal and figurative, like those lawyers in Germany [slashdot.org]who decided to sue on Adobe's behalf (without asking Adobe) to kill KIllustrator. People like this should be instantly, and PERMANENTLY disbarred from every jurisdiction in the world, in addition to being labled as pariahs just as despicable as the accountants/tax lawyers behind the Enron and Worldcom book-cooking.
I've studied bits and pieces of contract and IP law, in order to protect myself (and yes, I do occasionally consult with someone who actually has a J.D.) Knowing a little bit of law is good - having to learn the intricacies in order to someday defend against a frivolous lawsuit is ridiculous. How long before people have to become lawyers just to defend themselves against these roving bands of legal malcontents?
There have been people calling for the government to protect us from drugs, violence, porn, and the internet. Where are the people calling for the government to protect us from the goddamn lawyers!?!?
Re:Pfft... Lawyers need money too... (Score:2)
You mean like Tort Reform in NYS, which has the highest per-capita Lawyer population in the US?
For the uninitiated (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For the uninitiated (Score:2)
Re:For the uninitiated (Score:3, Interesting)
This is also apparent in Japan's (secretly) genetically-engineered vegetables, which are typically 5 times the size of their natural counterparts. A normal eggplant could feed one person, but a Japanese eggplant can feed a whole family.
Find good things, increase their worth.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or doues this sound like the definition of business for it's own sake? I realize the business of business is to make profit, but that statement make it sound as if the law is a secondary concern, an inconvinience that need be followed only if you're in a good mood.
And of course the law is a rough edged tool when viewed upon from a purely business stand point. That's because most laws aren't designed with only business in mind. There are these things called "people" too...
Oh, and didn't they know that purging the world of copywrite violations creates business too? Maybe they should have had somebody else write this piece...
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:5, Informative)
The fact of it is, of course, that buissness violates laws for profit all the time. When the consequence of a violation is a fine, it just becomes another risk analysis to make.
You misunderstand the point of law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or does this sound like the definition of business for it's own sake? I realize the business of business is to make profit, but that statement make it sound as if the law is a secondary concern, an inconvinience that need be followed only if you're in a good mood.
Lessig is NOT arguing that businesses should break the law, he's arguing that content holders should recognize when it is in their best interest to enforce their "legal rights" and when it's best to just let it pass.
If my rights are violated, I can CHOOSE whether or not to press charges. If I choose not to, then there's nothing stopping anyone from violating those rights, especially if I make my intentions public. If I decide that certain rights aren't worth defending, or as Lessig points out are actually more profitable to me if I allow them to be "violated," then no one else can come in and tell me I must defend myself. In general it's not a smart idea to give away your rights, but perhaps Lessig has a point here that some laws and rights don't always protect they way you want them to and in fact you'd be better off not enforcing them.
In practice this may happen more often than you think. Sometimes it's not worth the trouble hauling someone into court when you can deal with it person to person. Even the GPL itself "gives away" rights the law gives to copyright holders. In this case, such free software advocates feel the loss of traditional copyright privileges is outweighed by the gains of free-as-in-speech software.
Exactly right - mod parent up. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about being a tool of the law, vs. using the law as a tool. I guess that's the short summary I was trying to arrive at before.
Re:Exactly right - mod parent up. (Score:2)
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:2, Insightful)
A perfect case of ill advised copyright defense was when NBC systematically destroyed the online fan base of "Late Night with Conan O'Brian" by sending Cease and Desist letters to many fan sites. Sure, they were within there legal rights to force the removal of NBC copyrighted material, mostly pictures and logos, but the bad will they generated far out weighed the value of the material defended.
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:4, Informative)
No. That's trademark. Copyright is automatically granted and is always enforceable. You need not defend your copyright to keep it.
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:2)
NBC wasn't going after people who were using the show logo on their fan sites. In fact, that's not gonna be a legal winner anyway, when you're discussing something, you're allowed to use its trademark logo make it very clear what you're talking about.
They were going after people who were using too much of their copyrighted work. Legally, that's a clear cut winner of a case. However, in the business logic, will shuting down the sites cause the show to lose more than it gains. That's a tough call, does the sites existance cause people to not watch the NBC broadcasts or encurage people to watch the NBC show by catching them up with what they missed on the days they couldn't watch.
It's a tough call... but everybody seems to go to the lawyers first, and never talk to the marketing people about what benefits allowing the infringment to stand might bring. Sometimes there's more to be gained by inaction than going to court.
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:2, Informative)
The first one is criminal law. These are wrongs against society (like murder, theft, and what not), and the person guilty of it will be punished by the government.
The second kind is civil law, which involves torts, wrongs against either individuals or organizations. These are pursued by the victim to the perpetuator in order to receive recompensation for any damages.
The two often go together. (ie: You stole my computer. You've acted against society and me. I may sue for the damages caused to me [cost of a new computer], or whatever it takes to put me back financially before you stole my computer under civil law. Then you are slapped with jail time or
a fine under criminal law, to serve as a deterrent to other potential theives.)
Now, in this case, to the best of my knowledge, the fans have not violated any criminal law, so there is only a tort (private wrong) involved. As such, the business has the right to sue the fans for any damages that they can prove. BUT, the company may choose not to sue the fans for whatever reason.
In this case, its because they think that by letting the fans do so, they will get advertising (Hey... what's that cool comic based off of? Trigun? Cool... gotta check that out.), and by not suing their fans, the fans will likely be happier with the company and keep buying stuff.
If the company instead sued the fans, that would hurt their business, as they are basically attacking their customers, which are their revenue source. (like shooting yourself in the foot... not very intelligent.)
IANAL, but I'm taking a law class in high school, and hopefully this clears things up a bit. (and please correct me if I got anything about this wrong.)
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:2)
Is it just me or doues this sound like the definition of business for it's own sake? I realize the business of business is to make profit, but that statement make it sound as if the law is a secondary concern, an inconvinience that need be followed only if you're in a good mood.
There are an incalculable number of illegal acts performed daily, both civilly and criminally. That a law is broken does NOT necessitate the exercise of remedies against the lawbreaker.
If you don't care if people infringe on your copyrighted work, you don't have to, and shouldn't have to, sue them for doing so. Just let them. It's the choice of the copyright holder, and forgiveness is absolutely an option.
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that it's just you.
``That statement'' says that a smart business does not claim to be harmed by, and seek legal redress against, persons who are helping them to profit. Think about it: if copyright-infringing fanzines keep fans buying your product, do you sue and shut down the fanzines, or do you smile all the way to the bank? That's the point you missed. Lessig isn't saying that business should violate the law, but rather that business should not persecute their customers.
The point that I think Lessig missed is that this is a classic example of how bureaucracies can go wrong. The lawyers who work for the business see an opportunity to prove their worth by suing as many people as possible. Never mind that these suits may be driving away customers, and harming the business. Any business big enough to hire a stable of lawyers is big enough to show these bureaucratic tendencies.
And of course the law is a rough edged tool when viewed upon from a purely business stand point. That's because most laws aren't designed with only business in mind. There are these things called "people" too...
I'm surprised to hear you say that. It seems to be commonly accepted here on Slashdot that laws are purchased by business, for their own consumption. Ergo, laws ARE ``designed with only business in mind.''. Or else our legal system is basically sound. Take your pick.
Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Freakin' Lies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, businesses ask themselves all the time whether what they're doing will increase profit (that's about *all* Enron, Worldcom, et al. apparently did) rather than suing over an abstraction of intellectual property theft. The DMCA and Sonny Bono Art were pushed because it was thought they would be profitable.
BTW, it is frequently represented that the U.S. has many time more lawyers than Japan, overlooking another cultural difference. Many Japanese "lawyers" work for companies and perform the sorts of tasks that in the U.S. would be done by someone with a JD. We have this in the U.S. to a lesser extent, as with accountants who are in a gray area of practicing law by interpreting, applying, and advising clients on the tax code.
I welcome the cultural comparisons. It's always interesting to see how the next guy does things. Isn't is funny, though, how quickly all the calls of the 80's for America to follow the Japanese business model evaporated several years ago? Different tactics work at different times -- and different philosophies for different cultures.
On copyright violations -- it's a shame that the maturation of fair use signalled by Acuff-Rose has been reversed by recent legislation.
Of course you choose when to follow the law. (Score:2)
Laws can influence what is the correct path by providing economic incentives. All such laws can do is to tip the scales a bit further in one direction or the other. It is important to understand that just because something is law, does not make it right in the eyes of the corporation.
An very simple example would be the executive on his/her way in a hurry to the airport for a business-critical (firm-survival-critical) client meeting. The correct thing to do is to take the car to the airport, drive it up on the sidewalk by the airport entrance, and abandon it there to rush to the flight. Illegal, yes, but the economic benefit of getting the sale far outweighs the economic disadvantage (cost) of the parking violation and getting the towed-away car out of the compound.
In other circumstances, economic penalties (like for dumping toxins) provide an incentive that actually does tip the scale. It's a matter of the strength of the penalty.
Corporations exist to make money. The correct course of action for a corporation is the one that generates the most money. Law is just one factor among many here, and it does not have any veto rights or other special standing among the economic factors that apply to a decision.
Re:Of course you choose when to follow the law. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not too long ago you could have said "The person exists to get food. That is his/her sole purpose in life." And it even would have been true, for a very long time. But you know what? Somewhere along the way, we grew up a little. We saw that there is more to life than grabbing the next, or the biggest, meal. There's a whole Universe of things above, beyond, and immament in the purely material.
Maybe it's time for corporations to grow up, too. Maybe it's time for us to demand that they do, to remove the legal justifications for ones that don't, and to provide the legal framework that allows ones that do. The courts have recognized that, in certain ways, a corporation is a "person". With those rights come certain responsibilities too -- an ethics that can trascend the pure profit motive.
Not that I'm holding my breath.
Great Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Management should begin to demand a business justification for copyright litigation. How does this legal action advance the bottom line? How will it grow markets or increase consumer demand for our products? Will calling our customers criminals increase consumer loyalty?
If only more executives would ask these questions. Few businesses have realized the true power of fans and fan or user created content. Just look at the classic example of Half Life and Counter Strike. Where did these ideas that copyright law trumps the copyright holder's profits come from anyway?
Re:Great Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody seems to think of their company as a going concern... a business that's still going to be here next week, next month, or next year. Something that costs you a dollar today but gets you back 25 cents a year for each of the next ten years is usually a good deal, isn't it?
Grow up. Seriously. (Score:2, Insightful)
The article has nothing to do with that. It is about how "borrowing" copyrighted characters for non-authorized purposes is not necessarily bad. So take your hentai debates somewhere else.
Fine Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, in Japan, creating works based on someone's creations is considered flattery towards the creator. Sounds good to me - I'd be pretty happy if someone thought enough of my work to want to make works derived from it.
Bear in mind, though, that there is a very fine line between flattery and profiteering off someone elses hard work...
Re:Fine Line (Score:2)
Re:fanfix (Score:2)
I kinda think there's a balance to be struck there. Certainly we need original, free-thinking individuals to create new content. But we also need other creative individuals to expand upon those original works. This is the nature of the concept of a public commons.
I hope the *AA organizations eventually borrow a clue from the wisdom of the Japanese culture.
--K.
Re:fanfix (Score:2)
And also, some fanfic is actually very good. At times, superior to the original source material. If it was invariably bad, I might agree with you, but there's nothing inherent about fanfic that keeps it from being really excellent.
Re:fanfix (Score:3, Funny)
If that's the kind of writing we're producing in college classes, then I see no reason to preserve the earth for for anybody who's in school right now, let alone future generations who will undoubtedly be even more repulsive.
Aibo doing jazz... (Score:2, Funny)
Simply LMAO...
Lawyers Won't Learn this Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lawyers Won't Learn this Lesson (Score:2)
Possible reason (Score:2)
Trademarks, IIRC, must be vigorously defended or else the company risks losing rights to it, correct?
I think many businesses are carrying that philosophy to copyrights as well. They believe if they don't go after each and every person, they'll lose the whole enchilada.
Re:Possible reason (Score:2)
If you let other people use it pell mell, it no longer is distinguishing anything at all, and you lose your rights to it.
Copyright doesn't work like that at all. The copyright holder absolutely does not have to pursue infringement. The worst outcome (aside from whatever impact the infringment might have) is that the infringer is allowed to do so because you've waived your remedies against him.
That's about it. As I said, no philosophy.
You missed my point. (Score:2)
Yes. That's what I said.
Copyright doesn't work like that at all.
My point is that businesses are acting like it *does* work like that.
Re:You missed my point. (Score:2)
I personally think its fear. Company men _fear_ doing the wrong thing, to they want to play it as aggresively as possible so they cant be left holding the buck.
The better we get at analysing the consequences of our actions, the worse it'll get. Trusted computing is nothing
I might sound like a luddite in saying it, but the closer we get to the trees, the less and less we are able to navigate the forest.
What lawyers need... (Score:2, Funny)
Good reasoning.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm a little surprised Sony (of all places) doesn't understand this concept. It would be hard to argue that one of Quake n's most appetizing features was the mods available to it. Though ID didn't make money off the mods themselves, it helped make sure that many many MANY copies of Quake were sold. Sony, with its game division, should be eyeballing Id more carefully than that.
As for Sony... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm posting anonymously because I happen to work at Sony Electronics. Let me put it this way: Sony is big. Sony is REAL big. There are people in Sony who love open source and all that jazz. There are others who have no idea what that means.
Sony is also in a difficult position. It is one of the few (only?) companies that both produces content (Sony Music, Sony Films) and the technology to play it on (Sony Electronics). So there are competing forces within Sony itself. A win for the content people sometimes means a loss for the tech people. And the way Sony is structured means that these divisions are essentially autonomous. Only in the very upper levels do they come under one roof, so often there isn't a lot of effort to really try to work together beyond simply promoting a common brand image.
I often see a lot of grumbling about Sony here on Slashdot, but honestly, I like the company. I think Sony has the resources and position to do things right. At least that's my hope. And somedays I perhaps I don't like everything about the place, but that's just it -- corporations are big and you have to take the good with the bad. Even Microsoft I'm sure has some very well meaning intelligent people somewhere in there.
DISCLAIMER: the above comment expresses only the views of the author and does not in any way express the views of Sony Electronics or any of its associates.
Re:As for Sony... (Score:2)
I haven't caught the grumblings about Sony, but I do have to admit that I'm surprised that people don't see Sony the way they see MS. I'd go into detail, but I think it'd be rude of me to go into any other detail other than there's reason for them to have that attitude.
I will give Sony credit, though, I do feel like they've thought through a lot of their products. I recently bought a low-end DV camera by Sony and was pleasantly surprised at how accomodating it is. It didn't have the best CCD or lens out there, but it had plenty of other stuff to make me feel like I didn't buy a bare bones machine.
I'm drifting off topic a bit, but I might as well ask now: Do you consider Sony (or the area you're closest to) to be a good environment for artists? I'm asking because I may change jobs soon but I haven't locked down where I want to work.
Re:Good reasoning.. (Score:2)
Re:Good reasoning.. (Score:2)
Don't assume that Sony is a monolith. It's entirely possible that the division of Sony that makes the PS/2 understands the value of fan contributions but that they don't talk to the division that makes the Aibo enough to pass on the idea. Remember that Sony's music division is vigorously attacking mp3 traders as pirates while their computer division is selling some of the very computers and mp3 players that those traders are using. If they can have two divisions that are that badly at odds, it's not surprising that different divisions would have different degrees of clue about other issues, too.
Re:Good reasoning.. (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right. It's easy to assume that the motivations of one department reflect on the goals of the entire company *cough*Microsoft*cough*.
You gotta wonder, though, why Sony's not being more agressive of merging the video entertainment side with the video game side. I realize it's not as simple as changing the mission statement, but it would be nice for a company like Sony to back something like that. Why aren't they making movies for PC users, take advantage of the net as a distribution medium. They'd have the ability to define the rules!
Oh well, I can dream.
Re:Good reasoning.. (Score:2)
In Sony's defense, I'd say they did it on a matter of principle. Under the law, what the Aibo hax0r did is classified as illegal. Regardless of whether or not this application of the law agrees with common sense (in this case, probably not), Sony still has to follow through on it otherwise people may expect them to let other things slide in future.
That's exactly what this article is arguing AGAINST. So what if someone does it in the future. Heck, if they understood things right, they'd be praying that someone would do something similar in the future, thus increasing AIBO's features and popularity. This is exactly the what the lawyers want you to think, but it doesn't make sense, common, business or otherwise.
I know, I know, I have been trolled...
How about Magna (as in Magna Carta) (Score:2)
Re:How about Magna (as in Magna Carta) (Score:2)
If your business plan runs out of steam.. (Score:4, Funny)
Unfair comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfair comparison (Score:4, Informative)
- Parody is a well established excemption of copyright law. You can parody any work ever created.
- "Wierd" Al always asks permission before he parodies anyone's work. He doesn't have to, and he knows it, but he always does (depending on who you beleive in that Coolio song screwup).
Copyright holders here aren't terribly interested in parody. They're more interested in busting the balls of some sap who hacks his robot dog or knocking the heads of those day-care centers that have unlisenced pictures of Goofy, Donald, Micky and Wall E. Gator on their walls.Re:Unfair comparison (Score:2)
Re:Unfair comparison (Score:2)
Weird Al has always asked for permission first...
Re:Unfair comparison (Score:2)
Re:Unfair comparison (Score:2)
Which is ironic because, IIRC, the song Weird Al made was Amish Paradise, based on Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise. The thing is, Coolio's song was based on a sample of a Stevie Wonder song ("Pastime Paradise").
The argument applies to any rights (Score:2)
Look, IP rights were originally introduced to promote innovation. But today many people see them as fundamental rights. The fact that they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, has been long forgotten.
But this is true of other rights. Capitalism is a succesful mechanism that generates great wealth all round (though maybe not for everyone). Capitalism rests on property rights. So do we have property rights because they actually make most people better off, or are they fundamental rights - an end in themselves. In fact the truth is the latter. Where property rights impinge on the common good (whatever that is) we have to sacrifice them - even though the Constitution might suggest otherwise. So, for example, we pay taxes.
Even freedom of speech has two sides. You can see it as a fundamental right but it's also a means to an end. A society which doesn't repress free speech is one in which good ideas that benefit all eventually see the light and in which bad ones can be argued away.
Problem is..Lawyers CAN'T learn! (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's an even better example:
E-Books:
My wife loves E-books, they're cheap and she can buy and download them online (read: Impulse buy for instant gratification). What does drive her crazy though is that she can't print most of them. She has to be tied to a computer to read them. So, she winds up buying a mix of books or goes to the library.
Enter Elcomsoft...a Russian company that can fix this...which will make my wife happy so she'll buy even MORE e-books. Another thing that Elcomsoft's product can do is open up an entire NEW MARKET..the blind book market. See, the millions of blind people in the world can't USE
E-books, but with Elcomsoft's program these books can be read on a standard text reader that many of these blind people use. Instead of JUMPING FOR JOY at this innovative product that can result in MILLIONS MORE E-books being sold, the industry sues it out of existance. Now, explain to me how THAT made any sense? Like I'm a six year old.
Re:Problem is..Lawyers CAN'T learn! (Score:3, Insightful)
But what they can't tell you is if you should be suing. See, they have a vested interest, they're selling their services and if you don't sue, you don't need their services as much.
The article's solution is right... the business people have to consider whether or not to take legal action as a business decision before a lawsuit can go forward.
Fan Fiction Happens Here Too (Score:2)
And then there's Filk [earthlink.net].
The TiVo Model (Score:2)
However, there are limits to this. Particularly, when it comes to extracting the video files out of the units onto PCs. Simply put, if that hack was to be widespread, that'd cause TiVo some headaches with the TV industry, and they really don't want that. So, some people have tried, but but they have found plenty of roadblocks in their path, and they're frowned upon by the general TiVo hacking community. Another clear no-no is any hack that allows users to bypass paying their monthly fee to TiVo, since that'd be a direct threat to the company's business model.
TiVo's basically practicing what the article suggests, allow users to extend the capabilities of your product, and sometimes even recognize those users and incorperate what they found into the product. However, when the users stray into the territory where their hacks harm the business, that's when they call in the attack lawyers. In the end, hackers are allowed to do their thing, but kept in the box right where the company wants themm too.
Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
Yeah, it's easy to say "this is gonna cost us sales" in the short term, but sometimes letting the "violation" slide actually turns out to create interest in the orignal work or offshoot projects.
This isn't to say all copyright violations should be ignored, but that copyright holders should at least perform a reality check before going forward with the suit, because sometimes a winner in court can be a loser in the long run.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
All forms of entertainment always slump in a down economy.
Chicago (Score:2)
In related News (Score:2)
Douglas Adams got it right (Score:4, Funny)
Arc B should of course be sent ahead of the other arcs --- there's nothing nicer than a nice clean telephone to welcome home the producers and achievers.
More about doujinshi... (Score:4, Informative)
As the article states, doujinshi are "fan comics" created mainly by amatures that are based on existing works by professional manga artists.
Doujin varies greatly in quality and content. Lots of it is complete crap, while some of it is actually very good, arguably better than the work it is derived from. Additionally, a lot of doujin is pornographic in nature, though not all of it is.
It is similar to fanfiction, except there is one huge difference between fanfiction in the US and doujin in Japan. Doujin artists actually SELL their work for profit. There are even stores deticated just to doujin in Japan, not to mention
many very large conventions centered around doujin.
In the US, the owners of the original work would no doubt sue the pants off of anyone who tried this. If I were to make an "X-Men" fan comic and try to sell it, I could expect a big fat lawsuit from Marvel comics. However, in Japan, doujin artists are very rarely prosecuted.
The only time I can think of a doujin artist being sued is when Nintendo took legal action against a female doujin artist for making a Pokemon-based comic where Pikachu is raped by Satoshi (Ash).
I can't really blame them for that one...
Most of the time pro manga artists see the doujinshi based on their works as homage. Infact, many major manga artists (such as Akamatsu Ken, creator of Love Hina) got their start doing doujin.
Doujinshi have been around for a LONG time. Obviously, the presence of these fan comics have done little to no harm to the professional manga and anime industries. Those who produce doujin are typically the most hard core and loyal fans of the professional works, after all.
I think doujinshi is an excellent example that derivitive works really do not dilute trademarks, or any such nonsense, and that these works actually help to promote fandom of the original work. If only our friends in the RIAA and MPAA could understand that... but I guess it is pointless, after all.
Film at 11, or maybe not (Score:2)
The result is that you see MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL highlights on SportsCenter and your local nightly newscasts.
Now, take the Olympics. NBC presently has a multi-year deal with the USOC that is very tight on how much Olympic video can be used, and when it can be used. Nobody can air even a small clip from a 2002 Olympic skating routine, even if it's a program being put together by the skater who performed in the first place.
The point? Major sports are still doing just fine in most cases, while the Olympics seems to be suffering from a general lack of interest. Apparently letting highlights be aired on the 11pm news actually helps the popularity of a sporting event...
how they make money... (Score:2, Interesting)
What I gathered from the article is that the Japanese publishers look to make money from their work and are open for different interpretations as long as it still makes them money...
Before dojinshi... (Score:2, Interesting)
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...
Okay, not so long ago and not so far away, there was another situation where copyright violation kept an IP alive. It's called Star Trek.
For those too young to remember, there was a 10 year period (1969-79) where Star Trek was just another cancelled TV series. A lame animated series showed up in 73(?) that quickly died and there were novelizations of both series, but otherwise, the only "authorized" new ST material was a dozen or so novels of varying degrees of quality. That and tons of fan fiction. The sort of stuff that Paramont gets real huffy about these days. Sturgeon's law applied to the results; most of it was crap (did anyone else run across any of the K/S stuff?), but the stuff that wasn't crap helped keep the franchise alive and Rick Berman employed. This was a time when fanzines were typed and mimeographed, mail involved paper and stamps, videotape was 3/4" wide and only used by TV stations... The point being that a cavalier attitude towards copyrights made it possible for Paramont to to make millions of dollars sucking the life and spirit from the desicated husk of Star Trek, long after their attempts to kill it failed.
What about an Open Fanfic License (Score:2)
Open Gaming Licence [opengamingfoundation.org],
that spells out what a work of fanfic may/may not do,
and what legalese one must comply with to publish it.
Some companies do get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
But, as was frequently pointed out in the resulting furor (the player in question apologized and took it like a man, but some players want any reason to bitch), the general policy on EQ fan sites is to let them be, and even throw them bones now and then. People post screenshots, walk-throughs, fan fics, and all kinds of other game-related content all over the web. And apparently Sony Online Entertainment and/or Verant Interactive realize that this is a *good* thing, so long as it doesn't hurt their image. They also realize that if they decide a particular work is hurting them more than helping them (as they decided with the depiction of child rape), they have the right to enforce their copyright selectively.
It seems that perhaps copyright law needs a proof of damage clause attached to it, similar to slander and libel. This could be used to expand the doctrine of Fair Use, for example. In many cases such a clause wouldn't be appropriate; you could, if it were done badly, end up with situations where someone loses their copyright because "they weren't using it." (Of course, that happens now, too... see the Darwin fish. But anyway.)
Actually... (Score:2, Interesting)
Noo... I don't watch dirty animes... what gives you that idea...?
I'd still like to see an anime that gets it's characters from a dirty H-Dojinshi...
Re:So "Dojinshi" is....? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So "Dojinshi" is....? (Score:2)
Oh, by the way, numbnuts, doujinshi is simply fan drawn manga. It is not necessarily pornographic. It seems you are thinking of hentai in general. Try learning a little more about things before you deside to snub it. It will make your argument much more sound if you know what you are talking about.
Ok, I'm done combing your boogers out of my hair now.
Re:Do-GIN-she pronounciation (Score:2, Informative)
This is how it's pronounced according to the article.
doe (a deer a female deer) + GIN (and tonic) + she (pronoun) = doujinshi
Actually, the Japanese don't emphasise syllables
Japanese does have a pitch accent. See this explanation [everything2.com].
Re:What Lessig can learn from a lawyer. (Score:3, Funny)
Congratulations, you just proved his point.
Lawyers don't get it.
Re:Some thoughts on Doujinshi: a translation (Score:4, Informative)
1) Doujinshi is not allways "copycat". There are some small
fan-run books that are called doujinshi (and sold at Comic Market) that are totally original.
2) A lot of it is about porn. And about seeing your favorite anime character violated, often by tenticles. Yes, there are some original "fanfic" type stories...but there is also a lot of Sailor Moon meets Urotsukudoji. I couldn't believe the things they were doing to poor [I am a dumbass]!
3) The Japanese are a lot more liberal about their hand-drawn porn than we are. The yaoi (boy-boy) stuff is right there with the girl-girl stuff. Women in Japan appear to be as open about liking boy-boy as men are about girl-girl. Porn is just porn.
4) Doujinshi is where folks seem to start. First you make a doujinshi of a magical girls series you like. Then you make your own magical girl. Then you decide if you really want to be a [I am a dumbass] and start trying to make a name for yourself. If you get lucky you might get in one of the anthologies - the collections put out weekly or monthly the size of small phonebooks.
Shopping for this stuff in Japan is quite fun. My best friend came with me on one of my business trips, and I came back to the hotel after the first day and he'd already scored. In fact he got me a doujinshi of my favorite [I am a dumbass] getting violated several ways.
If [I am a dumbass] for porn.
Re:General Public will not wake up until..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Auto manufacturers have tried to get Congress to allow copyright protection on auto sheet metal, but so far, Congress hasn't given in.
But the DMCA angle is a real issue in the automotive area. Ordinarily, you can't copyright a functional part. But you can add a hardware interlock to a functional part and use the DMCA to prevent attempts to break the "protection mechanism", as the printer-cartridge industry does.
As more components of vehicles are on the vehicle LAN, this may become an issue. For example, the aftermarket radio industry may be killed off.