Eric Takabayashi wrote:

> Declan Murphy wrote:
> 
>>>No it is common sense. <snip>
>>
>>Not for the risk averse. There is no obligation on a company, Japanese
>>or otherwise, to risk losing their shareholder's money by prematurely
>>launching a product.
> 
> If other companies were as pessimistic as you, it is surprising a release is made in the
> domestic market at all, considering the questionable appeal of many products successful or
> not. Have you seen "The wacky world of Japanese ice cream"?
> 
> http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/photospecials/index.html
> 
> Management at those companies are not as risk averse as you seem to be, otherwise they
> wouldn't come out with "raw horseflesh" ice cream.

I hadn't seen that link, not being a reader of gaiginmedia. To cut to
the chase, while Ryann is a subscriber of mine and as such I love him
dearly, personally I actually like raw horse and wish the ice-cream
distributors well. Horse is damn fine shit, and everytime I take the
students up to Nagano or Gifu it mysteriously appears on their plates
:-) Even so, you are missing the point as usual.
It doesn't matter what your preferences are, nor does it matter whether
the management of the owners of the intellectual property in question
are more (or less) risk averse than I am. The decision to commercialise
an IP asset abroad now or later, is their decision. And if they fuck up
by losing shareholder's assets in the process, it is their heads on the
block.

>>The copyright exists, there is plenty of time, the
>>"fans" should either learn to read Japanese and buy from authorized
>>outlets, or wait.
> 
> How fortunate that that foreign companies are not as risk averse when bringing products to
> Japan, otherwise I'd never enjoy a piece of home, and Japanese wouldn't get them either.

Many foreign companies are risk averse too - the only reason you enjoy
"a piece of home" is because some companies succeed. I mean is there any
particular reason why I have to lower myself to drinking Guinness on tap
in my bar when I'd much prefer to be drinking Beamish? You manga freaks
can't appreciate the important things in life, and its so unfair :-(
Have you stopped for a minute to think of all of the things you can't
get? Probably not. But its probably time you did. Welcome to Life 101 Eric.

>>There is no justification for stealing. I'm wondering
>>why a presumably reformed shoplifter like yourself can't understand what
>>is at the end of the day the most basic aspect of this issue?
> 
> Which is what?

That receiving pirated material is no different to receiving stolen goods.

> And I'm wondering why a business authority like yourself, some other respondents, and
> Japanese companies that refuse to put something out for a definite foreign market don't
> seem to understand capitalism. If they do not release some popular anime, at a price the
> market is willing to pay, someone else will, perhaps despite breaking laws. That is not a
> justification of stealing, it is simply a fact.

It is theft. And the (reality of) theft is lowering the price the market
is willing to pay, as well as increase the risks of unprofitable
distribution.

>>It doesn't matter. They own the content. It is their asset, they paid
>>for it, rewarding the original creator in the process, and they
>>shouldn't be held to ransom by pirates - whether said pirates be deluded
>>nerds, idiots or otherwise. The copyright lasts in many cases up to 70
>>years. So live with it. Without copyright and copyright law, there would
>>be less crap for you to read or watch. It all comes out in the wash.
>>You're the "published writer" - learn the rules.
> 
> It is not about being held to ransom by pirates, it is about not making MORE money for
> THEMSELVES by releasing their product which people want.

Releasing a product some people want, but for a price less than the cost
of sales in many cases. The decision on whether to release or not is
essentially mathematical, and one of the factors is loss of sales to
theft, or cost of sales due to the exorbitant cost (in some markets) of
legal action.

>>>And if the Japanese don't make their move to overcome that learning curve (near two
>>>decades in the case of manga in the US, and it's finally got to the stage that
>>>American readers accept reading right to left and having Japanese sound effects in
>>>English in an all black and white comic), then they won't accomplish much despite
>>>having considerably more resources than JN Productions, NGN TV, or some fan with a
>>>little Japanese skill and a computer or copy machine.
>>
>>Does the failure in the market place of "the Japanese" (you racist
>>bastard)
> 
> This is not about race, this is about "scanlation" of Japanese publications. If I knew the
> fans, pirates and market to be American citizens, I'd be talking about "Americans" instead
> of merely "in the US".

Shove the race issue where the sun doesn't shine. Scanlation = theft. It
doesn't matter whose stuff is being pirated, it is still theft.

> What emotional investment have I, and you do not? It is you with the three jobs and two
> companies and any other people or factors involved, to protect, when talking about
> intellectual property. I am mainly a consumer.

Because without protections for intellectual property there would be a
lot less to consume? You would like to consume would you not?

> I did not say there was a reason either. But piracy of manga and video exists, as surely
> as other violations of intellectual property exist. If you would like to talk about
> unauthorized copies of Toyota cars made in China, or unauthorized copies of French
> accessories made in Korea, you'll get the same response as for manga or videos.

And yet you can't see the link? Do you understand the difference between
the cost of replicating digital data when compared to replicating
widgets? And why a company in a field where replication costs per unit
are lower would by definition become more risk averse than one in a
field where the barriers to (illegal) entry were larger?

>>>Perhaps a business authority like yourself with three jobs and two companies can tell
>>
>>4 jobs and 3 companies now (for tax purposes I incorporated a sole
>>trader op). Do try to keep up. In fact over the last 6 months my net
>>wealth has increased by what is by recent standards a healthy 647 yen.
>>If I could afford to visit my wine cellar, I'd crack open a nice Chablis.
> 
> I hope that you, like a 31 year old female cardiologist I know who drives a purple Porsche
> and works one day a week in Tokyo who repeatedly claims to people who will listen that
> doctors are not wealthy, are merely joking when making such self deprecating comments
> about your success.

No joking at all. Given the choice between consumption and investment I
make the latter. My net wealth was reduced each and every month between
September 1998 and June 2003, and between September 2003 and July 2004.
I have not pocketed a salary in 39 months (all mibarai-ed), despite
paying the taxes on the theoretical income. I have not pocketed
dividends for longer than the above period either. Similarly, each
entity pays taxes, profit or not, each and every year. In a country
where consolidated accounting is difficult, its not so unusual a
situation. Fuck knows how I'm going to pay for the wedding. I wish your
cardiologist friend well - but I have never owned a car in my own name,
let alone a flashy one, and apart from books, not much else for that
matter. I'd probably be better off going back to translating, and next
year the wife to be may well make me do so, but for now I'm too
stubborn. Even the absolutely most excellent whiskey stock isn't owned
by me, its owned by corporate me - a different entity entirely. When I
drink my own Guinness, Ardbeg or Okhotnichya, I register the sale in the
cash register and pay the same price as the customers. Same with the
Chablis.

>>>me why authorized foreign video releases can sell for much less than in Japan (if
>>>available in Japan at all), despite the costs of having them remastered if needed,
>>>adapted (subtitled, dubbed, or having additional language tracks added, and
>>>objectionable scenes edited) and marketed.
>>
>>Because local demand determines local price.
> 
> And what of profits which you think in your last post to be the first to consider? If Toei
> can make a reasonable profit selling its US adapted and upgraded version of "Kikaida" in
> Hawaii for $20 per volume (even $11.92 online), it begs the question why they tried (and
> in the end failed) to sell in the home market for more than $40 at current rates (more
> like $60 back then) and why they did not learn a lesson. Same goes for any other movie
> company.

Marginal pricing.

> If you were charging Japanese three or four times what you were charging in Australia for
> a similar product or service and your companies were doing even more poorly than you
> suggest they are doing now, what would you consider to remedy the situation? Would you not
> consider lowering your price in Japan?

Probably not actually. The sales in Australia would probably be
incremental sales on sunk costs. In such cases reducing wholesale price
in the major market wouldn't help overall sales, let alone profits.

>>Any 18 year old
>>undergraduate student would encounter these concepts in the first 8
>>weeks of any microeconomics course. Similarly anyone with an inquiring
>>mind who read a little more widely than manga would soon encounter the
>>theory of marginal returns.
> 
> Which is why I ask about Japanese pricing. Toei didn't have enough success with their $400
> editions of Kikaida to even keep it in production in VHS and LD, and don't bother putting
> it on DVD (a single volume of "Inazuman" goes for 14,480 yen) because they think it will
> not be profitable, while in the US a set of eight DVDs (lacking the ninth and last volume)
> of authorized videos may sell for about $100 at discount<snip>

The latter price is almost by definition incremental. Such practices
used to upset the sepponian USTR, even though its pretty much what US
(and other) firms do in reverse, and always have done.

> Is your justification as simple as, they can do what they want with their company and
> product if they are not willing to take the risk? You do not try to claim their approach
> actually makes good sense or actually makes them the most profit?

Yes to both questions. And unless their shareholders (not you, not the
fansubbers) decide otherwise, then they are correct.

I'm going to bed.

-- 
"Is there any connection between the murders?"
Police spokesman: "Yes, they're all dead!"