This entire argument was created because one person accused another person of stealing their work... Of using it without permission... The individual making that accusation didn't get permission either, yet you immediately removed the other person's uploads without question or a chance for the two to discuss. You silenced the community removing their right to communicate what happened or their views of it, because one individual cried foul of another individual doing the exact same thing to them as they had done to another.
THAT is why I am being an activist here. THAT is the unfair fallacy that I am pointing out.
Bato.to's right to do so? Not so much. Scanlators, translators, etc, etc's amazing levels of effort in what they do (eh, for the most part anyway), not so much. That those of us who don't help or translate (etc) shouldn't criticize the efforts of those who do? Not so much. (I could go on...)
What I am criticizing is one single person whining about being treated the same way they treated another, and people gracing that individual while condemning the other. "level/quantity/quality" of efforts be damned, you are both thieves who took what you wanted without permission of those who owned it and posted it somewhere you had no 'right to do so' (by the same definition).
That, and that alone is what I am talking about (well, and taking a swing at Bato.to's process at the end).
I precede this with response to your first two comments.
"So long as there is not a legal published translated versions in your country." i.e. Corporation A has not bought the rights from me to publish, for profit, my works. Meaning, if my works are not being published by someone I authorize to make money for their effort, anyone can do it so long as (as was an earlier clause) it is not for money.
If someone is translating for money, that I have authorized, then cease and desist.
As I say later, no this series is not my works. I'm emphasising the lunacy of someone taking another's works, modifying it for their own use, and getting irked that someone else does the same to their own. I use works I do as an example, but I could just as easily use Minecraft and the many mods and their 'butt-clenched-creators' that freak out any time someone tries to modify what they made... You broke into the code of Mojang, what makes you think we can't do the same to yours? The fact that they don't have hundreds or thousands of man-hours to sue each of you?... (end rant)
The first bolded :... that case have nothing to do with our case ... or maybe yes...
cause I did removed those contents since the translator(or in your case one group where a member) ask me to.
But then I cant restore those I removed cause I[we] have no right in restoring it. hmm.. yes, that sounds right.
So long as there is not a legal published translated version in your country
you do know how you sound silly here right?
You MUST accept that you, by. O means, own any rights, barring the most BASIC copyright 'rights' to translations based off of my works (i.e. you must be credited if your work is used, permission is ideal, but since you didn't get mine, not required). FINALLY: anyone may use ANY of the things I have created for ANY reason, barring two things (and those have minimum requirements) my main character(s) and the word Aricitic.
wait, you say I have to have basic right to translate your work ... but then you go on sayin any may use any thing you created barring two things...
ehh, sir... you are talkin about your work... but this series isnt your work. why you bringin your ownership copyrights in here?
I think many scanlators and translator... or should I say people , know more about copyrights than you.
The ONLY reason 'scan'lation groups have any rights or respect here is because thr mods and owner GIVE it to them
not give... allow... >.>' rights and respect arent Given. whether it is allowed or not is within the bounds of the admin's rules.
And it is a case to case base. It is within Bato,to's goal to respect the scanlators/translator..... only if it is acceptable/ reasonable.
Many other factors may come to play with what actual rights they do have here at Bato.to
Batoto lets groups/members contribute to the site as along as it is within our rules.
I am not sure why you are tryin to talk about ownership/copyright when it have nothing to do with you, the reader. O.o
but it is to say it is your given right to comment on this topic to the limit as long as you follow the rules.
There is no need to inform other about what copyright fair act means.
Talkin about accepting that it is how internet works, well...this is how Batoto operates.
If there comes time for lawsuits and copyrights issued by the respective agency then I bet Batoto and/or the scanlator will do what's rite.
Until then, yes, everything can be distribute anywhere by mistake or on purpose.
But it goes against Batoto's rules when members post releases without prior permission or inaccurate credits.
I don't WANT people sued over this, but at least it would get them to understand what their actual ownership of it is...
I dont Want people to leave Batoto over this, but at least it would let them understand that it is their right/decision to move to another site if you
dont like Batoto is.
You asked why I am bringing in my own ownership into this.
It is easy to push bull around, it is easy to make things (statistics and words, etc) up and throw out fancy words... It is not so easy when you yourself are to be judged by the same values.
The reason I bring my own ownership into this is because I hold myself, as often as I mentally can, to the same high standards. I would never publish something I was afraid would be used without my permission. If I had that fear I would work with an editor and publisher to create published works with a company backing. As it stands I have published a few things within realms that have either no, or practically no protection. Some of which have been moved to locations without my personal permission, and that were individual's websites - bringing attention to that individual for work that I did and they have no right to take 'even the hosting credit' for.
I was not insulted, but honored by this. Something that I created was good enough for someone else to host.
My point is: this is the internet. We can argue about laws and ethics all we want, but this will get us nowhere. The pure and simple fact is that every content creator on this site, every content creator anywhere with respect to translation and distribution of manga outside of publishers are acting illegally. Period. (I have an example of a college student or professor at Austin College in Sherman Texas who was granted permission to translate a foreign play, and that play was performed on campus. Without that permission, the college could have been sued. I know this ONLY because my step-father works there. Once I have a link to the example I will provide it). Without the explicit permission of the mangaka and (more importantly) the publisher all of them are committing the same falicy that you removed those chapters for.
The Fair Use clause in the United States laws (http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) does not allow for the redistribution of self-translated works. This effectively includes this entire website, barring only those works translated with permission and only for those individuals or groups who had received the permission (if any).
Silence from a publisher or creator does not mean permission, nor does it mean they do not care. The cost of enforcing these within a different country - especially if those corporations who get the translation rights will enforce it themselves - is substantial. This means that those stories removed because the lawful owner requested/demanded it are not the only ones that the lawful owner wanted removed, the others simply may not have the means of communication (or time).
So, what does this mean? Why am I bringing it up?
The entire start of this argument was one individual who spent 'hours' translating something (for free) and (freely) posted it has complained that their effort was unfairly used or stolen. However, in most people's view, this would be the kettle calling the pot black. The translation, since it was redistributed, or uploaded somewhere it could be redistributed was, itself, stolen (violation of 'Fair use' and 'copyright). The individual who saw fit to use this translation and copy/paste it into the graphically modified images of the manga itself was doing something identical.
Think of a forger making a forgery of the Mona Lisa, and a forger making a forgery of the forgery. The original forger gets angry that their property was being reproduced and sold and tries to take action against the second forger... See the irony?
Now, it has been argued that the translator did not want this because of level of effort. I read (momentarily) an argument about how much time a mangaka spends thinking up a manga before they draw it and how many hours they put into translating the manga. About how they wanted someone 'professional' (or at least with a better pedigree or skill, or some quantifier or qualifier determining how much work they put into it) to be the one who uploaded their translation of the work. That, because the person who 'copied and pasted' their translation (which, if I remember reading correctly, was cited, by them, as having not been proofread) was in insult to the work they and the mangaka did. Etc. Etc.
But, isn't this all a moot point? The translator translated the work without the approval, permission or blessing of the mangaka (or, more importantly, the publisher). They violated the work by stealing it in the first place. They denied the right of the mangaka to select what langauge it is in and whom can read it by bringing it into English - and hosting it for free. They, with their 100s/1,000s of hours, subseded the mangaka's 10,000s/100,000s of hours of work of producing the manga. They hosted/provided a version of the mangka's work in an unauthorized location and way they had not been given permission to do.
How are the one who copy/pasted the translator's work and the one who stole the mangka's work different? Education? Some minor viewpoint of 'level of effort'? Certainly not in being granted permission, or legal right.
Certainly, if Bato.to receives notice from the publisher - or, miraculously, the mangaka - bato.to will remove the hosted versions of the manga. I recognize that. THAT is not my point. My point is the 'finger pointing' and 'blame calling'.
There seems to be a viewpoint of righteousness for scanlation groups, here, and complete disdain for anyone else. 'Content providing' makes 'right', 'leeching' makes evil. But are the 'content providers' not 'leeches' themselves? How many actually went to Japan or imported from Japan rather than getting a scan from someone living in Japan (for free, or with minor donations)? They take the works of the mangakas and, yes, give credit, but so did the one who 'copy/pasted' the translated works. Why are they 'in violation' and viewed as 'skum'? Because both individuals speak English? Because bato.to likes one over the other? Your definitions and reasons don't add up. You say one persion is wrong for not getting permission and the other is right, regardless of the fact they didn't either?
And this brings me on to your final part in response to my comments while at work:
I said: "The ONLY reason 'scan'lation groups have any rights or respect here is because thr mods and owner GIVE it to them."
And you responded:
"not give... allow... >.>' rights and respect arent Given. whether it is allowed or not is within the bounds of the admin's rules.
And it is a case to case base. It is within Bato,to's goal to respect the scanlators/translator..... only if it is acceptable/ reasonable."
Yes, I agree. You are not 'giving' in one context, but 'allowing' in the same context. But you are wrong in the contect of 'rights aren't given'... They are.
Person, group, financial institution, government creates a 'location' people within that location are 'given' the rights that 'group' sees fit to provide them. We aren't talking about 'life, liberty, and right to happyness' here, we are talking about who gets thrown out into the cold vs who gets patted on the back and told: "Good job" or "we'll make it right." and that is something bato.to gives.
And you, and your friends (as, again, I sincerely doubt that people are hired here) are the ones who defines what is acceptable/reasonable. -- Or, do you have some legal backing to your decision making? Laws, rules, regulations? Where are these listed, what institution regulates and updates them? Sure, the company that does the ads on this website has input... but only if something is brought to their attention. (same reason that Kodomo no Jikan was never brought to America. Uneducated idiots blackmailed the company).
I remember that Rapeman's translation of one manga was frozen for a few days and then deemed acceptable. Considering that I have not seen any updates from it (as I am following) I have to assume it was seen as 'unacceptable' later and therefore frozen again. Swearing? There is a lot of that in SO MANY mangas here. Nudity? Same.
"Many other factors may come to play with what actual rights they do have here at Bato.to
Batoto lets groups/members contribute to the site as along as it is within our rules. "
Which, most people would say, are completely arbitrary. I argued many moons ago that your definition of 'child ...' was so arbitrary that it would allow literally anything to be allowed or banned at the same time and for the same reason. (i.e To-Love-Ru vs some things that have been removed for the exact same reason... and, let's be honest here, even people in Japan are recognizing just how much that artist is abusing the rules... as can be seen on a per-chapter basis on sankakucomplex.com [warning, adult themed website, with adult themed ads])
If you want to claim a legitimate, well constructed set of rules, things need to be better defined and strictly worded... which, so far, I have been utterly unable to find (as of a few months ago. I don't care enough to look now). Currently, it is more like a group of friends 'palling' around and deciding things based upon who they like (in any given moment), or, with a significantly more legitimate air, someone coming in and actually complaining about a violation (i.e the Ads site).
Also, here you violate your own argument above with regards to 'giving' vs 'allowing.' By creating and enforcing rules, and especially given the arbitrariness of these rules (again, I was desperately looking for a specific set when making an argument for reallowing a manga that had been dismissed), you are giving rights to some and removing them from another. As you state later: "posting releases without permission or 'proper' credits"... the very fact that this argument has come to pass shows just how much bato.to's admins (and friends) are 'giving' 'rights' to some and removing them from others. Aereus, if I am even remotely correct in the actual translator's name, sure as anything didn't get permission to translate the works. Who gives them the right to state what can be done with something they themselves stole? Oh... Right... y.o.u.
Who defines what is proper or improper, accurate or inaccurate 'credits'? Oh... Right... y.o.u.
P.S. Clearly, by 'you' I mean those admins that decide what is removed or what is not - decide who had proper ownership of content, and who does not - decide who has made proper credits and who has not.
"I am not sure why you are tryin to talk about ownership/copyright when it have nothing to do with you, the reader. O.o
but it is to say it is your given right to comment on this topic to the limit as long as you follow the rules.
There is no need to inform other about what copyright fair act means. "
When this site defines who has the right to remove or add content based off of ownership (certainly not copyright or the Fair Use Act)... or, more accurately, who has the right to upload based off of hearsay, yes, as a reader, I do. And, not only do I, I have a responsibility to point out the utter lack of ownership 'rights' one person has over content compared to another. No one at Bato.to has rights to any of the content on this website with the sole exception of its domain name and those who made their own avatar images. Everything else was stolen and used without permission.
Put something on Ancestry.com (or other)? Yes, they do say in their terms of service that they will retain usage rights once you have uploaded to their website, even if you no longer use their service...
This is the internet, not a publsihing firm. Things you put here will be used by others, and will exist beyond your means to control them. Period. That is how the 'cloud' works. Any expectation otherwise is insanity (doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result), and has no legal basis... unless the individual has boku amounts of money.
Mushoku Tensei has major differences between the web version and the published version(s) for reasons among these. The webcomic was uploaded public domain - with minor copyright protection. The published books are not.
"Talkin about accepting that it is how internet works, well...this is how Batoto operates."
You say that as though it changes anything. All Bato.to can do is retrospectively remove things. As was said by someone else (probably the translator themselves): "Once the damage is done, it is done. Once the 'leecher' sites take hold of the content it is out there and there is nothing Bato.to can do about it."
But your authority is only retrospective... unless Bato.to starts vetting all content before it gets hosted... and you do not have the human resources to do that... If pornography is uploaded it is only removed once it is noticed... and even then only if: A, it is reported, and B: (and I go with some of the things that remain hosted on this site) deemed inappropriate.
"If there comes time for lawsuits and copyrights issued by the respective agency then I bet Batoto and/or the scanlator will do what's rite.
Until then, yes, everything can be distribute anywhere by mistake or on purpose.
But it goes against Batoto's rules when members post releases without prior permission or inaccurate credits. "
So... you are saying that every scanlation group needs to have their content removed? Or, are you saying accurate credits state who originally did the work? If I recall correctly the translator was mentioned in the first page on those chapters... if briefly...
But, then, a mangaka (or, more importantly, a publisher) would likely think the equivalent of their property being preceded by a single page, and not a sum of money (and their explicit written endorsement).
Your assertion of 'prior permission' makes all content on this website violate your own rules. Inaccurate credits... what was inaccurate about the credits page preceding the chapters posted? I saw proper creditation to the translator "and everything else Boku Boy." If the translator was irked that their translation was being used "without permission" then, so what? You used Boku Girl without permission. If it is about creditation... that's already been confirmed as NOT the case.
Your own argument violates itself.
I said: "I don't WANT people sued over this, but at least it would get them to understand what their actual ownership of it is..."
You replied "I dont Want people to leave Batoto over this, but at least it would let them understand that it is their right/decision to move to another site if you
dont like Batoto is."
This is no longer about simple preference. For me, this hasn't been about preference for a long time, but instead a sense of elitism brought on and propagated by the mods, their friends, and sub-mods of Bato.to given solely to those they deem worthy of falling within a ruleset. One that is so arbitrary that the same thing can be both within and in violation of the rules at the same time and for the same reason... "One person (mod) found it acceptable, another person (mod) found it unacceptable."
You defend yourself and Bato.to by stating that the person who uploaded the images with another's translations was in violation of your rules because they didn't have permission to do so... OR didn't put proper credits within the documents. Yet you completely ignore the fact that the first individual didn't get permission to translate the original document in the first place. Who is punished? The individual who uploaded the documents and the person who translated is blessed. They are both in violation of the same rule, but since one of them has some ties to Bato.to their transgression is ignored while the other person is shunned and anyone who tries to defend them is pushed (by Bato.to) as monsters.
I don't feel like going any further.