What's the line between accepting money for translations and charging for translations?
-
Maybe we should split this into its own thread - it's a valid convo but probably not the best place for it. Sorry for dragging a series pitch so far off topic!!
Who is a mod with the ability to cut the bottom half of the thread off? Other than Sam I don't know who could do it (I don't think translators or editors have mod access & the users tab up the top is all stats based rather than having a mod/admin list)
-
@smashman42 Done.
-
It sounds like this argument is based on a timed delay paywall:
We won't charge for it, but if you want it before we put it public, access it here for a fee. This is a model used many creators, and it seems to work well.The complaint here is with copyrighted works. At the end of the day, taking any unlicensed translated work is copyright theft, regardless of how it was done (free, true donation only, pay early or pay outright). That is the bottom line of the law.
The question is, who is the thief? If I buy a book, and translate it myself for myself. That is not theft. What if I lend the book? Or the translation? Still not theft, as they are both mine. If someone then copies either the book or the translation? It is the fault of the copier. Guess what, when you view something online, your computer makes a copy for rendering, making you the viewer the copier and also the thief. Not the translator.
However, the issue here is really because most people here are... morally flexible and don't actually care about translation legality if it is available for free, even though it is outright theft, because the argument is that "it wouldn't be available otherwise"... which really isn't a valid argument legally, all it points to is a potential business model which is what this site was based on.
The uproar here is because there is an unlicensed translator doing this who is asking for money!
Sorry, but if you have a problem for people asking for money, but you agree with consuming the work you have not paid the author for (that is known as theft), I'd say you need to re-examine your moral compass: theft is theft, regardless of price barrier.
-
Ok. Maybe I'm just playing with the wording, but when you use the word "donation" I've got a certain image in my mind. To me a donation is me giving you money expecting nothing in return beyond your being able to continue doing what you are doing. When you start receiving gifts or some kind of special treatment, like early access, then it drifts out of the donation description and into another arena. Call it membership. Call it patronage. Just don't call it a donation.
Accepting donations for doing a fan translation is generally acceptable. Wikipedia operates on donations. That's cool. Giving something in return for those donations is not cool. Now you're selling something that doesn't belong to you. Mentioning who has supported you doesn't count.
-
@myskaros Splitting hairs, 1 and 2 are not copyright violations. Private consumption by a single person with a license or possession of a physical copy is fair use. I actually do get professional translations done for some of the articles or submissions I need to read or edit (and for the journals that are reprinting in English a translation from another language, that is fair use even in the commercial context as this is an assignable right to the publisher). 3 is actually not that different than 4 as public showing is treated as the same violation as profiting (although a moral case can be stated which 4 is worse).
There's two that I remember being an issue. There was an isekai where the protagonist ends up a servant and the translation got kiboshed when the author was angry about it (I married a villainess), and one ongoing where it is questionable considering the translator is an egomaniac (Son-Con).
I don't know, if there is an avenue to pay, I will, but if not, I will steal. That's the artist's credo at some level.
-
@alocervancouver You are correct, I should have specified that this was all in the context of "posting the translations for public consumption." As far as 3 vs. 4, the distinction is important insofar as JNC choosing to solicit the translator for work, I believe.
-
@alocervancouver for Son-Con the translator has the permission of the authors of all works he is currently translating. He even offers them money to help the authors out when it sounds like they are having hard times. Because he has the permission of the copyright holders he is not violating copyright law.
He does have an ego but that has no bearing on whether or not what he is doing is questionable. Unless I am misunderstanding you on what you mean by saying it is questionable. I am only considering the legality of them distributing or even charging for early access.
-
@alocervancouver Unless of course the Son-Con translator is lying and is fabricating his chat logs with the original authors, however he does not come across as a person who would do that as he appears to have a lot of integrity (he does what he says he will do).
-
For me whenever I see a "Donation" or Pareon for a Fantranslation I get alarms ringing in my head. if you notice for many of these "Donations" there is a goal and reward for achieving that goal, the Reward is usually a new chapter. Another thing I look for is the frequency of translation, is a part/chapter translated every week, bi-weekly or monthly? if there is a schedule that is rarely broken this give positive vibes. Sporadic and slow translations give warning signals, though slow translations are not bad on its own, only when mixed with other negative stuff. Another thing to look for is the quality of the translation, I do not expect a perfect translation (just look at the official stuff we have in English) but I do expect an adequate translation. An Obvious Machine Translation just screams "We don't care" and I find these type of translations almost always has a "Donation" or a Patreon for it.
-
@drone205 The SonCon translation is coming out at over 7 per week even if you do not contribute to him through Patreon. I do not feel like it is machine translated at all. The length of each translation is significant, in my opinion. There are occasional mistakes that he corrects when people point them out and he recently got an editor to help him out.
Really the only potential downside that his personality rubs some people the wrong way, but as I've gotten to know the translator he feels like a very genuine individual that I trust.
-
@fozzedout I actually don't think it's too strange that people could react differently to ip infringement when it's done out of goodwill than when it's motivated by greed. Afer all, Robin Hood is almost universally seen as a positive character. And I neither think nor I'm implying that every one who translate for free is some sort of hero while the ones who have a donate button are greedy bastards.
From a legal standpoint, here in Italy copyright laws also used to give harsher punishment when there was profit involved, so this kind of reasoning isn't far fetched. -
@fozzedout You say
If someone then copies either the book or the translation? It is the fault of the copier. Guess what, when you view something online, your computer makes a copy for rendering, making you the viewer the copier and also the thief. Not the translator.
but to use your phrase. Guess what, when upload something you are sending data from your computer to the internet and when you download something your computer is receiving data from the internet. The Translator is Uploading their Translation on the Internet for all to see, while the Reader is just downloading what was uploaded. It is illegal to upload pirated data but it is not illegal to download it. I have said in an earlier comment that I have problems when people twist words and situations to suit there own needs and agendas.
To again use your words
most people here are... morally flexible
I do not know if what you said was an intentional fabrication or if you were just ignorant, but I certainly know that you twisted the situation of Fan translations, since the readers are not Copying the translations. in your example, the translator would be mass producing their translation and giving or selling it to the masses.
-
it is not illegal to download it
I hate this argument because, in truth, it's merely a concession of there being no good way to police downloaded data, not an admission that it is acceptable to download pirated data. You think an author who writes and sells books for a living is happy that random people get to read the book without going through a medium that involves someone paying for the book?
Anyway, I just noticed that it looks like I started this topic since Sam moved the previous conversation beginning with my post lol.
-
@myskaros When I made the Upload and Download Argument it was to show how @fozzedout was wrong in one of the points he made. I do not like this argument too but I hate factually incorrect arguments more, so this argument for me is better than "It is the people who read the translation who are at fault, NOT the one who distributes the Illegal translation."
-
@drone205 said in What's the line between accepting money for translations and charging for translations?:
it is not illegal to download it
I don't know what copyright laws are like where you are but it is illegal to download it in the United States of America. The question is, will the copyright holder enforce it on you?
The RIAA got a little crazy and didn't verify they were sueing the correct people that downloaded songs so they got slapped back hard in court eventually. They were suing people because they had matching IP addresses when they didn't verify they were the ones that had that IP address when the download actually occurred.
Normally, copyright infringement cases are enforced by the copyright holders or people that represent them. The RIAA and MPAA are groups that represent a lot of people who make songs and movies, respectively.
When suing people/groups, it is often more cost effective to go after people you know have money so a lot of copyright infringement is ignored because it isn't cost effective to try and get blood out of a turnip. Even if you win, it still costs money to sue someone, and if you can't recoup your costs it is only beneficial from the perspective that it may scare other people way from infringing on your copyright.
That does not mean they can't sue you, they just don't think it would be worth their time. The RIAA did sue a lot of people who had no money. They also destroyed their public image over the stunts they pulled.
Just because you don't get caught doesn't change the fact that it is illegal. The internet is filled with copyright infringement that does not get enforced. People who scan images from books and posts those images on the internet are often in violation of copyright infringement.
-
@drone205 Yep, I wasn't replying to you, just voicing a thought.
-
@malloc said in What's the line between accepting money for translations and charging for translations?:
Just because you don't get caught doesn't change the fact that it is illegal. The internet is filled with copyright infringement that does not get enforced. People who scan images from books and posts those images on the internet are often in violation of copyright infringement.
That last point is Uploading so it does not go with the rest of your argument about Downloading. I specifically told the difference between Downloading and uploading. I get what you are saying but this last point does not add to the downloading points.
-
@drone205 said in What's the line between accepting money for translations and charging for translations?:
That last point is Uploading
It is illegal to upload copyright data to a forum where others can download without permission from the copyright holder, it is illegal to host the data where people other than those with permission to download it can download the data, it is illegal to download when you don't have the copyright holders permission to download the data. The copyright holder can go after all individuals/groups responsible for any of those three actions.
If the person hosting the data removes the data as soon as they are aware of the infringement they can absolve themselves of the issue. That is how Youtube avoids getting sued for having people post the data.
The last point being just about one of those three actions does not invalidate my argument it was about copyright infringement in general and was about how a lot of people are not aware they are breaking copyright laws. The RIAA did successfully sue people that were responsible for downloading songs when they actually weren't doing stupid stuff.
Of course even though it is illegal you can chose to ignore that and put yourself at risk. If you aren't profiting off of the copyright infringement there is a very low chance you will get sued. Violate the law at your own risk.
-
In Japan it was actually legal to download things that you didn't have a license to, like mp3s or anime or movies, until about 8 years ago I think.
That's when they updated the law to also include penalties for downloading.In the US both uploading and downloading have been finable copyright offenses for quite a while I believe. Prior to the DMCA it was a bit gray area, but the DMCA I'm pretty sure included language making it clear that downloading was infringement and you could be sued for it.
-
@drone205 said in What's the line between accepting money for translations and charging for translations?:
@myskaros When I made the Upload and Download Argument it was to show how @fozzedout was wrong in one of the points he made. I do not like this argument too but I hate factually incorrect arguments more, so this argument for me is better than "It is the people who read the translation who are at fault, NOT the one who distributes the Illegal translation."
You are correct, my mistake, yes, the translator for copying the work to a server for others to get is also at fault. Basically, everyone is at fault, so the feeling goes that "because we're all guilty, let's make it free". And then outrage happens when the person putting in all the hard work starts asking for money.
The aim of my comment was to point out that the people reading this is that regardless of whether it's completely free to read, a time delay pay wall, or an outright pay wall, the action of them going to read it automatically puts the reader at odds with the law due to the action is classed as theft, and if they are truly upset over a pay wall of some sort, they need to re-evaluate their moral stance, because what they are doing, they do not perceive as wrong or law breaking. I wouldn't be surprised if they have the same feeling for torrent sites that are free Vs paid private trackers, as it essentially bills down to the same argument.
But the shout over this is really more down to people wanting things free, and are then denied, but because this is theft, they somehow try to take the moral high ground.
If someone does something that takes up their time doing it, that person has every right to demand compensation, regardless if they are doing something legally or illegally.
If you don't agree with it, don't pay, if you do, pay. You might find reliability of a paid translator better than those who are not. But regardless if you pay for an unlicensed fan translation or not, you are still in the wrong for getting it.
Just as you would be for torrenting a movie from either a free or paid tracker.
And again, I apologise for making sounds like the translator was completely law abiding.
