Dont ruin other peoples translations


  • Premium Member

    @zchronos

    Honorifics are kept intact.

    The LN is just an edited very of the fan translation and flows better.


  • Premium Member

    @zchronos I believe that multiple translaters and editors have stated that its a case by case basis and most defaulted to- does this help with the story?

    Just read a part of the latest chapter, honirifics are used in what I went through.


  • Premium Member

    @eric-kancso Welcome to reality. Things cost money and you need to deal with it.

    Also, why should JNC have to look for stuff that hasn't had a fan-translation? Why should 1 person have any control over what me and all the people paying money for a service get to read?
    Why should the wonderful author-sans who put their all into writing these amazing, thrilling or heart-wrenching stories with the hopes of getting published be denied the chance to get paid for their works?
    If you are old enough to work than you should look for work. If there are reasons why you cant work a job there are other options, such as opinionoutpost or other such sites that pay you for taking consumer questionares.
    Don't try and stop us just because you are too lazy to look for solutions.


  • Premium Member

    @village-idiot Oh, Thanks!.


  • Premium Member

    @zchronos I started reading it at JNC, switched to baka-tsuki for the middle, then back to JNC for the end. Since its my understanding that the same person (Warnis) handled both translations, there's not too much variation. The biggest change I've seen is the spelling of some names.



  • Not to mention the fact that they HAVE brought series that didn't have a fan translation project aside from teasers or barely one volume translated, like Apocalypse and NeeChuu, and saving other series from hiatus hell like Outbreak Company.


  • Premium Member

    The problem I see in the OP comment is what many say to justify pirated content.

    You have no money to buy or subscripe - Then it should be free?!?

    So if you have no money for a car you are allowed to steal it? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Oh wait to stay true to LN you would need to paint the car in another color. Then it is allowed as it is not the same car.

    I certainly enjoy reading Light Novels but if I would not have the money for it then I would simply cope with this. Sure you are limited in things you can consume (and not every library has those books) but why do you even suggest that something which has an official release should stay free? I was just on this other thread where someone called JNC yakuza First of all not a fitting term but let's leave this aside. To come back to why I mentioned this. I seriously wonder how elitist some people feel. First of all I don't understand the reason behind calling them Yakuza or ruining other translations. Do the translators hold any copyright for the translated content? They surely claim that their translation is their own work but as a matter of fact even if you translate something, the copyright holder is the author or the company which bought the rights to it. Those are the ones that can give the right for their translation and can send a cease letter. I don't want to belittle those translators as they work relentlessly (some more as other) to translate something for us for free. But how can you (those the elititst part) demand that the translation needs to stay for free forever?


  • Premium Member

    @saskir Although I agree with most of your post, comparing stealing a car with piracy is not only wrong, but also unfair. If you steal a car, you're depriving the owner of its goods, while with piracy you don't.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no defending piracy, but it is not a black or white topic.


  • Premium Member

    @coneone said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    @saskir Although I agree with most of your post, comparing stealing a car with piracy is not only wrong, but also unfair. If you steal a car, you're depriving the owner of its goods, while with piracy you don't.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no defending piracy, but it is not a black or white topic.

    Difference being duplication of an infinitely duplicable intangible product vs a regular physical product & all that. Piracy is like a sub-form of stealing, but obviously the reverse can't be true (like a fish is a sub-form of animal, but animal isn't a sub-form of fish)

    I think their main point was with the changing the car's colour vs changing the book's language. In both cases as far as the law is concerned it is still the exact same product just looking a bit different.


  • Premium Member

    @coneone stealing is not the right analogy although fitting as it takes away royalty that the author would get. So per se it is not depriving him of an object but still financial loss. But I took this more as an example to bring something across.

    And take the financial loss with a grain of salt because in many cases those that pirate would never buy it otherwise as the „prices are not affordable“, „the quality is not good enough“ (although why bother then downloading it -oh it is free-), „normally not my cup of tea“, etc.

    And the poster above is right. I took liberties and said that repainting is the same as translating as the core is still the same only with another look.


  • Premium Member

    @saskir said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    @coneone stealing is not the right analogy although fitting as it takes away royalty that the author would get. So per se it is not depriving him of an object but still financial loss. But I took this more as an example to bring something across.

    And take the financial loss with a grain of salt because in many cases those that pirate would never buy it otherwise as the „prices are not affordable“, „the quality is not good enough“ (although why bother then downloading it -oh it is free-), „normally not my cup of tea“, etc.

    If it was theft, they would just call it theft, the fact that they use a different word implies it is different. It is, however, still both criminal and morally wrong.

    As for the latter part, I feel that is likely not entirely correct. I've yet to see any concrete evidence as to the impact of piracy, one way or the other. Personal experience says at least some people might have paid for it, so it's a net loss over all.

    The core concern is the behavior's impact on the economy. People make things to make a living. If a means of obtaining or using those things without providing for the person making it is allowed, eventually no one will make a living that way, and nothing will be made.


  • Premium Member

    @flarecde

    @flarecde said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    If it was theft, they would just call it theft, the fact that they use a different word implies it is different. It is, however, still both criminal and morally wrong.

    As for the latter part, I feel that is likely not entirely correct. I've yet to see any concrete evidence as to the impact of piracy, one way or the other. Personal experience says at least some people might have paid for it, so it's a net loss over all.

    The core concern is the behavior's impact on the economy. People make things to make a living. If a means of obtaining or using those things without providing for the person making it is allowed, eventually no one will make a living that way, and nothing will be made.

    Exactly. The piracy is more about people behavior and attitude. People with "all-free" attitude would probably not incur into a sale if piracy disappeared overnight. That's the reason it's easy to find this kinds of post all over the internet.

    (this is talking in general, but a little for the OP)
    If you really can't afford buying anything outside your living expenses, you don't need arrogant posts about anyone hurting the LN world (when it's not true) for pirating. I was there too, in my student days (not in LNs, though), and it was not a bad thing, considering all the works I buy this days. But they are not to blame for your current economical situation.


  • Premium Member

    my $.02

    IP (intellectual property) is property: A song, a book, a TV show , a movie, a design of a product etc. is the property of the creators of the IP. Distributing IP without paying for it is stealing from the artist creator. Consuming IP from a source that doesn't pay the creator/author/artist is an accessory to theft.

    The arguments are not new, Napster/file sharing/bit torrents etc have been going on for decades- and bootleg tapes etc even longer. Some people just don't want to pay, and if they should be paying, they are morally wrong not to. (The artists did not create their work for free, they deserve to be paid)

    Obviously this is not always a "black or white" issue - An artist may put their work in a forum/setting without a paywall (digital commons, freeware whatever) or decide not to enforce their copyright in certain circumstances - to promote new work, market themselves, gift to fans whatever. The point is that the artist/creator gets to choose what happens to their work- if they post it in a free site, they can move it behind a paywall later or vise/versa.

    there are shady places out there that post work w/o paying the artist- and profit by charging membership fees, soliciting 'donations' and/or selling ad space on their sites - these folks are crooks, and if you patronize them - you are facilitating theft. It is morally equivalent to crook counterfeiting tickets to a movie- and you buying the ticket knowing it is fake- The artists don't get paid

    this is NOT the same as creative commons or sites where artists don't mind if their work is posted without compensation (Baka- Tsuki?) - that would be like a free concert in the park- all are welcomed


  • Premium Member

    Thanks for putting forward your views so clearly @jon-mitchell - I would be interested in trying to explore the edges of where you stand.

    @jon-mitchell said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    IP (intellectual property) is property: A song, a book, a TV show , a movie, a design of a product etc. is the property of the creators of the IP. Distributing IP without paying for it is stealing from the artist creator. Consuming IP from a source that doesn't pay the creator/author/artist is an accessory to theft.

    Intellectual property includes copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. They are distinct from conventional property which is primarily about possession of a finite resource, but are instead limited state-sanctioned monopolies on the exploitation of an intangible concept granted as part of a scheme to promote the interests for which the IP regime was designed.

    The purpose of copyright is primarily to encourage the creation of new works and of better quality works by providing remuneration to those who create the works. In addition to being time limited, there are defences such as 'fair use' which acknowledge the fact that in some cases there is a greater public good in narrowing the scope of copyright.

    Is it your view that all use of a work without an author's permission, even after it has expired and in cases of fair use, should be considered theft, or just unauthorised use outside of the correct regime of the country one is in?

    Obviously this is not always a "black or white" issue - An artist may put their work in a forum/setting without a paywall (digital commons, freeware whatever) or decide not to enforce their copyright in certain circumstances - to promote new work, market themselves, gift to fans whatever. The point is that the artist/creator gets to choose what happens to their work- if they post it in a free site, they can move it behind a paywall later or vise/versa.

    Whilst in practice an author might get to control how their work is lawfully used to some extent and there may be economic benefits to this often being the case, is it their moral right to do so? For example, should someone who sold you a pencil be able to say "I produced this pencil, so you should not use it to write anything about which I disagree"? Should someone writes a book be able to tell you "You are not allowed to laugh while reading this book"? Should they be able to say "You cannot quote a single word from this book for the purpose of writing a negative book review that focuses on how clumsy my writing is"?


  • Premium Member

    @shiny

    So if I get you arguments right you are against saying it is theft as it is an intelectual property. Seeing as you say copyrights are intented to inspire others to make new works or improve it. Strangely enough my concept of a copyright is a lil different. With a copyright you secure (eg in this case) a literary work (or as another example a mechanical layout). How do you believe that this means it encourages the creation of new work? Sure there are works that you can use freely after some time. Best example would be if the original author died and there is no one who inheritet those rights (family, the new copyright holder, etc). As an example in my country you can use freely the work of an author after 80 years as long as there is no copyright holder. But this doesn't apply to everything as a company who printed a work still has the rights to their publication.

    And sorry but your examples are not fitting with the theme of the above post. Isn't there a difference between limiting how you use something and if you copy the work of someone else even though you translate it, edit it or something else? This has nothing to do with fair use or whatsoever. As I see it an author has the right to his own created story. After all it is his intelectual property. The next example could be considered unfitting but how would you feel if someone copied your exam/diploma work and gets his doctorate through this? Yeah it is fair use, why should he study, he can simply use my work. As stated before I know this is bending the argument a little but I hope you understand the gist why I wrote this.

    But if I understand your concept (which I hope I did not misunderstand) right any author should write just for fun? And publish everything for free? Or how do you mean the phrase about "is it their moral right to do so". If I would take this as an example why don't I go to the next repair shop and simply don't pay. Is it their right to take money for a repair? And before you start with "They did actual work and those earn the money" (or let's say some people I read the comments of here would interject with this). What is the difference between work and work? And yes I did write it this way because do you really thing that an author is not dependent on royalties trough sales? Oh yeah following your concept he is morally wrong in wanting money for something like this. Yes why doesn't he feel joyful in just knowing that someone reads his work (and yes I know there are enough authors who do this, but for the most they need the money and it is a job to them). But as it is sometimes hard to bring this concept over in writing. Yes the last two sentence were sarcasm.


  • Premium Member

    @Shiny
    I intentionally didn’t conflate physical property and intellectual property. Sneaking in to watch a movie without a ticket is stealing from both the venue and the creative professionals who created the film. Buying a counterfeit ticket is the same. I am not a lawyer, I will not debate the legality of if a translation of a work is still the same IP. IMHO derivations of content is the same as the original in the context we are discussing (translations of LN) . From the point of view of ethics, if there exists a way to legally consume IP that compensates the authors, and you choose to use a way to get the content that doesn’t compensate the authors, (and/or is from a source contrary to the authors’ wishes) that is theft and morally wrong. I have yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise. In fact all the arguments I’ve seen boil down to:”I want to mooch, I don’t wanna pay for the stuff I want”


  • Premium Member

    @saskir @Shiny Before this turns into a flame war I do have something that has to be said.

    Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a US copyright law you have to make fairly serious changes to a work in order to call it derivative and have it qualify as Fair Use. Translation from one language to another does not count.

    Under International copyright agreements signed by the US, Japan and the EUROPEAN UNION, amongst many other groups and nations, translating a work under copyright protection without a minimum of written consent by the creator is a crime. Reading said work is also a crime.

    @Shiny If I make a pencil and sell it to someone who uses that pencil in a manner that is illegal, I would not be responsible for said crime as rights to control PHYSICALS GOODS and responsibility for proper use are ceded once the transaction takes place. Assuming that sale is made legelly and without violation of restrictions upon said good.

    On the other hand, Intellectual Property, has a very different ruleset. Since there is no material items you are essentually paying a company for the right to use the product, not for ownership. When you buy a book you own paper and paid for the right to read the print.

    That said, I am not a lawyer and my understanding comes from studing court cases from the last 70 years. Some of those cases no longer apply in any means and other lines of thought are open to the interpretation of a judge.
    Though I do have similar experiences after working in the printed circuit board industry and dealing with patents and the NDAs, clauses and contracts I've had to sign as a machine operator and technician in a prototype department.
    IP laws become a barrel of pissed off vipers with bellyaches once you start moving IP materials across international borders.


  • Premium Member

    @jon-mitchell said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    @Shiny
    I intentionally didn’t conflate physical property and intellectual property.

    Sorry if I misunderstood you there. I interpreted the statement that "IP (intellectual property) is property" as meaning you thought IP was indistinguishable from physical property.

    @jampodevral said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    @saskir @Shiny Before this turns into a flame war I do have something that has to be said.

    Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a US copyright law you have to make fairly serious changes to a work in order to call it derivative and have it qualify as Fair Use. Translation from one language to another does not count.

    I agree that generally speaking a work being a translation is unlikely to be a successful defence if charged with copyright infringement. The Berne Convention lists translation as generally being a right reserved to the copyright holder. Those who distribute fan translations do not generally have a legal leg to stand on.

    @saskir said in Dont ruin other peoples translations:

    @shiny

    So if I get you arguments right you are against saying it is theft as it is an intelectual property.

    Given how different intellectual property is to finite conventional property I do not think using the term 'theft' as shorthand for anything is helpful in discussing or understanding the issues. The term 'theft' can mean different things to different people and using the term without qualification fails to recognise the complexity of copyright law which allows people to make unauthorised use of a work in some circumstances. I can understand why people feel copyright infringement can be akin to their concept of theft and I can understand why other people think it is does not accord with their concept of theft. There is a 'legal' concept of theft of physical property (which relates primarily to loss of possession) along with an emotional or 'moral' concept of having been deprived of something you think you are owed or have created (e.g. "that person stole my job", "that person stole my place in the queue", "that person stole my best recipe by figuring out the secret ingredient").

    From one perspective people have no more inherent right to be paid for what they write than someone who draws graffiti has a right to be paid by members of the public who gaze upon the graffiti, but as there is a general public good in promoting writers it makes sense to have a scheme to support them. Because copyright is an attempt to promote a public good through a system of quid pro quo then it is something more akin to a government-enforced social contract than a system of protecting property.

    Seeing as you say copyrights are intented to inspire others to make new works or improve it. Strangely enough my concept of a copyright is a lil different.

    I am talking about the founding principle of modern copyright set out, for example, in the Copyright Clause of the United States of America (1787) which states: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

    With a copyright you secure (eg in this case) a literary work (or as another example a mechanical layout). How do you believe that this means it encourages the creation of new work?

    If you were thinking about spending five years writing a book but knew that as soon as you published it a dozen publishers would have their own copies of your book out at half the price because they didn't have to compensate you for your time, then you might decide to be a chef rather than a novelist. As such, society would be deprived of those books. Copyright provides an incentive to produce creative works. Since the original copyright laws based on this principle were passed copyright terms have gotten all out of proportion with what is necessary and proportionate in encouraging the production of works, and the limitations on remixing has hampered potential works, but the original concept still has merit.

    And sorry but your examples are not fitting with the theme of the above post. Isn't there a difference between limiting how you use something and if you copy the work of someone else even though you translate it, edit it or something else?

    I was referring to the statement that an author should have the ability to control how their work is used ("The point is that the artist/creator gets to choose what happens to their work"). Perhaps "what happens" was intended in the original post to be limited to the right to deciding about the copying and distribution of the work, but that was not clear from the statement. As illustrated by the factors of fair use adopted in the United States (e.g. the nature of the copyrighted work, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyright work, etc.), context is important. That is why it is important to distinguish between fan translations of licensed works and unlicensed works (not in terms of legality, but general social acceptance).

    But if I understand your concept (which I hope I did not misunderstand) right any author should write just for fun? And publish everything for free? Or how do you mean the phrase about "is it their moral right to do so".

    I think my use of language was unclear. What I meant was that copyright is not an inalienable ('god-given') right but is instead a constructed right. The right was constructed for a reason and in many ways serves a useful purpose, but a violation of the right is not inherently 'wrong' although as per my earlier comments of the social contract I am not saying it is inherently right either. I do not think people should only be able to write for fun, I think they should be able to make a career out of writing good books if they wish to do so.

    What is the difference between work and work?

    To some extent the difference is the promise. If I go to a repair shop I am agreeing to pay, but if someone comes up on the street and simply starts cleaning the windows on my car then I do not owe them anything even if they worked to clean my window. Earlier I refer to the 'social contract', and in that sense it is society which promises to ensure that recompense is paid for works that they write, but it is only a limited promise because they do not promise to pay if nobody uses their work or where the use made of the work is 'fair use' etc.

    And yes I did write it this way because do you really thing that an author is not dependent on royalties trough sales?

    They should be compensated for their time, e.g. through royalties. That said, I think it is important to consider the similarities between the situation in which someone puts a year into writing something and they do not get compensated because nobody bought their book and someone not getting compensated because nobody paid for the book. Is society 'stealing' from the person who wrote the book nobody read? I think most people would say they were not. But it is the same result for the author: them not getting paid for their effort. The difference between the two circumstances is that in one circumstances the 'social contract' to pay was breached, but that is therefore more society breaking its promise ('theft' in the sense of not getting what is owed) than theft in the sense of losing possession of property.

    Oh yeah following your concept he is morally wrong in wanting money for something like this.

    I stated earlier in this thread that "nobody has a right to free content [except as provided by law]". It is not morally wrong to want compensation for your work. Indeed, I wanted to support J-Novel Club which is why I became a Premium Member.


  • Member

    Just a suggestion, maybe this serious conversation should be taken to a new topic, it's kind of annoying for this troll's topic to get any more traffic.


  • Premium Member

    @shiny After reading your in-depth explination of you thoughts....
    I apologize for coming off preachy. I misread your earlier post in the same way as Saskir did and wanted to throw in some of the info I found after the Jnovelaremonsters arsehat started his stupid thread.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to J-Novel Club Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.