I probably shouldn't say that as someone who's trying to become a lawyer, and in general the free-marketeer in me thinks copyrights should be defended. But something odd came up today that's made me wonder.

Before I moved back here for the summer, I watched most of a Japanese anime called Revolutionary Girl Utena with some friends in Oxford. These were pirate downloads from the internet, not the 'official' products which sell for exorbitant amounts in the US and until recently couldn't be bought in the UK at all.

Now I've watched some of the licensed versions, and the thought I'm left with is, 'Thank God I saw the other copies.' Despite the horrible image quality, the subtitling was far better. I can only suppose this is because it was done by people enthusiastic about the task, rather than paid translators. In general, the pirate copies caught the sense and feel of the original, as well as having a stronger sense of drama. The licensed versions just have 'special features.'

So where does that leave the legally-minded? I'm happy that these translations exist--the 'fan-edited' versions of Cowboy Bebop are also better than what you can get on DVD. They give people an opportunity to enjoy something I think is quite special without having to learn Japanese themselves, or put up with sub-par translation. But they probably violate copyright law. [1]

The economist in me thinks the law should change with the times, and that those who used to be paid a great deal of money to choose what should be distributed in the audio-visual world when distribution was difficult are using the law to maintain their profits long after their usefulness has come and gone. (The recording industry was clearly in the right, and Napster was clearly taking the mick in its trial, so far as I can tell. But the idea that music file sharing will get rid of good music is ridiculous--by disintermediating the record distributors, music should become cheaper, more plentiful, and provide greater selection than Ms. Spears v. Ms. Aguilera.) But that seems to be a long time coming.

Until then, I'll find it difficult to reconcile the fact that what are, as translations, in their own right works of creativity and skill are actually violations of the law.

[1] Someone with a bit more knowledge than me would have to tell me whether it did in fact violate the law. To the best of my knowledge, the translation of these files was done before a 'licensed' translation had been performed. Who knows whether or not the product was translated before the rights to do so had been sold--I certainly don't. I somehow doubt it matters, as the visual aspect of what was copied probably broke the law. But I'm not going to state that as a definite.