Vicious Anime

Nerd Images, Memes, Quotes, and Articles.

[viciousanime]

Trial By Witch Hunt: Vic Mignogna’s case

While I am currently awaiting more official statements, investigations, details, and more people to come out  before I take a formal stance on Vic's specific case. Looking at the current available information, accusations, and rumors it seems to be a witch hunt and jury of public opinion based on misrepresenting friendly hugs and cheek kisses. Aziz Ansari's case comes to mind.

The short story is voice actor Vic Mignogna has been known for hugging and cheek kissing fans during meet and greets at conventions. Usually when they approach him for a picture or a autograph, which is why there is plenty of photographic evidence of this. Recently AnimeNewsNetwork posted a article of girls saying they were uncomfortable with the hugs and kisses and that Vic didn't specifically ask them for consent to hug or kiss them. As well as rudeness, antisemitism, interacting with his fan club that has a lot of minors.

These statements say they went up to him for a picture or autograph and received a overly friendly hug or kiss, but they never accuse him of lewd or sexual conduct within the hug or kiss. Just that he never specifically asked and that they were personally uncomfortable with the physical contact.

The first fan accusation, 14 year old J, in the ANN article has some inconsistencies as the written accusation states he put his hand underneath her “zipped up sweatshirt” to imply an attempt to inappropriately touch her, yet in the picture you can clearly see it is unzipped and his hand on her side, which is a normal place to rest your hand when you hug for a picture.

There has been false accusations created, where people take fan pictures where they are hugging and making up a false report from the “victim”. As well as people advocating photoshopping false evidence against him.

While my personal opinion is, yes, it may be inappropriate to hug and kiss anyone without specifically asking before hand, it is important to look at the context. He wasn't some stranger running around hugging and kissing kids. He was a celebrity that hugged and kissed fans that went up to him for interaction. And by their own accounts nothing lewd or sexual occurred. That is essentially the only proved things accused of him. While it may be socially inappropriate, doesn't mean it should be criminally or civilly punished, which many people are advocating for. For such infringements, personally telling them to stop should be enough. No harm no foul.

Many people argue that any unwanted touching is by definition sexual assault, ignoring any context, and that he should be punished criminally for being a sexual predator. Which is extreme, but at least they have some ground to stand on. It falls apart when looked closer. If all unwanted touching is illegal and a crime, do you arrest people for unsolicited hand shakes. Or if someone accidentally bumps into you. Or grazes against you. Do you have them arrested or removed from the convention/their jobs? What about fans that get hyped when meeting their favorite celebrities and hug, kiss, or touch them without specifically asking. Which I bet celebrities get way more unsolicited contact on them then they do to others. Should celebrities have every fan that invades their personal space without specifically asking arrested or removed from the convention or punished at their job for being a molester? If you want to be technical in definitions, then you have to apply them evenly.

Then we get into rumor land and third hand accusations that imply more or specifically accuse him of molestation.

We get people that imply the hugging and kissing is insidious and there was groping that happened as well, yet the accusations never mention any sexual or lewdness to their interaction, which would have been mentioned and the pictures don't show it either. But without any evidence of such, people say some type of molestation had to had happen in these accusations.  

Then there are people that push third hand stories of “other victims” that were molested by Vic, yet they have no names, no times, no places, no nothing. Just that they heard of sexual assault victims out there that are talking and reporting, but can't share where to find these statements.

In addition to these sexual misconduct allegations, there are accusations of homophobia, rudeness, and other jerky irrelevant things that are being misrepresented and not worth going into detail, but adds to the irrational state of this case. They have to accuse him of sexual abuse and being a jerk because there isn't enough evidence of the former, so they have to tack on what ever they can get.

Which is why so far I believe this is just a witch hunt. A exaggerated outrage of nothing. I of course am completely open to the possibility of worse criminal acts. But would like actual evidence or even victims to say it. So far we have neither, yet we must destroy a man for so far friendly hugging and kissing, which are the only credible accusations and faceless rumors of more that no one can actually find, just that someone heard someone say it happened.

Some of the people leading the destruction and guilty of these rumors and implied accusations are his own co-workers. Whom, seem to have been his close friends.

Many fellow voice actors have reposted articles, posts, and #s that support the “victims”. Many give statements of when Vic was rude to them or others. Then say they stand with victims. Then you have some stating they are victims of Vic as well. You have the ones that make vague claims with no details. Then you get ones that make more specific statements of rude inappropriate things, then imply guilt of sexual assault.

Jessie Pridemore has made a specific claim that she had sex with a fellow voice actor and sometime later, Vic grabbed her and talked about it mockingly. She says sometime after she “realized” it was rape, but it is hard to say if at the time of Vic's interaction, she or vic considered it rape. The interesting thing about her account is she doesn't name or accuse the man that she states raped her. She instead skips his rape, to focus on Vic's shitty behavior. Which seems weird. You specifically overlook a actual rape to target a asshole that would mock you for having sex with a coworker. And make that the story you want to tell. The man in question actually spoke out about their interaction and states they had consensual sex, as adults and sometimes coworkers do and that they kept in contact for sometime after, but never struck a relationship. He posts email/messages of the two continuing to talk after he had “raped” her and they seemed to be on friendly terms, talking about work, personal life, and such. While I can't speak about her rape, her statement on it is a bit unusual, she didn't realize it was rape, never reported it, apparently everyone in the company, and probably industry knew about it, yet none of them said anything, even after she “realized” it was rape. Then the man gives the other side with evidence she continued to speak with him after it, it seems not as simple as she says. So if the rape isn't as simple as she portrays it, her interaction with Vic can just as easily be misrepresented. But I don't put it past Vic or anyone to be a piece of shit that would talk about a girls sexual past. But that doesn't stand as proof of sexual assault or molestation, just that he is a piece of shit. Which is useful as a character witness against him, but not so useful as direct proof of molestation, which he is being accused of by many of these voice actors.

For more on this specific case, here are two places that collected the transcripts/posts from them.

https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/02/soul-eaters-todd-haberkorn-rebuts-sexual-assault-claims-from-jessie-pridemore/76163/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Animedubs/comments/alslqn/todd_haberkorn_post_on_jessie_pridemore/

Jamie Marchi made a similar statement, that Vic grabbed her and whispered something sexual into her ear. Yet she doesn't recall what it was, not because she didn't hear it, but she just doesn't remember, and doesn't even remember what happened after, just that it ended. She then states “dozens” of women have similar stories, yet so far it is her and Pridemore that have similar stories, and Pridemore's story is in question as the man she calls a rapist has proof she continued to interact with him after, which at the very least brings some doubt. But again, it could be true he grabbed her and said something sexual. It would be good to know what that was.

But at least those two have detailed stories to tell so the accused can speak on their behalf. Monica rial's accusation has no details. She just accuses of him “doing it” to her as well. Then refuses to say what that means. She continues to be vocal on victimhood, but not on details of that victimhood. Which if you accuse someone of victimizing you and imply sexual abuse, it would be nice if you say what happened. She could just consider herself a victim of friendly hugs, which we know Vic does. Which wouldn't be proof he is a sexual abuser as her statements imply.

Why would a industry and individuals take part in a witch hunt. There seems to be political motives as well as personal. In the anime community certain groups with political narratives have settled in, similarly to the video game industry. They accuse things of being sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted, or unacceptably offensive and therefore require their intervention. For those who haven't noticed Social justice illness has been within the anime industry for a while. We are just seeing symptoms now. This may be one of those symptoms.

If we are now punishing admittedly innocent friendly hugs and cheek kisses on technical terms, who does that honestly help? Does it help actual victims of violent molestation or rape? How so? I don't see any correlation between the two. Let alone when done in public where everyone can see. If we allow friendly hugs and kisses to go on in public interactions are we going to see a spike in violent rapes soon? What evidence implies that at all. It doesn't even make logical sense really.

This precedent seems to help people that want another weapon to punish people that offend them. As we see in a Buzz feed cosplay video about sexual harassment using words like hot, sexy, or any other “unwanted compliment” no matter how benign is sexual harassment. They also sneak in “whistling” and “looks” within the definition among the list of other unacceptable acts. All a tactic to expand the definition of terms so they can have more weapons to use. If sexual harassment is bad, which we can all agree is true, and they expand what is sexual harassment to include words like hot or sexy, or whistling, and looks. Then they can easily punish anyone for “sexual harassment”. Then you not only do a disservice to actual victims of violent sexual crimes, you are giving weapons to certain political groups that will abuse it. Similar to how they use the terms racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot to cover anything they find offensive to discredit, attack, and call to action for the public to punish who ever they accuse of such. Because when people hear those terms or sexual harassment, they aren't quick to ask what happened, they are quick to attack. Which seems to be a underlying motive in this case.

As for the individuals that take part. According to sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning there is a rise in victimhood culture. Where people create grievances so they can claim victim status and benefit from it. Where they can gain sympathy, moral high ground, attention, even economical benefits. Think of it like Munchhausen syndrome but on a cultural, social, and historical level. So rather than claiming they are sick to get attention, they say they are oppressed by something to get attention.

I am completely open to the possibility that Vic is guilty of anything. But the evidence so far is weak at best. It is a bit scary some people advocate criminal and civil punishment for accusations we have so far. I don't think we should jump due process and punish someone on weak evidence because at this point he can just as likely be innocent. So far the only thing we know he is guilty of is non sexually hugging and kissing fans. I don't think we should punish that. The rest of the accusations are unsubstantiated. We shouldn't punish people criminally for rumors.

Honestly this is less about Vic and more about due process. I don't stand with Vic. I stand with due process, judicial order, facts, evidence, fair trials. I stand against witch hunts, trials by public opinion, punishment without charges, social justice.

Recently Vic took the knee and accepted blame for essentially everything, which I think was the worse thing he could do. Writing blank checks, doesn't work out too well. Vic seems like a liberal guy, and I kind of knew he was gonna bend over eventually. But seeing how they destroyed him for so far only  friendly hugging and kissing and a bunch of rumors, what makes him think they won't double back and do it again. It may be his only way to get back into the industry now that he has lost essentially all his active voice acting jobs and uninvited to most conventions where he gets speaking and greeting fees. But do you really want to be in a industry where they can destroy your life for friendly hugging and kissing. Where everyone calls you a sexual predator with essentially no evidence. Where your own coworkers say you victimized them with little details or evidence. Where not a single person, outside of fans, stood up for you or even the lack of facts or evidence. If they ever let him back into the club he is going to be their bitch and punching bag, and he is just going to have to take it or be ousted again even easier since he accepted responsibility for everything. Even for a well paying job you love, I don't think the terms are sufficient enough to gravel back.

Its hard to advocate people stand up against the SJW mob when they have everything to lose. But in this case, he had already lost it all. And when choosing between standing up or crawling back on your belly, the decision is a bit more easier. But I can't fault anyone for any choice they make in their own lives. I just know, I, like many others would of supported him in defending himself and moving on to something better, until the facts showed otherwise.

sources, citations, images:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43469/aziz-ansari-was-branded-sexual-predator-after-amanda-prestigiacomo https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-01-30/far-from-perfect-fans-recount-unwanted-affection-from-voice-actor-vic-mignogna/.142212https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/458/652/b53.jpghttps://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/457/801/1cb.jpghttps://cdn.animenewsnetwork.com/thumbnails/max600x600/cms/interest.2/142212/j01-edit.jpghttps://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/458/852/b8f.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/wkORsoY.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/smEoDdJ.jpghttps://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/02/soul-eaters-todd-haberkorn-rebuts-sexual-assault-claims-from-jessie-pridemore/76163/https://www.reddit.com/r/Animedubs/comments/alslqn/todd_haberkorn_post_on_jessie_pridemore/https://twitter.com/marchimark/status/1094020618327150592https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRaQ0f9ZPIpBt0TI5bCLZfzhYDKi8yKvQWfZkk5RFsBvBGD2suQghttps://media.animecons.com/photos/nycc2007/DSC00128.jpghttps://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedNews/videos/1519875144724814/?v=1519875144724814 https://quillette.com/2018/05/17/understanding-victimhood-culture-interview-bradley-campbell-jason-manning/

https://twitter.com/vicmignogna/status/1087239820680880128

[viciousanime]

Debunking The False Narrative of Female Comic Fans, Readers, and Buyers

You often hear fact that nearly half of comic book readers or video gamers are female being toted around by various media outlets. When reading these articles, you get a lot of nice info-graphics, sound bites, and quotes of “statistics”. But trying to find the actual raw data to fact check these statistics that these articles love to cherry pick can be a bit tricky. Rarely can you find a link to the raw data to examine it yourself, usually you get a link to another article that used the same cherry picked stats or the website source, but they do not provide the raw data for you to scrutinize.

TL;DR

They use “market research” that shows “Facebook likes” of certain comic book related terms as their main evidence, then conflate that with actual comic fans, some even try to assert comic readership and actual comic sales from that “market research”. But no, Facebook likes do not correlate to comic readers or comic buyers, and arguably not even comic fans, as you can like something on Facebook you are not particularly a fan of. Also the statistics include manga related terms, which have a higher female liking, but manga related terms do not add much to the American comic book market. So the statistics have extra irrelevant data when specifically speaking on the American comic book industry, which adds a large portion of female fans that do not exist. So even if you could correlate “Facebook likes” with fan, reader, or buyer, the numbers are wrong anyways. The evidence these journalists use to prove their narrative is wrong on essentially every level. Women do not make up half of comic book readers, buyers, and I could not even say comic book fans using that evidence. The terms of comic book fan, reader, and buyer are all very different, and pretty much every journalist talking about this subject completely conflates these terms and tries to use them interchangeably. Which is wrong and deceptive.  

Nonetheless I followed this surprising “fact” that women make up nearly half of comic book fans to its source to analyze. Brett Schenker wrote an article entitled “Market Research Says 46.67% of Comic Fans are Female” and is part of the “market research” that came up with the statistics many of these articles use to support that narrative. All of these articles are extremely contradictory when presenting these statistics.

David Barnett published an article in The Guardian entitled, “Kapow! The unstoppable rise of female comic readers”. In it he makes the assertion that female comic readers are on the rise stating “each month they (Graphic Policy) publish a report that breaks down comic readers into gender, age, ethnicity etc”. He mentions that Graphic Policy contains “statistics and demographics about comic readers and sales” as well, but as far as these specific reports go, it does not show “comic readers” or comic “sales” at all, in any way. He does explain the reports use “Facebook likes” to get the data and that it is not “very scientific or comprehensive”, but he already misled you by constantly using the terms “comic reader” and “sales”. While the assertion that female comic fans and maybe even readers are on the rise might be true. He does not just stop there, he tries to fool you into thinking female readership is a large portion by stating “almost 43%, the modern comic readership” is female, citing Schenker's market research. So he makes an assertion that may be true, but instead of stopping there he has to push a false narrative, so he tries to trick you by conflating terms and cherry picked stats from misused market research as evidence.

Aj O'Connell published an article on theestablishment.com entitled, “Women Are The Changing Face Of Comic Fandom“. She states, “that nearly half of comic fans — about 44 to 45%, depending on the month — are women of all ages.” Citing Brett Schenker's “market research”. But then quotes Schenker saying, “these aren’t necessarily comic buyers, but these are people who say they have an interest in comics.” At least she clarified the misuse of the data, after she mislead you with the title and the statistical soundbites. She misrepresents the Schenker's reports as “ breaking comic fans down by gender, age, marital status, and race”, which it does not. Using these reports to support her narrative that many women are comic book fans stating, “even if the numbers are muddied by a changing algorithm, there is something we should take from the data: women — many women — are comic fans.” Later quoting several high percentages of female comic fans from Schenker's reports, even though that is not what his reports show. She maintains this narrative even though she disproves the one source that supported it. All her other evidence is either completely anecdotal or also disproves her thesis. She states a DC survey on their New 52 series shows “overwhelming male” readers, yet she does not state the actual percentage. I clicked the link see the data and it was not there. I went to find the data anyways, and it shows 93% of DC's New 52 readers were male. The data she quoted from Comixology shows only about 20% customers over a three month period were women, which is a pretty low and a realistic amount. When all your data disproves your thesis, and the one piece of data that does prove it, is misused and inaccurate to begin with, you as a journalist and I use that term loosely, are supposed to say your thesis is disproved so far. Not plow through ignoring the data that you provided yourself.

Victoria Mc nally published an for MTV.com entitled, “Why 2016 Is The Year We Need To Stop Pretending Women Aren't Geeks”. She ironically subtitles it, ““Women don't like superheroes” is a totally bogus myth, and we've got numbers to back it up.” In it she states that women currently account for about 50.01% of the 22.8 million people on Facebook who consider themselves fans of “The Walking Dead.”” Citing Brett Schenker's report. Completely conflating “Facebook fans” with actual viewers. No where does the data correlate people who like it on Facebook to people who watch it on television. Yet she ham fists her way using Schenker's “market research” to imply that. She later goes on to talk abut the comics saying, “51.22%” of women liked comic books, citing Schenker's November report. Then goes on to say “it’s also fairly easy to see that number of female comic book readers has been growing at an impressive rate over the past few years as well”, that was one hell of a leap using that evidence. That report does not show comic book readers as she implies and even explained previously. She later cites a Publishers Weekly survey, showing 30-50% of comic store customers were female, which is flawed as well. I will explain next.

One of the few articles that does not cite Schenker's “market research” is Shannon O’ Leary's article in Publishers Weekly entitled, “Comics Retailer Survey: Good Sales Get Better in 2015.” In this article she cites their annual comic retail survey and states that female customers account for 30-50% of actual customers. When looking at the data I found some discrepancies. The way they get this data is by surveying a small sample, which is fine, but the sample does not seem to be random. They state about 2000 comic shops exist in North America and they took a sample of 13 shops, both comic book stores and bookstores that carry graphic novels (the inclusion of normal bookshops that only sell graphic novels may damage the statistics as well). Of these 13 shops: 3 were in Calfornia (2 in Los Angles, 1 in Cupertino), 3 in New York (2 in New York City, 1 in Huntington Village), 2 in Portland, Oregon, 2 in Chicago, Illinois, 1 in Columbus, Ohio, 1 in Austin, Texas, and 1 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Most of these stores are in highly populated states; in their most dense cities. So it is not a good sample to measure the actual number of female customers in the 2000 comic book stores in North America or the American comic book industry in general. These numbers would only be actuate for those 13 specific stores. Publishers Weekly states it does an annual survey, yet I could not find the actual raw data stated in the article's statistics or the previous years. So I cannot tell if they use the same comic book stores every year or if it is random every year. Since it seems like cherry picking of the most populated comic book stores and bookstores that carry graphic novels, it makes me question their accuracy when speaking on the American comic book industry. So I cannot say if the data is correct, until I see the raw yearly data, but it seems to not be accurate as far as the narrative of female comic customers goes, which is what the survey is used for in the two previous articles.

This lazy statistical analysis happens in every article on the subject. Everyone is saying women are half the comic fans, comic readers, sometimes even comic sales, then cites Schenker's “market research”, personal anecdotes, or some other flawed data as actual hard evidence. This is absolutely wrong and deceptive.

It is not surprising, Schenker himself conflates the terms in his own article entitled, Market Research Says 46.67% of Comic Fans are Female”. Schenker uses the term comic fan in his title, constantly uses the term readership in his article, but then explains “while it’s not necessarily everyone who shops up to comic shops, every Wednesday, regularly, irregularly, once in a blue moon, etc., these are people who have said they like “comics,” “graphic novels,” “manga,” and specific publishers.” Then goes to say “knowing who is buying what is vital for any modern day business. Understanding demographics allows you to better market your product to a greater audience, and sell similar products better.” But they are not in fact buying comics as you stated. He constantly contradicts himself as he adds disclaimers, but still implies and misrepresents otherwise.

Brett Schenker tries to conflate “Facebook likes” to fans, readers, and even buyers, which are very different things. He cannot hide behind the incompetence of not understanding the data, he actually collected the data.  He disclaims it does not correlate to buyers, yet he consistently implies it does. When told in the comments of his article the data does not show actual buyer statistics like he tries to mislead you it does by replying “I disagree with that dismissal. Modern marketing, which heavily leverages data, uses similar ideas that I’m talking about to sell their items/goods. Not all of these people buy comics, but they like these things, and thus others who match their profile should be reached out to. They might purchase items. Hell, if these folks are reached out to, they might purchase something. Profiling customers, supporters, people that visit your website is done every day by multi-million dollar corporations with great success. They use that data to better target, better message and find other similar potential customers. Just ask Amazon how that worked out for them.” A long word salad that conflates marketing research for potential customers with actual sales statistics. Refusing to admit what his “market research” shows and what he wants it to show.

Essentially all the journalists, and again I use that term loosely, make the same conflations, use bad data, and a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics to push this false narrative of the female comic fan, reader, and buyer. Of course it is not true. So, no, women do not make up half of comic readers because “likes” do not correlate to readers. More importantly they do not correlate to buyers. I cannot even say they correlate to fans given the evidence.  

Yes, this algorithm is a good way to find a potential customers. Knowing a large demographic “likes” your industry, but not currently customers can be useful in creating new customers. But that is not what they are saying. They outright say women are a large portion of customers. Trying to present “market research” as facts and constantly conflating “Facebook likes” with fan, reader, and buyer is not correct or useful at all. Doing this is outright lying.

When looking into the data i could find, I also found a few troubling issues. The inclusion of “manga” related terms in the algorithm. Manga is the Japanese term for comic book. Schenker does mention it in his 2014 article, but in the monthly reports that updates the numbers, that tracks over 100 unstated terms, he does not mention manga related terms are included. This instantly skews the numbers for his narrative as women tend to “Facebook like” manga more than any other comic.  I also have concerns with how the data is accounted as it seems all the numbers are rounded up. When the numbers go into the millions as you see with the marvel numbers that rounding can deviate the percentages by a lot, especially when you have over 100 terms being rounded. Plus the numbers do not seem to match the other reports during that time. He also mentions terms are added and removed, which gives no constant to measure change, but it does not really matter since the terms are generally unknown.

When looking at the break down of certain terms in this December, 2013 report, the section that as the largest female numbers are of course the manga related section. So when doing “market research” for American comic industry, which is what we are talking about, manga related information does not add much to the conversation. In fact is makes the information less accurate. This is because manga is published by Japanese companies, with a few American publishers releasing it in America, Dark Horse the only one that comes to mind. In the report it shows Dark Horse does not have a huge female “Facebook fandom” (27%), yet manga related terms have a large female “Facebook fandom”. While manga is related to comic books in a general sense, including them in “market research” for the US comic market does not help, in fact it messes up the numbers. As you have a lot of relevant data messing up the totals.

The fact the numbers are all rounded, the terms are not listed, and that terms are added and removed is extremely concerning. Even if the information said what Brett conflates it does, it is essentially impossible to use this “market research” in any way as it is so unscientifically recorded.

Something I would like to point out is the US totals from the December 2013 report that shows some of the terms shows US totals at 43,959,100, yet the closest US report, also posted in December 2013, shows US totals being 22 million in the US. So you have another 22 million hiding somewhere? Nothing makes sense with these numbers.

The latest numbers Schenker released put female “Facebook fans” in the majority. His February 2018 report shows 52.46% of comic related “facebook likes” were female, I assume this still includes manga related terms, but who knows as he does not show the list of terms and they change anyways. Again “Facebook like” does not mean fan and it certainly does not mean reader or buyer. So this is ridiculous. No one can believe women are the majority of comic book readers or buyers. I could not even say they are a majority of comic book fans if the only data you have to support that is “Facebook likes”. No real journalist can or should make that statement given that evidence. You can Facebook like things that you are not actually a fan of. So you cannot say because something gets a lot of Facebook likes, it has a lot of fans, therefore it has a lot of readers therefore it has a lot of buyers, which is what these journalists with a narrative are saying.

This “market research” is essentially a Middle Schooler's F grade book report. It is full of errors, flaws, inconsistencies, bad scientific data collection, conflations, vagueness, and lies. The fact that essentially all the journalists use it to prove their false narrative is laughable and very sad. So no women do not make up the majority of comic fans like Brett tries to mislead you. I do not know how much, but I know that data is not accurate at all. In my research, the best and most accurate data seems to be Comixology's sample that shows about 30% of buyers are women according to Chip Mosher. But since those numbers seem to be from a small inconsistent sample, similar to the publisher's weekly survey  that has female customers at 30-50%. that and since it has a convenience factor that store sales do not. I would say it is a bit lower. Even so, less than 30% female store buyers is not bad. It is something to work with, but lets not lie about the numbers to fool ourselves and make poor business decisions. Cough Marvel Cough. Frankly that “market research” shows there is a greater foreign market than there is a female market. As most of the numbers in the 2013 report were international. Which would also be a horrible idea to tear down everything and rebuild it for this “potential” foreign audience. Also would like to mention there is a difference in making changes to distribute to other demographics and destroying your business model to accommodate them, but that seems like a topic for it's own article.

Citations

https://graphicpolicy.com/

http://www.comicsbeat.com/market-research-says-46-female-comic-fans/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/18/female-comic-book-readers-women-avengers-a-force

http://www.mtv.com/news/2683640/geek-media-numbers-breakdown/

https://graphicpolicy.com/2015/03/30/demo-graphics-the-walking-dead/

https://graphicpolicy.com/2015/11/01/demo-graphics-comic-fandom-on-facebook-16/

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/67045-comics-retailer-survey-good-sales-get-better-in-2015.html

https://theestablishment.co/women-are-the-changing-face-of-comic-fandom-2170006efd01

https://icv2.com/articles/comics/view/22113/new-52-appealed-avid-fans-lapsed-readers

https://geekmom.com/2013/10/comixology-comic-book-readers/

https://graphicpolicy.com/2013/12/02/facebook-fandom-spotlight-comic-publishers-and-gender/

https://graphicpolicy.com/2018/02/01/demo-graphics-comic-fandom-facebook-us-edition-9/

https://graphicpolicy.com/2013/12/01/facebook-fandom-spotlight-who-are-the-us-comic-fans-3/

[viciousanime]

The Dark Side of Free Speech: PewDiePie Controversy

I think I should discuss my personal views on PewDiePie first to make everything transparent. I am in general a fan of PewDiepie. I like that he was able to make a career doing what he loves. I respect that and glad he was able to. That said, I do not actually enjoy any of his content. I am a video game nerd, but I never enjoyed watching “lets play” videos. None of it seemed insightful or comedic to me. So his videos never clicked.

So my perspective on this matter is not really coming from an actual fan. I am not subscribed to his channel and I do not think I ever finished a single video. But I am writing to support the deeper political issue here, ultimately his freedom of speech.

I am a avid gamer and familiar with the environments that can manifest in this realm. Explicit language, anger, offensive behavior, and extreme reactions can happen and often do. As to why, is a separate conversation. But as many know and can imagine, gaming interactions can get heated and offensive. So what Pew did is nothing new or rare. I tend to be a bit desensitized, but my opinion on freedom of speech would still stand even if I found it as horrible as others do or took it personally.

Watching the clip, even though it is in context, I do not think he is a “racist”. In the sense he believes black people are lesser or he is better based on race. I am sure we can have a discussion about subconscious “this” or implicit “that”. But let us work with the literal definition that racism means: you believe a race is less than anothers/yours and you therefore treat them as so. The definition includes personal beliefs, but I am more interested in their outward manifestations of racism as that is what we could and would punish. We cannot really punish someone for thinking something. It has to manifest in a action that breaks a law to be punished.

In that clip he uses a derogatory term for black people to describe a negative situation. While past controversies of PewDiePies's were taken completely out of context to get false depictions, this is actually taken in context. A negative term for blacks used in a negative way. Which was confirmed  by him, when he tried to correct himself by using the term asshole instead.

Hearing it the first, second, third, and tenth time it seemed all bad as it was completely in context. But I felt something was missing. Something past context; intent. What was his intentions when he said it. Was he intending to demean that person for being black? Did he intend to say that because that person did something that frustrated him that black people were lesser? From the clip, I do not believe he was speaking to the race of that specific person or targeting the group specifically. I do not believe he knows that person or if he was actually black. And I do not think him saying that word, even in a negative context, intended to say black people are inferior. From that context it seemed he was just frustrated and used it as profanity.

Now we can have a discussion of him using the term in a negative way or at all is perpetuating the idea of racism as you are connecting black people to bad situation. There is discussion there. I tend to think a lot of it is airy bullshit college students get third hand from professors that get it third hand from books. They think they can solve the world with a single paradigm, yet they have not been able to solve or even understand a single issue with that theory. BUT at least there is a discussion there.

But I want to bring everyone a step back and ask what was his intent was as I believe that does matter. Did he intend to hurt a specific person or group by using that word. I did not get that. It seemed like a profane word he used out of frustration, not actually targeted at black people.

That might not matter for some, but lets try to keep some consistency. If you cannot use one word because it hurts a person or group. Then you should not be able use any derogatory words as someone will be effected. Which is ridiculous as that would effect everyone's speech as something can offend anyone, which has become the norm in this social justice society. The outrage and victimhood culture is prevalent and even advocated. But just saying something does not mean you believe it or intent something by it.

There is a difference between being racist, saying something racist, and saying something racial. Being racist means you believe someone is less based on their race. Saying something racist is saying something demeaning based on their race. Saying something racial is talking about the racial aspect of something.

A racist would be someone who thinks blacks are violent just because the violent crime in the black community is high. They do not seek facts of a individual person, just look at their race and come to a conclusion based from that and treats them as such.

Someone that says something racist could be a comedian that forms a joke around the image of blacks and their higher crime rate. They do not have to believe it in general or apply it in their normal life. They are just saying it for comedic effect. Contrary to SJW belief you can say something without personally believing it. You can also believe something without it manifesting in your personal life.

An example of someone saying something racial is if someone simply talks about the black on black crime that is happening. They do not have to mean anything by it, just stating an observation. Whether based in facts and data or just a personal opinion.

I can call someone a cunt or bitch, with out personally hating women. Someone can call me a dick, without having a problem with men. People can refer to lawyers as shysters and not have problems with Jews. These terms have the same inferences that “nigger” has. They are all derogatory terms used as profanity to describe something or someone negatively. Somehow people can pinpoint “nigger” as truly bad and unacceptable, yet the other words are not. They are all profane words.

I would completely agree there are degrees of profanity as calling someone a jerk is less than calling them a fucking asshole. I would agree “nigger” is higher on that list. But how and where would we draw this line of what is okay and what is banned? Different people have different sensitivities. I would much rather lean toward the side of free speech and let people say what ever horrible thing they want than move toward the side of censorship for decency's sake. As people have a right to free expression, but people do not have a right to not be offended. Also you can combat their freedom of speech with your own, but they cannot combat your censorship with theirs.

I think pew's situation would fall around “saying something racist”. The context was negative and racist. But I did not get a sense he has a problem with black people, think anything poorly about them, or intended to hurt and attack black people from that event.

Sadly in our society even the most innocent situations have become horrible and deemed racist. To the point if you say something no matter what the context, nuance, intent, or even terms is racist and you are labeled a horrible person. You do not even have to actually say the words, getting anywhere near racial grounds becomes a problem for most.

This is the start of thought policing and will become a issue for society. If you cannot talk about something then problems will arise. Freedom of speech is not just a right, but a tool on how society finds problems, comes up with solutions, and ultimately will fix them. If we continue down this path where speech is punished no matter the circumstances our society will suffer and collapse.

Back to the example of black on black crime, If we cannot have a candid talk about it, how can it get better? Same goes for everything else. We need to be allowed to speak without the fear of being maligned, attacked, and retaliation. Once that is the accepted process we walk into censorship, thought policing, and facism. Many people do not speak because of the fear of getting destroyed by the SJW machine. The SJWs are loving the power and destruction they cause. The more they silence any diversity of thought the more powerful they get and the more bold their actions. They are already at the point they openly assault people, riot during protests, and ruin people's lives and careers. How much worse can it get? Communism comes to mind and if you look at SJW culture is romanticized as the final destination. Of course leaving out the reality of the loss of rights, death camps, and crippling oppression.

Freedom of speech includes horrible choices of speech, including “hate” speech. You must allow all or none. Who will and can draw the line for billions of people? What offends one might not offend another. If you decide to ban one because it offends a person or group, how can you not ban others? Something can offend anyone, so you will have to ban it all if protecting people is your goal. I believe the current legal standing of free speech is fine. This being the only unprotected speech are imminent threats of violence, which does not have to involve race or any other attribute, or comments meant to incite a riot.

The SJW push to make any opposing speech into offensive speech and then hate speech. This is a dangerous move as mentioned before anything can offend anyone. This is purposely designed as a way to attack anyone who they disagree with. Which is their way to thought police and censor others to the point of removing them.

While you do not have to like what pew said. You have to accept his right to say it. You can dislike it, speak against it, unsubscribe, stop watching. All that is fine. But if you go to the point of actively punishing him for it. It gets dangerously close to thought policing and censorship. Some might think it is okay for that specific case because of how horrible it is, but that is just a resting point. This will continue to the point no one is allowed to say or even think something for fear of retaliation. Have your doubts, but looking at the SJW culture where they tried to ban the term “bossy”, physically assault others, openly slander and malign people, accuse people of being racist just because they are white, which somehow they do not realize is racist itself. I think it is completely plausible. Fascism is their destination and we are steadily working our way there.

A less aggressive, but still poor action they deem a righteous response. Is to actively campaign your displeasure to others and advocate others to follow in boycotting the person or the business connected to the person to force them into punishing that person. These campaigns often exaggerated and skewed to the point of out right lies. Actively protesting your opinion to force a change in the free market of ideas, while not illegal, is still impeding the market's natural adjustment. Which is wrong. You are allowed to have your opinion and voice your opinion, but to go to the point of actively getting someone fired from their job because they say something or think something you dislike, assuming it does not effect how they do their job, is wrong.

This type of protesting, censorship, legal action should be saved for the worse of offenses. If you think someone just saying the word “bossy”, “fag”, or “nigger” are the worse offenses, then I do not think you understand how bad true racism and hatred has been or can get. Which makes sense looking at the activities of the SJW community. These actions should not be abused to push your moral superiority or selfish interests. Which they do casually.

The exchanging of ideas works on a free market. If someone says something wrong, horrible, offensive, or anything else. Each individual can choose to voice their issues with it or disengage. If enough people feel the same and acts accordingly the market will adjust accordingly and they will be naturally be effected. You do not have to actively protest to get them removed from the market. The market will adjust naturally if you and everyone believes they are wrong. Active protests and campaigns should be reserved for important issues. They should almost never be a first resort. But they are in SJW culture.

I disagree with many liberal beliefs, but I would never actively campaign for someone to be fired because I disagree with their personal beliefs or if they say something offensive as long as it did not effect how they did their job. I will disagree with them and maybe even voice it, but I would not shout them down or demand their termination. That is petty and absolutely reprehensible. If those beliefs manifest while they are on duty or effects how they do their job, then we can have the conversation. But many times it is just pure thought policing. The fact SJWs cannot allow someone to have any employment if they deem what they say or believe something they disagree with shows what kind of people they are. What they want has nothing to do with justice or helping victims, it is about stopping any opposition.

SJW try to say that even the use of a word can throw a person back into the time of its original use no matter the intent or context. That just calling a person a “nigger” will chain him up and make him your slave. This is ridiculous. If that was true, the biggest slave owners would be black people as they use the term openly and freely. While words do have power it is limited to the power you give it. Someone just calling you something bad can hurt your feelings and is rude, but it cannot own you if you do not allow it. If you were to ban a word, you should have have to ban it for everyone. You cannot give a group a free pass just cause they are apart of it or close to it. Try to be consistent.

This censorship is done in the guise of “rehabilitation”. SJWs believe that if we just remove the words and punish anyone who uses them, we will somehow cure racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred, or what ever they say the problem is. This of course is no where near accurate. If you remove the words and punish anyone who uses them, racism will still exist. It will just be hidden. You cannot solve a problem by pushing it under the rug or just censoring it. If their real goal is to solve racism or help people from being victims of racism, word policing is the most ineffective way to do it. But it is a marketable action and that is what they are interested in. Making noise and being seen is their real goal. They just hide it under the just cause of equality to seem morally superior to gain social currency.

Another reason for this censorship is to punish people they disagree with. If they can twist and skew what ever someone says into racism, bigotry, or offensiveness, then they have a reason to attack and remove that person. It has nothing to do with morality or the just cause of saving people from discrimination. It is completely done for selfish reasons and to eliminate people they perceive as enemies. Which is why you get the most benign comments being considered as racist, sexist, or offensive.  

The term hate speech is misleading. Because liberals self appointed right to grossly redefine what ever they please for their own goals. Hate speech has become anything that they disagree with because it is a easy buzz word that people mentally connect to violence, hate, and racism. They use the term “hate speech” to mislead any bystander to take their side no matter what the situation or circumstances. Even when the speech in question has nothing to do with hate, violence, or bigotry. You can often find people labeling facts or science as “hate speech”.

But whether the speech is based in hate or otherwise, it is in fact protected by the first amendment. The only speech that is not protected by the first amendment is speech that directly calls for violence, threatens, or meant to incite a riot.

This as expanded pass the actual words. We cannot even criticize a person unless society has deemed it acceptable. We cannot criticize Hillary Clinton for all the horrible things she did or we are labeled sexist. People that society has blacklisted are open game. To the point they are openly insulted and even assaulted in public.

I am not saying it is a good thing, a positive thing, or even a useful thing to use bad words. I am not defending the words. I am defending the freedom of expression, as it is connected to our ability to create ideas and resolve issues. If we are not allowed to say or think something, even horrible things. We cannot really figure out the poor mentality behind it. Having society ban the words to attack the ideas will only suppress the ideologies, which will only fester and embolden the thoughts. Censorship and force will not cure these negative ideologies. You can only cure it with discussion and understanding.

It is time we have a honest and candid talk about the SJW culture, their motives, and their actions. They attack freedom of speech so vigorously. They say it is necessary to protect people from bigotry. Clearly it is for their own selfish interests. Turning offensive speech into hate speech into banned speech does not stop bigotry. Their true interests are the moral currency they get from protecting victims they create. They attack the first amendment to stop any dissent. This is social fascism. We must look at everything and think what the goal is and what their intent is. We should use logic and reason to see what their actions will really do for society. Instead of blindly following this flawed morality supported by skewed and false narratives.

Freedom of speech is important, but it does have negatives. No one said freedom is happiness. Freedom is the best method to giving as many people as possible the opportunity of gaining happiness. But it itself is not happiness. Freedom is something we must fight for, something we die for, and something we must protect. Freedom is a responsibility.

[viciousanime]

Why Most Fans Are Wrong About Piracy In The Anime Industry

With the closing of Nyaa.se, one of the most popular anime sharing websites, the consumer groups have been in a uproar. While it has not been confirmed to be related to anti-piracy intervention. The anti-pirate sentiment has been echoing. Groups up in arms over another victory.

Seeing how piracy has been a integral part of my anime experience, I tend to have a softer view of digital piracy. Though I am fully aware of the negative consequence it creates today.

As a child I remember watching Miyazaki's masterpiece Princess Mononoke on television every single time it came on, no matter how late. Staying up passed 2 A.M. sometimes to finish it. One time I got the idea of recording it with our old VCR. Not having to wait for it to show up on television at the most inconvenient times and being able to rewatch at my own desire was an amazing moment for me. I probably watched it almost every week. Eventually I gave the tape to a friend, not because I lost interest in it, I still watch that film a few times a year to this day, but because I saw someone who would enjoy it. I had many friends that shared a love for anime. We often bought, traded, and shared VCR tapes that we got from local flee markets with each other. Though we never thought about it the redistribution of these unauthorized recordings were illegal. 

Later with the accessibility to the internet and CDs, I continued. Finding communities and groups for sharing, both online and offline. Often giving away CDs of anime to people who would enjoy it. Being a teenager, the idea of piracy did not exist to me. Not even thinking of profits or the cost. Which now I look back on it, those blank CDs must of cost a fortune. I thought I was doing good. Sharing something I loved with people who felt the same or at least could enjoy it.  

Luckily I was a bit “ahead” of my time. Piracy wasn't what it is now, at least in the anime industry. A extremely profitable and costly venture. Contemporary consumers and even the large corporations are quick to demonize even the most lighthearted of us. Not reserving their anger for the large pirate machine, but also being happy to throw some of the most hateful and petty attacks for what people like me did for love for the medium.

I still believe in the early days the “grassroots” movement many of us as individuals took part in, helped the anime industry get to where it is today. But hearing and receiving the hate from some current fans and the witch hunt the studios took on the individual is very disheartening. Putting what we did akin to the profiteering the current pirate state does. Considering us a plague to the industry, when we helped build it.  

So I wanted to talk about the controversial issue of piracy in the anime industry. While many tend to subscribe to the idea that piracy is the main issue plaguing the anime industry. I see that as the easy scapegoat. While piracy is a legitimate issue and does have a financial cost, I don't see it as the big bad wolf most people like to believe it is.

Some people like to attribute every ailment in the industry to piracy. From the shortening of the series, the cancellations of series, the decrease in growth, to the exploitative business acts within the industry, the mistreatment of employees, all the way to the perceived reduction in quality.

I plan on unpacking at least a few of these issues and showing piracy is only a single factor and often minimal. I do this because I have seen way too many people use this scapegoat argument without any data and honestly no desire to improve the issues. Hopefully speaking about this in a objective and logical way supported by data will change peoples perspectives and lead to a positive outcome. The way I see it, people focusing on the basic issue of piracy and making it the overall issue just hinders progress and distracts us from other factors that need to be addressed.

1. Decline of the Industry

Many like to blame the loss of profits from piracy for the downfall of the anime industry. But the anime industry has in fact been growing since 2009 at an insane rate. Despite piracy existing the entire time and considerably being at its worse during that period. The anime industry is currently at its highest point ever. How can piracy be killing something doing so well. Simple, it cannot.

Some may want to attribute this growth solely to anti piracy intervention. In 2014 Japan created the Manga-Anime Guardians (MAG) program to fight piracy, though anti-piracy is nothing new. But the anime industry has been at a steady growth since 2009 before MAG even started. It also had a very good growth period between 2002 and 2006 as well. Of course piracy existed at this time and MAG did not.

Now lets go over the actual numbers. From 2002 to 2006 the anime industry had a steady growth. Going from 1,095 billion yen to 1,350 billion yen, a 23% increase (Figure 1). Between 2006 and 2009 the anime industry fell to 1,254 billion yen, a 7% profit decrease (Figure 1). This would have been a 19% profit decrease if the introduction of the Pachinko markets was not added in 2009, that did no exist in 2006 (Figure 1). The most notable change in this profit decline being in the overseas market, falling from 520.4 billion yen to 254 billion yen, a 51% drop (Figure 1).

According to the Japan External Trade Organization the anime industry fell to 2.829 billion US dollars in 2007. Citing unauthorized internet distribution of anime as a factor. I recall watching anime on TV in the late 90s on cartoon network and various other channels, then later I moved to the internet for more content. Mostly because they did not show more on television. A majority of this anime being unauthorized fan subbed, which was illegal to distribute, because there was essentially no officially translated anime released by studios. But I never stopped watching authorized distributed anime on those channels, I just added unauthorized internet distributed anime on top of that because I needed more that was not provided, whether free or at a cost.  

So the main issue hurting the industry at that point was not just piracy. It was the limited exportation of anime. Japan did not expand the international market, so their profits fell off when people did not have access to more content. You could only watch the same 10 series on television for so long before you had to go around the system. I recall anime showing up on channels like G4, the Scifi channel, and watching Hellsing on HBO, but they were extremely limited. Maybe an hour slot once a week. The only consistent anime programming being at night on cartoon network. So while piracy was a factor in the 2007 dip, I would not say it was the main issue. Industry growing pains, natural market flows, and the inability to expand the international market can account for that.

It is also worth noting in 2008 Cartoon Network canceled its anime block, Toonami, which subsequently was followed by a fall in overseas revenue, essentially the only profit loss within the industry that year, falling from 413.7 billion yen to 254.3 billion yen, a 39% decline (Figure 1). The overseas revenue rebounded in 2013, a year after Toonami was relaunched within the Adult Swim programming block, the overseas profits increased from 240.8 billion yen in 2012 to 282.3 billion yen in 2013, a 17% increase (Figure 1). This still a year before MAG was even created.

Looking at the numbers the major growth for the industry has been from the overseas profits, increasing from 254 billion yen in 2009 to 583.3 billion yen in 2015, a 129% increase (Figure 1). Much of this is due to the expansion of anime licensing to china. More than half the increase in 2015 was from the Chinese market. Though the American and other Asian licensees have had an increase as well and remain large importers of anime content (Figure 5).

Now one may still want to say anti-piracy is what saved the industry, but looking deeper, while 583.3 billion yen in overseas profit is a all time high (Figure 1) . It is not all that miraculous, in 2005 oversea's profits were 520 billion yen (Figure 1) . Again this is well before the creation of MAG and when one might consider piracy at its strongest.

According to the Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA), who conducted a survey with 33 Japanese companies within the industry, “it can be shown that piracy causes twice the amount of damage than the actual profits”. According to them in 2014, 3.5 billion US was gained from Japanese films, anime, broadcasting programs, music, and manga content that was officially licensed overseas, while 8.25 billion was taken in damage from piracy. I don't know how they got that loss in profits. But seeing how oversea's profit is such a big factor to the overall income of the anime industry. And according to MAG over 50% of American viewers watch anime illegally. The fact the anime industry is still growing at amazing rates despite, by their own numbers of piracy being such a large issue, makes it difficult to truly see the correlation between their statements and the true damage done by piracy. If the anime industry really loses so much in profits and is reportedly devastated because of piracy, how can the industry grow so steadily and be at an all time high when they claim piracy is such a big issue. A truly objective and logical look must be taken to get substantiated data.

Now lets take a deeper look and find the real issue. The anime studios, as mentioned before, failed to expand into the international market. Back in 2003 and even in 2007 that may have been a safe move. Why would a Japanese studio think to venture out into the “wild west”. But it still seems to be a sentiment in 2017. Looking at the data for the anime studios, so little of their profits come from internet distribution and overseas. Which as seen in the broad view of the anime industry as a whole, overseas revenue are a large portion of the profits.

During the positive increases of the anime industry overseas revenue accounts for over 30% of the industry's profits (Figure 2). Yet, for the anime studio's revenue it accounts for less than 15% of their profits (Figure 2). In 2015 it only accounted for 17% of the studio's revenue (Figure 2). This is not surprising. But it is definitely a costly over cite.

With the Japanese viewership shrinking, which I believe is partly due to the drop in birthrate, the industry needs to reach out to other markets. It is only logical. Soon the largest Japanese anime demographics (children and teenagers) will evaporate and the revenue will reflect that. I believe it is also the reason late night anime finally surpassed day time anime in 2015 (Figure 4). The first time it had ever happened. The demographics are changing and the industry must change with it. Or it will really run into a problem. One not caused by piracy, though I am sure many will attempt to scapegoat it anyways.

I am not suggesting the anime studios pander to American markets or any other. In fact I highly suggest they do not. There was a noticeable decline in the Japanese video game quality when they changed the target audience to the international market. Which was reflected in the sales. It was not until they made a determined effort to bring back the spirit of Japanese games with titles like default bravery that the entire player base, domestic and international, was satisfied. So do not make international anime. Make anime, but allow international distribution. Otherwise the market will lose on potential sales and the viewership will attempt to get it through other, unauthorized means.

2. Reduction of Episodes

The next issue: shortening of series. Its easy to say piracy takes money from the industry, so anime studios have to create shorter series and sure it sounds correct. Looking at anime from the past decade. It seems there were many more series with 20+, 50+, or 100+ episodes, than the current norm of 12-13 episodes.

According to the data from ANN, of the top 10 rated anime of 2016, about 7 of the 10 had 13 or less episodes. Now that might seem bad, but remember these are television series designed for television. While many international viewers watch these on the internet, which is a bit more freeverse, especially when you think of web-series that have all episodes released at once for binge watching, such as the shows created by Netflix. These anime series are designed for television or at least formulated by that design, which work off of seasonal release dates. Just the same as American television series do. Notice how many American television series have a predictable amount of episodes that follow seasons? Well why would not anime series do the same? So piracy is not a factor that makes anime series have 12 episodes instead of 26 or 100 or a 1000. This is evident by the 2016 anime series Bungou Stray Dogs, which has 24 episodes in 2016, but that is because it runs from spring to fall of that year, two seasons.

If you look at the older anime series that have more than 12 episodes, its because those are from multiple seasons. The fact is, those are old and completed series, that we as international viewers watch over the internet in its entirety. For example the classic anime Full Metal Alchemist has a total of 51 episodes, which is a lot, but consider that it ran from October 2003 to October 2004, a full year. Meaning if you break it down into seasons, its approximately 13 episodes a season, which fits the seasonal design. Another anime series during 2003 that later got imported to American television, Read or die the television series, had a total of 26 episodes and ran from September 2003 to march 2004 in Japan, which is the fall and winter season. Meaning it had 13 episodes a season. So no its not piracy that is forcing new anime series to have fewer episodes. Its how the anime series are purposely designed.

Many do not realize that in the adaption process from manga to anime, chapters tend to get condensed. Most of this is just leakage from converting information between two mediums. Just because a manga has 300 chapters, does not mean the anime will have 300 episodes. Adaptions just does not work that way. This is why a lot is missing in movies compared to the books they are based on. That plus the formulaic design of television programming and how many seasons the anime gets generally is what determines the total number of episodes in a anime series.

2. Cancellation of Series

Now lets look at how piracy effects on the cancellations of anime series. People like to say, because a series is pirated, the studio loses money and now they cannot make a new season of the series, so you pirates and pirateers screwed us all. This is not 100% accurate. Yes again piracy impacts profits, which can effect a series continuing. But profits are not the only factor in a shows continuation.

First lets take a look at the industry again. Anime series are created in Japan for Japanese television. Here Japanese ratings are what generally effects the longevity of a show because they create profits through ad revenue, though there are other factors like production issues, business politics, ect. For example if a writer or actor dies, issues with the source material, or contractual conflicts. Many things can go wrong in this industry, which is going to effect the continuation of a series.

For example the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion had its ad revenue stopped because of the mature nature of the show. The effect was evident in the last few episodes of the televised series as it had very little capital to make the show with. The series stopped after that, a few years later the show continued on through movies. Piracy had very little, if anything at the time, to do with the issues in creating or producing of the show. It was just a symptom of the fickleness of the anime industry.

Now lets look at piracy in relation to series continuation. According to MAG website, over 50% of US citizens illegally watch anime and read manga. According to MAG 12 % of Japanese citizens watch anime and read manga illegally. Now logically when creating a anime series a studio would look at its domestic numbers more than international numbers as most of their revenue is created from commercials shown on television. It has already been stated international expansion was lacking to begin with. But either way the studio would care more about their domestic ratings than anything else. Though that may be changing. With only 12% of domestic viewers doing so illegally. The domestic ratings are not hurt too much by piracy and that is where the studios make most of their money from. So piracy is not what forces studios to cut shows. More likely the series did not perform as well as they would like, their could be issues with production, or just like the American television industry it is just extremely fickle. I do not know how many well performing American series just did not get a second season. It is hard to say piracy is the main or even a major reason in American television. But seeing how only about 12% of Japanese viewers pirate anime and that is not even a clear indicator they do not watch shows through authorized channels either way, one cannot really say piracy is even a major issue here. Ratings would have more to do with the cancellation of a series than the loss in profits from piracy.

If you look at the longest running series, do you think the reason why they have so many seasons is because they are not pirated? Of course not, if anything they are pirated even more than other anime because they are so popular. Also a thing to notice is a lot of the longest running anime are directed toward a very large demographic, children, the genre referred to as kodomo, for example Doremon, Nintama Rantarō, and Anpanman. The next teir of long running anime are directed toward another large demographic, young males, the genre referred to as shonen, for example, One Peice, Naruto, Gintama, and Bleach. Notice most of these anime are within the same genres, comedy, adventure, action, ect. Their is a formulaic logic to producing anime series.

So the continuation of a anime series seems to have more to do with the demographics and ratings than profits loss from piracy. But less popular anime that has a more niche demographic probably is more dependent on total profits as the margins are smaller. So total profits becomes a larger factor because anime series are more expensive to produce than manga. But those anime generally have lower ratings because they have a smaller viewer demographic to begin with. So piracy is secondary even in those cases and overall a lower factor for everything else in general. As a person that does not fit into those two large demographics, I have seen many of my favorite anime canceled, which sucks. But I cannot blame piracy for that.

Conclusion

So while many consumers like to blame piracy for all the problems in the anime industry. It in fact does not cause all of these issues. Of course it is still a problem and does have a cost. But for most of the issues plaguing the industry, it is usually a small contributing factor or not a factor at all. People just like to use it as a scapegoat.

This article is not about the legality or morality of piracy. It is simply about the effects piracy has on the anime industry and to dispel the preconceived and wrong notions most fans have of it.

I do hope to talk about the business side of the anime industry as I see that as the most important and most turbulent.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Sources:

http://aja.gr.jp/english/japan-anime-data

https://www.jetro.go.jp/usa/japansexports/animemanga.html

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/survey/695/result

http://manga-anime-here.com/guardians

http://www.coda-cj.jp/en/about.html

[viciousanime]

First completely original content. An image from my nightmares and dreamscapes. thanks to the few that helped me through them.

[viciousanime]

Quote: The Order (The Last Sin Eater)

Image: Steins;Gate

I been wanting to make a movie quote + anime image for a while. I kind of fell into this while working on something else and it just fit perfectly. Since i did a Okebe/Mayuri image, it seemed necessary to do a Okebe/Kristina image. This image also lines up with the passed Okebe image (I Never Guess) as well as the Princess Mononoke quote (You cannot alter your fate) i did previously.

Okebe having the heart of a scholar, must find truth and gain knowledge. As stated in the movie quote, the negative aspect of it is “some times you find it”. Okebe is so brash and even unapologetic with this character trait, but is decimated when facing the worse cost of his need for knowledge. This only stops him momentarily as it is so ingrained in him he must continue forward as there is really no other option to him.

This is the life we chosen and the decisions we’ve made. We may not be able to change what we are and what comes of it, but we do have a hand in creating it.

[viciousanime]

Lyrics: Sadistik

Image: Thich Quang Duc (Buddhist monk)

So this is not anime related, but i think is powerful nonetheless. The image is of the self-immolation (burning) of Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, protesting religious oppression in Vietnam. Duc died in the lotus position, signifying his acceptance.

The lyrics also seem to be stated matter of factly. As he takes a cold view of his situation.

I hope the mixing of the figurative (the song lyrics) and the literal (the image) bring some thought.

[viciousanime]

Anime: Elfen Lied

Artist: Sadistik

I consulted a few people and this is unfit for many, but i stand by it, but i wont share this everywhere as they have a right to want what they want in their space as i have a right to create it how it is. SO WARNING, IMAGES MAY BE UNFIT FOR ALL VIEWERS!

Anyways the song is about relationship, how when its so over barring its hard to see anything outside of it. it becomes a cage, and when your in a cage that becomes your world cause you don’t know anything outside of it cause your trapped in it. and when your always bleeding and hurt, its normal, so you don’t know how bad it is or that you can and will die from it. 

in the anime, the girl is isolated and held so she doesn’t know of the outside world. also constantly tortured so all she knows is pain, its the norm for her. also to tie back in the relationship, because of her isolation she looks up to the doctor, her “father” as her world. similar to how a relationship can consume and become your world as the song goes.

[viciousanime]

Show: Batman Beyond

Some words of wisdom from our Elder. I actually loved this show, I been a fan of Batman for some time thought this show did it some JUSTICE. especially if i recall at that time they softened his image. Since this, they have released the Dark Knight films.

[viciousanime]

Anime: Steins;Gate

Artist: Eyenine

With the soul of a scholar, i hold this statement dear. The acquisition of knowledge is very important to me and I see the same drive in Okabe, the mad scientist. While this urge for knowledge may seem great, it is a difficult and even lonely life. As seen in Steins;Gate. Good thing is like minds tend to find each other.

[viciousanime]

Anime: Neon Genesis Evangelion

Artist Eyenine Ft. Witness

So, I been busy with lots of things, think I will ease back into it with a GREAT song. I admit the AMV isn't the best. While edited very well, it doesn't capture the song's greatness, which is too bad cause afaik the song was written about the anime. Its mostly because they limited themselves to one movie. If they opened up to the entire series, the AMV probably would of turned out much better. 

Anyways as for the song. It perfectly captures the deeper meaning that technically doesn't exist. While the creator has stated he made this anime with no subtext or metaphors. Interpretation is not completely limited by the creator's intent. 

The anime seems to touch on nihilism, which follows the creators intent. But there can be knowledge gained from the meaningless and in turn creating its own meaning.

It may seem contradictory, "finding meaning in the meaningless", but all it is, is learning from a different perspective.

[viciousanime]

Anime: Samurai X

Another quote about interacting with people. Discussions are a two way street and having a discussion with someone that is closed minded will generally result in the same thing, frustration.

[viciousanime]

 Anime: Princess Mononoke

A comical quote this time. I tend to run into this often, though not as much as previously. When arguing with fools you cant truly win because they tend to be devoid of logic and reason. Just how it goes.

[viciousanime]

Enter The Fally Zone

I would like to support a friend, very bright and posts quality content. Like his page, but more importantly read his page for anime, manga, and related stuff.

[viciousanime]

Anime: Ragnarok

The true senpai ignores all no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT!

The game took up over a decade of my life. and I had to experience the anime. It does some great stuff and entertaining. But its pretty light hearted.

[viciousanime]

Anime: ef~

Artist: Kristoff Krane

This one is a bit personal for me, i made it while thinking of someone very important to me. They had trust issues, but turns out I was the only one they could not trust or love. Guess I'm special. 

Anyways, while the song is in reference too drug use and how it makes strangers out of everyone around you. In the anime, Chihiro (the girl in the picture), suffers from memory loss and has to remeet the same every day a new. Her life is difficult enough without the element of love. Also the beginning of every relationship is when trust is the most vital. Although in this anime it is not much of a issue. Just thought it could fit. In the end she decides to give up her love to ease the burden on him. Not exactly how it went for me, but no regrets.

[viciousanime]

Anime: Elfen Lied

Artist Eyedea

Now, I know this seems backwards, but it's not, at least not with what I'm trying to do. So while most would think the second "shadows" should be the dark personality, Lucy. Just on the principle that the shadow that we have would be the darker version of ourselves.

I twisted it, thanks to the lyric being "even shadows", so I could start off with the darker side and make the more innocent and vulnerable side, Nyu, being her "shadow". This is fitting as we tend to try to hide our vulnerable side by nature. Eyedea seems to be saying that as well, as he states, he is "no longer hiding from his personality disorder". The song seems to be about fighting, coping, and maybe even accepting yourself, which fits the personality split of Lucy.