A Proposal to Address Problems in Anime Translation and the Persistence of Fansubs in One Fell Swoop (That Won’t Be Implemented)

One recurring complaint I see showing up over and over again is the level of translation quality coming from official anime releases. At the crux of quality control lies the nature of the capitalist system. It’s primarily the ‘fault,’ if any fault can be ascribed, to this system and to the orders by management to release to the demands of the market whilst disregarding the needs of the art of translation itself.

This isn’t unusual. It’s the way capitalism functions. Working conditions are as crappy as will be permitted. But as this isn’t the focus of this piece, I digress for the nonce.

Here’s a different angle for approaching the issue at hand.

When a company releases a translation, it’s the be-all, end-all sole authoritative version.

But language doesn’t work that way. There cannot be a single truest version of a translation. No way, no how. It only happens because of how companies have monopolistic control over releases. They spend money to have the legal right to make the only authorized translation. Even if there’s two or three or four translations coming from multiple platforms, it’s still a tiny, legally restricted amount. That’s one way copyright has been twisted away from protecting the rights of creators and towards owners (note the emphasis, it’s there for a reason).

But every translator that works on a translation will come up with a different result. Yes, there is a core of accuracy, but a translator is as much a writer as the original composer. Again, that’s how language works. There can’t be just one. That’s an effect of capitalist licensing, nothing to do with language itself.

But there’s another way.

Here’s a proposed solution.

The company owns the translation as much as every other facet of the product. But why? It’s the anime itself that is the product people want. That is what the initial audience consumes. A translation is an additional layer added because of the needs of a different audience. Why is such a thing also subjected to capitalist ownership?

Platforms host the authorized audio and video streams. They release their own translations. There ought to be a sea change towards giving viewers a way to control the translation from their end. Why is the translation under such lock and key as the rest of the work? Why limit it to one? Why not a plurality?

I propose that streaming platforms be modified in the following way: allow viewers to use their own scripts.

Build into platforms a mechanism so that viewers, if they so choose, can alter the authorized script to their liking or upload one from an external source. Since text files are small, this can reside as part of their profile. That way a viewer can change whatever they want about the script, even rendering it in The Muppet’s Swedish Chef’s “Bork Bork Bork,” if they so chose. Some releases already have a rudimentary version of this by allowing viewers to choose from multiple subtitle tracks, frequently with/without honorifics, something initially pioneered by fansubs.

After all, the license money is earned via subscriptions/views/ads. As long as the show is viewed through the authorized platform, why should anyone care if the translated script differs from viewer to viewer? The money still flows. That’s all capitalism cares about, right?

There’s already precedent set for this with closed captioning services that cater to viewers with disabilities such as impaired hearing. The ADA has conditions for this, and various services have arisen to meet that need. People can already use the subtitles they choose with software that attaches it to the videos they legally purchase on disc or download.

Furthermore, wouldn’t doing so directly address one of the reasons fansubs still exist?

There are multiple reasons why people produce fansubs. One of them is dissatisfaction with the quality of the official release translation.

Copyright violation does not occur from the act of producing a translation. It comes from making copies and sharing it, hence copyright. The right to make copies.

But if streaming platforms had a mechanism present where people could use their own subtitles, viewers would remain on the authorized platform. Why should the license holders care what translation is being used as long as they’re getting paid, which this proposal addresses. Viewers would still be using the authorized platform. There would be no copyright violation.

It’s a win-win; owners get paid through the authorized platform, viewers get to use whatever translation they want. Those numerous complaints about translation quality would vanish because viewers would be directly empowered to make changes for themselves. There’s no longer a “single authoritative release” for people to get upset about.

Want honorifics? Now you can add them! Don’t want them? Take them away! Use whatever name order you want! Use nicknames! Don’t use nicknames! Use your own nicknames! Be super localized! Be super literal! It doesn’t matter now that you’re empowered to make whatever changes you want, no longer bound to a singular interpretation. That’s the problem, that there can be only one, a problem caused by nothing more than business functions.

Even if it’s an outright wrong translation, so what? We’ve already seen ample proof that translation quality has little bearing on consumption habits. Why not let people make their own changes? What can it hurt? If official translations riddled with errors are okay to release, then why would there be any problems in letting people make their own errors? At least under this proposal it only has an impact on them and them alone.

This doesn’t address the fact that these monies are generated through an exploitative capitalist system that takes advantage of workers who don’t personally reap the rewards of their own labor, but that’s another aside.

This won’t happen, though. this proposal.

Why not?

Capitalism. G-duh.

The companies own everything. They own the translation as much as every other aspect of the product.

Giving consumers the opportunity to own anything, even the result of their own interpretation (as their alterations would be produced from their own labor), violates the conceit of capitalism. It alters the ownership model of producer-consumer. It is not to be permitted. They need the hierarchy. They need the power differential.

Alas.

Well, at least it’s an idea. Perhaps someone can look into what this could do and turn it into something. Free idea! Please take it. All I ask is that it not violate the central tenet of giving ordinary people the tools to make their own decisions. Without that, the entire point is negated.

Cheers.