Solution to Comic Prices: Comicbook Napster!
Comicboards
can be seen on my Forum site, however we will develop an engine that will
allow people to share comicbooks files.
However, if you want to spend you hard earned money on comics. If you make
$8/hr that is $40 a day, one comic is nearly 10% of your days salary, and
the prices will only increase.
For right now if you have any questions or have anything you want scanned on
our site, just go to our link then click on "Contact Us" in the navigation
bar. I will not respond to request on the newsgroups.
--
Discuss Politics, Race Relations, Gay Rights and Marvel or DC characters.
http://www.comicboards.org
teepee
"Comicboards" <tle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x9ednSVRIb4...@comcast.com...
> We are in the process of creating such a thing. Right now many of the
scans
> can be seen on my Forum site, however we will develop an engine that will
> allow people to share comicbooks files.
I don't see any scans. Are you mental by any chance?
Brian Doyle
scans
> can be seen on my Forum site, however we will develop an engine that will
> allow people to share comicbooks files.
>
> However, if you want to spend you hard earned money on comics. If you
make
> $8/hr that is $40 a day, one comic is nearly 10% of your days salary, and
> the prices will only increase.
You are aware that reproducing copyright material like that is illegal and
publicising it is hardly going to do you any favours?
>I will not respond to request on the newsgroups.
And yet you feel that you should basically spam them (including a _Madonna_
NG???)
Bern
c5hsri$bab$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> You are aware that reproducing copyright material like that is illegal and
> publicising it is hardly going to do you any favours?
It's illegal in the US. I'm not so sure about the rest of the world.
In Canada, for exemple, the Supreme Court recently ruled that downloading
mp3's of copyrighted material is not illegal. At least for the time being
and the forseeable future (it's nothing definitive). Even copying CD's for
your personal use and sharing with your friends and family is OK. As long as
you're not making money off it.
I'm not sure how it all applies to printed matter but I guess it's more or
less the same thing.
R. Tang
Bern <be...@nothing.com> wrote:
>"Brian Doyle" <No_...@freeserve.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
>c5hsri$bab$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> You are aware that reproducing copyright material like that is illegal and
>> publicising it is hardly going to do you any favours?
>
>It's illegal in the US. I'm not so sure about the rest of the world.
It's violation of the copyright holder's right.
>
>In Canada, for exemple, the Supreme Court recently ruled that downloading
>mp3's of copyrighted material is not illegal. At least for the time being
>and the forseeable future (it's nothing definitive). Even copying CD's for
>your personal use and sharing with your friends and family is OK. As long as
>you're not making money off it.
>
>I'm not sure how it all applies to printed matter but I guess it's more or
>less the same thing.
No, it isn't, because the "sharing" is covered by a fee tacked
onto blank media and recording devices like iPods...no such fee is applied
to paper.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Graeme
days salary, and the prices will only increase.
>>
...the more we steal from them.
(Notice, there's not even any *pretense* of that "try before you buy"
malarkey this time.)
Samy Merchi
>>I'm not sure how it all applies to printed matter but I guess it's
>>more or less the same thing.
>
> No, it isn't, because the "sharing" is covered by a fee tacked
> onto blank media and recording devices like iPods...no such fee is
> applied to paper.
But who the hell prints their electronic comics onto paper? That's insane.
Most people save them onto the aforementioned blank media -- hence, they
pay the fee tacked onto blank media.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Peter Dimitriadis
: gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote in
:
: >>I'm not sure how it all applies to printed matter but I guess it's
: >>more or less the same thing.
: >
: > No, it isn't, because the "sharing" is covered by a fee tacked
: > onto blank media and recording devices like iPods...no such fee is
: > applied to paper.
:
: But who the hell prints their electronic comics onto paper? That's insane.
: Most people save them onto the aforementioned blank media -- hence, they
: pay the fee tacked onto blank media.
Well, I'm not terribly familiar with the mechanics of the law, but it
could be that the surcharge on the blank media is specifically covering
music and movie copying, and the companies involved get a share of it.
If none of it is devoted to reimbursing print media publishers, then you
are still stealing from them by copying and so you might be charged.
Of course, I Am Not a Lawyer.
Peter Dimitriadis
Samy Merchi
> Samy Merchi (sa...@iki.fi) wrote:
>: > No, it isn't, because the "sharing" is covered by a fee tacked
>: > onto blank media and recording devices like iPods...no such fee is
>: > applied to paper.
>:
>: But who the hell prints their electronic comics onto paper? That's
>: insane. Most people save them onto the aforementioned blank media --
>: hence, they pay the fee tacked onto blank media.
> could be that the surcharge on the blank media is specifically
> covering music and movie copying, and the companies involved get a
> share of it. If none of it is devoted to reimbursing print media
> publishers, then you are still stealing from them by copying
This is, of course, entirely true, and pretty much the point.
The problem, as I see it, is on the publishers-media manufacturers
connection, not on the media manufacturers-consumers connection. The
consumers pay the price as appropriate; it's the media manufacturers who
are dropping the ball by not distributing the proceeds correctly.
Bob Hughes
wrote:
>yu23...@yorku.ca (Peter Dimitriadis) wrote in
>> Samy Merchi (sa...@iki.fi) wrote:
>
>>: > No, it isn't, because the "sharing" is covered by a fee tacked
>>: > onto blank media and recording devices like iPods...no such fee is
>>: > applied to paper.
>>:
>>: But who the hell prints their electronic comics onto paper? That's
>>: insane. Most people save them onto the aforementioned blank media --
>>: hence, they pay the fee tacked onto blank media.
>
>> could be that the surcharge on the blank media is specifically
>> covering music and movie copying, and the companies involved get a
>> share of it. If none of it is devoted to reimbursing print media
>> publishers, then you are still stealing from them by copying
>
>This is, of course, entirely true, and pretty much the point.
>
>The problem, as I see it, is on the publishers-media manufacturers
>connection, not on the media manufacturers-consumers connection. The
>consumers pay the price as appropriate; it's the media manufacturers who
>are dropping the ball by not distributing the proceeds correctly.
No, you're just stealing to feed your habit .and thereby reducing the
vialibility of an industry that's already on its last legs.
Bob Hughes
Who's Whose at DC Comics? Creator Credits and art samples from DC's Golden and Silver Age Comics, especially Superman and Batman profiled at:
http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/superart.htm
"Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not music. Music is best."
Frank Zappa
Peter Dimitriadis
: yu23...@yorku.ca (Peter Dimitriadis) wrote in
: > Samy Merchi (sa...@iki.fi) wrote:
:
: >: > No, it isn't, because the "sharing" is covered by a fee tacked
: >: > onto blank media and recording devices like iPods...no such fee is
: >: > applied to paper.
: >:
: >: But who the hell prints their electronic comics onto paper? That's
: >: insane. Most people save them onto the aforementioned blank media --
: >: hence, they pay the fee tacked onto blank media.
:
: > could be that the surcharge on the blank media is specifically
: > covering music and movie copying, and the companies involved get a
: > share of it. If none of it is devoted to reimbursing print media
: > publishers, then you are still stealing from them by copying
:
: This is, of course, entirely true, and pretty much the point.
:
: The problem, as I see it, is on the publishers-media manufacturers
: connection, not on the media manufacturers-consumers connection. The
: consumers pay the price as appropriate; it's the media manufacturers who
: are dropping the ball by not distributing the proceeds correctly.
Ah, good point, I hadn't considered that angle.
Peter Dimitriadis
James Moar
Doyle" <No_...@freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Comicboards" <tle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:x9ednSVRIb4...@comcast.com...
>> We are in the process of creating such a thing. Right now many of the
> scans
>> can be seen on my Forum site, however we will develop an engine that will
>> allow people to share comicbooks files.
>>
>> However, if you want to spend you hard earned money on comics.
If I *want* to spend my hard-earned money on comics, what good do free
comics do me? [This argument brought to you by Pedants Inc.]
> If you
> make
>> $8/hr that is $40 a day, one comic is nearly 10% of your days salary, and
>> the prices will only increase.
>
> You are aware that reproducing copyright material like that is illegal and
> publicising it is hardly going to do you any favours?
Besides the legal/ethical issues, why is this being promoted as if it were a
new idea when there are BitTorrents already?
And if you want free comics, there's always keenspot.com
--
James Moar
Dominic
program called CDisplay. I have seen complete runs of Preacher, Hitman,
Sandman, Batman, and a ton of other books made available.
Point Two: This is not a solution to comic prices. This is theft of
comics. I say that having downloaded some myself, which makes me a thief.
Using this as an alternative to buying comics will only result in one (or
both) of the following:
a) Increased prices as publishers try to recover lost revenues from comic
thieves.
b) Cancelled publication of once lucrative books that lose circulation and
revenue due to downloading. Closely followed by the closing of smaller
publishers' doors and the unemployment of comic creators.
Lets take a small press book for example. "Cerebus" was the main, and
lately the only, publication from Aardvark-Vanaheim. IIRC, at its peak, it
had a circulation of around 20,000.....pretty good for a small press book.
Apparently enough for Sim and company to make a living. Now, let's say that
the people who buy this book think the price is too high for a b&w book, but
they don't want to stop reading, because Sim is such a lovable old nut. So,
they trade the files through your "Napster" service. Certainly, all of them
are not going to do this....not all have a computer, some don't like to read
comics on a PC, and some couldn't figure out any file sharing protocol more
complicated than KaZaa. But let's posit a third of the readership (that's
about 6,666...a nearly biblical figure) switches to file sharing to get
their aardvark fix. Suddenly, sales of Cerebus drop by a third. To meet
the decreased demand, shops....many of which only ordered a couple of copies
because they saw the book mentioned once or twice in Wizard and don't know
thing one about it.....order less copies, or stop selling the book
altogether. Not only does this prevent the acquisition of new readers in
those areas, but it also means that some people who formerly purchased
Cerebus may not be able to find it any more. So, let's posit another 5%
decrease due to attrition at the sales counter...that's another 1,000
readers out the door.
Now, Cerebus printed through Preney Print & Litho, who informed me at one
point that they only print in lots of 1,000. Now that circulation of the
book has dropped to 12,334, Dave Sim has a choice of either dropping his
print run to 12,000 or keeping at 13,000 and eating the expense of the extra
666 books (not accounting for comp copies and whatnot), which is a bit of a
kick in the pants, financially.
So, let's say he drops to 12,000. Now his circulation is down by 8,000, or
40%. This means that he, and everyone who works for him (chiefly Gerhard)
has lost 40% of his income thanks to file sharing.
So, since you're so concerned about saving your pocket money, ask yourself
this.....can you afford to lose 40% of your income? If your employer
suddenly told you that they were dropping your work hours by 40%, what would
you do? You'd either: a) ask for an increase in your hourly wage to cover
the loss, or b) quit. More likely b. So, what happens to Cerebus? Either
the price goes up until it gets to the point where no one can afford it, or
the title folds as the creators can no longer make money from it.
And now, you're stuck without the comics you like to read, you've cheated
some honest creators out of their living and cost a bunch of fans the
entertainment they enjoy. Well done.
Point Three: "If you make $8/hr that is $40 a day, one comic is nearly 10%
of your days salary". According to that math, you must be working 5 hours a
day, in which case, I would hope you have bigger concerns than buying
comics. Like paying rent. Or else, you are living the fanboy dream in your
parents' basement, and don't have to pay rent, in which case, you really
won't miss the income. If, like most people, you work at least 8 hours a
day, at $8/hr, that would make your income $64/day (less taxes, natch),
which makes one comic about 5% of your daily salary. Maybe if you'd studied
your math a little harder you'd be making more money to spend on comics.
Don't get me wrong...I'm not a nut, I think file sharing's a great idea,
despite what the RIAA, the CRIA and Harlan Ellison say about it. However,
like all things, it has to be used with sound judgement and a sense of the
ethics behind it. Because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be
done....take, for example, reality television.
Aaannnnd, I'm assuming from the fact that you cross-posted this all to heck
and gone that I've given this far more of a response than it deserves, but
there it is...I've had my say. I feel better now. Really I do.
Dominic
http://SimonPariah.keenspace.com
Samy Merchi
I think it's a direct result of bureaucracy lagging behind reality. If
corporate execs acted quicker and more decisively, we might already have a
working system. However, they just don't 'keep up with the times'. It's
been a long time since the only material that is distributed among peer
groups (and I'm not only talking about the Internet) is copies of music and
movies. Now, we have people digitally swapping books, comic books, software
and so on. The *principle* at work is *exactly* the same as with people
swapping music; it's just that the technology allows for (and people are
using it for) other things as well -- but the distribution of proceeds has
not expanded to these items yet. Which I think is the wrong way to proceed
and I think it should be fixed.
However, the surcharge on blank media might well need to be increased in
order to reflect this. Personally, I'd happily pay even double or triple
the current price for blank media to cover the expansion to new
downloadable materials, but I'm not sure the rest of the world wouldn't
scream bloody murder. I don't think it's so much an issue with CDs that are
dirt cheap these days, almost to the degree that you can wipe your arse
with them; it's more of an issue with things like hard drives. I'm not
entirely sure if blank media surcharge is currently even *applied* to hard
drives. I think it should be, though.
teepee
"Dominic" <paladinf...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Point Two: This is not a solution to comic prices. This is theft of
> comics.
I agree with you 100% except for this bit. Technically isn't it a breach of
copyright rather than theft, which I think makes it a civil offence rather
than a criminal offence (at least here in UK.) It is still illegal and
immoral though.
The wider debate is an interesting one though. It took record companies a
long time to start offering tracks at 99c a shot online. How long before the
Grant Morrisons, Warren Ellis' and Alan Moore's of this world realise their
fanbases are strong enough to do the same?
BTW I don't think this clown has anything on his website.
teepee
"Bob Hughes" <BOBH...@TTLC.NET> wrote
> No, you're just stealing to feed your habit .and thereby reducing the
> vialibility of an industry that's already on its last legs.
I wonder if it makes any difference to sales. In the case of the music
industry it's been argued that it increases sales. I've never found that
very convincing myself but it's been argued.
~consul
> The wider debate is an interesting one though. It took record companies a
> long time to start offering tracks at 99c a shot online. How long before the
> Grant Morrisons, Warren Ellis' and Alan Moore's of this world realise their
> fanbases are strong enough to do the same?
But why should they charge anything at all? It should be free and available to everyone,
not just those with disposable money!!!!!! If we pay them, we will only corrupt the
artists into becoming the shill capitalistic pigs that we all hate and despise!!!!!!!
...
...
...
...
...
That was all tongue in cheek folks.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
The Babaloughesian
"teepee" <no-e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6POdnZjyl42...@nildram.net...
>
> "Dominic" <paladinf...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Point Two: This is not a solution to comic prices. This is theft of
> > comics.
>
> I agree with you 100% except for this bit. Technically isn't it a breach
of
> copyright rather than theft,
Yeah, but "theft" looks flashier.
The Babaloughesian
No you're not. Your site isn't as horrible as it looked at first, but don't
spam us. If people want free comic books, they can already get them via Bit
torrent. Tons of them. I've seen full runs of just about every major
mainstream comic out there, and there are plenty of routine scanners that,
between them, scan most of the new releases. Linking them all up to
something as centralized as a "Comicbook Napster!" is just going to make
them bigger targets. Please stop spamming us.
~consul
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:46:02 -0300, "Dominic"
>>a) Increased prices as publishers try to recover lost revenues from comic
>>thieves.
> book and price it at $20 the week it comes out.
Because someone else scams someone is not a good reason to scam another person.
> I don't even want to talk about the prices of back issues. Don't you
> think that in light of several lawsuits where creators get paid for
> their creations and have been paid some back fees, should comics
> companies get paid a fee for the issues like X-Men # 1 or
> Detective # 27 ?
Do you think the money the stores make in back issues doesn't go anywhere? Like into
keeping the business in operations? In buying new comics that come out? Or do you assume
that it just goes into things like illegal drug rings or to pay other folks to beat dogs?
[snipped the rest, as I agree or don't have a comment]
Lisa
> "Comicboards" <tle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:x9ednSVRIb4...@comcast.com...
> > We are in the process of creating such a thing. Right now many of the
> > scans can be seen on my Forum site, however we will develop an engine that
> > will allow people to share comicbooks files.
> >
> > However, if you want to spend you hard earned money on comics. If you
> > make $8/hr that is $40 a day, one comic is nearly 10% of your days salary,
> > and the prices will only increase.
> >
> > For right now if you have any questions or have anything you want scanned
> on
> > our site, just go to our link then click on "Contact Us" in the navigation
> > bar. I will not respond to request on the newsgroups.
>
> program called CDisplay. I have seen complete runs of Preacher, Hitman,
> Sandman, Batman, and a ton of other books made available.
>
> Point Two: This is not a solution to comic prices. This is theft of
> comics. I say that having downloaded some myself, which makes me a thief.
> Using this as an alternative to buying comics will only result in one (or
> both) of the following:
> a) Increased prices as publishers try to recover lost revenues from comic
> thieves.
>
> b) Cancelled publication of once lucrative books that lose circulation and
> revenue due to downloading. Closely followed by the closing of smaller
> publishers' doors and the unemployment of comic creators.
That's true for current books. But back issues that aren't available
any more is a different story, I think. If I download a run of the
original Supergirl series, who am I stealing from? Neither DC nor the
writers/artists would have seen a dime from those books, which came
out decades ago. Granted, they still own the rights, and if they
wanted to, they could put out a collection. But in my case, I'd buy
that collection and delete the files from my computer, because reading
comics on my computer runs a very, very distant second place.
Frankly... well, here's an even better example. Fables. I have the
first two collections. And I started buying the book. And that left
me with a gap in between. I filled that gap by reading downloaded
copies. But as soon as the third collection comes out later this
month, I'm buying it. And deleting the files. So did I steal by
downloading them just because I wanted to get the storyline? No harm,
no foul, I'd think.
Lisa
~consul
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:41:31 -0700, ~consul
> yes, it goes into soemones pockets. New comics have their own profit
> margin that keep the store in business. In most cases, it certainly
> isn't back issue sales. So now if you can get your mind off illegal
> drugs long enough to actually think about what I've said in the
> above... you might get the point.
I missed it. What was it stated in another way, as I couldn't get it from your previous
posts on the subject.
teepee
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@violet.rahul.net> wrote
> Will you people please stop feeding the trolls?
He may have been a troll but the issue is real. Check out supernova if you
don't believe it's a real problem.
Tom Galloway
Lisa <li...@starways.net> wrote:
>That's true for current books. But back issues that aren't available
>any more is a different story, I think. If I download a run of the
>original Supergirl series, who am I stealing from? Neither DC nor the
>writers/artists would have seen a dime from those books, which came
>out decades ago. Granted, they still own the rights, and if they
>wanted to, they could put out a collection. But in my case, I'd buy
>that collection and delete the files from my computer, because reading
>comics on my computer runs a very, very distant second place.
Assuming that by "original Supergirl series" you're refering to her many
years as an Action Comics backup, rather than her short lived first
solo book or her run as the star of Adventure Comics, DC has come out with
two Archives editions reprinting the first years of the Action strip.
tyg t...@panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
Dominic
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c5jss5$2kaqe$1...@ID-177202.news.uni-berlin.de...
Taking something that is available for sale without paying for it is theft.
It's a breach of copyright to make it available for theft.
Dominic
<tac...@jokertown.net> wrote in message
news:1crq70ls1c527etim...@4ax.com...
> Hate to break this to everyone, but this is not new and has been done
> for many years. there are newsgroups dedicated to scanning comics, but
> they have a rule of no book younger than a year old gets posted and if
> there is a TP in print, they don't upload the books.
> Before the newsgroups, there were and still are plenty of FTP sites.
> Most of the ones I've seen don't print new comics. they only do the
> older books that are hard to get. If you look in the newsgroup you
> will see books like Uncle Scrooge and the TMNT from '89.
> You may be surprised at the amount of comics fans (yes, from talking
> to many of these people, I'd could also use the term fanboy or just
> plain internet moron) that police themselves and only want to read the
> books they have never seen. (they even want the ads scanned)
>
Now, see, this is what I was talking about when I said I think filesharing
is a good idea, but you need the ethics to go with it. If something is not
available for purchase, I don't see anything wrong with getting it through
filesharing. I'm sure there's lots of folks who'd disagree with me, saying
that the publishers may be planning a future rerelease of the material, but
it that's the case the knowledge should be made available. There's a ton of
stuff that's not available in reprint and probably never will be...the
publishers and the creators have made their money from it, and I see no
problem with readers distributing such things among themselves.
> And this brings into the debate the comics stores that will take a hot
> book and price it at $20 the week it comes out.
> I don't even want to talk about the prices of back issues. Don't you
> think that in light of several lawsuits where creators get paid for
> their creations and have been paid some back fees, should comics
> companies get paid a fee for the issues like X-Men # 1 or
> Detective # 27 ?
I've never seen a hot book overpriced the week it comes out. Is this
something the retailers in your area do? Observing local phenomena, it
seems to me that retailers will order overstock on hot items to meet and
exceed demand and maximize sales. Why would you buy a hot book for $20 when
you could go to the next town and find that same book at cover price?
Should comics companies get paid commissions on back issue sales? Different
argument, but I don't think so. They've made their money off the print, and
off any subsequent reprints. What the book sells for between purchasers is
none of their business.
> is there any data on this? Can you honestly find a book that was
> cancelled due to downloading and not due to the fact that the book
> stunk on ice?
No, I cannot. That was a logical extension of my argument, an "If...then"
statement. I assumed the train of thought was clear.
>
> and here is the rub, at it's peak. Now the book has lost a lot of what
> it used to have. I've seen a lot of issues of cerebus in the dollar
> bins at the local stores. I don't know anyone who collects the book
> anymore. Although I've been told it is stale and just boring, but
> don't ask me, I've never collected the book.
>
Irrelevant what the book sells for on the back issue market. I'm talking
about the future publication market. If fewer people read it than ever
before (which is definitely a truism for Cerebus as the series has now
ended, effectively dropping its new readership to 0), then that only
strengthens my argument against taking away further readership by making the
book available for theft.
>
> Let's back up and look at current readership figures. Like I said,
> many just don't like the book anymore and since you go on to say that
> the circulation is slightly over 12,000, then you are talking 1/2 of
> the readership.
Again, the actual numbers are irrelevant, and were only a supposition for
the purposes of the argument. If the readership is 2 and you take away 1 by
giving him the book, the argument still applies.
>
> This is the reality of the book. fewer readers and new people who
> order the books that don't know Cerebus from Cheech Wizard and let's
> not forget that a lot of stores just don't order that many extra
> issues these days. Matter-of-fact one store in town doesn't know how
> many issues of any title they will get. For some strange reason the
> distributor (I know it used to be Diamond, but don't have the first
> clue who it is now) tells them how many issues they need. Sometimes
> they can't enough issues of something like Superman to fill the subs
> they need to take care of.
> In short, part of, if not a lot of the problem is with the comics
> industry themselves. They seem to be prime candidates for the Donald
> Trump reality show and anyone can see those guys are total idiots that
> shouldn't be in any type of a business setting. Unless it is to ask
> people if they want fries with that order.
> I'll make mention of Marvel's plan to open up their own line of
> specialty stores and keep their books in those stores. I'll even make
> mention of the fact that most comics are only sold in specialty
> stores. The comics industry almost totally killed the new readership
> market by taking them out of the local 7-eleven, drug stores, and
> other places that used to sell comics.
> I think the comics industry has less to worry about people scanning
> comics (at least the ones who scan the older books, the ones who scan
> new books and want to charge a fee are another story), and doesn't any
> one even think about people who trade comics to their friends? We used
> to do that all the time. I'd go over to a friends house and "borrow"
> FF # 26 and he would get a Batman from me. marvel lost a sale of
> Fantastic Four all those years ago. Should I and the many others who
> used to do that, be made to pay some sort of fee?
> The first step would be to get the fanboys out of the comics industry
> and put some people in there that have a little common sense and some
> business knowledge.
> end of loose rant
>
You make good points about the industry, but they only support my argument.
The current status of sales is often talked about, and if the numbers passed
around are accurate, then it's more difficult than ever for a book to find a
solid readership and make enough money to justify its own existence. There
are a lot of things in the industry that need to be fixed; the fact that
these problems exist does not justify creating one more problem by promoting
a service that effectively makes it harder for comics to survive.
BTW...when you traded comics with your friends, there was still only that
copy of the book in existence. If you borrowed FF 26, then that copy passed
to you and your friend no longer owned one. If he decided that he wanted
both the Batman and the FF book, he would have to go buy another copy of the
book. With filesharing, the file is reproduced and the original remains in
the same place. Thus the sale is lost as the book is not transferred, but
recreated.
Dominic
Dominic
"~consul" <con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:c5k0l3$t7l$1...@gist.usc.edu...
> tac...@jokertown.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:46:02 -0300, "Dominic"
> >>a) Increased prices as publishers try to recover lost revenues from
comic
> >>thieves.
> > And this brings into the debate the comics stores that will take a hot
> > book and price it at $20 the week it comes out.
>
> Because someone else scams someone is not a good reason to scam another
person.
>
Two wrongs don't make a right. But three rights make a left.
8^P
Dominic
"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:cc62d1fa.04041...@posting.google.com...
> >
> That's true for current books. But back issues that aren't available
> any more is a different story, I think. If I download a run of the
> original Supergirl series, who am I stealing from? Neither DC nor the
> writers/artists would have seen a dime from those books, which came
> out decades ago. Granted, they still own the rights, and if they
> wanted to, they could put out a collection. But in my case, I'd buy
> that collection and delete the files from my computer, because reading
> comics on my computer runs a very, very distant second place.
>
> Frankly... well, here's an even better example. Fables. I have the
> first two collections. And I started buying the book. And that left
> me with a gap in between. I filled that gap by reading downloaded
> copies. But as soon as the third collection comes out later this
> month, I'm buying it. And deleting the files. So did I steal by
> downloading them just because I wanted to get the storyline? No harm,
> no foul, I'd think.
>
> Lisa
Lisa, I agree with you to a point. The books that are no longer in
circulation, let 'em fly, I say......if they're not going to be reprinted,
then what's the harm? (And if you have a complete run of Supergirl, send
'em to me....my daughter would love to read them!)
As for Fables....well, good for you, if that's truly your intent. However,
knowing the morals of convenience that many people apply to their lives, I
suspect you would be the exception rather than the rule if you did this.
Except for the diehard collectors, many people would not buy these books
once they've read them, as they have no vested interest in them. The back
issue market is soft enough that they'll probably never see any profit from
them on resale, so why spend the money? So once again, we get back to
ethics.....like I said, filesharing is good if you have the ethics to go
with it. Like any tool, it has to be used responsibly; otherwise it's a
free-for-all that benefits everyone but the creator.
Next on the soapbox?
-Dominic
Bern
c5lsi4$35qt8$1...@ID-162141.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Taking something that is available for sale without paying for it is
theft.
> It's a breach of copyright to make it available for theft.
Once again, playing devil's advocate...
Is it really theft if you do not REMOVE it from anybody?
Also, many people assume that if a downloader couldn't get a file for free,
he would buy the CD/comic/whatever. Often enough, if not most of the time,
that's simply not the case. He'll go without. So nobody gets anything from
the fact that he didn't download the file.
At least, when you stuff is downloaded, it doesn't cost you anything.
Somebody gets to know your stuff, and he *might* eventually start to buy it
if he likes what you do.
Lisa
In this particular case, I was referring to her solo title. The one
that ran 10 issues. And I'm only aware of one Archive edition for
her.
Lisa
~consul
> So once again, we get back to
> ethics.....like I said, filesharing is good if you have the ethics to go
> with it. Like any tool, it has to be used responsibly; otherwise it's a
> free-for-all that benefits everyone but the creator.
A lot of folks who participate in file sharing, at least the folks I talk with at the
university (US) level, say that they do it because of the protest against the
mega-corporations who make too much money. And while some do eventually buy versions of
the CD's that they downloaded, I have yet to find more than a couple who have actually
sent more than a buck to the 'creator'. :(
I'm against a comicbook napster.
~consul
>>It's a breach of copyright to make it available for theft.
> Once again, playing devil's advocate...
> Is it really theft if you do not REMOVE it from anybody?
Illegal loss of wages or employment due to unfair business practices have gone to court in
the past, haven't they? Sort of like collusions or back office deals or like when gas
companies in one area all work together to keep prices higher than normal market?
> At least, when you stuff is downloaded, it doesn't cost you anything.
> Somebody gets to know your stuff, and he *might* eventually start to buy it
> if he likes what you do.
Besides the normal cd market, Prince actually has a good idea, where you can get the CD
when you go to his concerts, and he can factor that into the price for tickets as well.
Concerts may be the return to the old fashioned way of making money in the music business,
and have the money go direct to the artist[barring the other big money maker, Ticketmaster
:) ].
Samy Merchi
> Besides the normal cd market, Prince actually has a good idea, where
> you can get the CD when you go to his concerts, and he can factor that
> into the price for tickets as well.
Wouldn't people who are big enough fans of an artist to go to said artist's
concert already have the artist's CDs?
~consul
> ~consul <con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
>>Besides the normal cd market, Prince actually has a good idea, where
>>you can get the CD when you go to his concerts, and he can factor that
>>into the price for tickets as well.
> Wouldn't people who are big enough fans of an artist to go to said artist's
> concert already have the artist's CDs?
These are new CD's that haven't been released. He's going to go around the music distributors.
Glenn Simpson
I may be another exception, but I wouldn't let the fact that I've
downloaded the book stop me from eventually buying it if I was ever
going to buy it anyway. But my take is from the "collector" point of
view. If I've got a complete run of Apricot-Man except for issue #8,
then despite the fact that I might have read issue #8 elsewhere (be it
in a reprint, online, or just reading a friend's copy), I'm still
going to buy issue #8 eventually.
Of course, if I'm buying it as a back issue, the publisher isn't going
to see my money anyway...
Janus
news:N%xfc.11657$S%4.12...@wagner.videotron.net:
> "Dominic" <paladinf...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news: c5lsi4$35qt8$1...@ID-162141.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Taking something that is available for sale without paying for it is
> theft.
>> It's a breach of copyright to make it available for theft.
>
> Once again, playing devil's advocate...
>
> Is it really theft if you do not REMOVE it from anybody?
>
You're right, it is copyright infringement NOT theft (both on the
uploader and downloader's part.) However, a California Senator has
introduced a bill that will add criminal charges to anonymous sharing.
--
The head of the English department asked me, "Do you read any crap?"
And I said, no, in that insufferable high school manner, no doubt.
And he said, "You need to read more crap."
The point was to read more for entertainment and for fun.
GAIL SIMONE
No Doze
Ok, the truth is by reading a comic on line instead of buying takes away from
the company printing it.
If it is something that can be bought new, then it is stealing to do so, not
"sharing".
And the sad truth is, the people doing the "sharing" will be the first ones to
bitch when the title gets canceled due to lack of sales.
If you respect an artist, be he a writer, musician or whatever, the way to keep
them doing what you love is to spend your money. I've seen this happen with
mystery authors. People complain because the publisher doesn't publish any more
books by an author. When asked they say they never bought one. Well, then guess
where the problem is?
You like JLA, or Fantastic Four? You want to see it keep coming out each month?
Then spend your money, that's your vote.
Rant mode off>
Jon
The Babaloughesian
"No Doze" <nig...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:407F5539...@execpc.com...
>
> Ok, the truth is by reading a comic on line instead of buying takes away
from
> the company printing it.
Yes. But reading a comic on line instead of not buying it does nothing.
Think about it. They could read the comic in the store and it would have
the same effect, would it not?
> If it is something that can be bought new, then it is stealing to do so,
not
> "sharing".
If you steal it and then give others access to it, it is in fact both
stealing and sharing.
> And the sad truth is, the people doing the "sharing" will be the first
ones to
> bitch when the title gets canceled due to lack of sales.
On the contrary, they won't. Trust me. My precognitive powers are stronger
than yours.
> If you respect an artist, be he a writer, musician or whatever, the way to
keep
> them doing what you love is to spend your money.
What if you don't respect them or think their product is worth money but
still think it is worth reading for the time being, although you wouldn't
miss it immensely if it were to be cancelled?
> I've seen this happen with
> mystery authors. People complain because the publisher doesn't publish any
more
> books by an author. When asked they say they never bought one. Well, then
guess
> where the problem is?
>
>
> You like JLA, or Fantastic Four? You want to see it keep coming out each
month?
Not really. I really wish more people would download JLA instead of paying
for it, but sadly, I'm not sure enough people are interested in reading it
to scan it in the first place.
> Then spend your money, that's your vote.
What I wish is that people who actually do hate a particular creator or book
would stop spending their damned money on it. The Austens of the world are
where this file sharing stuff can really come in handy, but predictably, the
very people who continue to spend money on crap that they hate are also the
ones who are such obsessive completists that they have to have a damned hard
copy. That's what irritates me about this whole thing. We could use the
system to sabotage the sales of books that actually deserve cancellation in
addition to all the others, but no...
>
> Rant mode off>
> Jon
>
>
Selaboc
> the company printing it.
Only if the alternative to the person reading it online is to have
bought it and then read it (in which case a sale was lost) instead of
reading it in the store or the local library (in which case there
never was a sale to be had in the first place).
> If it is something that can be bought new, then it is stealing to do so, not
> "sharing".
No, it's copyright infringement (which, BTW, is illegal). Stealing is
the physical taking of something. If I steal your car, I have your car
and you don't. If I make an exact duplicate of your car, we both have
a car, you haven't lost yours. Now granted making a duplicate of a car
is a lot harder and a lot more expensive than making an electronic
duplicate of an image or a sound, so it's not an exact analogy, but it
does highlight the difference between stealing and copyright
infringement. Those two crimes (yes crimes, sorry all you "sharers"
but it's still criminal activity) are NOT the same thing regardless of
how many times people mistakenly claim they are.
> And the sad truth is, the people doing the "sharing" will be the first ones to
> bitch when the title gets canceled due to lack of sales.
probably, but then such people are rather pathetic to begin with,
IMHO.
Bern
407F5539...@execpc.com...
> Ok, the truth is by reading a comic on line instead of buying takes away
from
> the company printing it.
That's assuming that if one does not download a comics, he will
automatically buy it. That's preposterous. Many just won't read it. In that
case, nothing is taken away from the company or from the creators when a
comic is downloaded.
Of course, if you do download a comic, you're not supporting the company or
the creators in any way. Or maybe you are is some twisted way... You
continue to be exposed to those creators' work and maybe expose your friends
and family to it. And like I said elsewhere, you or one of them *might*
eventually start buying it. This has the same effect as a dot-comic or a
(legitimately) free comic or when you hear a song on the radio.
Bern
3c20e9e9.0404...@posting.google.com...
> No, it's copyright infringement (which, BTW, is illegal).
> Those two crimes (yes crimes, sorry all you "sharers"
> but it's still criminal activity)
It's illegal (though not everywhere) but is it *wrong*? Is there really a
victim? Is it wrong if nobody suffers from it?
I believe this to be a debate where we have to think from a new perspective.
(Just like the comic, music, movie, and even software industries have failed
to do.) We're stuck with paradigms which may seem obvious but are not
necessarily.
Daniel Ray Giese
: "No Doze" <nig...@execpc.com> wrote in message
: news:407F5539...@execpc.com...
:>
:> Ok, the truth is by reading a comic on line instead of buying takes away
: from
:> the company printing it.
: Yes. But reading a comic on line instead of not buying it does nothing.
: Think about it. They could read the comic in the store and it would have
: the same effect, would it not?
In a store one person could read one comic; which to the comic company and
distributor has already been paid for. When you read in the store, you are
only ripping off the store owner, who presumably tolerates the behavior
because he gets the net positive of having a crowded store. File sharing
is more akin, IMO, to allowing hundreds (and theoretically innumerable) of
people to read for free, to copy and keep a facsimile of the artwork, and
to redistribute in competition with the original company.
:> If it is something that can be bought new, then it is stealing to do so,
: not
:> "sharing".
: If you steal it and then give others access to it, it is in fact both
: stealing and sharing.
Whether or not file sharing is legally defined as "stealing" (a point which
I find as entirely a semantics game), it is wrong morally and legally.
:> If you respect an artist, be he a writer, musician or whatever, the way to
: keep
:> them doing what you love is to spend your money.
: What if you don't respect them or think their product is worth money but
: still think it is worth reading for the time being, although you wouldn't
: miss it immensely if it were to be cancelled?
If you think it is "worth reading", then you should find a legal way to do
so. Their artistic endeavor, despite your approval or disapproval, is
valued as worth a certain amount of money, and when you decide to take that
material without any payment you have committed a crime, and furthermore
have harmed both the company and the others of us who will have to suffer
price increases to support your habit. Right now you claim you don't value
the material very much, and yet you are willing to risk (however slight the
risk may be) the chance of being caught and imposed large fines and
criminal record. That to me is worth more than the cost of a comic.
Dan Giese
dr...@uwm.edu
~consul
>>(...)
>>Those two crimes (yes crimes, sorry all you "sharers"
>>but it's still criminal activity)
> It's illegal (though not everywhere) but is it *wrong*? Is there really a
> victim? Is it wrong if nobody suffers from it?
More the other way around. If you worked on your term paper for two weeks, and turned it
in for a great A+ on it. Would you care if some other person just lifted the text and
turned it in with their name for an A+? Whose the victim there? Who put the effort and
ingenuity in the creation? Or if your graduate professor took your class room ideas into
their book, w/o referencing your insight and thought?
The Babaloughesian
"Daniel Ray Giese" <dr...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:c5p1ph$eie$1...@uwm.edu...
> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe The Babaloughesian <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> : "No Doze" <nig...@execpc.com> wrote in message
> : news:407F5539...@execpc.com...
> :>
> :> Ok, the truth is by reading a comic on line instead of buying takes
away
> : from
> :> the company printing it.
>
> : Yes. But reading a comic on line instead of not buying it does nothing.
> : Think about it. They could read the comic in the store and it would
have
> : the same effect, would it not?
>
> In a store one person could read one comic; which to the comic company and
> distributor has already been paid for. When you read in the store, you
are
> only ripping off the store owner, who presumably tolerates the behavior
> because he gets the net positive of having a crowded store. File sharing
> is more akin, IMO, to allowing hundreds (and theoretically innumerable) of
> people to read for free, to copy and keep a facsimile of the artwork, and
> to redistribute in competition with the original company.
Yes. But your analogy addresses a different party than does mine. You
address those who provide the comic for others, or "file sharing" as an
overall system. I addressed merely the individual who, in the words of he
to whom I was replying, reads a comic online instead of buying.
> :> If it is something that can be bought new, then it is stealing to do
so,
> : not
> :> "sharing".
>
> : If you steal it and then give others access to it, it is in fact both
> : stealing and sharing.
>
> Whether or not file sharing is legally defined as "stealing" (a point
which
> I find as entirely a semantics game), it is wrong morally and legally.
I agree that it is illegal, but I was merely referring in the previous post
to the fact that No Doze was saying that it was not "sharing". It is often
both. Indeed, the sharing is what makes the stealing so threatening, is it
not? Don't discount the sharing. Morality is an individual consideration
that need not enter into this discussion.
> :> If you respect an artist, be he a writer, musician or whatever, the way
to
> : keep
> :> them doing what you love is to spend your money.
>
> : What if you don't respect them or think their product is worth money but
> : still think it is worth reading for the time being, although you
wouldn't
> : miss it immensely if it were to be cancelled?
>
> If you think it is "worth reading", then you should find a legal way to do
> so.
<snipped things that do not matter>
> Right now you claim you don't value
> the material very much,
No, I propose a hypothetical. You see, I wish people would use these
systems intelligently; to get rid of Chuck Austen, for example.
> and yet you are willing to risk (however slight the
> risk may be) the chance of being caught and imposed large fines and
> criminal record.
Does anybody know the specific consequences? The magnitude of the fines,
who is subject to them and in what amounts(scanners, individual downloaders,
site maintainers, etc. would probably each have a different priority level),
when they are imposed (i.e. is there a c&d or other warning beforehand).
You raise a good point, of course. That there are risks. But fear of the
unknown is a fear which should be dismissed as obsolete. One should learn
what they actually have to risk and then, if so inclined, heed the call of
fear when it beckons.
> That to me is worth more than the cost of a comic.
Add up the cost of comics over many years and say this again. I have the
luxury of being able to not spend money or file space on comics that I do
not deem worthy of ownership, but there are those who are seized by them
like a heroin addict. People who will buy new hard drives to join their new
longboxes. One has to wonder over the years how much of a bargain it really
is.
--
"Consequences dictate our course of action and it doesn't matter what's
right. It's only wrong if you get caught."
-Tool, "Jerk-Off"
Bern
c5p1r9$j7o$1...@gist.usc.edu...
> More the other way around. If you worked on your term paper for two weeks,
and turned it
> in for a great A+ on it. Would you care if some other person just lifted
the text and
> turned it in with their name for an A+? Whose the victim there? Who put
the effort and
> ingenuity in the creation?
I think it is different because something is taken away from the student who
did the original work and to all students who get an A+ that they deserve:
the exclusivity and rarity of that grade, which is a tiny part - but a part
nonetheless - of what makes them better than other candidates for a job (for
exemple). I think it's akin to somebody cutting in line: everybody gets down
one notch. Or to not pay your taxes: the government has less money and the
services it provides are lessened.
> Or if your graduate professor took your class room ideas into
> their book, w/o referencing your insight and thought?
In that case, you are a victim because you won't be able to use those for
your own benefit.
Jaxtraw
news:NkWfc.1123$MZ2....@weber.videotron.net...
And if a creator finds that her work is so heavily pirated that she cannot
make sufficient sales to pay her bills, has she not lost something rather
important called a "livelihood"?
And if she thus has to abandon her art, or reduce it to a hobby, and go work
in Wal-Mart instead, have not all those who formerly enjoyed her art,
including those who never paid for it, lost something too?
Ian
--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
Bern
c5p7r8$48g9b$1...@ID-177202.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I agree that it is illegal, but I was merely referring in the previous
post
> to the fact that No Doze was saying that it was not "sharing". It is
often
> both. Indeed, the sharing is what makes the stealing so threatening, is
it
> not? Don't discount the sharing. Morality is an individual consideration
> that need not enter into this discussion.
Isn't morality about what we accept as a society? Conscience is individual.
I think morality (right or wrong) is the most important aspect of this
discussion. If something is not deemed wrong, it won't become illegal. And
if you only consider the legal aspect, would it be right to stop downloading
comics in the US and move to another country where no law prevents it?
As for uploading or sharing, in a decision regarding mp3's, the Canadian
Supreme Court recently ruled that opening your hard drive to other Internet
users is legal, just like it is to have a copy machine in a library. What
other users do is their business. Of course, judges do not make the law.
They apply it. But still.
My point is that whatever the current legal status of sharing/downloading
is, it is not so obviously inherently wrong as many would thing. Some pretty
knowledgeable people in these matters (i.e. judges and lawmakers) seem to
think the whole thing is quite difficult to legislate.
Of course, it is often hard to listen openly to what the
pro-sharing/downloading because most of them arguably just want to save a
buck. Still, «Audi alteram partem» (Hear the other side) is a very important
principle in law.
Micro Brainwave
> "No Doze" <nig...@execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:407F5539...@execpc.com...
> >
> > Ok, the truth is by reading a comic on line instead of buying takes away
> from
> > the company printing it.
>
> Yes. But reading a comic on line instead of not buying it does nothing.
> Think about it. They could read the comic in the store and it would have
> the same effect, would it not?
British musician Billy Bragg made a similar argument in support of
Napster, except he used the library as his analogy. People go the
library to borrow books, but that still doesn't stop them from buying
books at the Indigo bookstore.
John Hogan
> "Selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3c20e9e9.0404...@posting.google.com...
>
>>No, it's copyright infringement (which, BTW, is illegal).
>>(...)
>>Those two crimes (yes crimes, sorry all you "sharers"
>>but it's still criminal activity)
>
> It's illegal (though not everywhere) but is it *wrong*? Is there really a
> victim? Is it wrong if nobody suffers from it?
People should be paid for the work they do. You've derived benefit from
someone else's work and you haven't fairly compensated the worker for
the benefit. Someone is harmed, whether s/he is aware of it or not.
> I believe this to be a debate where we have to think from a new perspective.
> (Just like the comic, music, movie, and even software industries have failed
> to do.) We're stuck with paradigms which may seem obvious but are not
> necessarily.
You mean the way we rewrote the laws against murder when the
availability of cheap handguns made it so much quicker and easier to
kill people?
John Hogan
Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
Daniel Ray Giese
: As for uploading or sharing, in a decision regarding mp3's, the Canadian
: Supreme Court recently ruled that opening your hard drive to other Internet
: users is legal, just like it is to have a copy machine in a library. What
: other users do is their business. Of course, judges do not make the law.
: They apply it. But still.
: My point is that whatever the current legal status of sharing/downloading
: is, it is not so obviously inherently wrong as many would thing. Some pretty
: knowledgeable people in these matters (i.e. judges and lawmakers) seem to
: think the whole thing is quite difficult to legislate.
Why do you think that judges are impartial or more knowledgeable in this or
any matter? I certainly do not assume that as a general truth. In reading
his ruling (http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/bulletins/whatsnew/T-292-04.pdf) I find
several errors which, if this judge were to hold himself to the same
standard which he holds the plaintiffs, would completely invalidate his
argument.
In particular, this suit claims that a person who is file-sharing on kazaa
has not authorized the downloading of shared files, when it is clearly
stated in the program's details that the user has, in fact, authorized just
that.
But some judges certainly do make law, by refusing to rule on certain laws
and interpreting improperly vague legal terms in the manner that they
choose. And this judge is clearly biased, as his statement from the
earliest pages of his ruling make clear his intention to treat the unnamed
users as "innocent bystanders" and not active participants.
Dan Giese
dr...@uwm.edu
The Babaloughesian
> "The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> c5p7r8$48g9b$1...@ID-177202.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > I agree that it is illegal, but I was merely referring in the previous
> post
> > to the fact that No Doze was saying that it was not "sharing". It is
> often
> > both. Indeed, the sharing is what makes the stealing so threatening, is
> it
> > not? Don't discount the sharing. Morality is an individual
consideration
> > that need not enter into this discussion.
>
> Isn't morality about what we accept as a society?
Actually, that's how I would define "ethics". Morality, to me, has always
had a more philosophical, universal connotation, whereas ethics are more of
a matter of pragmatism.
> Conscience is individual.
>
> I think morality (right or wrong) is the most important aspect of this
> discussion. If something is not deemed wrong, it won't become illegal. And
> if you only consider the legal aspect, would it be right to stop
downloading
> comics in the US and move to another country where no law prevents it?
Depends on how comfortable one is with the consequences of doing so, I
suppose. Even without the legal consequences, people do have a valid point
wrt the issue of contributing to the process of putting people out of jobs.
I don't know that it's terribly likely that most individuals will consider
their contribution great enough for it to have much effect on their
behavior, though. Even if one does acknowledge the "wrongness" of it, it's
such a tiny wrong that on a societywide scale it's a really hard sell, IMO.
> As for uploading or sharing, in a decision regarding mp3's, the Canadian
> Supreme Court recently ruled that opening your hard drive to other
Internet
> users is legal, just like it is to have a copy machine in a library. What
> other users do is their business. Of course, judges do not make the law.
> They apply it. But still.
Oh. That's weird. Is there any part of the process that is still illegal
there? I read once that the act of making mp3s as backup files was legal at
some point/in some place; dunno if that's still the case.
> My point is that whatever the current legal status of sharing/downloading
> is, it is not so obviously inherently wrong as many would thing. Some
pretty
> knowledgeable people in these matters (i.e. judges and lawmakers) seem to
> think the whole thing is quite difficult to legislate.
Hm. I'd have thought it easy to legislate but difficult to enforce.
Jaxtraw
That's well known as the "Free Rider Dilemma". If one guy sneaks on and off
the train without buying a ticket, it causes no trouble at all. If nobody
buys a ticket, the railway goes bust and everybody loses. So, should you buy
a ticket..?
Mathew Krull
>
>
>No, it's copyright infringement (which, BTW, is illegal). Stealing is
>the physical taking of something.
>
So, if I electronically transfer funds from your credit card, and use
those funds to buy something over the internet, I did not actually steal
anything? The rest of your statment is pretty much correct, but you
don't have to physically take something to steal.
--
My name is not misspelled.
The Babaloughesian
"Jaxtraw" <jax...@nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:108215697...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
Ah, I figured there was a name for it. Been a couple terms since I had econ
101. Ironically, the same dilemma affects file-sharing sites in need of
donations/servers/people willing to keep uploading a file after they're done
leeching.
--
"Superman now, as he is, is like hanging around with that neighborhood
'happy' guy who's always smiling, never swears, and always has time to lend
a hand and help small dogs across the street. They're great to have around,
but after a while, you can't help but believe they're soaking babies in
barrels of acid in their basement."
-Chuck Austen
Peter Henrikson
from
> the company printing it.
>
Playing Devil's Advocate, because I do tend to think this is morally wrong
1. a comic book is for sale on the shelf
2. I decide that the price is too high and decline to buy it.
3. I later find it online and download it to read.
How has the company lost any money because I wasn't going to buy it whether
I found it online or not?
On the other hand, if I don't buy it because I know I can later find it
online for free, that's taking money away from the publisher (or the store)
and is wrong. So I guess intent is part of the equation
> If it is something that can be bought new, then it is stealing to do so, >
If I buy a knock-off watch (comparing it to an online comic), am I
"stealing" from Rolex (the real book's publisher)? (Again, I can't afford
the real thing and will never buy one.)
> And the sad truth is, the people doing the "sharing" will be the first
ones to
> bitch when the title gets canceled due to lack of sales.
>
Only the unintelligent ones. It should be obvious even to thieves that they
contributed to the cancelation of the book.
Bern
> Oh. That's weird. Is there any part of the process that is still illegal
> there? I read once that the act of making mp3s as backup files was legal
at
> some point/in some place; dunno if that's still the case.
No definitive decision has been made regarding digital files of any sort
and, like Daniel said, how the technology works is not even completely
understood by the people making decisions, but to my knowledge and at least
for the time being, pretty much nothing has been deemed illegal.
In the Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Recording
Industry Association tried to force ISPs to tell them who were the 29
biggest sharers they had identified in order to sue them, but the Court
decided those ISPs didn't have to give them the information. At the moment,
all the record companies can do are ad campaigns trying to convince the
population that sharing/downloading will kill the artists.
IMO, it's a kinda pathetic effort from an industry that is on the way to
become obsolete. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I
believe music will soon be next to free while merchandise and concert ticket
prices will explode. Just too bad for prefabricated commercial pop singers
who can't give a concert.
Bern
108214366...@echo.uk.clara.net...
> And if a creator finds that her work is so heavily pirated that she cannot
> make sufficient sales to pay her bills, has she not lost something rather
> important called a "livelihood"?
That, again, is assuming that people would buy the product if they could not
download it for free.
Peter Henrikson
out where to put a general comment without starting a whole new thread.
OT but related.
I recently bought a program called DVD X Copy which allows me to copy a DVD.
I bought it because I've had DVD's that I purchased legally become defective
and would like to have had a backup copy rather than pay for it all over
again to replace. (This is called "Fair Rights"). The Hollywood movie makers
and their lawyers put a cease and desist action against the company and the
program can't be sold anymore until the issue is decided in a court of law.
It has always been legal to make such a copy in every other medium (books,
tapes, video etc.) but now that computers have made it so easy to make
illegal copies of DVD's they're trying to stop people from even making legal
ones. Just because some thing can be used to commit a crime doe not mean
every person is doing it.
To bring it back to comics. If I scan a comic book on to my computer for
backup in case my original gets ruined somehow, am I breaking any laws? If I
share that file with other people who weren't going to buy the actual comic,
is anyone hurt? And how wrong is it to feel that we are being ripped-off
with the high price of comics and want to do something to get some of our
money back? The only other protest I can think of is to not buy the comic at
all, but if everyone did that we'd have no comics at all, overpriced or
otherwise.(I know that last one went a little too far but, there is a kind
of vigilante logic to it.)
Bern
c5pghf$f34h$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> People should be paid for the work they do. You've derived benefit from
> someone else's work and you haven't fairly compensated the worker for
> the benefit. Someone is harmed, whether s/he is aware of it or not.
That's an interesting point. Does it mean I can't lend a comic to a friend?
Or sell it on E-bay? How many people can enjoy the same copy of a comic book
before it becomes too many?
> You mean the way we rewrote the laws against murder when the
> availability of cheap handguns made it so much quicker and easier to
> kill people?
Now you've completely lost me.
Peter Henrikson
> "The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
>
> In the Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Recording
> Industry Association tried to force ISPs to tell them who were the 29
> biggest sharers they had identified in order to sue them, but the Court
> decided those ISPs didn't have to give them the information. At the
moment,
> all the record companies can do are ad campaigns trying to convince the
> population that sharing/downloading will kill the artists.
>
It irks me a bit when people call them artists. I think that one you start
making millions of dollars from your craft you're not an artist, you're a
corporation.
Pete
Jaxtraw
If you have a product people won't buy at all, you haven't got a product.
If you offer something either for a price or for free, most people will just
take it for free. That is the way people, as a group, are. To suggest that
that doesn't harm sales is ludicrous. Put simply, if 1000 people download a
pirate CD, maybe 900 wouldn't have bought it anyway, and 10 will still go
out and buy it. That leaves 90 lost sales. Those 90 might be the difference
between a livelihood and burger flipping.
Jaxtraw
> "John Hogan" <jho...@law.upenn.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
> c5pghf$f34h$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > People should be paid for the work they do. You've derived benefit from
> > someone else's work and you haven't fairly compensated the worker for
> > the benefit. Someone is harmed, whether s/he is aware of it or not.
>
> That's an interesting point. Does it mean I can't lend a comic to a
friend?
> Or sell it on E-bay? How many people can enjoy the same copy of a comic
book
> before it becomes too many?
>
Well, there's the nub. It's all a matter of shades of gray; of scale,
really. There has always been small-scale, what one might call "personal"
piracy. As a kid, I couldn't afford to buy many records; they were rather
special items really. I had some albums taped from friends' copies etc.
Which was piracy. But on a small scale. Industries can survive that.
Newspapers and comics are read by several people often; books are lent and
borrowed, and so on.
The difference with digital piracy is one of scale. A kid today doesn't need
to borrow an album from a friend to make a copy; he now has millions of
"friends" with every CD he could possibly want. *That* is where it becomes
industry-damaging.
IOW, in the old days, it may have been one copy amongst several; now it is
one copy amongst everybody.
The piracy debate tends to be very polarised, with each side arguing
extremes. The fact is, it's a matter of degree; what degree of
sharing/copying/piracy the entertainment industries can support.
teepee
"Mathew Krull" <mkr...@cfu.net> wrote
> So, if I electronically transfer funds from your credit card, and use
> those funds to buy something over the internet, I did not actually steal
> anything? The rest of your statment is pretty much correct, but you
> don't have to physically take something to steal.
You're perhaps talking philosophy about something that is a matter of legal
definition. Whatever the rights and wrongs, under English law at any rate,
downloading music or video or comics is not theft, end of story. It is not a
criminal offence. If anything, it is breach of copyright, a civil offence.
You example above, OTOH, IS theft.
For the record, in the UK:
"A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property
belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of
it."
So it is not theft to deprive someone of the money they might have made from
a hypothetical sale. Downloading something does not deprive the creator of
the thing itself.
Maybe in America it's different.
teepee
"teepee" <no-e...@hotmail.com>
> "Mathew Krull" <mkr...@cfu.net> wrote
>> The rest of your statment is pretty much correct, but you
> > don't have to physically take something to steal.
Oh sorry I read what you wrote more closely. You're quite correct.
Bern
> If you offer something either for a price or for free, most people will
just
> take it for free. That is the way people, as a group, are. To suggest that
> that doesn't harm sales is ludicrous.
Don't librairies harm sales of books and CDs?
Jaxtraw
Probably, to a limited extent, yes. But they impose restrictions compared to
buying the books/CDs (you have to take them back, you can only have a
limited number at any one time etc). Significantly, the industry was
increasingly concerned about libraries offering audio recordings as
technology for copying (taping onto cassette) improved and thus piracy
became more worthwhile.
Additionally, libraries, particularly regarding audio (records, CDs) are
rarely very up to date and the choice somewhat limited. When I was a kid, my
local library offered records, but they were mostly classical. The chance of
borrowing the latest Hit 45 from Mott The Hoople was pretty remote :)
Johanna Draper Carlson
>
> Probably, to a limited extent, yes.
Libraries also encourage sales in some cases. If I enjoy enough the free
sample (of a particular series or author's work), then I start buying
the books.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Fade From Blue, Reviews of DC's Hard Time, Monolith,
My Faith in Frankie, Image's Common Grounds, PVP, Rex Mundi, Wildguard,
IDW's CSI, Tres Fanta, plus Hellboy, Epic, and more
Janus
news:johannaNOSPAM-304...@news.fu-berlin.de:
> "Jaxtraw" <jax...@nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote:
>> "Bern" <be...@nothing.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Don't librairies harm sales of books and CDs?
>>
>> Probably, to a limited extent, yes.
>
> Libraries also encourage sales in some cases. If I enjoy enough the free
> sample (of a particular series or author's work), then I start buying
> the books.
>
And libraries loan books...they don't photocopy and redistribute books.
--
The head of the English department asked me, "Do you read any crap?"
And I said, no, in that insufferable high school manner, no doubt.
And he said, "You need to read more crap."
The point was to read more for entertainment and for fun.
GAIL SIMONE
Peter Henrikson
"Janus" <janus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CEADD8834DCj...@216.77.188.18...
> Johanna Draper Carlson <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in
> news:johannaNOSPAM-304...@news.fu-berlin.de:
>
> > "Jaxtraw" <jax...@nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> "Bern" <be...@nothing.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > Don't librairies harm sales of books and CDs?
> >>
> >> Probably, to a limited extent, yes.
> >
> > Libraries also encourage sales in some cases. If I enjoy enough the free
> > sample (of a particular series or author's work), then I start buying
> > the books.
> >
>
> And libraries loan books...they don't photocopy and redistribute books.
>
> --
brain. You may not remember all the words, but you remember the story. Come
to think of it, is "making a copy" of it in organic memory all that
different than making one in digital memory? Especially if you have a
photographic memory? And then what if you share it with others by verbally
reciting it? Humankind has a history of doing exactly that. Did a cavemen
pay a royalty to the originator of a story when he repeated it? Sometimes
(often? always?) claiming it as his own? At least the file-sharers of today
don't make that claim. I know we claim to be more civilized today and that
there are lots of things cavemen did that we don't do now, but are we really
all that far advanced morally? I don't really think so, no matter how much
of a show we put on to convince ourselves otherwise.
Jason Michael
"Peter Henrikson" <peterhe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C5qgc.18093$ru4.17642@attbi_s52...
> > --
> I feel that once you've read a book, you'll always have a copy,... in your
> brain. You may not remember all the words, but you remember the story.
Come
> to think of it, is "making a copy" of it in organic memory all that
> different than making one in digital memory? Especially if you have a
> photographic memory? And then what if you share it with others by verbally
> reciting it? Humankind has a history of doing exactly that. Did a cavemen
> pay a royalty to the originator of a story when he repeated it? Sometimes
> (often? always?) claiming it as his own? At least the file-sharers of
today
> don't make that claim. I know we claim to be more civilized today and that
> there are lots of things cavemen did that we don't do now, but are we
really
> all that far advanced morally? I don't really think so, no matter how much
> of a show we put on to convince ourselves otherwise.
>
>
Wow. Your logic overwhelms me. You've convinced me. It's okay for people to
do anything they want. There should be no consequences to their actions.
There is no morality. You have no responsibility to anyone other than
satisfying your own selfish desires.
Seriously though, what's your point?
Jason
Scott Summerton
means people don't get paid. Sure a copy is sold to scan, but after that?
The people who write and draw, edit, colour, letter, print, publish, ship,
stock and sell the books are out of the money rightfully due to them that
comes along with the reading of the book. Going online pays none of those
people, even the creators whose work you're so eager to see in the first
place.
Reading comic books is a priveledge, not a right. If you can't afford it,
then you can't afford it. Prices aren't high just because, they are high
because of the economy. Prices for everything change as the value of the
dollor changes. As a Canadian I know this all too well. It used to be $1
us and $1.25 Canadian for a comic. Then the gap grew by 50 cents, then a
dollar, then more and more. Remember last year how Marvel dropped their
Canadian prices due to the Canadian dollar doing so well?
If you think prices are too high, then complain about it. But don't
circumvent the system. You aren't just screwing Marvel or DC or whoever,
but everyone inbetween the writer/artist team and the store owner who rings
up your purchase.
You want to read a comic, but don't have the funds? Then you don't get to
read it. You might want to have a bag of chips, but only have enough for
basic food in your budget, bread and such... so you won't take the bag from
the factory, as its just the same thing...
Or would you?
Oh, as for back issues, well, again, the publisher might not get the money,
or the creative team, but really, we aren't talking abandonded software here
where its simply impossible to purchase and the distributors aren't
producing it or something, we're talking BACK ISSUES. Stores have rooms of
these to sell, so you're ripping off the store in this case. You know, the
local businessman who's in the industry because he likes it and wants to
provide the community with something that might not be otherwise available.
That guy, in town, who if was out of business would directly affect your
local economy.
Oh, and to those who's arguement is "there is no store in my area", that's
no longer valid either what with the fact that anyone online downloading
comic scans can also, by virtue of being online, go to www.mycomicshop.com,
www.milehighcomics.com, www.midtowncomics.com, hell even my local store
www.hillcity-comics.com. You want new issues? Back issues? Go there.
Hell, most online places even have DISCOUNTS on the regular prices for
crying out loud! Support THEM and you are getting the books (GASP) cheaper
anyway!
This isn't an ad for them, this is just a "really... its not that hard to
get the books you want" thing.
Oh, and as for Comicbook Napster overall... does NO ONE remember the fact
that Napster was shut down due to it being involved in lawsuits? Really,
last thing Marvel and DC and so forth need is to be spending money on legal
teams to target people to cheap to buy their product. Just thinking about
that, it wouldn't surprise me to see prices increase thanks to that, a
DIRECT RESULT of an organized comics fileshare system.
So, you say you want prices down and blackmailing the companies will do
that? You do Comicbook Napster and you'd very likely get the reverse, and
THEN what?
Really, with all this said, its still VERY simple: If you can't afford the
books, you can't afford the books and need to get a higher paying job so
that you can afford the books. Luxuries are called that for a reason you
know...
Scott Summerton
Scott Summerton
up doing...
Or would you?
Scott Summerton
"Comicboards" <tle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x9ednSVRIb4...@comcast.com...
> We are in the process of creating such a thing. Right now many of the
scans
> can be seen on my Forum site, however we will develop an engine that will
> allow people to share comicbooks files.
>
> However, if you want to spend you hard earned money on comics. If you
make
> $8/hr that is $40 a day, one comic is nearly 10% of your days salary, and
> the prices will only increase.
>
> For right now if you have any questions or have anything you want scanned
on
> our site, just go to our link then click on "Contact Us" in the navigation
> bar. I will not respond to request on the newsgroups.
>
> --
> Discuss Politics, Race Relations, Gay Rights and Marvel or DC characters.
> http://www.comicboards.org
>
>
>
Peter Henrikson
"Jason Michael" <jwmi...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:s3ugc.497$CO3....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Where exactly did I say any of that!? I wasn't presenting any logical
arguement, just thinking out loud, or "thinking with my fingers" as it were.
I was comparing today's technological way that files (a.k.a. stories, songs,
etc.) are shared to a long history of people doing the same things to the
limits of their technology (or lack thereof) of the time. I was wondering if
anyone else thought that perhaps "file-sharing" is not so new a thing as
people seem to think. It's just that today's tech allows it to happen on a
grander scale. I made no judgement as to whether it was right or wrong.
> Seriously though, what's your point?
>
I had no point, really. I was asking rhetorical questions. I didn't state
anything as fact. I'll admit I got off the point at the end with my cynical
view of today's "civilization"
Selaboc
Except by electronically transfering my funds you *ARE* physically
taking money from my account. Those electronic funds are tied to
physical objects when you transfer those obeject from one account
(mine) to another (yours) they nolonger physically reside in my
account. It only seems to you that there's nothing physical involved
because you are using computers to get the bank people to do your
dirty work for you.
John Hogan
> "John Hogan" <jho...@law.upenn.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
> c5pghf$f34h$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
>>People should be paid for the work they do. You've derived benefit from
>>someone else's work and you haven't fairly compensated the worker for
>>the benefit. Someone is harmed, whether s/he is aware of it or not.
>
> That's an interesting point. Does it mean I can't lend a comic to a friend?
> Or sell it on E-bay? How many people can enjoy the same copy of a comic book
> before it becomes too many?
Five.
OK, I'm explaining a principle, and we can make what we agree are
reasonable adjustments for some situations. The possibility of
distributing copies of someone else's work en masse is not one of those
situations (note that in your examples, only one copy of the work is
travelling around; that's a dramatic difference from filesharing).
What I'm mostly trying to do is substitute another analogy for the
"theft" analogy, which truly is problematic in this instance. I'd also
like to move the focus away from the industry and toward the creator. I
think that on the whole we get better comics and music from people who
make comics and music full time; I'd like to keep it possible for people
to do that by making sure that they get paid for their efforts.
>>You mean the way we rewrote the laws against murder when the
>>availability of cheap handguns made it so much quicker and easier to
>>kill people?
>
> Now you've completely lost me.
You're arguing that the moral principles behind copyright protection
have to be rethought because the technology of violating that protection
has become so highly developed and widely available. I'm arguing that
the state of the technology doesn't affect the moral principles at all,
using an example that highlights the moral dimension by leaving out the
appeal of free stuff.
John Hogan
Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
~consul
> If I buy a knock-off watch (comparing it to an online comic), am I
> "stealing" from Rolex (the real book's publisher)? (Again, I can't afford
> the real thing and will never buy one.)
Rolex is priced so high because of demand (of status). If they could sell many many more
at a lower price (maintaining profits) then I woudl guess that they would. But with so
many knockoffs and 'close enough' watches in the market, there is no impetus for them to
go to a wider, inexpensive market. Just like comics.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
~consul
spam about Rolex watches. :)
Peter Henrikson
"~consul" <con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:c611l8$i2h$2...@gist.usc.edu...
I love coincidences like that. They happen to me quite often. Best one was
when I was picking something up and a fart escaped with the strain. Not
missing a beat, a guy on TV says "Ugh! What's that smell?". My wife and I
laughed for quite a while over that one.
Mathew Krull
I wasn't aware credit card companies actually set cash aside equal to
your crdit limit when you got an account with them.
--
My name is not misspelled.
Janus
> I wasn't aware credit card companies actually set cash aside equal to
> your crdit limit when you got an account with them.
>
Isn't that credit card fraud? A wholly different crime from theft.
Scott Summerton
> > those funds to buy something over the internet, I did not actually steal
> > anything? The rest of your statment is pretty much correct, but you
> > don't have to physically take something to steal.
>
> Except by electronically transfering my funds you *ARE* physically
> taking money from my account. Those electronic funds are tied to
> physical objects when you transfer those obeject from one account
> (mine) to another (yours) they nolonger physically reside in my
> account. It only seems to you that there's nothing physical involved
> because you are using computers to get the bank people to do your
> dirty work for you.
Well, reading a comic is a physical act too, so physically reading something
which you are supposed to pay for the right to read, pretty much blows that
arguement out of the water.
Scott Summerton
Job Loon
> So, you say you want prices down and blackmailing the companies will do
> that? You do Comicbook Napster and you'd very likely get the reverse, and
> THEN what?
>
> Really, with all this said, its still VERY simple: If you can't afford the
> books, you can't afford the books and need to get a higher paying job so
> that you can afford the books. Luxuries are called that for a reason you
> know...
>
Interesting thread but how about coming at it from a different angle?
In Japan comic books are copied with changes made to them and then
distributed quite extensively. This actually helps the legal comic
industry there and allows comic books to flourish in Japanese culture.
(See Lawrence Lessigs - Free Culture book
-->http://free-culture.org/freecontent/
Why not distribute your all time greatest comic books in black and
white versions (cuz their more affordable to reproduce than color
versions). A person could save a PDF version on an old AOL disk or
print it out at Kinko's on good ole' fashioned paper.
Leaving these paper or digital copies in places where the average joe
can find 'em and read em just out of curiosity would greatly change the
accepted view of comic books in American culture.
And the benefits to the comic book industry would be unspeakable!
Who wants a black and white version of McFarlanes Spiderman? Or Walter
Simonsons Thor? The average joe would feel that something is missing
and seek the color version by going to his or her local comic book
store and purchasing the Real Deal. This kind of activity would protect
the investment of our back issues because more people would be hunting
for back issues. What is Marvel or any comic book company doing to
protect our investments?
I've already got a Black and white version of Fantastic Four # 248 on
paper and in PDF format. And I've already dropped off a couple copies
at my local cafe.
Anybody wanna copy?
Jaxon
>
Selaboc
Only to those who lack the ability to think. physically reading
something does not physically take that something away from someone
else. whereas using someone elses money (either from taking their
wallet or electronically using their bank accounts) physically takes
that money away from them. When the transaction is done, the former
leaves the origional owner as still having the physical object (the
thing read) whereas the later leaves the origional owner without that
physical object (his money). Which is why the former is not theft and
the later is.
Selaboc
> Well, reading a comic is a physical act too, so physically reading something
> which you are supposed to pay for the right to read, pretty much blows that
> arguement out of the water.
Since I just read another post of yours where you said you've only
read a few of the posts, I'm guessing you missed out on the begining
of this subthread and thus may have missed a point which I didn't
reiterate in my first response to you: What was being talked about is
that fact that filesharing is not stealing, not, as you might have
misconstrued, that I'm arguing that filesharing is "ok" since it is
not "stealing". Indeed I pointed out in my first post in this
subthread that it *IS* illegal and is more properly classified as
Copyright infringement.
Karl Hiller
> "Bern" <be...@nothing.com> wrote in message
> news:9G0gc.39616$S%4.11...@wagner.videotron.net...
> > c5pghf$f34h$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > > People should be paid for the work they do. You've derived benefit from
> > > someone else's work and you haven't fairly compensated the worker for
> > > the benefit. Someone is harmed, whether s/he is aware of it or not.
> >
> > That's an interesting point. Does it mean I can't lend a comic to a
> friend?
> > Or sell it on E-bay? How many people can enjoy the same copy of a comic
> book
> > before it becomes too many?
> >
> Well, there's the nub. It's all a matter of shades of gray; of scale,
> really. There has always been small-scale, what one might call "personal"
> piracy. As a kid, I couldn't afford to buy many records; they were rather
> special items really. I had some albums taped from friends' copies etc.
> Which was piracy. But on a small scale. Industries can survive that.
> Newspapers and comics are read by several people often; books are lent and
> borrowed, and so on.
> The difference with digital piracy is one of scale. A kid today doesn't need
> to borrow an album from a friend to make a copy; he now has millions of
> "friends" with every CD he could possibly want. *That* is where it becomes
> industry-damaging.
> IOW, in the old days, it may have been one copy amongst several; now it is
> one copy amongst everybody.
And I'd like to add this thought: My generation grew up with the
assumption that "personal piracy" was no big deal. The first albums I
ever had on tape were copied for me by my brother-in-law, or recorded off
the radio when the station would do a "midnight album". VCRs became
common when I was in high school, and no one ever thought twice about
taping whatever they wanted off TV. These things were like water taps --
you just turned them on and took what you wanted, and that was just the
way of things.
I think that's why so many people became "criminals" when Napster came
along. They just applied the same thinking: turn the tap on, fill your
glass. The distinction between taping The Simpsons and downloading an
episode simply won't occur to many people.
So. We have a generation growing up right now that has instant access to
nearly everything in (mostly illegal) digital form. The population's
basic assumptions are sliding even farther away from the path of true and
righteous intellectual property protection. What are things going to look
like in 15 years?
Karl Hiller
> Or would you?
Let me pose a hypothetical.
Suppose someone scans Action Comics #1 and puts it up on a web site
(illegally, of course, but so far it hasn't been taken down). You stumble
upon a link to it. Do you read it? If so, what are you doing wrong?
~consul
> So. We have a generation growing up right now that has instant access to
> nearly everything in (mostly illegal) digital form. The population's
> basic assumptions are sliding even farther away from the path of true and
> righteous intellectual property protection. What are things going to look
> like in 15 years?
We will have a lot less consumer entertainment. It will go back to the very rich,
'nobility', funding the arts for personal collections. We shall have our mintrels
travelling between the cities performing concerts for the select few who will be able to
go to the shows.
Or the stuff will be tied to corporations who will subsidize the medium. New books and
movies will have commercials within the pages in a way not seen as yet.
Comic books will be a real rarity, self-distributed for the 'art concept'. I don't think
we can do the 'concerts' performance that will work for the music industry as there is no
way really to do that with comics.
Jaxtraw
A chilling scenario, but very plausible. I hope you're wrong :)
Jaxtraw
news:108alps...@corp.supernews.com...
A dodgy character in your local pub offers you a brand new laptop for 50
quid, no questions asked. Do you buy it? If so, what are you doing wrong?
Brett Todd
> Reading comic books is a priveledge, not a right. If you can't afford it,
> then you can't afford it. Prices aren't high just because, they are high
> because of the economy. Prices for everything change as the value of the
> dollor changes. As a Canadian I know this all too well. It used to be $1
> us and $1.25 Canadian for a comic. Then the gap grew by 50 cents, then a
> dollar, then more and more. Remember last year how Marvel dropped their
> Canadian prices due to the Canadian dollar doing so well?
Yeah, Marvel dropped the CDN prices alright -- six months or more after the
dollar shot up and stabilized at the higher level. And Marvel didn't even
give us an accurate exchange rate. We're still paying more than we should be
in Canada.
> Really, with all this said, its still VERY simple: If you can't afford
the
> books, you can't afford the books and need to get a higher paying job so
> that you can afford the books. Luxuries are called that for a reason you
> know...
But the problem with that view is that nobody views comic books as a luxury.
For good or ill, they're considered kiddie entertainment that should be had
on the cheap. The history of comics in North America revolves around the
newsstand, where you could grab a fistful of 'em for less than the price of
a fast-food lunch. Now, you could buy that lunch with the cost of just one
or two regular books.
Comics are doomed because the publishers have abandoned this marketplace and
the friendly cost structure, downloading or not, affluence or not. I do
pretty well, and I still dropped all of my books this year. I work hard to
make my money, and I don't enjoy feeling ripped off. Quality was also a huge
issue, though that's a different argument.
Brett
Janus
@ersa.uk.clara.net:
> A dodgy character in your local pub offers you a brand new laptop for 50
> quid, no questions asked. Do you buy it? If so, what are you doing wrong?
>
> Ian
> --
>
If you knew the laptop was stolen, you're recieving stolen property.
gar...@fortalnet.com.br
snip!
>
> I think morality (right or wrong) is the most important aspect of this
> discussion.
True, morality is VERY important. However, I have seen the moral aspect of
many decisions of Comic publishing companies being dismissed out of hand,
in this very forum, with the atitude: "So what? The company got the power,
who are you to talk of morality to them?"
Morality? Of course! Only it has to go both ways.
Ralf Haring
> > the books, you can't afford the books and need to get a higher paying job so
> > that you can afford the books. Luxuries are called that for a reason you
> > know...
>
> But the problem with that view is that nobody views comic books as a luxury.
> For good or ill, they're considered kiddie entertainment that should be had
> on the cheap.
I think you misundertand what is meant by a luxury item. If you don't
need it to live, it's a luxury, regardless of whether you're talking
about a private plane or a video game system or a comic book.
-Ralf
Peter Henrikson
"Karl Hiller" <kren...@ySaPhAoMo.com> wrote in message
> And I'd like to add this thought: My generation grew up with the
> assumption that "personal piracy" was no big deal. The first albums I
> ever had on tape were copied for me by my brother-in-law, or recorded off
> the radio when the station would do a "midnight album". VCRs became
> common when I was in high school, and no one ever thought twice about
> taping whatever they wanted off TV. These things were like water taps --
> you just turned them on and took what you wanted, and that was just the
> way of things.
>
I never thought taping an album from the radio or a TV show was illegal.
They were broadcast over the air with no charge to the consumer (except that
you had to have a tolerance to commercials (TV). If you meant HBO or Cinemax
or something, that's another matter. I forget that there are generations
after mine that never watched television using an antenna.
Peter Henrikson
"Jaxtraw" <jax...@nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:108248350...@ersa.uk.clara.net...
would never accept prices high enough to make up for the mass market that
lower prices would allow. I don't think the artist would accept that and
would find some compromise to keep that from happening. Everything will find
some kind of happy(?) medium.
Michael Pastor
Any regular listener to the Harry Scherer show distributed over public radio
would have heard how some executives think that being able to skip
commercials via TiVO is a violation of your contractual responsibilities as
a viewer. Every time you hit the ffwd button, you're stealing. Nice to
know, isn't it?
michael j pastor
Peter Henrikson
"Janus" <janus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D1B1B31854Cj...@216.77.188.18...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax...@nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in news:1082484338.12767.0
> @ersa.uk.clara.net:
>
> > A dodgy character in your local pub offers you a brand new laptop for 50
> > quid, no questions asked. Do you buy it? If so, what are you doing
wrong?
> >
> > Ian
> > --
> >
>
> If you knew the laptop was stolen, you're recieving stolen property.
>
>
Is it my duty to report a _possible_ crime? The police might not be able to
find the evidence to prove a crime or they might just say they're too busy
to investigate. There are a lot of variables that can't be predicted. so
taking things at face value is not unreasonable.
Jaxtraw
It always was illegal. In theory, the police could run you in for having
movies taped off the telly. Eventually, here in the UK at least, a law was
introduced that made taping for personal use, *not* distribution to others,
legal. IANAL but I think legally with file "sharing" it's not really the
people downloading who are beaking the law, or really per se doing anything
wrong. It's the people *uploading*, because they are the ones duplicating
the copyright material.
That's not to say tehre isn't a moral responsibility on downloaders though.
But in reality it's impractical to attempt to stop people taking free stuff
on moral grounds. If people can get something free they will; the important
thing is to stop people making the material available, which basically means
stamping heavily on the producers of the technologies, or on large-scale
file uploaders.
Peter Henrikson
"Michael Pastor" <michael...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c645tv$7ulj6$1...@ID-174457.news.uni-berlin.de...
It makes me angry at those executives. To me it's only greed on their part,
as much as downloading free music or comics is really only greed on the
downloaders part. As far as I'm concerned, I didn't sign any contract. If
they don't like it, they can stop sponsoring TV shows (and watch what
happens to their income then). Otherwise they'll just have to find another
wayto advertise on TV. I've always thought the best compromise would be
product placement during the show. If the CSI team picked up a Coke people
would notice. If the Law and Order people all drove Fords, the same. Of
course I'm talking a subliminal type of awareness but we all know that the
advertisers would shove things in our face so obviously as to make things
even more obnoxious than they are now. I can understand on a basic level why
consumers might want to find ways "to get even", like down;oading "free"
stuff.
Pete
>
> michael j pastor
>
>
Sebastian Schwenk
> Interesting thread but how about coming at it from a different angle?
> In Japan comic books are copied with changes made to them and then
> distributed quite extensively. This actually helps the legal comic
> industry there and allows comic books to flourish in Japanese culture.
> (See Lawrence Lessigs - Free Culture book
> -->http://free-culture.org/freecontent/
>
> Why not distribute your all time greatest comic books in black and
> white versions (cuz their more affordable to reproduce than color
> versions). A person could save a PDF version on an old AOL disk or
> print it out at Kinko's on good ole' fashioned paper.
Umm... that sounds as if you'd think they just take a famous book,
photocopy it and change a few lines / designs here and there and
then reprint it cheaply to sell it on some kind of "black market"
for comics.
If so, you seem to have misunderstood something there. Doujinshi
are original works (in a way). Granted, they are created by hobby
artists or artists trying to get a start in the business, but
they're not direct 1:1 "photo"copies of entire works with a few
marginal changes made using whiteout and a pencil. They are usually
created from scratch, often with original stories, but many use
visual styles, character designs and world settings taken from popular
series. As such it is indeed copyright infringement, since they use
recognizeable intellectual property created by others in their own
creations and sometimes even make some money with it ("derivative
works" is the buzzword here). Yet, it is tolerated by the japanese
comics industry, for various reasons others should be better suited
to explain (or even speculate on) in detail.
Anyways, it's not a different angle on the problem discussed here,
it's a completely different problem, and one that doesn't exist as
a mass phenomenon outside of Japan. Or are there actually people
in the U.S. writing and drawing their own Superman (or whatever)
comics in the well known visual styles of the currently running
(or older) official series and selling them on conventions, just
without permission by (or paying fees to) DC?
~Sebastian