So, since I'm overly critical of stuff.... *New 52 topic

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I do NOT have the money to buy all 52 books of the new 52.

So, I did a bad thing, sorta. I found a torrent and downloaded them all. And I plan on reading them and giving them as fair an assessment as I can.

Now, before you lambaste me for the illegal download, please note: I HAD ZERO INTENTIONS OF BUYING ANY OF THESE BOOKS!

What does this mean? I DO have enough spare cash to buy maybe a half dozen books or so a month if any of these titles truly grab me. And I'm curious to read entire issues as opposed to segments posted here where people are commenting on specific titles.

Starting tonight, I'm reading thses books... in order... with as pen a mind as I can bring to the table.

Wish me luck.

[Morrison_Lad]

Good luck.

And no, I wouldn't lambaste you. Back in the bad old days (not they're over, by a long shot) of the constant anti-piracy rants by the MPAA and RIAA, I always would laugh internally when some executive would claim that every pirated song is lost money.

Well, no, it isn't. It's the equivalent (with people doing something like you're doing) of the difference between walking into the coffee shop and them offering you a free coffee, and having to buy it yourself when you're not really that sure you even want a coffee. A free Hazelnut latte? ABSOLUTELY! A $4.12 Hazelnut latter when I'm already kinda caffeined out? Nah. I'll pass.

And in the case of someone like you, your LCS and DC might actually end up getting money that they otherwise would never have seen. *shrug* Doesn't seem like there are any losers in that equation.

[zemo]

Except that he stole. There's tons of good reasons, but in the end, and everything considered, he broke the law. Not saying that he is a horrible person for that or whatever, but everybody that downloads comics has to be 100% clear on the fact that they are breaking the law. Even if DC is making more money out of him this way than if he hadn't bought any comics at all, a law has been broken. No reasoning whatsoever will change that fact.

[Corrina]

You want a positive topic and you start with talking about piracy and illegal downloads?

::epic facepalm::

[Kevin T Brown]

This will not end well. :nonono2:

[Corrina]

"I took something I should have paid for but maybe in the future, I might buy some more, so we're all good, right. Am I right?"

That's your logic, Ziggy. In point of fact, you might never pay for anything. I think it's more honest to say "I wanted to read and I didn't want to spend the money so I stole it because I think the law is dumb," than say "well, hey, I stole your stuff but maybe in the future I won't, and that will be good for you."

I might point out the DC (and the creators who get a cut) were counting on the curiosity that you express in wanting the books to be an incentive to buy them and thus make money. Sure, I want to read all the 52 books too if I could afford it. But I can't, so I go to places like the library and just read other stuff I enjoy instead. There's plenty of free reading available on libraries and on the 'net that's legal, so I don't quite understand the temptation to take stuff illegally.

[Morrison_Lad]

Except that he stole. There's tons of good reasons, but in the end, and everything considered, he broke the law. Not saying that he is a horrible person for that or whatever, but everybody that downloads comics has to be 100% clear on the fact that they are breaking the law. Even if DC is making more money out of him this way than if he hadn't bought any comics at all, a law has been broken. No reasoning whatsoever will change that fact.

This is going to be last post on this part of this discussion, since I remember these back-and-forths going to epic lengths back a million years ago on /. and I can't really take any more of it.

But to steal something, you need to deny someone else of something of value. There also has to be an intent to deprive involve. In other words, if I take your copy of Moby Dick as I leave your house, thinking it was mine which I had left there, I am not guilty of theft. There was no mens rea, and no intent to deprive. It was simply an honest mistake.

Now, beyond all that stuff, I have long-argued that if you were never going to pay for the song/movie/whatever in the first place, under any circumstances, but you d/l it because it is free, then you haven't actually deprived anyone of anything (in this case, money). They were never going to get the money, under any circumstances. After you d/l the song/movie/whatever, the distributor has exactly as much money from you as they had originally: $0.

A lot of people disagree with me. And it's certainly a fine line between someone who is just checking something out, and someone who more than likely just doesn't want to pay. But I would argue strenuously (were I not so tired of this particular argument) that those two people's intentions, and therefore whether it is actually an act of "theft" are extremely different.

Anyhow, like I said, this has been argued to death over the past 15-20 years especially. No one's really going to add anything new to the discussion at this point.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's what's what.

If this was 20 years ago and I did not have the option to pre-read these books, DC would have gotten ZERO dollars from me. I would NOT support a questionbable relaunch, especially at the prices they are charging for these books.

My sister has high speed internet and let me use her connection to download this torrent. I can now read these books and decide if I do want to spend money on any of them or not.

So, DC could have gotten nothing from me with

If not, I won't be bothering to down load any furhter issues either.

With my distaste for how things were going DC would have gotten nary a penny from me as I would not even remotely want to condone their decision with any of my hard earned money. Because, whether I hate the book or like it, my money spent to find out still counts as "sales" and bragging rights for DC.

This way, I may just give them money, because if I like the book, I will track it down and buy it, even for more than the cover price.

So, DC could have gotten nothing from me with the prospect of further nothing in the future, or they got nothing from me with the prospect that I will finally start buying some of their books again for the first time in almost 10 years.

I make too little and they charge too much for me to give them anything on just a "maybe it's good" or "folk on da web say it's great".

Stealing? If I planned to keep it up, yeah. Fact is, I am going to delete them all when I'm done and then go out and buy the ones I liked.

[FanboyStranger]

This is going to be last post on this part of this discussion, since I remember these back-and-forths going to epic lengths back a million years ago on /. and I can't really take any more of it.

But to steal something, you need to deny someone else of something of value. There also has to be an intent to deprive involve. In other words, if I take your copy of Moby Dick as I leave your house, thinking it was mine which I had left there, I am not guilty of theft. There was no mens rea, and no intent to deprive. It was simply an honest mistake.

Now, beyond all that stuff, I have long-argued that if you were never going to pay for the song/movie/whatever in the first place, under any circumstances, but you d/l it because it is free, then you haven't actually deprived anyone of anything (in this case, money). They were never going to get the money, under any circumstances. After you d/l the song/movie/whatever, the distributor has exactly as much money from you as they had originally: $0.

A lot of people disagree with me. And it's certainly a fine line between someone who is just checking something out, and someone who more than likely just doesn't want to pay. But I would argue strenuously (were I not so tired of this particular argument) that those two people's intentions, and therefore whether it is actually an act of "theft" are extremely different.

Anyhow, like I said, this has been argued to death over the past 15-20 years especially. No one's really going to add anything new to the discussion at this point.

On your first point, if you take the book as an accident, it's not really theft because you thought it belonged to you. It was not a willful act. If you realize your mistake and keep the book anyway, then it is theft. It was a willful decision to keep something that did not belong to you.

On your second point, there is a value to these books for the producer, if not the consumer. DC produces these books with the expectation that they will be bought, which is their inherent value. When you circumvent paying for the books through an illegal download, you are depriving DC of getting the value for their product. As a consumer, you might feel that these books have no value, although I'd argue if you're going to read them through any means, legal or illegal, that they do have a value to you. (What you're actuallly arguing is price.) Even if you personally weren't going to give any money for the book in question, there is still the assumption that someone would (even as a download), which does deprive the producer, no matter how you want to rationalize it. When you willfully make the decision to do this, it's still theft.

Third, DC does provide the opportunity to sample their product through their previews, which are free. That's what they're willing to offer as their "free sample". That's the equivalent of your free Hazelnut coffee. Much like that theoretical Hazelnut coffee, if someone passed up the book after the reading the preview, than that was at the company's risk. Their attempt to entice you didn't work, but it was stilll presented-- it was an assumed, calculated risk by the producer. It was not an attempt to circumvent purchasing the item. In this case, this is someone saying I don't know if I want a doughnut, but I know I don't want to pay for a doughnut, so I'll just lift one when no one is looking.

Now, personally, I think there's a lot worse things in the world than illegally downloading something, but to rationalize it as not being theft is just ludricrous.

[zemo]

Here's the very simple thing: as soon as you want the books they have a value. You might not value them high enough to buy them, but there is value inherent by the simple principle of supply and demand. Yes, the demand, at least in your specific case, does not equal what the supply is offering. But that does not change the fact that if you take something for free that, as established, has a value, then you break the law. Easy peasy.

And also, this is not, and has never been, a dispute about what anybody THINKS is right or wrong. It's the law. The same law (the term being used in a general fashion) that will allow you to be sued if you steal from a big, soul-less company also, for example, protects your own independent comic to be taken by said company and made into a successful franchise without you getting any of the profit. You live in a society and therefore have chosen to abide by its laws. You don't get to cherry-pick. 's as easy as that.

[Corrina]

The same law (the term being used in a general fashion) that will allow you to be sued if you steal from a big, soul-less company also, for example, protects your own independent comic to be taken by said company and made into a successful franchise without you getting any of the profit.

That's the key for me. The same law that protects DC protects my own stuff.

Ziggy, no one's going to crucify you. It's the rationalizations that drive me nuts on this issue (not just yours.) Yes, it's illegal. No, we're not getting out pitchforks. But I have more respect for people who say "the law is wrong and here's why," than "well, hey, I wanted a free sample because I might buy this stuff later, possibly, maybe."

You know, if anyone here ever wants a free sample of what I have, I'd hope they'd ask and not go to a pirate site. But I know plenty of authors elsewhere who've heard from readers who say "well, I downloaded your book for free and loved it and when's the sequel coming out?" I mean, ouch.

[Gaelforce]

What zemo said.

If you want them, even if you're mildly curious, and you don't pay for them, you're stealing.

The whole 'I would never pay to read them but I would read them for free'? I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

I'd never pay $600 for an ipad, but if I could get one for free? yeah, I'd use it, so I guess I should just take one?

You clearly want to read them. You downloaded all 52 and just announced that you're going to read them.

You should have paid for them.

[Kevin T Brown]

Stealing is stealing. Even if you decided to go back later to buy the ones you liked.

I don't think it would fly if you decided to "borrow" a car from a dealer for the month, drove it, tested it out, and then figured you liked it enough to buy it.

[Morrison_Lad]

Stealing is stealing. Even if you decided to go back later to buy the ones you liked.

I don't think it would fly if you decided to "borrow" a car from a dealer for the month, drove it, tested it out, and then figured you liked it enough to buy it.

S-C-R-E-A-M!!!

OK, I said that last post would be my final one, but I just HAVE to respond to this.

You realize, of course, that the dealer would then BE OUT A CAR FOR A MONTH, RIGHT?! He couldn't sell it, he couldn't have it test driven. He couldn't even show it. Are you really comparing that d/l-ing something that you had absolutely no intention of paying money for in the first place?

Ugh. Why did I get sucked into this? OK. That's really it. If I could remember my log-in to /. from a decade+ ago, I could just copy/paste the many arguments that occurred there. But it's not worth arguing, because people compare stealing cars, and depriving someone of actual, physical property that they can no longer use with d/l-ing a song or comic. *sigh*

OK. Promise. Last post on this subject.

[zemo]

S-C-R-E-A-M!!!

OK, I said that last post would be my final one, but I just HAVE to respond to this.

You realize, of course, that the dealer would then BE OUT A CAR FOR A MONTH, RIGHT?! He couldn't sell it, he couldn't have it test driven. He couldn't even show it. Are you really comparing that d/l-ing something that you had absolutely no intention of paying money for in the first place?

Ugh. Why did I get sucked into this? OK. That's really it. If I could remember my log-in to /. from a decade+ ago, I could just copy/paste the many arguments that occurred there. But it's not worth arguing, because people compare stealing cars, and depriving someone of actual, physical property that they can no longer use with d/l-ing a song or comic. *sigh*

OK. Promise. Last post on this subject.

Seeing as a certain amount of the value of a creation also comes from the fact that it is new and innovative (or should be), you reading it/listening to music for free decreases the monetary value of the product in the economical equation in between you and the creator. Insofar the car example is quite astute, as a borrowed car would automatically become a used one, ie decrease in value. There is no reasoning whatsoever that can explain away that downloading property in a digital form is as much stealing as any other form of acquiring something of value without paying for it. It's against the law, as easy as that.

All I am hearing when people try to rationalize away the fact that they are breaking the law (same with drunk driving and similar things, though with less dire consequences) is "I only want the law to count when it benefits ME!"

[FanboyStranger]

You realize, of course, that the dealer would then BE OUT A CAR FOR A MONTH, RIGHT?! He couldn't sell it, he couldn't have it test driven. He couldn't even show it. Are you really comparing that d/l-ing something that you had absolutely no intention of paying money for in the first place?
.

As a principle, it's still theft. It may not be grand theft, as in the case of the car, but it's still theft. When you download material intended for sale illegally through a pirating site, you're essentially taking that car from a chop shop. It may have a different color and a different plate, but when you run that VIN number, it's still stolen. The only difference is scale.

I think the reason many people don't view pirated material from the internet as theft is because there is no real physical danger of being caught. If it doesn't have a tangible presence, it's not actual property. But, it is. No matter how you try to rationalize it.

I think the real question is why do you want something so badly if you're not willing to pay for it? This isn't stealing bread because you're starving, but broke; this is stealing comics because you think you might want to read them, but don't want to pay for them.

[zemo]

Sidenote: At this point in a discussion over this matter I always feel the need to point out the following: Pirating comics is a business. You go on the homepage of the site that offers the torrents, and they got ads on there. They get paid for putting ads on there, and they get paid more the greater the traffic is. They earn money by offering a service they have no right whatsoever to offer. So, in short, maybe no one is losing actual physical money from illegal downloads (let's put the possible loss or gain aside for a moment), but someone most certainly is EARNING money they have no right in earning. And that is as much of a crime as stealing money. I actually believe there are a few thousand Americans sitting around the Wall Street right now that are tittering on about this very point in regards to managers.

As a general life rule I have always believed that great crimes can happen because people rationalize an increasing number of smaller crimes just because they benefit from them. I believe the whole sordid bank-managers-getting-huge-bonuses-for-failing-business is deeply rooted in the mindset that you deserve to own whatever you can get away with taking. And downloading copyrighted work is just another small thing that helps perpetuating this mindset until it becomes an integral part of human culture.

[Morrison_Lad]

All of these arguments apply to stuff like fan subs, right?

[FanboyStranger]

All of these arguments apply to stuff like fan subs, right?

Under the Berne Convention, yes. It's copyrighted material, and regardless of its availablity in whatever language, the people are taking it and repurposing it for their own gain. Even if they don't charge for it, it is negating any value the property may have had for its producer unless that producer have sanctioned it in some way. (Which, from what I understand, is often the case.)

The argument, I guess, is that it has lead to an explosion in interest for that material, which may have helped, say, the anime industry as far as breaking into the Anglophonic market, but that doesn't change the fact that the material has been stolen and repurposed in the first place. It wouldn't be the first positive development to come out of a theft.

[Kingsmythe]

As a law enforcement officer, a writer, and someone who works in show business on the side, I do not support or condone watching movies illegally online, or illegally downloading books or comics. It's wrong. It's stealing. That simple.

Right is right, even if everyone is against is, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. William Penn

[Patrick Gerard]

I'm someone who questions the idea of intellectual property or whether or not piracy is theft because of the replicatibility of media, as well as whether the distribution model of selling someone a book the way you'd sell someone a chair makes sense. In general, I'd suppose I favor free broadcast models.

However, as someone who doesn't see piracy of theft (there aren't fewer copies in existence as a result of piracy), I still don't see it as right and pirating something you dislike just smacks of that restaurant customer who demands a certificate for a free meal because "The food is lousy and the portions are small."

If you're not buying it, you shouldn't care about it. If you care about it, buy it or learn not to care about it.

As a poor college student, I'm pretty much solely concerned with Batgirl and Action Comics and the rest of the revamp just doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned until I can justify buying it. I may follow general news but, in general, no comic "counts" for me until I've read it AND decided I enjoy it. I'd have a somewhat different stance as a writer, something I've thought about where pitching goes, but even then I'd probably focus on a mix of what's required for my take (including editorially mandated stuff but also anything that supports or contradicts the story I want to tell) and what I personally like... and anything else would be on the periphery.

Y'Know, though, I think most good writers have at least a year or two's worth of gap between their fan collecting days and when they start writing. It really blows your objectivity getting caught up in how things should or shouldn't be on too deep of a level. I mean, you could hand me an assignment for a Thor/Ghost Rider book, tell me they're gay bikers raising Franklin Richards, and I could play with that idea as a student of narrative, without fan considerations, precisely because I'm not as attached as I was when I was trying to pitch a Club of Heroes revival in the Bat-Books prior to Morrison's revival.

I think it's a healthier place to occupy as a fan, creator, or critic when you learn to be a bit more removed and playful with things. And to some extent, what landed me there was a decade where Superman averaged more than one origin overhaul a year, every year. You stop expecting things to tie together after awhile and just take it all on its individual merits.

[Kingsmythe]

I'm someone who questions the idea of intellectual property or whether or not piracy is theft .

If someone makes their living from it, and someone else is getting unauthorized free copies, it's stealing. All the justifications in the world don't change that fact. Be it movies, books, comics, whatever.

[Kevin T Brown]

Look, it's very simple, if you want to read a book for free, get a library card or borrow it from a friend.

[Corrina]

I'm not sure what you mean by fan subs, Morrison Lad, as I'm not familiar enough with fanfic fandom to know exactly what you mean.

If, in general, you mean fanfiction,it's murky if it's illegal if it's only done for fun and no one makes money. Most of the big corporations ignore it.

Unless the fan ficcer starts making money from it. Then it's a problem.

As Zemo pointed out, that pirate sites are free to you but they make money from advertising. So they're taking stuff that doesn't belong to them, handing it to you, and pocketing the profit.

[Lunar Archivist]

I'm not sure what you mean by fan subs, Morrison Lad, as I'm not familiar enough with fanfic fandom to know exactly what you mean.

Strictly speaking, a "fansub" is a fan-translated and subtitled television show or movie. It's usually used when referring to anime, though.

As for stealing, I've paid for every DC comic book I've read for the last twenty-seven years. But given not only how awful their recent stuff has been but how the Powers That Be are thumbing their collective noses in the faces of any fans who criticize them, I'm seriously considering trimming my pull list and "going digital" instead.

[Corrina]

Ah. Fan-subs of anime not over here yet? Yes, that rings a bell.

ACtually, there's a perfectly legal way to read most of the DC Comics, which is go to a local LCS and flip through them to see if something catches your eye. It's what I do and I suspect most people. I pre-order a little bit and then browse a bit. I don't read it all, though sometimes I do but when I do, I buy it because if I read it all, it means I really liked it. :)

[Slewo.O]

Ah. Fan-subs of anime not over here yet? Yes, that rings a bell.

ACtually, there's a perfectly legal way to read most of the DC Comics, which is go to a local LCS and flip through them to see if something catches your eye. It's what I do and I suspect most people. I pre-order a little bit and then browse a bit. I don't read it all, though sometimes I do but when I do, I buy it because if I read it all, it means I really liked it. :)

That is so insane it might just work. :o

[Lunar Archivist]

ACtually, there's a perfectly legal way to read most of the DC Comics, which is go to a local LCS and flip through them to see if something catches your eye. It's what I do and I suspect most people. I pre-order a little bit and then browse a bit. I don't read it all, though sometimes I do but when I do, I buy it because if I read it all, it means I really liked it. :)

I was actually stating that I was strongly considering going for the less ethical tactics the OP was engaging in. I intend to support writers that I respect, like Gail, as much as I can by buying their books. (Oddly enough, I made some sarcastic remarks and got into a light tiff with Fabien Nicieza on a message board about Legion Lost, and I admired his chutzpah for engaging me in a debate so much that I put his book back on my pull list.) But I see no reason to continue giving my money to a company that dismisses my concerns and stabs me in the back repeatedly. I'd rather illegally download something I'm on the fence about or kind of like rather than allow DC Comics to see a single penny.

As for Scott Lobdell...yeah. Between Superboy and Teen Titans continuity being flushed down the toilet in spite of this statements to the contrary and that Newsrama interview, I've decided to drop everything he's writing.

[Hugin]

ACtually, there's a perfectly legal way to read most of the DC Comics, which is go to a local LCS and flip through them to see if something catches your eye. It's what I do and I suspect most people. I pre-order a little bit and then browse a bit. I don't read it all, though sometimes I do but when I do, I buy it because if I read it all, it means I really liked it. :)Ignore legality for the moment. It's clearly illegal, but the law often only has a passing acquaintance with what's right. How is reading the comics in your LCS any different from reading them downloaded from a torrent site? Either way, you're getting the full experience before choosing whether to pay for it.

[Corrina]

But I see no reason to continue giving my money to a company that dismisses my concerns and stabs me in the back repeatedly.

That part's a bit hyperbolic. They're writing characters in a way you hate but and engaging in over-the-top hype for these titles stabbing in the back seems to be a bit too on the violent imagery side.

[Corrina]

Ignore legality for the moment. It's clearly illegal, but the law often only has a passing acquaintance with what's right. How is reading the comics in your LCS any different from reading them downloaded from a torrent site? Either way, you're getting the full experience before choosing whether to pay for it.

But I'm not getting the full experience at all. I'm flipping through to see if I'd like to read it all.

As for the difference, if the comic shop owners, who owns the comics at that point and has the right to either throw them out, give them away, let people read them or seal them in plastic, is okay with people reading, that's a perfectly valid and legal choice. DC sold them the comics, he now has a right to do what he wants with the particular issues that he owns.

he doesn't have a right to make copies of those issues and give them away. But he can let me read the issues he legally owns if he wants, just as anyone else can pass around the *one copy they've purchased* to others.

[Lunar Archivist]

That part's a bit hyperbolic. They're writing characters in a way you hate but and engaging in over-the-top hype for these titles stabbing in the back seems to be a bit too on the violent imagery side.

I meant that in a metaphorical sense. Dan DiDio has been caught lying, engaging in misdirection, or dismissing fan criticisms repeatedly, the worst case being when he was asked why there weren't more women in comics and he got defensive and tried to teach the audience a lesson. When Batgirl was derailed and Lian Harper was killed, DC Comics' response was "It's good you're pissed off, that means the story had impact." and thus completely missing the point. Some editors were heard mocking fans who complained about Amanda Waller no longer being fat. This is not the behavior of a company that cares what people thinks. This is the behavior of people who're completely clueless, seriously out of touch with their fanbase, and completely unaccepting of criticism, legitimate or otherwise.

DC Comics receiving my money is a privilege, not a right. Why should I financially support people who disrespect their fanbase?

[coveredinbees]

It's a right when they own the comic and you read it!


That part's a bit hyperbolic. They're writing characters in a way you hate but and engaging in over-the-top hype for these titles stabbing in the back seems to be a bit too on the violent imagery side.It's like these comics are letter bombs, reducing my hopes and memories to ash when I flip open their shiny covers.

[RobStaeger]

Because you want to read what they're producing. Whether it's because you're enjoying it or because you're a masochist, it doesn't matter one bit. They're earning your money.

But holy fucking jesus, go cold turkey already. Plenty of other good comics you can spend your money on, and then maybe you can somehow get over Dan Didio destroying your home planet or whatever it is he did.

[Chris Jones]

I was actually stating that I was strongly considering going for the less ethical tactics the OP was engaging in. I intend to support writers that I respect, like Gail, as much as I can by buying their books. (Oddly enough, I made some sarcastic remarks and got into a light tiff with Fabien Nicieza on a message board about Legion Lost, and I admired his chutzpah for engaging me in a debate so much that I put his book back on my pull list.) But I see no reason to continue giving my money to a company that dismisses my concerns and stabs me in the back repeatedly. I'd rather illegally download something I'm on the fence about or kind of like rather than allow DC Comics to see a single penny.

As for Scott Lobdell...yeah. Between Superboy and Teen Titans continuity being flushed down the toilet in spite of this statements to the contrary and that Newsrama interview, I've decided to drop everything he's writing.

You're officially The Secret Rival. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-species-of-angry-commenter-you-encounter-on-the-web/) If you weren't before you absolutely are now.

And to everyone trying to justify this, just admit you did something "wrong," at the very least. I torrent albums occasionally but I try to make sure they're ones that have been either long out of print or are unavailable in America and will be so for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to say I didn't steal them, because I did, but I consider it a victimless crime in those specific cases. I think if you're depriving anyone of money, though, you should, you know...try not to do that.

[FanboyStranger]

I'm someone who questions the idea of intellectual property or whether or not piracy is theft because of the replicatibility of media, as well as whether the distribution model of selling someone a book the way you'd sell someone a chair makes sense. In general, I'd suppose I favor free broadcast models.
.
When you write your first book, you'll see things differently.

[sunbird]

Relevant to the discussion (http://www.comicsbulletin.com/wheel/131569416627034.htm).

Remember that old chestnut, "98% of people masturbate, and the other 2% are liars?" I was reminded of it when thinking about illegal comic book downloading: everybody does it, no one will admit it. It's the elephant in the room that no one's willing to talk about, including and especially the 'Big Two', DC and Marvel.
The whole article is worth a read.

Fess up time. I have read a ton of downloaded comics. When I was sick last year I was bored out of my skull, so I started reading DC. I did it two ways. I picked up tonnes of trades from my local library and I downloaded lots of back issues via various internet back issues. I had never read DC and knew little about it. Being able to read lots of comics quickly allowed me to a) catch up on a comic universe I knew nothing about and b) figure out what I like and what I don't. Something that isn't possible by picking up just one 20 page deconstructed comic.

Soon I made the jump from reading old stuff out of boredom to reading new stuff because I liked and cared. Now I own a bunch of trades and I buy DC comics pretty much every week, something I haven't done in 17 years of reading Marvel comics.

So, quite frankly, if someone downloads the whole DCnU out of curiosity, with no particular intention to ever buy them, and finds they really like Animal Man, or Demon Knights, or even sodding Red Hood and the Outlaws (who knows, someone must like that shit), and then starts buying them, isn't that a good thing? Pirates who sample are not the same as pirates who flat out never buy anything. Pirates who sample tend to buy more things.


When you write your first book, you'll see things differently.

When I publish my first novel I'm linking to the pirate copy on my website .

"We took American Gods, a book that was still selling, and selling very well, and for a month they put it up completely free on their website, and you could read it, and you could download it. And what happened was, sales of my books through independent bookstores, because that was all we were measuring it through, went up the following month 300%. And I started to realize, that actually, you're not losing books. You're not losing sales by having stuff out there...You can't look on that as a lost sale. It's not a lost sale. Nobody who would have bought your book is not buying it because they can find it for free. What you're actually doing is advertising. You're reaching more people. You're raising awareness. And understanding that gave me a whole new understanding of the shape of copyright, and what the web was doing. Because the biggest thing the web is doing is allowing people to hear things. Allowing people to read things. Allowing people to see things that they might never have otherwise seen. And I think, basically, that's an incredibly good thing."
(That's Neil Gaiman by the way)

[FanboyStranger]

Ignore legality for the moment. It's clearly illegal, but the law often only has a passing acquaintance with what's right. How is reading the comics in your LCS any different from reading them downloaded from a torrent site? Either way, you're getting the full experience before choosing whether to pay for it.

It's not, which is why most LCS discourage it. There's a difference between flipping through a book to see if you like it and reading the whole thing in the store. If your LCS is open to people sittting around and reading a whole issue, then that's their choice as a distributer. The LCS is choosing to forego that sale, which is fine as they've paid to have that issue in the store. (Which is why most discourage it.)

What the OP is suggesting is tantamount to going into a store, taking the issues he wants, walking out of the store without paying for them, reading them, and discarding them as he sees fit. At no point does the producer/distributer of the book agree to the arrangement.

[FanboyStranger]

[URL="http://www.comicsbulletin.com/wheel/131569416627034.htm"]When I publish my first novel I'm linking to the pirate copy on my website .

(That's Neil Gaiman by the way)

But that's still Neil deciding that's the way things should progress. He still chose to allow American Gods to be pirated because he realized there'd be sales in it. He could have pursued legal action against people but didn't, much like Morrison Lad's fansubs.

In any event, the book was still pirated, the copyright violated. It's still wrong, which I'm sure Neil would have pointed if the sales for the book didn't increase 300%.

[sunbird]

But that's still Neil deciding that's the way things should progress. He still chose to allow American Gods to be pirated because he realized there'd be sales in it. He could have pursued legal action against people but didn't, much like Morrison Lad's fansubs.

In any event, the book was still pirated, the copyright violated. It's still wrong, which I'm sure Neil would have pointed if the sales for the book didn't increase 300%.My point was a reply to your comment "When you write your first book, you'll see things differently." Piracy may be legally wrong, but that is not the same as it being an entirely negative phenomenon. Plenty of writers might be delighted to see their first novel pirated. Interestingly, in New Zealand the law states that copying a CD you have purchased onto another media player (such as an iPod) is wrong.
Piracy is ethically wrong if it diminishes the opportunity of the creator to profit from their work. If it does the opposite, or is neutral, then it is hard to see the foul.

[Hugin]

It's not, which is why most LCS discourage it. There's a difference between flipping through a book to see if you like it and reading the whole thing in the store. If your LCS is open to people sittting around and reading a whole issue, then that's their choice as a distributer. The LCS is choosing to forego that sale, which is fine as they've paid to have that issue in the store. (Which is why most discourage it.)Somebody paid for the comic to scan and upload, too.

Here's the thing: I don't think piracy is necessarily right. But charging for data in an age of information just doesn't work. People know that the same thing is available for free, often with less hassles than buying legitimately. It's less like theft, more like taking something that's being thrown out anyways.

[Kingsmythe]

Somebody paid for the comic to scan and upload, too.

Here's the thing: I don't think piracy is necessarily right. But charging for data in an age of information just doesn't work. People know that the same thing is available for free, often with less hassles than buying legitimately. It's less like theft, more like taking something that's being thrown out anyways.

Except that, again, the creator is not being compensated for thier work. So it's still theft.

[FanboyStranger]

My point was a reply to your comment "When you write your first book, you'll see things differently." Piracy may be legally wrong, but that is not the same as it being an entirely negative phenomenon. Plenty of writers might be delighted to see their first novel pirated. Interestingly, in New Zealand the law states that copying a CD you have purchased onto another media player (such as an iPod) is wrong.
Piracy is ethically wrong if it diminishes the opportunity of the creator to profit from their work. If it does the opposite, or is neutral, then it is hard to see the foul.

If it does the opposite. Like I pointed out when Morrison Lad brought up the fab/sub issue, it wouldn't be the first time that a positive came out of a theft. In Neil's case, he just happened to profit from it.

[Morrison_Lad]

Ironically, I've never used torrents to download a comic, a movie, or a song, where it was a case of copyright infringement.

I'm pretty certain that, in all these years, the only stuff I've ever d/l-ed from a torrent site has been either: A) pr0n, or B) TV shows that I was getting into, but missed the previous 'x' number of seasons/episodes.

But I have read a LOT of entire books and magazines while sitting in the Borders cafe. Well, back when Borders still existed, that is.

[Lunar Archivist]

You're officially The Secret Rival. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-species-of-angry-commenter-you-encounter-on-the-web/) If you weren't before you absolutely are now.

O...kay. Whatever. I don't actively seek this stuff out to be outraged. The cancer at DC just spreads and embeds itself in the books I read.


And to everyone trying to justify this, just admit you did something "wrong," at the very least. [...] I think if you're depriving anyone of money, though, you should, you know...try not to do that.

Of course I'm doing something wrong. I simply don't care because I was screwed over first. And I don't deprive people who I admire or respect of money, which is why Batgirl's staying on my pull list as long as Gail's on it. Lobdell, on the other hand...

[FanboyStranger]

Somebody paid for the comic to scan and upload, too.

Here's the thing: I don't think piracy is necessarily right. But charging for data in an age of information just doesn't work. People know that the same thing is available for free, often with less hassles than buying legitimately. It's less like theft, more like taking something that's being thrown out anyways.

But, in truth, it's not. It just seems like it because there's no tangible product in your hands.

It's like this: I can tape whatever I want off cable because I've paid for the right to watch the channel. Movie, football game, whatever. As long as I'm watching that within the confines of my own place, it's fair game. I chose to show it in a bar, then it becomes commercial and becomes theft. You may have purchased the original comic and scanned it, but once you've distributed it, regardless of whether you charged or not, you've violated the copyright. It's theft.

I think that's where people rationalize it: if someone is just throwing it away, it's fine. The truth is that the original producer is not throwing it away-- some guy who scanned it is.

It may not work in a practical sense, but as a moral issue, I have a hard time sympathizing with it. It's easy when someone like Lars Ulrich speaks against it, but when it's someone like Ted Leo or Jeff Tweedy whose band is selling 50,000 records and needs every sell to make ends meet, it's an entirely different issue.

[Chris Jones]

O...kay. Whatever. I don't actively seek this stuff out to be outraged. The cancer at DC just spreads and embeds itself in the books I read.



Of course I'm doing something wrong. I simply don't care because I was screwed over first. And I don't deprive people who I admire or respect of money, which is why Batgirl's staying on my pull list as long as Gail's on it. Lobdell, on the other hand...

I don't even know where to begin. Your hatred of DC Comics has driven you completely bugshit insane.

[FanboyStranger]

But I have read a LOT of entire books and magazines while sitting in the Borders cafe. Well, back when Borders still existed, that is.
Which is still different because Borders paid to act as middleman to have those books and magazines on their shelves.

I don't want to seem like I'm singling you out or anything. Plenty of people do it. I just have a moral issue with it, and when people rationalize it as not being theft, it grates my goat. Like I said, there's a lot worse things going on in the world.

[FanboyStranger]

O...kay. Whatever. I don't actively seek this stuff out to be outraged. The cancer at DC just spreads and embeds itself in the books I read.



Of course I'm doing something wrong. I simply don't care because I was screwed over first. And I don't deprive people who I admire or respect of money, which is why Batgirl's staying on my pull list as long as Gail's on it. Lobdell, on the other hand...

So, you want cancer? And how exactly were you screwed? It's still your choice to read DC Comics, regardless of their content. I mean, c'mon, man: you either want to read the books or you don't.

[Morrison_Lad]

Which is still different because Borders paid to act as middleman to have those books and magazines on their shelves.

I know it's different.


I don't want to seem like I'm singling you out or anything. Plenty of people do it. I just have a moral issue with it, and when people rationalize it as not being theft, it grates my goat. Like I said, there's a lot worse things going on in the world.

You're not singling me out.

And as I said, other than pr0n and some tv shows over the years, I haven't d/l-ed stuff. But we're never going to agree that someone d/l-ing something that he never intended to pay for in the first place is theft. There's absolutely zero difference in the money that exchanges hands, d/l or not. No one is deprived of property or anything of value.

Ugh. I'm doing it again. Let's just agree to disagree. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

[zemo]

I want to point out that even the pirating that has positive effects, like the downloader starting to buy a comic they didn't before, still supports the negative sides of the trade. The owner of torrent tracker sites still get un-due revenue for offering material they have never had any ownership over and you are actually actively helping those that will never buy anything get their stuff faster. That's the problem with peer-to-peer filesharing, everybody is a bit guilty.

Mind you, I do have to say that the really old, still out of print stuff is kind of a grey area for me. I dislike the idea of eternal or close to that copyright, because it will always end up in the hands of an eternal, or close to that, individual, i.e. a company. So if someone wants to read Amazing Fantasy 15, I guess they should go ahead and download it. As far as I am concerned Marvel has already pulled out as much profit out of this particular issue as is ethically justifiable. Printing it in whatever book as an extra story to commemorate whatever anniversary it is they have now again (and charging a dollar more for that book because it's now longer, despite there not being any new material) or selling it in their online library is just kind of greedy. Downloading it is still illegal, but I doubt even Marvel would pursue it, as long as you aren't cheeky about it. Like, you know, using Stan Lee's wifi to do it.

[Morrison_Lad]

Copyright on "Superman vs. Muhammad Ali" will expire in 2075. Just sayin'.

[HoldFastNow]

A couple things come to mind regarding this debate.

1. I really don't get the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so no one lost money" arguement. You either want the product or you don't. If you weren't going to buy it anyway, then why do you have to have it for free (general "you," not anyone in particular). If that torrent didn't exist you might not have bought it right away, but the desire could build until you have to buy it.

2. Companies have ways of finding out how many people download their product. For people downloading comics as some kind of misguided attempt at sticking it to DC for desicions you don't agree with, all DC will see is desire for the current product when they see they are being pirated. If you want to make a difference you have to really use your money - buy trades and back issues from eras of DC you like or go to one of the many competitors.

[sunbird]

A couple things come to mind regarding this debate.

1. I really don't get the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so no one lost money" arguement. You either want the product or you don't. If you weren't going to buy it anyway, then why do you have to have it for free (general "you," not anyone in particular). If that torrent didn't exist you might not have bought it right away, but the desire could build until you have to buy it.
To try it. There are plenty of things in this world I am happy to try but have no desire to buy. This isn't a duality thing. It isn't a yes/no. Perhaps you would buy it if it was priced right. Plenty of people watch TV shows they would never pay money for. And plenty of people download stuff they wouldn't pay for to see if they might be prepared to pay for it. Some stuff they try, think is awful, and never try again. Some stuff they like and then go on to buy it.

It's the same premise that demos on computer games work on, or free first chapters on kindle books, or iTunes download of the week, or whatever. Free costs nothing, so people give it a go.

[Morrison_Lad]

A couple things come to mind regarding this debate.

1. I really don't get the "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so no one lost money" arguement. You either want the product or you don't. If you weren't going to buy it anyway, then why do you have to have it for free (general "you," not anyone in particular). If that torrent didn't exist you might not have bought it right away, but the desire could build until you have to buy it.

Who said anything about "having to have it?" There's a huge difference between being a coke addict, and reading a "free" comic. People will do all sorts of things when they don't actually need to spend money to do it. It's not about HAVING to have it. It's about: "Hey, I think I'll check this out. I wonder how it is."

What's funny is that in this example, the example laid out in the beginning of the thread, DC stands to make $x, when before they stood to make $0. Ziggy already said that if likes a book, he'll go out and buy it. Whereas before, there was absolutely no chance he was going to spend money on the Nu52.

So, DC's income just went from a potential of $0 to a potential of $x. And it cost them nothing.

[Kingsmythe]

What's funny is that in this example, the example laid out in the beginning of the thread, DC stands to make $x, when before they stood to make $0. Ziggy already said that if likes a book, he'll go out and buy it. Whereas before, there was absolutely no chance he was going to spend money on the Nu52.

So, DC's income just went from a potential of $0 to a potential of $x. And it cost them nothing.

And it's still stealing. My take is, stealing is wrong. Yours seems to be "it's ok if there might be a benefit from it." Perhaps different points of view.

[sunbird]

And it's still stealing. My take is, stealing is wrong. Yours seems to be "it's ok if there might be a benefit from it." Perhaps different points of view. Stealing implies a cost is borne by the robbed. If what is being stolen is the opportunity to sell a comic to the thief, then the cost is that of the comic. But if there was no chance of the comic ever having been sold, surely the costs are low. So yes, some wrong has been done, but the wrong being done is less than other kinds of theft (especially as we are presuming that the theft will not be ongoing). Now if the costs of the theft are offset by the benefits (as in it leads to an increased chance of comic being bought in the future) then the amount of wrong done is minimal. If you're going to talk about different points of view then its an absolutist versus a concequentialist morality. You're arguing that it is wrong regardless, Morrsion-lad is arguing that the end result is what counts.

[Morrison_Lad]

And it's still stealing. My take is, stealing is wrong. Yours seems to be "it's ok if there might be a benefit from it." Perhaps different points of view.

Well, considering that this has become a very low-level argument over normative ethics, yeah -- I'd say that there are probably different points of view involved. :)

[Morrison_Lad]

Stealing implies a cost is borne by the robbed. If what is being stolen is the opportunity to sell a comic to the thief, then the cost is that of the comic. But if there was no chance of the comic ever having been sold, surely the costs are low. So yes, some wrong has been done, but the wrong being done is less than other kinds of theft (especially as we are presuming that the theft will not be ongoing). Now if the costs of the theft are offset by the benefits (as in it leads to an increased chance of comic being bought in the future) then the amount of wrong done is minimal. If you're going to talk about different points of view then its an absolutist versus a concequentialist morality. You're arguing that it is wrong regardless, Morrsion-lad is arguing that the end result is what counts.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say, but unable to say clearly.

[Kingsmythe]

. If you're going to talk about different points of view then its an absolutist versus a concequentialist morality. You're arguing that it is wrong regardless, Morrsion-lad is arguing that the end result is what counts.

Yes, I am. Fair point. I guess with a lot of that kind of argument, I'm more wrong vs right than end justifies the means.

[sunbird]

Yes, I am. Fair point. I guess with a lot of that kind of argument, I'm more wrong vs right than end justifies the means. I don't think concequentialism can be accurately distilled down to ends justify means, as the means have consequences of their own. I simply feel that consequences, both in results and of the ends, are a better guide to ethical rightness than absolute morals.

[Morrison_Lad]

I don't think concequentialism can be accurately distilled down to ends justify means, as the means have consequences of their own. I simply feel that consequences, both in results and of the ends, are a better guide to ethical rightness than absolute morals.

I think "the ends justifies the means" is an oversimplification of consequentialism. Which, I guess, is what you just said. :)

I guess what I'm saying, in this discussion, is that if I steal from someone, and that person is left with nothing less than he originally had, then I don't view that act of stealing as morally wrong. But I understand those who would argue that any act which can be called stealing is, by its nature, morally wrong.

I just don't agree with that.

[Patrick Gerard]

If someone makes their living from it, and someone else is getting unauthorized free copies, it's stealing. All the justifications in the world don't change that fact. Be it movies, books, comics, whatever.

I would make a distinction between stealing and theft possibly even.

I think it's wrong to pirate. I think being wrong doesn't make it theft. Not being theft doesn't make it wrong.

I'm inclined to say that I think the ownership of ideas is immoral. However, disrespecting the systems we have in place isn't the answer.

[Patrick Gerard]

When you write your first book, you'll see things differently.

I have spent years giving away ideas. I'm trying to figure out how to get the money to create works without charging for them or how to charge for them while ceding them into the public domain.

I believe it is a form of theft to claim ownership of ideas. Authors discover, they don't invent. Human beings are part of one collective unconscious and creativity as it pertains to ideas is an Ikea affair.

That said, I'm not out to force everyone else into my way of thinking. I'll respect other people's boundaries.

But I have zero interest in owning anything I create and I will give it all away before I'll accept ownership of an idea.

[Kevin T Brown]

I think "the ends justifies the means" is an oversimplification of consequentialism. Which, I guess, is what you just said. :)

I guess what I'm saying, in this discussion, is that if I steal from someone, and that person is left with nothing less than he originally had, then I don't view that act of stealing as morally wrong. But I understand those who would argue that any act which can be called stealing is, by its nature, morally wrong.

I just don't agree with that.Then you're just plain wrong.

[Karen El]

I'd like to pose a question on this topic, because I am interested to see what other people's opinions are:

Companies that use DRM to prevent copying of books or music or whatever, claim that you are not purchasing the actual book or music or whatever as though it were a physical thing, but only a license to listen/read/whatever it. If that is true, then if you are unable to continue using it due to loss, or perhaps because the movement of technology means that the system the item was designed for is no longer available, should you be entitled to replace the obsolete edition with one that you can use?

For example, I buy a CD. Several years later the CD dies, or my primary music device becomes an MP3 player, but I have still bought a license to listen to that music.

Is it illegal for me to download something I legally own?

[Jae Namkyoung]

*shrug*

I don't know, Karen. I've always reloaded CDs/DVDs/PC Games that I physically bought but over the years through moving I've lost them. Thankfully now that I have steam I'm recovering any games that I owned, and that they sell through them.

But, I've done it. My first CD that I ever bought with my first paycheck was Celtic Woman, I've had it since I was eighteen, it's scratched up from being over played in my old CD Player whose laser has gone to crap. So when I do a new build I ensure the music is there, and it's usually been downloaded. Do I have to keep paying to buy it over and over? I use to have iTunes, but they don't really do a good job of storing what you bought. I bought the Noisettes and one of Imogen Heap's albums. I moved and well I had already used all my authorized computers, I go to unauthorize then reauthorize but I couldn't get my downloads back, [the original hard drive died one me, goddamn Seagate].

So I downloaded them on a torrent, I don't have the kind of money to throw around on repurchasing something I already bought.

As for downloading comics, I did it in the past when I was too broke to purchase the comic myself or didn't have bus fare to go to my LCS. My LCS is nice the owner is wife of Eric Trautmann and lets people read the comics even if they have no intention of buying them. So long as the books are treated well and put back where they belong she doesn't care. Usually once I got cash I'd go in and drop a good forty dollars on comics [that's at least two-three months worth], and then walk back out happily with a new stack to add to my collection.

Not everything is black and white.

[Urgur the Gurgur]

DC Comics receiving my money is a privilege, not a right.

That's true. They have no more of a right to your money than you have to read their books.

[Kevin T Brown]

I'd like to pose a question on this topic, because I am interested to see what other people's opinions are:

Companies that use DRM to prevent copying of books or music or whatever, claim that you are not purchasing the actual book or music or whatever as though it were a physical thing, but only a license to listen/read/whatever it. If that is true, then if you are unable to continue using it due to loss, or perhaps because the movement of technology means that the system the item was designed for is no longer available, should you be entitled to replace the obsolete edition with one that you can use?

For example, I buy a CD. Several years later the CD dies, or my primary music device becomes an MP3 player, but I have still bought a license to listen to that music.

Is it illegal for me to download something I legally own?I would say yes. If there as not an electronic version available and all you could get was another CD, would you go out and either buy a new one or steal it?

Buying something once does not mean you can go out and steal a newer copy of it now. If your collection got trashed, you wouldn't go to your comics store and start pulling those same books off the shelves without expecting to pay for them, would you?

[Karen El]

I would say yes. If there as not an electronic version available and all you could get was another CD, would you go out and either buy a new one or steal it?

Buying something once does not mean you can go out and steal a newer copy of it now. If your collection got trashed, you wouldn't go to your comics store and start pulling those same books off the shelves without expecting to pay for them, would you?

But that's just playing false equivalences. I said at the start I was specifically talking about where the copyright owners claim that what they sell are not the physical objects. To relate that to examples involving physical objects is as relevant as banana ice cream.

Consider this: CD producers generally allow you to make a copy of a CD you own. At the very least they accept that it's okay for you to rip MP3s of CDs you own to listen to on your MP3 player. If I own the CD and it's legal for me to listen to MP3s of that CD, does it matter where the MP3s come from?

And then if I have MP3s of a CD I own but the CD is destroyed, is it okay for me to keep the MP3s or should I destroy them too? Does it matter now if I ripped them myself or if I downloaded them?

[Gaelforce]

I'm with you, Karen. You bought it, you own it, and to replace a hard copy with a digital copy if you've already paid for it isn't, imo, stealing.

[Kevin T Brown]

But that's just playing false equivalences. I said at the start I was specifically talking about where the copyright owners claim that what they sell are not the physical objects. To relate that to examples involving physical objects is as relevant as banana ice cream.

Consider this: CD producers generally allow you to make a copy of a CD you own. At the very least they accept that it's okay for you to rip MP3s of CDs you own to listen to on your MP3 player. If I own the CD and it's legal for me to listen to MP3s of that CD, does it matter where the MP3s come from?

And then if I have MP3s of a CD I own but the CD is destroyed, is it okay for me to keep the MP3s or should I destroy them too? Does it matter now if I ripped them myself or if I downloaded them?If you made a copy of something you bought, I don't see a problem with that. I've done that. What you do with the item you've bought is up to you, as long as you're not using for profit. (i.e. selling bootleg copies)

BUT if you're wanting to get an entirely new copy of something you have previously bought in a different format without paying for it, that's wrong.

Let's put it this way: When DC started putting older issues in digital format, do you think you should be able to get them for free because you had already bought the "hard copies"?

[Karen El]

If you made a copy of something you bought, I don't see a problem with that. I've done that. What you do with the item you've bought is up to you, as long as you're not using for profit. (i.e. selling bootleg copies)

BUT if you're wanting to get an entirely new copy of something you have previously bought in a different format without paying for it, that's wrong.

Let's put it this way: When DC started putting older issues in digital format, do you think you should be able to get them for free because you had already bought the "hard copies"?

Look at it slightly differently: Is it okay for me to take my comic I bought and scan it myself so I can read it on my ipad?

[HamsterRage]

Look at it slightly differently: Is it okay for me to take my comic I bought and scan it myself so I can read it on my ipad?

Yes.

Why?
Because you do the labor and made something for you.

It's not the same as stealing a digital copy in spite of the format being similar, though. So you're not looking at something in a different way.

If you then were to distribute those copies you'd be breaking the law

[Karen El]

Yes.

Why?
Because you do the labor and made something for you.

It's not the same as stealing a digital copy in spite of the format being similar, though. So you're not looking at something in a different way.

I never said anything about stealing. I asked if it was okay for me to have a digital copy of something I had legitimately bought, and whether it made a difference where that copy had come from. In this example of me having a scan of my comic, what if someone else had scanned the comic and gave me a copy? It's still a copy of a comic I legitimately own. What if it turns out that the comic I bought in good faith was missing a couple of pages and someone sent me a scan of the missing pages? At what point does it become illegal?

[bert]

I've never downloaded a comic in my life (and yes, I would consider this "stealing").

I *have* sat in the comic shop for an hour or so, reading books that I had no intention of buying (mainly Marvel), but that was with the store owner's approval. (so no, I *wouldn't* consider this stealing).


I also have (when I was much younger (Elementary school age)) stolen actual comics from Woolworth's -- I would bike to the store, sit on the floor in the toy/comics aisle and read comics, and then put some in my schoolbag and walk out with them.
I did months later confess to the Manager and offer to pay for them, but was told that I didn't have to and they appreciated that I told them.
-- I wasn't barred from the store or anything, but I was too embarrassed to ever go back to that particular Woolworth's.

anyways. . if you want to read a comic online, that *isn't* stealing, there are tons of options that are offered for free.

including one of my all time favorites: Ty Tepmleton's "Stigg's Inferno" , which you can read for free on his home page (all 7 issues)

http://www.tytempleton.com/ty/

[zemo]

Look at it slightly differently: Is it okay for me to take my comic I bought and scan it myself so I can read it on my ipad?

Yes :3 This is a back-up, and even if companies don't even like THOSE, you have a right to make a back-up of a digital purchase. However, retroactively downloading something you once bought because you failed to make a back-up, that is still wrong, not morally, but by law.

It's fairly easy, a purchase is always a contract between two or more parties. When you buy something from a company you automatically accept their terms and conditions about their product. If you change your mind later on and do something that is against the terms and conditions, then you are in breach of contract and the company can decide whether to sue you or not. They will not sue you for owning a Frogger ROM, but that doesn't mean you are in the right, it just means they can't be bothered.

And it again comes back to this: If you download something from a source that has no copyright but generates ad-revenue based on the traffic they get by offering something they don't own, then you take part in commiting a crime, end of story. IF BioWare chooses to sue you because you downloaded a pirated copy of Mass Effect 3 right on the day the game was released then you can complain how you didn't want to buy the game in the first place and only wanted to see how it is. You can point out that BioWare actually had a greater chance of earning money AFTER you downloaded and played the game than BEFORE all you want. They'll still impound your car to pay for the fine, and possibly more.

[Karen El]

Okay, what about if there is no legitimate alternative available? Fan translations of manga that have never been published in English and are unlikely ever to be, or old Golden Age comics which have never been reprinted. You are not taking any hypothetical money away from the copyright holder because they have not produced anything you can buy.

Come to think of it, it doesn't matter where you get any comic that is not currently in print, or how much you pay for it, none of that money is going to the publisher, copyright holder, or creator.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not an angel. I basically acknowledge a flaw even in my thread title. And I am as overly critical of myself as I am in many things in my life. I also am quick to justify almost everything I do because I assume I'm being judged on it. Daddy issues.

In my original post, I said the following:



So, I did a bad thing, sorta.

And then I tried to explain why I did it. Look, I used to spend a fortune on comics and then had to stop. And over the years scanning message boards, I didn't find anything to entice me back to reading comics, based on things said. One day, I realized I come to message boards, read what people say about comics, see pics that are scanned and posted, and make judgments on comics based on that. No offense to people here, but I go very much by your opinions and scans to make an opinion on comics.... and that's just not right.

Mind, there are the odd TPBs I can get from the library, thank God as that is how I found Gail's books.

My LCS is a half hour away. Based on gas prices and things said here, I just am not willing to drive that distance and spend the cover price on a maybe. I used to buy albums based on a single and have many an album with only one worn track.

Am I breaking the law. Yes. Am I doing something morally questionable? Of course. But, I was not going to buy these books without reading them first. My trust in DC is just not that great. And as a former comics reader, I figured I just might buy some if these relaunch books got my attention. Like I said, DC could have got nothing from me and now there is a possiblity that they might get some of my money.

And I certainly would never seed the torrent either. And like or hate, all the books are being deleted after reading.

I did not mean to spark a big debate about downloading. And I am done making excuses for my inappropriate behaviour.

Have a nice day.

[Lunar Archivist]

I don't even know where to begin. Your hatred of DC Comics has driven you completely bugshit insane.

Wrong again. I'm talking about the domino effect. I enjoyed reading Birds of Prey, Flash, and Teen Titans and was completely happy with all three books.

Then came Infinite Crisis.

The editorially mandated Green Arrow/Black Canary wedding resulted in the latter being written out of Birds of Prey, which messed up the group dynamic.

Bart Allen being forced to assume the Flash mantle resulted in the end of the Wally West era of the Flash and kickstarted three or four years of increasingly desperate attempts to fix a rapidly sinking ship.

The editorially mandated deaths of Superboy and later Bart Allen completely screwed up the Teen Titans team dynamic and introduced so much angst, drama, and emo into while simultaneously sucking all the fun out of it that reading the damn thing became a horrendous chore.

I was perfectly happy with Gail's new Birds of Prey, Secret Six, and Booster Gold until DC forced the relaunch and retconned it all out of existence.

Like I said in my previous post, I didn't go hunting for something to be outraged and bitch about. If the screw-ups with, say, Green Arrow had stayed confined to his book, that would've been one thing. But the fallout from bad creative decisions bled over into the books I was reading.

[zemo]

Okay, what about if there is no legitimate alternative available? Fan translations of manga that have never been published in English and are unlikely ever to be, or old Golden Age comics which have never been reprinted. You are not taking any hypothetical money away from the copyright holder because they have not produced anything you can buy.

Come to think of it, it doesn't matter where you get any comic that is not currently in print, or how much you pay for it, none of that money is going to the publisher, copyright holder, or creator.

That's something I wrote about further up there, regarding comics that are out of print. Basically, it is well within any publisher's rights to NOT reprint anything they own. Ownership of copyright is generally not lost when it's not being used. That said, even though it is legally still wrong, no one really cares if you get stuff that is out of print or stuff that has never been published in English. The thing with manga and anime is even kind of a hazy line, because the translators and editors actually contribute to the whole thing, possibly creating something new in the process. The question is how much they have altered the original, and you need a judge for that.

Basically, in those cases you still are technically breaking the law, but no one cares.

[Karen El]

Basically, in those cases you still are technically breaking the law, but no one cares.

I dunno. We've now gone from black and white right and wrong to tacit acceptance because "no one cares". My view has always been that the whole thing is way more grey and complex than most discussions address, and that any analogy to physical property is fundamentally flawed.

Having said that, I also recognise that a lot of people defend the principle purely because it supports their desire to get stuff for free.

[Corrina]

My biggest issue with the pirating of comics is that there are third parties making huge sums in providing the downloads for free.

Every click on those sites makes them money and, yes, I consider those people to be truly stealing, as they're profiting off someone's else work with no compensation.

I hate those guys. I think the people who grab the downloads are wrong but, like I said, I'm not taking a pitchfork about it. On the scale of hateful things, it's minor. The biggest consequence to me is that it emboldens the owners of those download sites to keep going and make more money. Because, like I said, those guys I hate.

[Morrison_Lad]

Here's an interesting column at ABC Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/10/20/3344351.htm

[Chris Jones]

Wrong again. I'm talking about the domino effect. I enjoyed reading Birds of Prey, Flash, and Teen Titans and was completely happy with all three books.

Then came Infinite Crisis.

The editorially mandated Green Arrow/Black Canary wedding resulted in the latter being written out of Birds of Prey, which messed up the group dynamic.

Bart Allen being forced to assume the Flash mantle resulted in the end of the Wally West era of the Flash and kickstarted three or four years of increasingly desperate attempts to fix a rapidly sinking ship.

The editorially mandated deaths of Superboy and later Bart Allen completely screwed up the Teen Titans team dynamic and introduced so much angst, drama, and emo into while simultaneously sucking all the fun out of it that reading the damn thing became a horrendous chore.

I was perfectly happy with Gail's new Birds of Prey, Secret Six, and Booster Gold until DC forced the relaunch and retconned it all out of existence.

Like I said in my previous post, I didn't go hunting for something to be outraged and bitch about. If the screw-ups with, say, Green Arrow had stayed confined to his book, that would've been one thing. But the fallout from bad creative decisions bled over into the books I was reading.

It's not that you have problems with DC's editorial mandate, because God knows that's been all of us at some point or another. It's that that is literally the only thing you ever talk about on this board. If one were to look at your posting history it would be nothing but cries for Didio's head on a platter and lamentations over the fate of your favorite characters.

It's not so much "Why do you think this?" as "Why is this so absolutely all-consuming for you?"

[sunbird]

Here's an interesting column at ABC Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/10/20/3344351.htm
Speaking as someone living in New Zealand. which is somehow further over the end of the world than Australia is, I particularly sympathise with the problems of being gouged for living here as opposed to the US. I'm still surprised Comixolgy doesn't make us pay more for comics delivered digitally (iTunes does).

[RobStaeger]

See, I was trying to figure out why Dan Didio's ex-wife was only complaining about comics. ;)

[Morrison_Lad]

Speaking as someone living in New Zealand. which is somehow further over the end of the world than Australia is, I particularly sympathise with the problems of being gouged for living here as opposed to the US. I'm still surprised Comixolgy doesn't make us pay more for comics delivered digitally (iTunes does).

That really sucks.

I take it for granted that I live in the States.

[Lunar Archivist]

It's not that you have problems with DC's editorial mandate, because God knows that's been all of us at some point or another. It's that that is literally the only thing you ever talk about on this board. If one were to look at your posting history it would be nothing but cries for Didio's head on a platter and lamentations over the fate of your favorite characters.

It's not so much "Why do you think this?" as "Why is this so absolutely all-consuming for you?"

That's a filthy lie. I also complain about Scott Lobdell and James Robinson a lot. :smug:

Yes, I do complain an inordinate amount about him. However, I've also answered obscured continuity questions as I find them and do browse other topics to try and find something else to do than vent my righteous indignation on.

As for why it bothers me so much? Chalk it up to my distaste for how the world works. I've seen people get reprimanded and fired for smaller screw-ups than him. It's irritating that he's still around after all this time and continuously thumbing his nose at fans all the while.

[Morrison_Lad]

That's a filthy lie. I also complain about Scott Lobdell and James Robinson a lot. :smug:

Yes, I do complain an inordinate amount about him. However, I've also answered obscured continuity questions as I find them and do browse other topics to try and find something else to do than vent my righteous indignation on.

As for why it bothers me so much? Chalk it up to my distaste for how the world works. I've seen people get reprimanded and fired for smaller screw-ups than him. It's irritating that he's still around after all this time and continuously thumbing his nose at fans all the while.

Dan DiDio, by all accounts, is a nice, friendly guy (even people who've disliked his decisions have said this). Whether he does his job well -- that's a different question. Each person will make his or her own decision on that.

I don't think he is thumbing his nose at anyone, frankly. He's doing the best job he can. Whether or not that satisfies people or not, again, that's a different question. But he seems like as much of a fan as I am. He certainly has the enthusiasm of a fan.