Digital comics

[glennsim]

Just to respond to one comment in this week's column. Regarding the notion that the popularity of bit torrent disputes the notion that people don't need to have the physical paper comics. I don't think that's a fair comparison, because bit torrent is free.

The question is, if forced to pay for them, would people prefer a paper comic or a digital one? For myself, if DC and Marvel were to suddenly go all-digital, I'd still find myself printing them out and storing them in boxes alphabetically...

Paying for a digital file and paying for a physical object are very different, to me. Possibly because it's a lot easier to accidentally delete a file than it is to lose or destroy a paper comic.

[Inkthinker]

It's been my thought that the only viable method of online comics at the moment is the one that's been proven (and which Steven mentioned), that being the one in which the content is initially free, supported by ad revenue and merchandising, and then collected in print for retail sales both online and in-store.

Charging for content is difficult... the only way I could see it working at all is if Marvel offered a sort of membership or something that allows you to read all their online content, renewable annually. But even so, there will continue to be piracy of their content.

And are we talking about the ability to save pages to one's computer, or only being able to read within a browser? While a lot of web-comics are formatted by their nature to be browser-read, the same can't be said of print comics.

All I know for certain is that if the big boys want to play online, they've got to make the content easy to access and easy to read... otherwise, people just won't go for it.

[Steven Grant]

Oh, almost certainly if given a choice between paying for a printed comic or paying for an online version, most people would prefer the printed comic. But I don't think most people will be willing to pay for an online comic anyway.

Online comics are kind of like newspaper strips. You read, say, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE because you open up the morning paper and there it is. You might read it regularly, you might even get caught up in the storylines. Obviously there are plenty of people who are obsessed enough with the strip to want bound collections of them, because those are published and they do sell. But many who read FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE in the newspaper would never have begun reading it if it had been published in its own magazine that they had to go to a particular place and buy.

That's what online comics are closest to: newspaper strips. (I'm not speaking of the form, just the function.) The vast majority of people reading online comics, particularly if they aren't practiced comics fans, wouldn't have sought them out in print. While comics piracy on the web isn't something I'd want to promote, it doesn't quite qualify as stealing in the traditional sense because, while, yes, if you read an issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN via bit torrent instead of buying an issue, you are "taking" something that doesn't belong to you. On the other hand, you can't argue that Marvel's losing much money by it because my suspicion is that the vast majority of people doing that would never have bought an issue in the first place.

Which doesn't make it right, and I'm not suggesting it does. I'm just saying the mechanics of the situation are tricky. I think the situation deserves a lot more study. Do the bit torrenters download them, read them, then erase them? Do they store their copies on hard drive? Do they run off copies for all their friends? Do they print out the pages to keep? Do they keep track of what they really liked then buy the eventual trade paperback collections? While companies traditionally write off stolen or missing comics as losses on taxes, it seems to me that the value of bit torrented comics could be deducted as a promotional cost...

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, almost certainly if given a choice between paying for a printed comic or paying for an online version, most people would prefer the printed comic. But I don't think most people will be willing to pay for an online comic anyway.

Online comics are kind of like newspaper strips. You read, say, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE because you open up the morning paper and there it is. You might read it regularly, you might even get caught up in the storylines. Obviously there are plenty of people who are obsessed enough with the strip to want bound collections of them, because those are published and they do sell. But many who read FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE in the newspaper would never have begun reading it if it had been published in its own magazine that they had to go to a particular place and buy.

That's what online comics are closest to: newspaper strips. (I'm not speaking of the form, just the function.) The vast majority of people reading online comics, particularly if they aren't practiced comics fans, wouldn't have sought them out in print. While comics piracy on the web isn't something I'd want to promote, it doesn't quite qualify as stealing in the traditional sense because, while, yes, if you read an issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN via bit torrent instead of buying an issue, you are "taking" something that doesn't belong to you. On the other hand, you can't argue that Marvel's losing much money by it because my suspicion is that the vast majority of people doing that would never have bought an issue in the first place.

Which doesn't make it right, and I'm not suggesting it does. I'm just saying the mechanics of the situation are tricky. I think the situation deserves a lot more study. Do the bit torrenters download them, read them, then erase them? Do they store their copies on hard drive? Do they run off copies for all their friends? Do they print out the pages to keep? Do they keep track of what they really liked then buy the eventual trade paperback collections? While companies traditionally write off stolen or missing comics as losses on taxes, it seems to me that the value of bit torrented comics could be deducted as a promotional cost...

- Grant

Almost everything you say is true. Except these bits:

On the other hand, you can't argue that Marvel's losing much money by it because my suspicion is that the vast majority of people doing that would never have bought an issue in the first place.

None of them would. The format is so crap that the only reason you'd download them is to do the same thing you do in the store: flip through them to keep up, or find out if the story is worth buying, or deal with your spoiler-hungry curiosity before the trade comes out.

Or being broke.

Which doesn't make it right, and I'm not suggesting it does.
And that's exactly what makes it right.

Yes, exactly. It's a promotion device.

However, it will cost companies money in one area: the double dip.

There are certain comics I'll buy -- like Promethea, Planetary or Seven Soldiers -- because Al-Mo and G-Mo and War-El are so on top of their zeitgeist that I want the instant fix. And then I'll want the stupid trade too, because it doesn't break the layouts with stupid ads.

So yeah, it stops companies getting my money twice. Which doesn't exactly break my heart. After all, I don't see any reason to buy a CD when I've got the vinyl. Downloading would save me the bother of ripping the vinyl, which is considerable. Same diff with a bittorrented comic when I'm waiting for the trade.

I mean, can you imagine buying, say, the latest Harry Potter book one signature at a time, at three bucks a pop? And then springing for the hardcover? Hell no.

[MichaelMogg]

I think the comic companies now have to take into consideration that the bittorrent DCPs are the main digital outlet for newly released comics, and have to compete with that. The DCP torrents not only provide something free, but also something expansive.

If -- for example -- you were to subscribe to an entire Marvel digital comics world (as someone suggested above), you'd still not be in competition with the DCPs. The DCPs provide the not only latest comics, but also comics from all the major companies as well as independents. If companies want to start using a digital format, they will have to be offering something great to buck the current system.

[Steven Grant]

None of them would.

Oh, I don't know about none of them. If scans weren't available, more than likely at least a few percent would run down to their local comics shops and scarf up a few comics. But I doubt it amounts to many.

And that's exactly what makes it right.

See, what I was trying to avoid was degenerating into yet another strident discussion of the ethicality (or whatever the proper word would be) of the whole bit torrent thing. I'm willing to allow that it's unethical and criminal, but also allowing that it isn't going to stop anytime soon, so how can publishers and talent turn it to their advantage? To wit:

Yes, exactly. It's a promotion device.

Which is the sort of thing I'd really like to see discussed.

However, it will cost companies money in one area: the double dip.

The double dip, or at least the major companies' heavy reliance on it as a marketing and revenue-building tool, is itself rather unethical, particularly when the product becomes heavily geared toward the eventual collection rather than the individual issues. I mean, sure, prose novels used to get serialized before they were collected into novel form, but the chapters or chapter groups were never the only things in the magazine that you paid your money for. In some ways, the continued reliance on the system is intended to milk the hardcore fan the same way multi-covers (back in vogue, I see) and other gimmicks were in the speculator frenzy.

So yeah, it stops companies getting my money twice. Which doesn't exactly break my heart. After all, I don't see any reason to buy a CD when I've got the vinyl. Downloading would save me the bother of ripping the vinyl, which is considerable. Same diff with a bittorrented comic when I'm waiting for the trade.

Speaking of which, have you seen the new Ion turntables that USB plug into your computer to make ripping from your old vinyl relatively easy. (I know some people have complained about the Audacity software the system uses, but I have and use Audacity regularly and it's easy, and they're wusses.) I want one! Someone send me one so I can transfer my thousands of Stockhausen albums to my hard drive!

I mean, can you imagine buying, say, the latest Harry Potter book one signature at a time, at three bucks a pop? And then springing for the hardcover? Hell no.

You're asking the wrong guy. I can't see imagine buying Harry Potter in any form for any reason. You could maybe talk me into it with Thomas Pynchon, though. (780 pages on AGAINST THE DAY and counting! WHOOOOOOO!)

- Grant

[Paul McEnery]

The promotion device works. I was interested in how 52 was going to pan out, flipped through in the store, wasn't taken by it. Then they ran a few online, and I was able to read them at my leisure. At the same time, Hibbs had a few overships to hand out. And being able to take my time with the samples convinced me to keep going with it.

For that matter, I know there's books out there I wouldn't have given a go if I handed been a buyer for Tower, which meant I could take my sweet time reading books on my boss's money. Same deal.


See, what I was trying to avoid was degenerating into yet another strident discussion of the ethicality (or whatever the proper word would be) of the whole bit torrent thing. I'm willing to allow that it's unethical and criminal, but also allowing that it isn't going to stop anytime soon, so how can publishers and talent turn it to their advantage?

I take your point. In general, bittorrenting and filesharing are damaging to the industry -- at least as stands. But as thing stands, the industry deserves it: for not moving with the technology; for milking the customers; for creating endless event comics which are pretty much crap, but whose information you need in order to understand what's going on; and so on.

Not to mention arsing around with formats. Buy the floppy, buy the trade, buy the Absolute Edition -- Hey look what we've got, a hundred buck collection of the whole damn thing in one book! If publishers are going to be such jerks about this, why should customers not just hang onto their money until the company makes its bloody mind up? At this point, I'm less and less inclined to buy anything at all until it shows up in the used book store at two-thirds off.

Same goes when a company deliberately either manipulates demand or delays product in different markets or provides better versions of product in different markets. If you jerk people around, you should be surprised if they use the available technology to jerk you around in return.

In any case, the street making use of technology is what drives company innovation. Take Ahazuerus. Starts as a torrent company, now it's trying to work as a front end for the industry. Be interesting to see if it works, because then maybe I'll be able to see a whole bunch of foreign films -- and pay to do so -- that otherwise I'd be lucky to see for one night only at a festival.


Speaking of which, have you seen the new Ion turntables that USB plug into your computer to make ripping from your old vinyl relatively easy. (I know some people have complained about the Audacity software the system uses, but I have and use Audacity regularly and it's easy, and they're wusses.) I want one! Someone send me one so I can transfer my thousands of Stockhausen albums to my hard drive!

Heh. I got to buy a whole bunch of the new CDs and write them off against tax when I did the interview with him.


I mean, sure, prose novels used to get serialized before they were collected into novel form, but the chapters or chapter groups were never the only things in the magazine that you paid your money for.


Well yeah. Charlie Stross's Accelerando was serialized in F&SF. You got plenty of other stories in the issues, and you got to read Charlie as he goes. That's fair.

That's why I'd still rather see 80 Page Giants of, say, the Batman Family or Justice League (in the Unlimited TV show vein). You'd get trades of the lead story when it panned out, but you might never get trades on the background material.

Or, like the new Darwyn Cooke book, a great story by a particular artist might wind up collected in a big book (but boy am I mad that there's a cheaper, better way to pick up Selina's Big Score -- stiffed again!).

[bartl]

Online comics are kind of like newspaper strips. You read, say, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE because you open up the morning paper and there it is. You might read it regularly, you might even get caught up in the storylines. Obviously there are plenty of people who are obsessed enough with the strip to want bound collections of them, because those are published and they do sell. But many who read FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE in the newspaper would never have begun reading it if it had been published in its own magazine that they had to go to a particular place and buy.
Therefore, it might stand to reason that online comics might prove to be a driving force behind the selling of graphic novels?

[Steven Grant]

Therefore, it might stand to reason that online comics might prove to be a driving force behind the selling of graphic novels?

Reasonably, some research should be done before we jump to that conclusion, but I'd say it's a decent working hypothesis, yes...

-- Grant

[MatthewDiCarlo]

I haven't looked at the numbers, but doesn't Marvel make most of its money on licensing and what not anyway? From a practical point of view, wouldn't it make the most sense to get the brand out to the highest number of eyes possible so that they'll support the eventual movie or Marvel Legends figure or underoos or whatever? Course by that logic they'd have more new all ages characters.

I could be way off base on this one though.

[Steven Grant]

The promotion device works. I was interested in how 52 was going to pan out, flipped through in the store, wasn't taken by it. Then they ran a few online, and I was able to read them at my leisure. At the same time, Hibbs had a few overships to hand out. And being able to take my time with the samples convinced me to keep going with it.

I suspect it's a fairly widespread phenomenon that comics people sample and like via bit torrent they start buying in print form, whether in comics or trade.

I take your point. In general, bittorrenting and filesharing are damaging to the industry -- at least as stands. But as thing stands, the industry deserves it: for not moving with the technology; for milking the customers; for creating endless event comics which are pretty much crap, but whose information you need in order to understand what's going on; and so on.

I don't know if they're damaging to the industry. All I can be sure of is that they're illegal. And it's not really fair to call Marvel and DC (and their various petty clones out there) "the industry," which they may have been to all intents and purposes 20 years ago, but "the industry" is so much broader and more complex today.

(By the way, funny quote from the New York Con someone told me today. On a panel, Joe Quesada was asked who'd die in the next big Marvel crossover event, and Joe answered, "DC's sales.")

Not to mention arsing around with formats. Buy the floppy, buy the trade, buy the Absolute Edition -- Hey look what we've got, a hundred buck collection of the whole damn thing in one book! If publishers are going to be such jerks about this, why should customers not just hang onto their money until the company makes its bloody mind up? At this point, I'm less and less inclined to buy anything at all until it shows up in the used book store at two-thirds off.

This is pretty much a result of them catering to an increasingly limited market but having to simultaneously post greater profits. If you're not trying to grow your market, your only option for more money is to squeeze more money out of your existing profit base. It's simple math.

Not that that makes it less predatory.

In any case, the street making use of technology is what drives company innovation. Take Ahazuerus. Starts as a torrent company, now it's trying to work as a front end for the industry. Be interesting to see if it works, because then maybe I'll be able to see a whole bunch of foreign films -- and pay to do so -- that otherwise I'd be lucky to see for one night only at a festival.

Someone actually named a company after the Wandering Jew?

Heh. I got to buy a whole bunch of the new CDs and write them off against tax when I did the interview with him.

You've got my e-mail address, right? Drop me a private e-mail.

Well yeah. Charlie Stross's Accelerando was serialized in F&SF. You got plenty of other stories in the issues, and you got to read Charlie as he goes. That's fair.

That's why I'd still rather see 80 Page Giants of, say, the Batman Family or Justice League (in the Unlimited TV show vein). You'd get trades of the lead story when it panned out, but you might never get trades on the background material.

Unfortunately, we have a core market vehemently trained against anthologies, though things like the SHONEN JUMP format would be the most reasonable package, except unless it's all reprints (which SJ is) it's economically untenable for most comics companies. Which brings us back to online presentation...

- Grant

[MichaelMogg]

If they [digital comics] are to be used as a promotional device, then I think they should really be used in that way. For example, I never go to the company web-sites and the only reason I know there are comics to view there is from reading people's posts on here about how they read them there. That's not a very vocal promotion. I think a promotional copy should either A) be passed around at different sites for you to see, or B) have ads attracting you to their site to read them.

Top Cow is not trying a 'promotion', rather, they are trying to sell. They're trying to compete (to a degree) with bt, and I don't think that will be successful. iTunes has worked, but in that case you can hear songs on the radio (or MTV) and then get them. You've already sampled it and liked it. Very different from asking people to blindly pay before they peek.

[Inkthinker]

I should think that there's a percentage of people who download comics online and then buy graphic novel collections to fill in gaps and own higher-quality, easily trasportable content... but I don't think that's an argument that publishers will hear or even allow to be made in a serious fashion, any more than the RIAA allows people to make the argument that people download music because they want to sample a single rather than buy the whole album.

I can also testify that there's a certain percentage of fans who download Japanese comics online in order to keep up with the current Japanese releases of the series they're into, and who also then purchase the manga when it's released in the US (for instance, the Dark Horse title Berserk is currently at vol. 14 in the US, but at vol. 33 in Japan, which is a pretty wide gap). Downloading of that content does not injure the domestic US publisher at all, and in fact may boost their sales significantly, but there may be a possible impact upon the Japanese sales (since the scans are initially released "raw", and hence perfect for Japanese readers).



I think comparing online comics/webcomics to newspaper comics is perfectly accurate, but I might point out that the newspapers were (unless my understanding of comics history is flawed) the birthplace of comics as we know them... they were collected in a color insert in the center of the Sunday edition, and ranged from single-page series like Krazy Kat or Little Nemo to several-page stories like The Spirit (yeah, I know there's a 20 or 30-year gap between Winsor McKay and Will Eisner, but the page format and distribution method was similar, was it not?).

The point being that there's not much inherent in the format that defines content. You can do any sort of story, I should think... and full-page webcomics like Megatokyo are just as viable as strip-format webcomics like PVP or Penny-Arcade.

[Paul McEnery]

You've got my e-mail address, right? Drop me a private e-mail.

Not at work I don't. And I'm having some connection issues at home. So why don't you PM me?

[dancj]

any more than the RIAA allows people to make the argument that people download music because they want to sample a single rather than buy the whole album.
Small nitpick, but I think people download the whole album more often to decide whether to buy it. I know that's what I've done in the past (in fact I'm currently planning on buying Something Else by The Kinks on the strenght of having downloaded it)

Dan

[chbryan]

You're asking the wrong guy. I can't see imagine buying Harry Potter in any form for any reason. You could maybe talk me into it with Thomas Pynchon, though. (780 pages on AGAINST THE DAY and counting! WHOOOOOOO!)

- Grant

Firstly, I can't believe Steven Grant just went "WHOOOOOOO!". However, it's reminded me that I've got one of those 25% even more off the cover price coupons from Barnes and Noble, so it's either Pynchon, or maybe Jane Smiley's new book, or maybe a volume of Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon.

Secondly, it's nice to know I'm not alone in the "I can't imagine buying Harry Potter in any form for any reason" segment of humanity. Everyone says it's great, but that's what they told me about The DaVinci Code, and that didn't work out so well for me.

But mostly, dealing with the main topic, I think a lot of this gets back to a subject discussed in Permanent Damage some time back -- the quality of story in comic books.

If someone produced absolutely killer, compelling, buzztastic material, the format wouldn't matter; people who found it and wanted more of it would lay out $2.99 a month for a 32 page comic if that was the container that held the story -- or they'd buy periodically produced graphic novels, or they'd follow the story through a subscription website, or they'd wait for the story to dance on the shimmering vapors of the aurora borealis if that was the way to get at it.

But it has to be desired. Really desired. And readers have to feel that they're getting their money's worth.

Mediocre overpriced crap is produced in every conceivable media, at many different price points, and people might pay for this stuff once, but when they're being suckered into paying for something twice, or something that's overhyped bilge -- well, the resentment builds, and they start shopping at le marche noir. (The model for this particular thought is the recording industry and its constant worry about downloading.)

Then again, there is that old saying about fools and money, and the publishers know it.

Me, when I read, I typically like to hold that reading material in my soft little hands. I like dog-earing pages, I like getting ink on my fingertips, I like getting coffee cup ring marks on the covers. If I buy a book that I don't enjoy, I can still give it to someone who might like it, or perhaps prop up an uneven table leg with it. I like having something other than access for my money.

I can read article-length items online or on screen, but when I read anything of a longer nature I'll print it out. If it's nature is quite long, and I really want to enjoy it, I'll buy a copy.

The majority of current monthly comics, however, don't take as long to read as most magazine articles, so if DC and Marvel were a third of the price online, I'd buy them that way and might potentially buy more (except that I'm finding that I'm hitting the downward part of my Big Two cycle again, so I might not buy any at all).

I don't now bag, sort, lead-shield or hermetically seal the comics I buy; they all just get commingled in a box, eventually, so I don't care that much about the collection concern. (Except for Ex Machina and Darwyn Cooke's Spirit series. Those, I have to hold.)

But my concerns with comics' viability don't have as much to do with the delivery system as with the content, most of which could and should be printed on cheap pulp paper, just like it used to be.

[glennsim]

I keep thinking someone is going to come up with an actual non-duplicatable digital format, which would revolutionize the whole situation.

Not sure if that's going to happen any time soon, though.

[Steven Grant]

There's something of a law developing regarding DRM software:

There is no and will never be a file-locking/digital rights management system that cannot be cracked, and to the extent anyone makes one increasingly uncrackable they also make the file increasingly unusable by those who are intended to use it.

- Grant

[Dennis]

i think reading comics online might be just as good. and reading manga may be better because the word balloons are bigger, image is physically bigger than a book. what you need is an lcd at least 19", a standard 4:3 may be better than widescreen for reading purposes. and adjust it for the native resolution of course. having to go to the store to buy pamphlets is kinda ridiculous. reading it in a browser is good enough. and do you really need to reread it or save it? i wouldn't mind a subscription model.

and it's better psychologically speaking. i feel like a 12 year old when holding a comic book, and i feel like an 8 year old holding a manga. but if it's online, you can keep your shameful comic book reading a secret, like porn.

so what should happen is a 10 dollar a month all you can read subscription, not just one company, but for every comic in existence.

[Dennis]

comic book reading is perfect on the computer, especially for you multitaskers. you can read a page, then switch to a blog, then play another song on itunes, chat with someone on IM, watch tv, talk on the phone, read another page, eat, watch youtube, read another page, write a very angry post on cbr about the very comic you're reading, so on and so forth. this is something you can't do with a novel. well you can, but if you do, then you're weird.

why is holding a comic in your hands so damn important. do you read while laying down on a couch. do you need to read something while you take a dump?

[dancj]

why is holding a comic in your hands so damn important. do you read while laying down on a couch. do you need to read something while you take a dump?
Personally I do read while taking a dump, but I usually reserve the books full of short stories (like Flight) or ones that were originally serialised in small chunks (like Charley's War and Judge Dredd) for that.

Another main reason of mine is that I mainly read while walking to and from work or in bed at night. If I'm going to read digital comics I'd need one of those book reader things that aren't really viable yet.

Dan

[MichaelMogg]

Digital comics are also handy for travelling. Going on a week-long trip and don't want to lug around a bunch of books? Digital comics to teh rescue!

I don't think it's a question of paper vs. digital (I mean we have Newsweek online and in paper form, just like newspapers), rather, it's a question of one format fulfilling a function at a certain place or time.

I know several people who download comics they already have in print for reasons of mobility.

[Citizen V]

Paying for a digital file and paying for a physical object are very different, to me. Possibly because it's a lot easier to accidentally delete a file than it is to lose or destroy a paper comic.

I feel the same way.If suddently comics were no longer printed on paper,i would stop reading.I am not going to pay for pixels on a screen,i want something that i can touch in my hand.What`s to say you do accidently delete your digital comic?Are you going to have to buy another?

[Brandon Hanvey]

What`s to say you do accidently delete your digital comic?Are you going to have to buy another?
With services such as iTunes if you lose your library, they do make you buy the tracks again. Although in some cases they are willing to restore some of the music for free.

To play devil's advocate, what if you were to throw or give away a printed book? Would you be able to get another copy for free?

[dancj]

To play devil's advocate, what if you were to throw or give away a printed book? Would you be able to get another copy for free?
Well the most likely thing to happen to get rid of your itunes library is your computer breaking down. The closest equivalent for comics would be your house burning down which would be covered by insurance (if you're insured).

I wonder if insurance companies would pay for lost files?

[Brandon Hanvey]

Well the most likely thing to happen to get rid of your itunes library is your computer breaking down. The closest equivalent for comics would be your house burning down which would be covered by insurance (if you're insured).

I wonder if insurance companies would pay for lost files?

Probably not. That is why I backup my purchased music along with my art files every month to a external HD.

[Trouble]

Just throwing in my two cents here:

Being a ninja.. I do not advocate piracy of any sort, even when it's just people showing up dressed as pirates at a Goth club. But.. it's a Goth club. So what are you gonna do?

However, the Big Two mostly make their money from advertising. Or at least that's the way it used to be. They lose so much on printing them that it's hard to make a buck soley off that. Unfortunately, indies don't have the circulation that mainstream comics do, so making money off ads is not an option.

So reading comics off bit torrent from Marvel and DC may not cause them as much harm, but it certainly does the smaller press. Then again, if enough people stop buying Marvel and DC then the companies selling ads will not want to space for their ads.

The ease of downloading things for free is no justification for it. It's wrong and it causes revunue loss. Putting things up on torrents and then deleting them within 24s.. the damage is still done. Are you gonna read a comic for free and then go out and buy it whether you've deleted it or not?

I digress by saying: Download or illegally read as much Marvel and DC as possible. BUT.. please spare the indies, or at least purcahse their comics or make a donation to their website, buy some merchandise, whatver. Thos guys and gals (myself including) are not making the big bucks. Most of us can't even quit our day jobs and as a result we don't get to put as much product or as often as we would like.

[bartl]

However, the Big Two mostly make their money from advertising. Or at least that's the way it used to be.
Not for decades, and quite possibly not ever. One of the things that I presented to DC was a way they could actually make money from advertising while keeping with the realities of printing (the method would not work today). I'm STILL PO'd at the late Sol Harrison (I have no problem with not getting the job, but to schedule an interview, and then turn me down without even seeing me was not at all professional).

[Trouble]

Not for decades, and quite possibly not ever.

Wow. Ya, know.. that's about how long I haven't been reading them and the likely hood that I ever will again. That makes me sad. :(

[Brandon Hanvey]

Marvel and DC make way more licensing their characters than they do on ads in their comics. Sometimes they make even more off licensing than they do comics.

[MichaelMogg]

Well, a new column and more about digital comics.

Going by Dan Slott's line of thought -- as illustrated by Steven -- makes me pretty much guilt-free to download comics. You see, they aren't distributed here in China, and downloading is the only way for me to have access in my 'region'. Yeah, I can order them through the mail (and I do, but it takes a nice 6-8 weeks for them to arrive . . . not exactly a 'staying in the loop' kind of time frame), but so can Dan buy DVDs from other regions. All over America they now sell multi-regional DVD players, not to mention being able to equip most PCs quite easily to support multiple regions. My first passion is Britcoms, and I buy loads of them from both America and the UK, and I play them on my multi-regional DVD player. :rolleyes: Slott's reasoning for his illegal downloading is a big steaming pile, and he's obviously just rationalizing his own misdeeds.

I think I already mentioned this before, but I'll bring it up anew. What's the difference between downloading and borrowing a copy from your friend or local library? :confused: Someone bought the comic in order to scan it. If you read all your comics at your friend's house, and you never buy them, are you called a dirty leech as well?

Or, what is the difference between buying a secondary market copy of a book as opposed to downloading. Are the people who only buy back issues abhorrent because they don't feed into the primary market? The same can be said for garage sales, trading (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=630), etc.

My point is, there are lots of ways to get around the initial $2.99+ cost of a book. Are they all equal evils? Why has downloading received such a bad stigma?

[MatthewDiCarlo]

Slott's actually spoken out against reading on the shelf too, which I think is rather absurd, because She-Hulk wouldn't have nearly the fanbase it has without that practice. There are very few people who will just buy a She-Hulk comic without giving it some sort of a try first, even if it's just reading a few issues on the shelf and then coming in on the next issue the next month.

[glennsim]

I think I already mentioned this before, but I'll bring it up anew. What's the difference between downloading and borrowing a copy from your friend or local library? :confused:

Not really taking a position on the overall issue, but the difference is that only one person at a time can read that library copy, and the life cycle on it is very low. So after about 6-10 check-outs, they are going to buy another copy.

The above other people mentioned. The difference I generally note is that the makers of the product have given the library permission to do this.

If you read all your comics at your friend's house, and you never buy them, are you called a dirty leech as well?

Again, it's a difference of scale and permission. The comics companies know that you might go read your friend's and have priced their product to account for that.

Or, what is the difference between buying a secondary market copy of a book as opposed to downloading. Are the people who only buy back issues abhorrent because they don't feed into the primary market? The same can be said for garage sales,

Well, if you buy a back issue of something that is available in trade, technically that's bad for the comics company, but it's an acceptable loss because it's what the business has been doing for years. But since the number of books NOT reprinted in trade so far outweighs what is, it's not that big a hit. Plus, the sales of the back issues support the retailers who sell the new product, whereas the downloading doesn't.

People who are downloading are generally downloading content that is available for purchase elsewhere.

My point is, there are lots of ways to get around the initial $2.99+ cost of a book. Are they all equal evils? Why has downloading received such a bad stigma?

Mainly because the comics industry has not yet told us that they are OK with it, and since they own the material, they get to make that decision. And because most of those other methods have much less potential to make a dent in sales.

[Bredric Frown]

Maybe I'm not the typical case, but I'm not interested in downloading new comics. I buy new comics every week and would always prefer to have something tangible to read over a digital version.

What I am interested in downloading is old comics. Unlike, say, the music world, where large swaths of back catalog are in print and readily available, it is often difficult (not to mention expensive) to find old comics. Where I live, 75% of the comic stores in the area have gone out of business in the last decade, and the remaining ones don't keep much back-issue stock. And if I do buy back issues, unlike the music business, comic companies do not get a cut of it (nor should they).

Graphic novels don't come close to filling all the gaps. Even if some of the issues I want have been collected in a graphic novel, odds aren't great of seeing it on the shelf unless it's been published in the past year or so.

Comics don't stay in print long enough for me to buy many of the titles I'd like to buy. Given that model, as opposed to the recording industry's, can one even fault someone like me for seeking out and downloading old and out-of-print comics?

[NatGertler]

Given that model, as opposed to the recording industry's, can one even fault someone like me for seeking out and downloading old and out-of-print comics?Yes, indeed I can.

The comics field has a very well organized back issue market. With a quick surf over to MyComicShop.com and Milehighcomics.com one can find the vast majority of the stories that one is actually likely to want, for simple purchase on one's credit card. That ongoing interest in back issues does indeed drive new issue sales, as stores order to have copies for the longer term, keep their doors open to sell new books in part by selling those older books, and gain some of their sales from people who see eventual selling of back issues as part of the economic justification for buying new issues.

And as a publisher of comics material that had long been out of print, I can tell you that the desire for people to have those old stories can cause them to return to print, making money for the copyright holders. If folks are sating their desires by downloading the materials instead, however, then I don't have the incentive to publish and to pay those folks. (And lest someone try to make it sound like it's just money for corporations: most of the copyright holders I'm paying are creators.)

[Alex A Sanchez]

I don't have time at the moment to read the posting in this thread (I will later on today), but I did want to leave some anecdotal evidence.

My fraternity brothers in college LOVED to read The Walking Dead. They eagerly looked forward to when the newest issue would be released online. It pissed me off to no end and I always scolded them to buy the issues, but they said that as long as they could get them for free they wouldn't.

I believe a lot of people WOULD buy these comics were they not available online (maybe not all, but many).


Also, I don't know if this has been said yet, but buying digital comics has two HUGE advantages:

#1- they can be sold for cheaper.
#2- very little storage space!! (ask any collector /reader over 30 how important this is to them)

[Bredric Frown]

Yes, indeed I can.

The comics field has a very well organized back issue market. With a quick surf over to MyComicShop.com and Milehighcomics.com one can find the vast majority of the stories that one is actually likely to want, for simple purchase on one's credit card. That ongoing interest in back issues does indeed drive new issue sales, as stores order to have copies for the longer term, keep their doors open to sell new books in part by selling those older books, and gain some of their sales from people who see eventual selling of back issues as part of the economic justification for buying new issues.


So if I want to read an uncollected Golden or Silver Age run of a comic, my option is to pay hundreds or thousands or tens-of-thousands of dollars to get the issues (if I can find them) from an online retailer?

I'm not a collector - I'm a fan. I'd pay a reasonable price for a trade collection of something I want to read. But I won't shell out an exorbitant price just to read something. At that point, you're making me work for it more than I care about it.

I suppose you'd just tell me to do without it then. But I can download the same issues for free with neglible consequences to anyone involved in the entire process. The publisher / rights-holders wouldn't have made any money off my purchase of these hypothetical back issues. I wouldn't have paid any store the prices they'd charge for them. No one's losing any money, not even in potential revenue.

What is the harm in that?

[glennsim]

So if I want to read an uncollected Golden or Silver Age run of a comic, my option is to pay hundreds or thousands or tens-of-thousands of dollars to get the issues (if I can find them) from an online retailer?

I'm not a collector - I'm a fan. I'd pay a reasonable price for a trade collection of something I want to read. But I won't shell out an exorbitant price just to read something. At that point, you're making me work for it more than I care about it.

I suppose you'd just tell me to do without it then. But I can download the same issues for free with neglible consequences to anyone involved in the entire process. The publisher / rights-holders wouldn't have made any money off my purchase of these hypothetical back issues. I wouldn't have paid any store the prices they'd charge for them. No one's losing any money, not even in potential revenue.

What is the harm in that?

You might have an argument, but I THINK this is all theoretical, because I'm not aware that anybody is scanning these older comics. It's just the new hot stuff that's being scanned.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

[Bredric Frown]

You might have an argument, but I THINK this is all theoretical, because I'm not aware that anybody is scanning these older comics. It's just the new hot stuff that's being scanned.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong...

Actually, there are a good many Golden and Silver Age classics that have been scanned / are being scanned in certain corners of the internet. Maybe you haven't seen them on a torrent, but they certainly are out there.

[J. Robb]

I think artists (be they writers, musicians, painters, etc.) should first be happy that people are taking the time to enjoy their work, that's the real compliment. Getting angry at downloaders is getting angry at your fans.

[glennsim]

Actually, there are a good many Golden and Silver Age classics that have been scanned / are being scanned in certain corners of the internet. Maybe you haven't seen them on a torrent, but they certainly are out there.

At any rate, every time you read a scan, that reduces the chances that you'll eventually buy a reprint of some sort if the company gets around to publishing it. And, again, the company that owns the content didn't give the person who scanned it permission to do so.

[glennsim]

I think artists (be they writers, musicians, painters, etc.) should first be happy that people are taking the time to enjoy their work, that's the real compliment. Getting angry at downloaders is getting angry at your fans.

If you're really a fan, wouldn't you want to pay for the material so that the artist you're a fan of benefits from his work?

[Bredric Frown]

At any rate, every time you read a scan, that reduces the chances that you'll eventually buy a reprint of some sort if the company gets around to publishing it. And, again, the company that owns the content didn't give the person who scanned it permission to do so.

Well, again, maybe I'm just an odd case, but, for example, I downloaded and read Kirby's Eternals series from the 70s a couple years ago. That didn't stop me from buying the Eternals Omnibus when it came out - because I wanted to be able to read it again, comfortably, in a nice edition. It also greatly increased my interest in picking up the recent Eternals series, all of which I bought new.

But I understand your argument.

[MichaelMogg]

Not really taking a position on the overall issue, but the difference is that only one person at a time can read that library copy, and the life cycle on it is very low. So after about 6-10 check-outs, they are going to buy another copy... The above other people mentioned. The difference I generally note is that the makers of the product have given the library permission to do this.

I think there are a great many people who would read it and not take it out. I doubt a tpb has such a short shelf life, unless someone steals it. Have the companies given permission for their product to be used? Or is it just a given that libraries lend books, period. I don't know of any publisher that can kibosh a library from keeping/lending their stuff.



Again, it's a difference of scale and permission. The comics companies know that you might go read your friend's and have priced their product to account for that.
So the comics companies know you might go and read your friend's copy, but they don't know you might also download it? They must really be out of touch with the industry. Also, to say that they have given permission is also wrong. I have never seen in any publication, permission to pass it along to your friends.

... Plus, the sales of the back issues support the retailers who sell the new product, whereas the downloading doesn't.
Again, who said anything about buying from a store, or even a person who will put the money back into the industry. I've seen a lot of selling comics or trading for something else (video games is an example).

People who are downloading are generally downloading content that is available for purchase elsewhere.

Yes, but for a lot of people, as someone else said above me, there simply is no market. A lot of scanning teams actually refuse to scan anything that isn't 6 months old. There are a lot of teams scanning classic stuff as well, such as The Master of Kung Fu.

Mainly because the comics industry has not yet told us that they are OK with it, and since they own the material, they get to make that decision. And because most of those other methods have much less potential to make a dent in sales.
On the contrary, once you buy a comic you own it. We are not talking about story boards, we are talking about a series of pieces of paper stapled together. To say that Martin Scorsese owns my copy of Taxi Driver and therefore I cannot sell it, trade it, lend it, etc., is beyond ridiculous. Why is the comics industry any different?

[badMike]

I think artists (be they writers, musicians, painters, etc.) should first be happy that people are taking the time to enjoy their work, that's the real compliment. Getting angry at downloaders is getting angry at your fans.Yum, I'm eating my feast of happiness! Oh, thank goodness I have a roof of happiness over my head to keep the rain from getting me wet. Uh oh, my baby's sick. Thank goodness my doctor accepts payments in smiles.

[NatGertler]

So if I want to read an uncollected Golden or Silver Age run of a comic, my option is to pay hundreds or thousands or tens-of-thousands of dollars to get the issues (if I can find them) from an online retailer?That is an option, yes. As is reading the copies of someone who owns them, or waiting for them to be collected (even encouraging the rights holders or publishers to collect them), or even, yes, doing without.
At that point, you're making me work for it more than I care about it.Sound like you'd be able to do without it, then.
I suppose you'd just tell me to do without it then.You got that one.
But I can download the same issues for free with neglible consequences to anyone involved in the entire process. The publisher / rights-holders wouldn't have made any money off my purchase of these hypothetical back issues. I wouldn't have paid any store the prices they'd charge for them. No one's losing any money, not even in potential revenue.Well, you've got that wrong. Even if you don't care about the rights of others, there are indeed financial consequences to your choice to pirate the work. Pirating of work can sate the interest in it, drying up the likely profitability of a reprint of it, thus depriving rights holders, publishers, creators, whoever of their financial interest in it. Meanwhile, folks who want to sell you material now have to compete for your reading attention with the work you are pirating.
So you're harming publishers, rights holders, creators (and those who believe in immortal souls might argue even yourself) -- but hey, you're getting to read comics that you don't care enough about to buy!

[NatGertler]

I think artists (be they writers, musicians, painters, etc.) should first be happy that people are taking the time to enjoy their work, that's the real compliment. Getting angry at downloaders is getting angry at your fans.Yeah, just like getting angry at a pickpocket is just getting angry at someone who's telling you that you have nice taste in wallets!

[MichaelMogg]

Yeah, just like getting angry at a pickpocket is just getting angry at someone who's telling you that you have nice taste in wallets!

I can't even begin to understand such a comparison. The only reason I am back into comics is because of digital comics, and I have a couple of friends in the same boat. Does that mean I'm just a leech? No. I pour my 'entertainment' cash (which I used to use to import DVDs) into buying comics. Without having accessed comics in the first place, I would never have come to comics, and there would have been one less person supporting the industry.

Now, does that mean I buy everything I read? No, of course not. But since I have no LCS, for me, downloading is like perusing the racks. There are some comics in the DCPs that I had never heard of before, especially from indie publishers. That exposure allowed me to read them, appreciated them, and supported them. How is that like pickpocketing?

[NatGertler]

I can't even begin to understand such a comparison.Creating work for sale is what the folks in question do for a living. When you take their work without paying for it, you're depriving them. At least under US law, you don't have a right to download copies to "sample".

If the publisher or rights holder wants you to sample the material, they can make samples available online -- and many do (I've done it myself.) But that's their choice to make.

As for the lifespan of a TPB in the library, I wouldn't have thought it was so short either... until I talked to a number of librarians on this very topic. Publishers generally like selling to libraries, because they buy a lot of books. (Heck, I can tell you that on at least one of my titles, they make the majority of the ongoing sales.) And at least in the US, barring some special contract by issuing the book they are permitting the library to lend it (under the "right of first sale".)

[J. Robb]

Yum, I'm eating my feast of happiness! Oh, thank goodness I have a roof of happiness over my head to keep the rain from getting me wet. Uh oh, my baby's sick. Thank goodness my doctor accepts payments in smiles.
I don't think guilt-tripping is much of a solution. No one is going to stop using e-mail because they feel sorry for paper companies.

What everyone will eventually realize is that you can't beat the internet. The smartest thing to do is learn to work with it.

[Alex A Sanchez]

I think artists (be they writers, musicians, painters, etc.) should first be happy that people are taking the time to enjoy their work, that's the real compliment. Getting angry at downloaders is getting angry at your fans.

You don't steal a pizza from Straw Hat, then tell the owner "You should be happy that people are taking the time to enjoy the food you made." That's nonsense. If you really appreciated it, you would pay for it.

This is a fine argument for hobbyist creators, but not professionals. Remember, these are people's jobs. They need this money to feed their families- its not like this is a lucrative field where people are making an excess of money. People are in it because of the love for what they do.

[Inkthinker]

Just thought it was pretty sweet that Steven properly identified the problem here as bootlegging, not theft (per se).

It's not even piracy, which strikes me as one of the biggest goofs of the whole ordeal... it's gained a patina of romantic "cool". Everybody wants to be a pirate, pirates are awesome, hell Johnny Depp is so hip he can't see past his pelvis.

I'm not gonna jump on the legal issue of downloading comics... certainly I believe that you should pay for comics that are commercially available, espescially if by doing so it benefits the creator[s]. But ultimately if society really wants to address this problem then they need to identify it.

Bootlegging: illegal duplication and distribution of material.

Not theft: the taking of material from someone and passing it into the possession of another.

[Inkthinker]

Yum, I'm eating my feast of happiness! Oh, thank goodness I have a roof of happiness over my head to keep the rain from getting me wet. Uh oh, my baby's sick. Thank goodness my doctor accepts payments in smiles.

Speaking as an artist, this is (hilariously) true. I do love my work, I do love when my fans love my work, but I gotta pay the rent.

[ERoy]

That is an option, yes. As is reading the copies of someone who owns them, or waiting for them to be collected (even encouraging the rights holders or publishers to collect them), or even, yes, doing without.

And right there you did two things: a)potentially LOST a buyer, and b)encouraged him to continue to download the comics.

"Doing Without" is what is causing millions of people to leave comics. They're NOT readily accessable to the average person -- they have to find a specialty shop to buy them, and many of the shops do not cater to non-comic fans.

That, to me is the main trouble. When comics sold in the hundreds of thousands, they were available virtually everywhere. I grew up buying comics at the local "News and Novelty", which doubled as a drug store. Had I grew up in today's world, I would have never bought a comic because they simply were not there to buy.

Digital comics are easy to find; easy to download and easy to read. You don't have to search for some dungeon-esque shop with owners who hate to see you peruse through comics because they devalue when you do.


So you're harming publishers, rights holders, creators (and those who believe in immortal souls might argue even yourself) -- but hey, you're getting to read comics that you don't care enough about to buy!

The average comic book fan does not care about rights holders. They don't care that Marvel or DC is potentially losing money because you're downloading their titles, and your approach only encourages people to continue to do what they're doing now. It's the same approach the RIAA takes, and it simply hardens the downloaders to continue to do so.

Do I care enough about Avengers #1 to spend thousands of dollars to buy it? No. Only collectors do, and the LAST thing we need in the comics industry is further collectors coming in.

Make comics more accessable. Make them available in more places than comic shops. Treat downloading comics are listening to the radio -- encourage it, then encourage them to pick up the books at their local Wal-Mart. The average person will not search out the comic shop to buy it, but they might pick it up when buying milk at the grocery store, or buying a DVD at a department store.

[MichaelMogg]

Creating work for sale is what the folks in question do for a living. When you take their work without paying for it, you're depriving them. At least under US law, you don't have a right to download copies to "sample".

If the publisher or rights holder wants you to sample the material, they can make samples available online -- and many do (I've done it myself.) But that's their choice to make.

The comparison between a downloader and a pickpocketer still doesn't hold true. Downloading comics doesn't directly take away from you. It isn't removing revenue from your pocket. Yes, I can see it removing potential future earnings, but in the case where someone indirectly downloads a comic (that is, it's in one of the assorted lots of DCP torrents), that revenue would never have been yours to begin with.

It's like if your friend hands you a comic and says, "read this, it's great." So you read it, and like it, so you start picking it up for yourself. In your analysis, that friend has no right to lend your property and by lending said property is taking money out of your pocket. What I'm saying is that, had the friend not said, 'read this,' the revenue would never have been there in the first place, since there would have been no impetus to buy it, and in some cases, no knowledge of its existence.

I'm really not trying to argue semantics here, I just think your definition of 'rights' is quite narrow and applied inconsistently. Just as you didn't give someone the right to download and 'sample', so too you didn't give the right for someone to re-sell your work, trade your work, give away your work, lend your work, etc., on the secondary market.

As for the lifespan of a TPB in the library, I wouldn't have thought it was so short either... until I talked to a number of librarians on this very topic. Publishers generally like selling to libraries, because they buy a lot of books. (Heck, I can tell you that on at least one of my titles, they make the majority of the ongoing sales.) And at least in the US, barring some special contract by issuing the book they are permitting the library to lend it (under the "right of first sale".)

Per the quote below, the 'right of first sale' would only work if the libraries purchased directly from the copyright holders themselves. If a library purchases copies through a wholesaler, then it wouldn't apply. I really don't know how libraries acquire their books, so I'm not sure if RoFS applies or not.

On a less legal note, I'm really surprised they go through so many copies. I wonder if that's because of theft, or just wear and tear. If it's theft, then the reorders are a form of ill-gotten gains as well. The publishers would be benefiting from each book stolen and subsequently reordered.

The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner.

[The Xenos]

Anyone else notice that the cover to the Jurrasic Park comic featured in this week's comic was from one of those illegally scanned and distributed comics? I'm guessing that was on purpose.. or a really funny conincidence.

Anyway, comic books is one of the industries I usually don't download from (unless I want scans clip up and share or to make wallapeprs with). I do download manga, but if I read ahead, I usually buy it when it comes out in America. For eaxmple, tongiht I bought vol 13 of Berserk even though I've read beyond like vol 30 online.

As for music, I try to buy CDs based on what I've sampled through illegal downloads. I think the RIAA are a bunch of goons that not only skim off the top and take most of the money from artists they claim to protect, but they also try to limit what people hear. With downloading music, I can listen to anything, not just what gets marketing dollars. Hell, a number of smaller bands are happy to give away mp3s just to get noticed.

I do still like to buy CDs. I can't stand paying for m3ps. If anything I'll rip them from the CD if I haven't downloaded them from file sharing already. The thing is, why should I pay for a CD because I keep hearing a single song on the radio. Hell, so many songs are propagated in movies or commercials now. It's terrible. It's more like you get infected with a song, so you buy the CD the single song's off of. Instead, I download and if I like the band and album, I'll hunt down the CD.

Of course, sometimes it's difficult to find something unless it's already been marketed as a top seller. It's the RIAA's self fulfiling prophecy. The only musicians that make it big are the ones they create. Thanks to these 'illegal downloads', they don't have that power anymore. I still think the RIAA is mostly a bunch of thugs who propagate a system that really isn't good for the artists.

Of course, getting back to comics, I don't quite see that same system. it is more direct to the artists and authors. Plus, there's a whole new generation, the web comics. It's very experimental, but it should be interesting to see where they go. Hell, I've been involved with a few. I have a friend with one right now and I have another arist friend who might launch a site. Then again, there are just about a million web comics out there.

[ACertainMrDoe]

My 2 cents on the two topics covered here.

a) digital vs. paper comics
Digital comics will NEVER EVER replace paper comics for me. It is just like novels - well, I'm sure I could find a (to be extreme) HTML version of the books I read. But firstly, I'm working all day in front of a computer, and, damn, I'm not willing to sit in my free time in front of one as well. Secondly, it's horribly unergonomic, I want to relax on my couch, sit in the sun on my balcony or at the beach, and not on an office chair in my working room to enjoy a read (not even mentioning dancj's dump example :o ). It's scientifically proven that most people prefer an additional haptic experience when reading (i.e. having something to touch). In my experience, reading without haptic experience is worthless - there are so many hours of reading that I fondly remember (to the point of remembering the reading act, not the content I was reading!), while there are only very very few moments where something I read on a PC screen remained with me for so long a time. But maybe I'm getting old. :( In a moment of "must-have"-madness I bought the DVD scan collections of the Fantastic Four and the Avengers, and I cannot bring myself to read them. Instead, I pull my Marvel Essentials from the shelf. So much more gratifying IMHO.

b) downloading vs. buying
The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a straw argument. You felt the need to download it. If the thing you wanted wouldn't have been available, maybe you would have bought it - the content being "freely" available removes the NEED to buy something, so it's easy to deceive yourself into thinking you wouldn't have been interested in it (why then bother downloading it?).
As soon as people start discussing whether something is legal or not, it is usually a case of it being illegal. I'm not condemning people for downloading things. It's the easy way, and the anonymity of the internet makes it even more easy. The industry is so much focussed on making everybody think that downloading copyrighted material is the same as producing child pornography and robbing banks that they do not see that they're in fact prodding ever more people to go the "easy" way by adding DRMs and so on that annoy PAYING people without end (DVDs I bought that I can watch on my DVD player but not on my PC? Music that I can only listen to on a specified medium?). A generation of pseudo Robin Hoods is born, who think themselves as rightful revolutionaries against DRM oppression.
The point is, don't deceive yourself into thinking that downloading is the right way to get content. It's still getting something that would normally cost something for free without the actual owner agreeing to it. At least you should be AWARE of it being probably illegal - maybe then you think twice about it in the future. Not even talking about the thing Steven Grant mentions, that illegal downloading kills off the thing you're interested in, probably much much more in the case of a small industry like comics than in the multi-billion-business of music and movies.

[MichaelMogg]

...
b) downloading vs. buying
The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a straw argument. You felt the need to download it. If the thing you wanted wouldn't have been available, maybe you would have bought it - the content being "freely" available removes the NEED to buy something, so it's easy to deceive yourself into thinking you wouldn't have been interested in it (why then bother downloading it?)....

Well, the most harmful downloading -- it seems -- is the 'current issue', hot-off-the-presses er . . . scanners, copy. These comics are compiled in packs, which contain really random stuff. Maybe, for example, you are reading '52', so you download the weekly torrent, and in it there is some indie comic you've never heard of. You read it, you buy it. That was the idea behind the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway," line of thought. It's not self-deception; it's not a load of bull; 90% of the stuff in the weekly torrents you would probably never have sought.

[ACertainMrDoe]

Hm, that's too easy for me.

It's VERY easy to say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" (IWHBIA) when you've already read the thing. Still you are reading something for free that under normal circumstances you would have had to pay for, it doesn't matter if it's crap or not, or whether you looked for it or not. YOU might not have sought it directly, but there are others that get that weekly pack who HAVE sought it. The 90% you think is crap may contain other people's gold nugget. On individual levels IWHBIA may be valid. But if hundreds or thousands of people do it, then it becomes a problem, because there will be large percentage of people reading the downloaded stuff and NOT buying the real thing even if they liked it (and, be honest, the compulsion to buy something you've already read is very small, and when it comes down to money, then people are not going to "support the artists", since it would not be "buying" for them but rather feel like "donating" since you've already benefitted from their work without paying for it. And people don't donate for non-welfare companies). I assume that the percentage of people reading illegal copies of comics and then buying it if they liked it is EXTREMELY low.

This is like watching TV, zapping around, watching anything you see (thus consuming content), and then not be willing to pay TV fees and give as reason that you didn't WANT to watch this or that, that it "just happened to be on the screen when I looked there".
Reading comics is entertainment for you. By reading downloaded comics, you get the entertainment YOU WERE looking for, it doesn't matter if you never intended to get that specific comic you got the entertainment from. You got the benefit (entertainment) and were not paying for it, as the creators intended you to do.

I hope I can communicate my point. It is rather difficult, especially since I do NOT want to condemn the practice, as I am guilty of that as well. What ticks me off is that people think they're perfectly right in doing so and that there's no reason to think about what they're doing.

[djm72]

Maybe, at some point down the road, torrents will hurt comic sales, but I don't think it's happening now.

Look at the sales figures. If you look at the post-boom numbers, comics sales have been going up slightly. While comic sales are slim compared to other forms of entertainment, comic sales have been stable or growing since the sales collapse of the mid-90s. Torrents weren't responsible for the drop in sales then and they clearly aren't hurting sales now.

The other issue here is the nature of most comic fans. We're collectors. We like to have the comics around us. It's the nature of who we are. We display, we bag and board, we organize. It's just who we are.

We also like to have them as soon as they come out. Let's face it, it makes much more financial sense to wait for the trade, but more than 250,000 copies of Civil War #7 went to comic stores in February. Fans who can't wait for the trade, aren't going to wait for somebody to scan the comic and put it online.

So while there may be new comics online for download, I don't think they are there is big enough numbers to be hurting sales. It's a convenient excuse for someone who believes they have a great book that isn't selling. Then they see it available for free and suddenly that's the reason it doesn't sell 90,000 copies a month.

She-Hulk doesn't sell because Marvel, and DC for that matter, have shifted their focus to selling their biggest names and promoting event comics. Those comics are the easiest to market and have the biggest return. Fans buy those titles in large numbers and prices are such that fans are financially drained. They can't afford to go after non-marquee titles unless they are big fans of the character. When I first started buying comics in the very early 80s, they were cheap enough you could pick up a comic featuring a lesser known character and give it a try. Fans now can't afford to do that, or they are afraid they will like it and it will increase their financial burden.

[MichaelMogg]

I hope I can communicate my point. It is rather difficult, especially since I do NOT want to condemn the practice, as I am guilty of that as well. What ticks me off is that people think they're perfectly right in doing so and that there's no reason to think about what they're doing.

Hmm, no, you made your point, and a good one at that. I suppose I never thought of it in those terms before (the TV analogy). :)

That being said, I think if there were some kind of monthly subscription service on par with TV, I'd be all for that. :D

[dancj]

At any rate, every time you read a scan, that reduces the chances that you'll eventually buy a reprint of some sort if the company gets around to publishing it.
If I read a comic and like it then I want to own it, so in my case if the comic was good then reading a scan (which I don't do mainly because I don't want to read on a computer) would increase my chances of buying it. If I read a scan and it's crap well then I can't feel too guilty about not buying it.

Pirating of work can sate the interest in it, drying up the likely profitability of a reprint of it, thus depriving rights holders, publishers, creators, whoever of their financial interest in it.
Or alternatively building up interest in it. This almost certainly goes both ways, though I doubt there are any reliable stats to say which has the bigger effect
Creating work for sale is what the folks in question do for a living. When you take their work without paying for it, you're depriving them.
You really aren't - unless it's something you would have bought.

[ACertainMrDoe]

You really aren't - unless it's something you would have bought.

Just for the sake of completeness, it is absolutely OK when I go to a comics shop, bring my portable copier, put some random comics on it, copy them and walk out and read them at home. At least if I wouldn't have bought them anyway. But if I HAD intended to buy them, then the very same act is suddenly theft/bootlegging. But, of course, I copy them only if I'm not interested in them anyway.
It's good that nowadays no one really wants to read comics and is just downloading them to make sure that you're really not interested in them. A clear conscience is a good thing.

[NatGertler]

And right there you did two things: a)potentially LOST a buyer, and b)encouraged him to continue to download the comics.Sorry, I don't see that showing that there are options to downloading including purchasing either encourages him to download or loses any buyer.
"Doing Without" is what is causing millions of people to leave comics.Millions of people are leaving comics? Sales have been on the upswing for years now.
They're NOT readily accessable to the average person -- they have to find a specialty shop to buy them, Or a bookstore, or a library, or the Internet (where there is a large amount comics available for legal downloading or online reading.)
Do I care enough about Avengers #1 to spend thousands of dollars to buy it? No.And if you can't be bothered enough to buy a reprint - and I bought a reprint of it last year for 50 cents - then why should you get it for free?
the LAST thing we need in the comics industry is further collectors coming in.It is? Really? Because generally speaking, customers are a good thing for an industry to have. And in the case of comics, when the newsstands were already dumping comics, it was the rise of the specialty shops and the customers supporting them that kept the field going for many years.
Make comics more accessable. Make them available in more places than comic shops.
Treat downloading comics are listening to the radio -- encourage it, then encourage them to pick up the books at their local Wal-Mart. The average person will not search out the comic shop to buy it, but they might pick it up when buying milk at the grocery store, or buying a DVD at a department store.Well, let's see how mass downloading has done for the music world -- hmmm, it's been losing sales for seven years now (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117444575607043728-oEugjUqEtTo1hWJawejgR3LjRAw_20080320.html), and as both a result of that loss and an accelerator of that loss, has been losing key outlets.
(By the way: you do realize that radio stations actually pay for the right to use that music, right? That that's an income source for the industry?)

[glennsim]

Just to put some perspective.

It doesn't matter whether it's hurting, or even helping the comics industry.

It doesn't matter whether you would have bought it or not.

It doesn't matter whether reading downloaded scans is or isn't like libraries or borrowing the book.

It doesn't matter whether the material is currently available for you to purchase.

What matters is: The people who own the material did not give permission for the material to be consumed in this manner. Do you want people taking things that you have a right to control and controlling it for you, because they think it's the right thing to do?

If you think it's wrong, and just don't care, that's acceptable. Anything else is denial and rationalizing.

If you think it helps the industry, great - write letters to the publishers and encourage them to formally distribute the stuff digitally, or put out a blanket statement that they are OK with people sharing scans.

[Bredric Frown]

So you're harming publishers, rights holders, creators (and those who believe in immortal souls might argue even yourself) -- but hey, you're getting to read comics that you don't care enough about to buy!

This is the point where every argument of this ilk just kinda breaks apart. Your definition of "harm" and mine are so radically different, we may as well not discuss the matter further. I read that statement and think that you must be living in a completely different reality if you can consider what I have proposed as "harming" any of the people you mention. You likely think the same of me for my stance.

And that's why this argument will never be resolved.

[NatGertler]

Well, if you don't think that usurping the rights of others and keeping them from getting money they'd otherwise get is "harm", then I don't know what you think would qualify. Do you have to physically punch them in the gut?

[Bredric Frown]

Well, if you don't think that usurping the rights of others and keeping them from getting money they'd otherwise get is "harm", then I don't know what you think would qualify. Do you have to physically punch them in the gut?

As I have explained, they would not have gotten the money in the cases I mentioned. There may be several parties with rights relating to an out-of-print comic book, and but none of them are dealers of collectibles. Since I will not pay, say, a thousand dollars for a particular comic book under any circumstances whatsoever, that dealer loses no potential revenue when I do not buy the comic and download it instead. Since the parties that do have rights to the comic in question are not making any money off of it anymore (under any circumstances) and will not make any money off of it unless they bring it back into print, I am not denying them of anything.

Again, where's the harm?

[NatGertler]

Since the parties that do have rights to the comic in question are not making any money off of it anymore (under any circumstances) and will not make any money off of it unless they bring it back into print, I am not denying them of anything.Except the legitimacy of their copyright, and the money you would have spent on the reprint should they eer choose to put it out, since you now may have sated your curiosity this way. And anything they might have sold you instead of having to compete with your "free" version of their product.

Again, where's the harm?Sorry you see no harm in infringing on the rights of others, as well as messing with their legitimate economic model.
So, from where do you get the idea that you're entitled to this material?

[Bredric Frown]

Except the legitimacy of their copyright, and the money you would have spent on the reprint should they eer choose to put it out, since you now may have sated your curiosity this way. And anything they might have sold you instead of having to compete with your "free" version of their product.

To argue that I would not spend money on a title that interests me because I have read a digital version is specious, at best. Specifically, it's wrong, as I have bought many collections that I read first in digital form, not to mention all the current titles I've picked up after my interest was piqued by an older title featuring the same characters.

Sorry you see no harm in infringing on the rights of others, as well as messing with their legitimate economic model.
So, from where do you get the idea that you're entitled to this material?

It's called an economic model because it's supposed to be based on reality. The reality of the situation today is very different than it was when that model was established. How legitimate does that make the model?

Having said that, I never claimed to be entitled to it. I claim that it is:

a) Easy to find and read works that would otherwise be beyond my means, and
b) That doing so causes no harm.

I do not think there exists any kind of established economic model that is ready to handle that particular case.

[glennsim]

b) That doing so causes no harm.


I guess it comes down to whether you reading the scan would prevent you from buying a reprint down the road. You can say that you personally only read scans of things you wouldn't buy anyway, but I think the more logical thing to assume on a grand scale is that people who get it for free won't pay for it later.

[ACertainMrDoe]

It's called an economic model because it's supposed to be based on reality. The reality of the situation today is very different than it was when that model was established. How legitimate does that make the model?

Wow, you're throwing 5000 years of economy and trade right out of the window because "the times, they are a'changing"?!? The model is not something that was created under very special circumstances, it's the standard way things work out in an economy. I have something you want, you pay for it. It doesn't matter if the thing I have is very old and not otherwise accessible. Still you simply do not have the right to take it without paying, except if I consent to it. Please explain me where the "reality of the situation" has changed so much.
It's very cheap to question the whole situation by saying it's not "legitimate anyway". Sorry, but that's the "pseudo-Robin-Hood" I've been talking about, people breaking laws and then, in the security of anonymity of the internet, relaxing and saying to themselves that they didn't do no wrong.

a) Easy to find and read works that would otherwise be beyond my means, and
b) That doing so causes no harm.

There are lots of things that are beyond my means. Still I don't simply take them. I don't get it how people can be so blind to established (and NEEDED) laws for protecting (intellectual) property.

If there WERE reprints of those old comics you want that you simply were unable to find, would you feel differently (because suddenly, without you knowing, by your own definition, you're harming the owners!)?

Again, I only want to know why people feel that it's legitimate to act this way.

[MichaelMogg]

Again, I only want to know why people feel that it's legitimate to act this way.

Who said anything about believing their procurement to be legitimate? You said you also illegally download intellectual property, didn't you? Just because you do it, or have done it, doesn't mean you believe you are doing so legitimately. Slott himself said he downloaded DVDs not available in his own region. Does he know he is breaking the law? Since he is pissed at his intellectual property being illegally passed around, he sure as hell should know it isn't legal. So does he think he's legitimately downloading? Probably not. Does he do it anyway? Yes.

I think most of the people here -- myself included -- are stating the reasons why they download, while others have been arguing that downloading older out of print comics is not severely damaging the comics market. That has nothing to do with proclaiming one's actions as legitimate.

[dancj]

Just for the sake of completeness, it is absolutely OK when I go to a comics shop, bring my portable copier, put some random comics on it, copy them and walk out and read them at home. At least if I wouldn't have bought them anyway. But if I HAD intended to buy them, then the very same act is suddenly theft/bootlegging. But, of course, I copy them only if I'm not interested in them anyway.
Don't be silly. I never even implied that. All I said was that under certain circumstances it doesn't cost the artists any money. I never even argued that downloading illegal scans is ever okay.

[dancj]

What matters is: The people who own the material did not give permission for the material to be consumed in this manner. Do you want people taking things that you have a right to control and controlling it for you, because they think it's the right thing to do?

If you think it's wrong, and just don't care, that's acceptable. Anything else is denial and rationalizing.
And there lies just about the only sensible thing that anyone arguing against illegal scans has said in this thread.

[dancj]

I guess it comes down to whether you reading the scan would prevent you from buying a reprint down the road. You can say that you personally only read scans of things you wouldn't buy anyway, but I think the more logical thing to assume on a grand scale is that people who get it for free won't pay for it later.
I think that's a big assumption. Plenty of people do wind up buying a comic directly because of enjoying a scan. Others would have bought the comic without having read the scan, but read the scan to get it sooner and then buy the comic anyway. Some people will not buy the comic because they can read a scan. Others still will buy different comics because of scans, but still buy just as many as they would have anyway.

So out of those four scenarios we have one beneficial, one that makes no difference, one that is detrimental and one that changes the distribution a bit (and I suspect would probably on the whole move money from the bigger sellers to towards the smaller titles).

I'm not aware of any stats which could even give an indication of how much of each is going on and what the net result is.

[glennsim]

I think that's a big assumption. Plenty of people do wind up buying a comic directly because of enjoying a scan. Others would have bought the comic without having read the scan, but read the scan to get it sooner and then buy the comic anyway. Some people will not buy the comic because they can read a scan. Others still will buy different comics because of scans, but still buy just as many as they would have anyway.

So out of those four scenarios we have one beneficial, one that makes no difference, one that is detrimental and one that changes the distribution a bit (and I suspect would probably on the whole move money from the bigger sellers to towards the smaller titles).

I'm not aware of any stats which could even give an indication of how much of each is going on and what the net result is.

I guess I'm jaded because out of the two people I know who download comics, they both have absolutely no intention of buying the real thing. They feel that comics have become too expensive.

Again, though, they don't think what they are doing is right - they just don't care.

[Bredric Frown]

Wow, you're throwing 5000 years of economy and trade right out of the window because "the times, they are a'changing"?!? The model is not something that was created under very special circumstances, it's the standard way things work out in an economy. I have something you want, you pay for it.

More like 500 years when it comes to copyright, but yeah, I'd say the model was created under specific circumstances. You've got something I want, I pay you for it, then I have it and you don't anymore. Today, it's more like you've got something I want, I make an instant and almost entirely free copy of it, you still have it, and now I've got it too. That really messes up the idea of supply and demand, don't you think?

[gs01rnb]

What I would like to see is a digital comics version of Itunes, where there is a set price for individual issues and a slight discount to buy bundle back issues.

I would be willing to pay 1.99 to get a hard to find issue digital back issue rather than pay thru the nose for a comic decades old.

Id like to be able to read Golden Age comics, and that could be a very expensive hobby if I tracked the individual issues down. But to be able to pick and choose instead of forced to buy compilation books. Or even worse unavailable comics.

[zuludelta]

I think what the industry has been slow to recognize (and by this I mean both the record industry and comics-publishing industry) is that they just can't legislate away online bootlegging of their products. I think it's become something of a rule now that any attempt to stamp out a particular file-sharing service just results in the emergence of an even more ingenious method of bootleg propagation. I personally don't think we could've gotten from Napster-level networking to Bittorrent in such a short span of time if not for the RIAA using their own unique brand of "encouragement".

The best way for the comics industry to at least gain some measurable profit from the downloading trend is to try and incorporate the trend itself into their marketing schemes. I think the iTunes model is a workable stopgap measure until a more practical alternative can be developed. Personally, I think the promotional benefits of offering at least a portion of their back-catalog for free (with ads to sort of soften the blow, of course) far outweigh any harm it might do to DC and Marvel's coffers. I think there will always be a fixed (if small) market of comic consumers who will prefer the printed and bound material and there will always be a sizable segment of scan downloaders. I'm of the opinion that most people who download scans aren't exactly the type who have monthly pull-lists anyway. Providing the downloaders with the material for free (or nominally for free, they'll have to deal with embedded adverts, I suppose) might be a reasonable way at getting them to sample DC and Marvel's intellectual properties in other media (toys, movies, games, etc.). You can never underestimate the power of advertising on consumer behaviour.

[NatGertler]

To argue that I would not spend money on a title that interests me because I have read a digital version is specious, at best.So if you read the digital bootlegs, and find that the work you thought might interest you doesn't, you still buy the physical copy? Or is it possible that reading it sated your interest?It's called an economic model because it's supposed to be based on reality. The reality of the situation today is very different than it was when that model was established. How legitimate does that make the model?Gee, people still make money selling the rights, publishing things. Yes, legitimate economic model.Having said that, I never claimed to be entitled to it.No, you just go and take it anyway.

[Citizen V]

With services such as iTunes if you lose your library, they do make you buy the tracks again. Although in some cases they are willing to restore some of the music for free.

To play devil's advocate, what if you were to throw or give away a printed book? Would you be able to get another copy for free?

Touche`.But it just goes to show that i would not trust Digital comics,others may.But your responce was perfect,if i lost a book or a paperback,i would have to buy a new one.Much like if i deleted a Digital comic,i would have to pay for another download.What are your own thoughts about this?

[rayj]

A lot of interesting discussion, albeit similar to many other debates regarding digital music. I think that there are some points worth making:

1) There is a clear difference between taking someone's physical property, thus depriving them of it and making a copy of someone's work and leaving them with the original copy and the means to make more.

2) Largely because of #1, it remains unclear whether or not peer-to-peer sharing of comics hurts or helps the industry and hurts or helps individual creators. I've read all the arguments, and many are quite logical - that downloaders would or would not have bought otherwise, that downloading can be an entry into buying, etc. - but the net effect remains unclear. I'm sure the thread could go on forever arguing how downloading does or does not hurt people, but in the end we're going to have to leave it to the statisticians and simply say that we can think of how it might go either way.

Or perhaps there is no single answer - maybe it helps some creators but hurts others. Or helps creators in one part of their career but hurts it in another. If we can't really prove it one way or another with the music industry (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf), then we've got no hope of doing it with the comics industry.

3) There's legality and there's morality, and the two seem to get confused a lot. I don't think anyone is really arguing legality here. From what I can tell, although I am not a lawyer, downloading or sharing digital comics seems to be clearly illegal. The counter argument, although usually not stated in this way, is that it may be illegal, but it isn't hurting anyone, so therefore it isn't immoral (and presumably, so therefore I'm going to keep doing it).

Some of the responses are basically that downloading "denies the legitamacy of their [creators'] copyright" or "infringes on their [creators'] rights." But isn't that just arguing legality again? If the argument goes "It's illegal" and the response is "But it's not immoral" and the reply is "But it's illegal," then we're not even arguing about the same thing. I think to really counter these arguments for downloading you have to make a case exclusively in the morality department, since people clearly have no problem doing something illegal if they can rationalize it against their ethics. That is, unless there is a good chance they will be caught and punished.

That's difficult because you cannot clearly show financial harm (#2), and because unlike other harms that can be done to people (bodily injury, rape, murder), "infringement on my copyright" is not clearly immoral or unethical (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060505.html). Part of that is because of the next point:

4) The concept that the creator of something has control over how it is viewed/listened to/consumed/distributed can't really be considered a basic human right and in fact is a fairly recent development Significant changes in how "intellectual property" and "copyright" is treated in the US as recently as 1976 (Copyright Act of 1976) shape what we today consider someone's "right" to control their work. Copyright was originally established more for economic and political reasons than for anything else and it has evolved beyond the original intentions. It should probably be viewed more as government-granted monopoly (http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/20/siva_vaidhyanathan.html) than as a basic human right. Again, this is why the legality-as-morality argument falls short.

5) All talk of "rightness" and "wrongness" aside, I really wish members of the comic book industry would find a way to exploit digital versions of comics rather than prosecute or bemoan them. Sharing comics, whether through peer-to-peer networks or just handing someone a DVD of scanned comics is not going to go away. It hasn't with music, and there's a lot more money being spent to combat it in that industry. A common post in this thread is that if only digital comics were available like songs on iTunes - and at a similar price range - then people who download them would pay for them. Is anyone listening to that? In the end, isn't everyone who reads comics - either in digital or print form - a comic book lover? Shouldn't getting comics into the hands of comic book fan and creating more of them be our goal? Wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to harness all the people who love reading and creating comics and start working on the things that really matter, like making and supporting comics that don't suck (http://www.papermovies.com/PMStore.html)?

[dancj]

So if you read the digital bootlegs, and find that the work you thought might interest you doesn't, you still buy the physical copy?
Well yeah there's definitely going to be a loss of sales from illegal downloads of crap comics, but it's hard to feel so bad about that. In fact if we could ever wind up with a model where people only pay for the stuff they actually like that would encourage publishers to produce better comics!

[badMike]

Well yeah there's definitely going to be a loss of sales from illegal downloads of crap comics, but it's hard to feel so bad about that.Just because somebody doesn't like something, why does that automatically make it "crap"? Great works of art are usually called "crap" by tasteless dinks.

[NatGertler]

2) Largely because of #1, it remains unclear whether or not peer-to-peer sharing of comics hurts or helps the industry and hurts or helps individual creators.I find it hard to argue that illegal downloading it doesn't hurt creators or other copyright holders in simply taking away their options; without illegal downloading, creators could still choose to release copies of their materials for such digital distribution, but with such downloading, they cannot choose not to. And as much as illegal downloading supporters act like financial harm is the only sort of harm that can exist, it isn't. In comics (and in other forms), plenty of creators make decisions about presentation and format based on their own personal relationship to the work.
There's legality and there's morality, and the two seem to get confused a lot.There's morality and there's ethics, and you seem to be confusing the two. The thought that doing something is okay if it's not harming another is more of an ethical stance.
Some of the responses are basically that downloading "denies the legitamacy of their [creators'] copyright" or "infringes on their [creators'] rights." But isn't that just arguing legality again?If one assumes that the copyright system is a functioning paradigm created and nurtured by the society via its government, then whether its okay to violate it for one's personal benefit is indeed a question of ethics. And much of the argument you see here is against the claim that it's not hurting anyone, clearly a question of ethics.
That's difficult because you cannot clearly show financial harm (#2)Then you run into the shooting-into-the-crowd fallacy - that it's okay if it's only risking harming others rather than definitively doing so.
and because unlike other harms that can be done to people (bodily injury, rape, murder), "infringement on my copyright" is not clearly immoral or unethical (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060505.html).By much the same stance, one can see that "bodily injury" is not clearly immoral or unethical, because one can see many instances where it would be acceptable, from self-defense to a doctor performing a c-section. And that one essayist uses stretches in logic to claim that copyright does not have a ethical foundation does not in fact mean it doesn't; the logic in there is rather tortured; he uses examples of where the law does not cover various things equally as a key argument that it doesn't have a basis in ethics -- but by that argument, there was no basis in ethics for laws against rape for the many years and many states where it did not cover spousal rape. That imperfection of the law does not inherently divorce it from ethics, particularly when considering items on which the law doesn't have that imperfection.

One can come up with arguments why copyright shouldn't be considered a right on an ethical level, but copyright has a far better ethical basis than ownership of physical property. Physical property ownership basically all traces back to land ownership -- the path of ownership of that paper clip traces back to the ownership of the land which holds the mine from which the paper clip was taken. And ownership of land derives from one of three scenarios -- ownership by assumption ("I own this land because I say I own this land"), ownership by force ("Get off this land -- I have a weapon, so it's my land now"), and ownership by royal fiat ("I am the king, and I say that this newly-found island belongs to my cousin Fred"). And all three of those are ethically problematical. The folks who own the land did not create the land. Copyright, on the other hand, goes basically to those who created the intellectual property. You own that which you yourself create... and if you built on the works of others, doing so does not grant you the rights to the work you built on. Creating West Side Story does not give you ownership of Romeo and Juliet or Pyramus and Thisbe. And even with all that, the copyright dissolves eventually.
All talk of "rightness" and "wrongness" aside, I really wish members of the comic book industry would find a way to exploit digital versions of comics rather than prosecute or bemoan them.Members of the comic book industry have found plenty of ways to exploit digital versions of comics. There are webcomics aplenty, some of which are the base of strong going concerns. There are plenty of publishers who have some form of free digital sample on some of their work. There are comics flying out to cell phones and other handheld devices. And for all the calls of there to be something like iTunes, there are certainly legal pay-for-download comics sites out there, whether it be a publisher selling downloads thorugh their own site (Slave Labor), partnering with some larger site (Top Cow via IGN -- I think it's IGN, anyway, some three-initial site), or central commerce sites carrying the works of multiple publishers (drivethrucomics.com). Pay-for-digital-download sites are nothing new (Abba-Dabba was doing it about a decade ago.) They don't seem to have set the world ablaze.

[Bredric Frown]

The folks who own the land did not create the land. Copyright, on the other hand, goes basically to those who created the intellectual property. You own that which you yourself create...

Copyright is based on the fact that you can't own an idea. It was created specifically to allow creators to benefit from their works for a limited time, because they don't own that which they create. And the original idea was that those works would go into the public domain in a reasonable period of time - not 120 years, not life of the creator + 70.

and if you built on the works of others, doing so does not grant you the rights to the work you built on. Creating West Side Story does not give you ownership of Romeo and Juliet or Pyramus and Thisbe. And even with all that, the copyright dissolves eventually.

Actually, you do own Romeo and Juliet and Pyramus and Thisbe, and so do I. Both have been part of the public domain for quite some time.

Sure, copyright dissolves eventually but it's been repeatedly extended far beyond its original scope. You want to talk about ethics, there's plenty of fodder for discussion if you look into the history of this issue. There is certainly enough ambiguity that a reasonable person can come to a conclusion on either side.

Members of the comic book industry have found plenty of ways to exploit digital versions of comics.

You know, I was thinking about that. Marvel, arguably the largest and most prominent player in the field of comic books and certainly one that sets a lot of precedents for the industry, has released DVD-ROMs collecting entire runs of their most popular properties - Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Avengers - in digital form for about $45 or so each. That averages out to around eight cents an issue.

$0.08. Is that a fair per-issue price for an old and out-of-print comic?

[dancj]

Just because somebody doesn't like something, why does that automatically make it "crap"? Great works of art are usually called "crap" by tasteless dinks.
True, but all the same it does seem right (regardless of the legality) that the people who actually enjoy a work should be the ones paying for it.

That's right as in ethics - or is that morality? I've seen Election but I still don't get the difference

[dancj]

Then you run into the shooting-into-the-crowd fallacy - that it's okay if it's only risking harming others rather than definitively doing so.
Bad analogy. Any given person downloading a digital comic MIGHT know that they would buy the comic if they could. In that situation there is no risk of harming others.

[outlander78]

Nat, please understand that there are people out there who want to buy digital comics. They want to give you their money, for a number of reasons including storage space and the embarassment of being a grown man reading a comic on the subway. Unfortunately, you and the DC and Marvel publishers are unwilling to take their money, and a free (if shady) alternative exists.

Telling people "then don't read it" is a terrible way - if you are a businessman then you should be looking for a way to sell them what they want, not tell them to lump it!

Personally, I have stopped buying comics and trades for a number of reasons, the primary two being space and the embarassment factor. I have been waiting patiently for years to be able to buy back issues of Iron Man, Batman, Punisher and others in a digital form, but no one will accept my money. I am not the only one. If you put in a rule to protect the few remaining comic retailers that states that such downloads will be restricted to ten-year-old content and beyond, that will still leave you with thousands of comics to sell me and those like me!

The RIAA may not like iTunes and its pricing model, but they have sold over one billion songs. I gather that comics publishers also don't like the idea of digital sales, but wouldn't you rather get sales from 20% of downloaders than keep losing all 100% of them? Since the scanning is already completed, all you need is a website with a shopping cart system!

edit: To answer your argument about people who download, read, don't like the comic and then don't buy a copy, I have two suggestions:

1. Cut the hype - publish what is advertised, and try to keep the majority of the readers/buyers/customers happy.

2. Sell digital copies - then the downloaded, digital copy was paid for and you don't have a try-then-buy market. Personally, I don't see how a try-then-maybe-buy market would be sustainable and think that most people who claim to practice it more often than not don't buy.

[MichaelMogg]

I'd like to add, though, that the hottest comics on the market are the newest ones. It's all nice and fine to have ten year old comics in digital format, but that still doesn't address the problem of getting customers' money for digital versions of new comics.

I'd love to download comics for 99 cents (or whatever) each. Many of the scans are not exactly great quality, for example, some are overly red and blotchy. If the companies provided high quality digital comics (as opposed to simply scanning the paper version), I think they'd be a hit, especially for the overseas readers.

Perhaps wishing for new comics is a dream, but what about releasing digital versions at the same time as the tpbs? Maybe that would appease those who wish to keep the immediate single issue market untainted with coinciding digital counterparts, and at the same time, help those of us who want digital comics and don't mind paying for them. A lot of readers wait for tpbs as it is. :)

[badMike]

Nat, please understand that there are people out there who want to buy digital comics. They want to give you their money, for a number of reasons including storage space and the embarassment of being a grown man reading a comic on the subway.I've seen quite a few "grown men" reading GNs and comics on the subway here in L.A. with increasing frequency. I don't think there's anybody embarrassed by that anymore.

Storage space is a good point, though.

[NatGertler]

Nat, please understand that there are people out there who want to buy digital comics.I have never expressed any doubt of that, "outlander78". I may doubt the quantity and the impact of those customers, however.
Unfortunately, you and the DC and Marvel publishers are unwilling to take their money, and a free (if shady) alternative exists.I'm not sure why you make this assumption about me; some About Comics (my company) publications are already purchasable in a digital format, and I continue to investigate other possibilities for the future.
Telling people "then don't read it" is a terrible way - if you are a businessman then you should be looking for a way to sell them what they want, not tell them to lump it!Of course, you may want to note the reality of what I said, where I was noting that if they were unwilling to pay the price for it, then they can do without; that doing without is preferable to violating the rights of others.
If you put in a rule to protect the few remaining comic retailers that states that such downloads will be restricted to ten-year-old content and beyond, that will still leave you with thousands of comics to sell me and those like me!Let's note that 10-year-old material is still in competition with what is sold in comic stores, that plenty of stores are doing business selling Masterworks, Archives, Omnibuses, Absolutes, Essentials, Showcases, and other such reprints of older material.
The RIAA may not like iTunes and its pricing model, but they have sold over one billion songs.That doesn't mean that they sold a billion songs that they would not have sold otherwise. It's hard to say what portion of iTunes sales are merely sales diverted from the CD market... but seeing how the CD field has been shrinking and losing outlets at a dangerous rate, there is reason to suspect that it's substantial.
I gather that comics publishers also don't like the idea of digital sales, but wouldn't you rather get sales from 20% of downloaders than keep losing all 100% of them?That seems to assume that 20% of the illegal downloaders would switch to legal downloads, a very questionable assumption.
Since the scanning is already completed, all you need is a website with a shopping cart system!If you're talking about the pirated scans, there are actually legal questions about using them, as well as practical quality-and-standards-related questions. And besides that, there are many other things that a publisher needs to be concerned about - promotion, processing of royalty payments, reviewing old contracts created before the popularization of digital media to see what rights one has and what payments would be required, and so forth.

Sell digital copies - then the downloaded, digital copy was paid for and you don't have a try-then-buy market.I have my doubts that illegal downloaders, including the ones who claim to just be sampling, will completely disappear when paid downloads are available.

[rayj]

I find it hard to argue that illegal downloading it doesn't hurt creators or other copyright holders in simply taking away their options; without illegal downloading, creators could still choose to release copies of their materials for such digital distribution, but with such downloading, they cannot choose not to. And as much as illegal downloading supporters act like financial harm is the only sort of harm that can exist, it isn't. In comics (and in other forms), plenty of creators make decisions about presentation and format based on their own personal relationship to the work.

True. I admit I was referring to financial harm. If you count doing anything with someone's work without express permission as "harm" - and you have every right to - then there is some clear harm. Although that happens legally all the time, such as when a copyright expires.

There's morality and there's ethics, and you seem to be confusing the two. The thought that doing something is okay if it's not harming another is more of an ethical stance.

I could argue that, but why bother? There are, of course, differences between morality and ethics although the line is blurry. Yes, beige and white are clearly different colors, but I'm contrasting them with black. The basic point is that legality is different from either a personal sense of right and wrong or the greater code of conduct based on such a sense. It is, for example, often based on matters of practicality and history, which your later comments bring up.

If one assumes that the copyright system is a functioning paradigm created and nurtured by the society via its government, then whether its okay to violate it for one's personal benefit is indeed a question of ethics. And much of the argument you see here is against the claim that it's not hurting anyone, clearly a question of ethics.

Rather than dissecting your argument, perhaps it would be more useful to reorient the discussion toward the intended point by restating that point. Some people choose to violate laws if doing so does not violate their own personal ethical code. That code being based on their morality, which, for example, may include the concept to not harm another person. Yes, their decision to violate laws they don't agree with is an ethical issue, but I am not arguing the right or wrong of whatever ethical code they live with. I am taking the existence of such people with such an ethical code as a given, since there are many people stating just that in this thread and elsewhere.

My point was that since they have demonstrated that their ethics allow them to violate the law when they don't agree with it, you can't expect to convince them of anything by saying that what they are doing is illegal. Similarly, you can't say that violating the law is unethical and convince them that way, since they've already shown that they are operating under a different ethical code.

But you might convince them if you showed them that what they were doing was immoral, by showing them it harmed other people. And I'm not saying that it doesn't harm creators, only that it's hard to show that. Arguments about loss of control of the form of distribution may win you logic points, but I don't think it will win you many converts. Let's face it - money is the most convincing argument. You can measure it. Even if you could win a lawsuit showing harm because of loss of control of form of distribution, the form of that win would probably be framed in terms of dollars.

Then you run into the shooting-into-the-crowd fallacy - that it's okay if it's only risking harming others rather than definitively doing so.

You're using kind of an extreme example here. If downloading comics were as obviously potentially harmful as shooting into a crowd, there wouldn't be much left to discuss.

By much the same stance, one can see that "bodily injury" is not clearly immoral or unethical, because one can see many instances where it would be acceptable, from self-defense to a doctor performing a c-section.

Of course there are gray areas and exceptions for everything. I didn't think it was necessary to acknowledge these in order to make my point. Let's just say that on the scale any kind basic human morality (I'll avoid ethics for now) - as far as there is such a thing - things like hurting someone else and rape and such are way over here on the scale of "Potential to Go Against Morals", and downloading comics is way over there on the other end. Again, my only point was that the harm done by downloading comics is not as obvious as some other actions.

...The folks who own the land did not create the land. Copyright, on the other hand, goes basically to those who created the intellectual property. You own that which you yourself create... and if you built on the works of others, doing so does not grant you the rights to the work you built on...

Good points. I only included those links in case people were interested in reading some other thoughts on the matter, not because I necessarily thought those were the final or best thoughts. Your points about personal property support the idea that what is "legal" can be ethically debatable.

Members of the comic book industry have found plenty of ways to exploit digital versions of comics.

Great! I wasn't aware of these. I hope they are successful. But digital comics still have a way to go.

Ultimately, I wasn't coming down on one side or another, but I saw a lot of speaking past each other and thought I would try to frame some of the issues of the discussion. Again, right now we've got consumers who really want something that producers can't give them at a price point they are willing to accept, and I hope that a better solution comes around.

[lalo]

Wow, you're throwing 5000 years of economy and trade right out of the window because "the times, they are a'changing"?!? The model is not something that was created under very special circumstances, it's the standard way things work out in an economy. I have something you want, you pay for it. It doesn't matter if the thing I have is very old and not otherwise accessible. Still you simply do not have the right to take it without paying, except if I consent to it. Please explain me where the "reality of the situation" has changed so much.

You have managed here to repeat three lies that have been forced down our throats in the last few years. It's ok if you don't want to have an opinion about copyright; but if you do want to have one, then you should learn more about it, rather than parroting what you hear.

As has been already abundantly said in this topic, you don't "have" something I want. There's no such a thing as "intellectual property", this is a buzzword created by legal vultures very recently and you won't find it in any law. According to the laws of most countries, all kinds of ideas and informations belong to the public, and things like copyrights and patents are grants, made by the public (trough the government) to encourage creation.

It was created, as has been said, less than 500 years ago, not 5000. And it was, yes, created under very special circumstances; ironically, quite similar to the ones we have now. It was created because of printing.

Before Gutemberg, authors didn't make money by "rights". Writers, before that time, are almost always playwrights, you'll notice. They made money by producing the plays they wrote. And there was no law forbidding someone else from producing the same play. Others were noblemen or sponsored by noblemen. In distant Rome, there were a few who made money by selling actual copies of the book, hand-copied; but then, the general impression was that they were charging by the paper, ink, and work of copying. Composers were usually musicians, who made money by performing, or were sponsored to compose. And so on.

When printing came up, a new, lucrative business suddenly appeared, of mass-printing a popular book and selling it. It was based on the old Roman model; but it was seen as morally unfair, because it was almost never done by the author himself (printers were expensive), and the author was never compensated in any way except fame.

So the thinking heads came up with this funny law. The principle is pretty reasonable: someone is making lots of money from your work, so they need to pay you. You're only entitled to this grant for a limited period after you create the work.

The problem is, by numerous reasons over time, the system grew organically (more like a cancer), developing spurious appendages. In my humble opinion, what definitely sank it was the idea that the grant could be sold, which is patently ridiculous.

It's very cheap to question the whole situation by saying it's not "legitimate anyway". Sorry, but that's the "pseudo-Robin-Hood" I've been talking about, people breaking laws and then, in the security of anonymity of the internet, relaxing and saying to themselves that they didn't do no wrong.

You sound American; are you? If so, I would expect you to be familiar with the concept of civil disobedience; without which, you'd be a British citizen by now. Your founding fathers have said repeatedly, if an American doesn't agree with a law, it's his/her patriotic duty to oppose it, to try to change it (by bugging your congressman, and/or voting for one that agrees with you), and even, if all else fails, disobey it. That's the only way laws change in your system.

[ACertainMrDoe]

You have managed here to repeat three lies that have been forced down our throats in the last few years. It's ok if you don't want to have an opinion about copyright; but if you do want to have one, then you should learn more about it, rather than parroting what you hear.

Just your not liking the truth doesn't make it "a lie". In the stance of your reply I can hear Robin Hood shouting from the woods again.


As has been already abundantly said in this topic, you don't "have" something I want. There's no such a thing as "intellectual property", this is a buzzword created by legal vultures very recently and you won't find it in any law. According to the laws of most countries, all kinds of ideas and informations belong to the public, and things like copyrights and patents are grants, made by the public (trough the government) to encourage creation.

Well, then I think I'm going to stop to produce anything that you could like, and take on a "real" job where I "create" something "material" that you might like to "want". This is rubbish. If I don't "have" what I create in my mind, why do I "have" a chair that I cut from a piece of wood with my hands? Is that a lie that was forced down our throats as well? Is my hands' work inherently more applicable for theft protection than my mind's work?
We're not talking about abstract ideas. We're talking about very substantial comics that have been made in a creative process. Why do you think that artists and writers do what they do? Because they're soooo altruistic and want to enlarge the public domain of comics? No, they get paid for it. They're entertainers, as was the case with bards. 5000 years ago, entertainers existed, and they got paid, too, even though they did not produce something material. Maybe their payment was to be allowed to stay in the community without "doing something useful", but in some form their art allowed them to stay alive. Artists and entertainers provide a service, they entertain. If you use their service and don't pay for it... if even the comic artists themselves say that you shouldn't illegally download comics, what argument do you have? "We'll, actually, this is not YOUR comic in the first place, it belongs to US. WE should charge YOU for allowing you to bring it to paper!"


It was created, as has been said, less than 500 years ago, not 5000. And it was, yes, created under very special circumstances; ironically, quite similar to the ones we have now. It was created because of printing.

I was not talking about Copyright, but about trade principles. I was not talking about "intellectual property" but about taking something that you're not allowed to. And THAT principle is probably even older than 5000 years.


Before Gutemberg, authors didn't make money by "rights". Writers, before that time, are almost always playwrights, you'll notice. They made money by producing the plays they wrote. And there was no law forbidding someone else from producing the same play. Others were noblemen or sponsored by noblemen. In distant Rome, there were a few who made money by selling actual copies of the book, hand-copied; but then, the general impression was that they were charging by the paper, ink, and work of copying. Composers were usually musicians, who made money by performing, or were sponsored to compose. And so on.

When printing came up, a new, lucrative business suddenly appeared, of mass-printing a popular book and selling it. It was based on the old Roman model; but it was seen as morally unfair, because it was almost never done by the author himself (printers were expensive), and the author was never compensated in any way except fame.

So the thinking heads came up with this funny law. The principle is pretty reasonable: someone is making lots of money from your work, so they need to pay you. You're only entitled to this grant for a limited period after you create the work.


I cannot comment on that. It is pretty reasonable I think.

The problem is, by numerous reasons over time, the system grew organically (more like a cancer), developing spurious appendages. In my humble opinion, what definitely sank it was the idea that the grant could be sold, which is patently ridiculous.

But here again, you're injecting your personal opinion of what is right and what is not into the discussion. Your humble opinion is your humble opinion, and not more. I have mine.



You sound American; are you? If so, I would expect you to be familiar with the concept of civil disobedience; without which, you'd be a British citizen by now. Your founding fathers have said repeatedly, if an American doesn't agree with a law, it's his/her patriotic duty to oppose it, to try to change it (by bugging your congressman, and/or voting for one that agrees with you), and even, if all else fails, disobey it. That's the only way laws change in your system.

As seen in the text accompanying my avatar, I'm from Germany, and I don't see why I sound American or whether this makes any difference. And again, it's very cheap to argue along "civil disobedience" lines. This statement is also from a different time with VERY different circumstances (small communities), and it's interesting to see that people pick the laws they think are rightful from former times and leave those they don't like. In addition, as you said, the first step is to use methods WITHIN the system. Did you already bug your congressman? Did you vote for another congressman that may change the law?
What laws do you think can be fought against with "civil disobedience"? Every single law that anybody doesn't like? Why do you choose to state that your acting is simply civil disobedience and cry for the cops when someone takes away your wallet? Things don't work that way in a modern society.

[outlander78]

For me, the confusing part is that people who claim to be aggressive business people are all interested in banning digital copies rather than selling them. The RIAA and MPAA have a lot to lose, as their profits were related to massive cost inflation and prices now must come down to compete with free. Comics, however, have a small but recently growing market and are hampered by poor distribution - the opposite of movies and music - and would surely benefit from selling their wares online.

Nat, the 20% of downloaders will pay was a made up number, obviously, but surely some percentage of downloaders will pay for digital products.

I am very curious as to what the legal issues surrounding digital sales are. Work-for-hire arrangements should (unfortunately) prevent the sharing of profits of major characters like Batman, but what really surprised me was your suggestion that publishers cannot download scans of their own material, repackage them and clean them up as necessary and sell them. Would you mind expanding on that a bit?

a bit off topic, but here's a great quote regarding changing the status quo in America:

"Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt

[MatthewDiCarlo]

I've seen quite a few "grown men" reading GNs and comics on the subway here in L.A. with increasing frequency. I don't think there's anybody embarrassed by that anymore.

Storage space is a good point, though.

I've hit the point where I'm branching off on my own, having graduated college and moved away from home, and we're looking at a relatively small two bedroom apartment.

i was back to my parents' place for the first time since Thanksgiving over the weekend and they had moved my boxes SOMEWHERE out of my room and I didn't even want to know where they were.

I'd love to be able to buy digital comics. Otherwise I might have to cut down what I buy significantly and switch to trades, just for space's sake.

[NatGertler]

For me, the confusing part is that people who claim to be aggressive business people are all interested in banning digital copies rather than selling them. The RIAA and MPAA have a lot to lose, as their profits were related to massive cost inflation and prices now must come down to compete with free.The RIAA and MPAA are not sellers of music and movies themselves; they're industry advocate groups, who are in good position to work on the fight against illegal downloading (which tends not to be separated by publisher -- I don't know of anyone who specializes in bootlegging EMI material, for example), but not in position to make the individual deals. I doubt there's any substantial RIAA member who hasn't gotten involved in selling recordings via online transmission, and the movie studios behind the MPAA seem to be going much the same route.
Nat, the 20% of downloaders will pay was a made up number, obviously, but surely some percentage of downloaders will pay for digital products.Perhaps, but is it enough to make up for the costs of doing so, and for the other impact that using that business model would have on their business? That's not a simple question.
Work-for-hire arrangements should (unfortunately) prevent the sharing of profits of major characters like Batman,Not to the degree that you might think -- in the specific case of Batman, the publishers were paying the official creator Bob Kane for many years. Work For Hire means that the copyright owner has the right to reproduce the material without the creator's specific permission; it does not, however, mean that there must be no payment involved. Many of those work for hire agreements specify reprint payments, and it may not be immediately clear how those agreements apply to online or downloadable editions. (Elsewhere online, you'll find discussion of how stories from a certain era are unlikely to appear in the DC Showcase format, because the reprint rate promised during that period makes the high-page-count, low-cover-price format less than lucrative.)
but what really surprised me was your suggestion that publishers cannot download scans of their own material, repackage them and clean them up as necessary and sell them. Would you mind expanding on that a bit?There is an argument to be made that scanning is itself a work of creative decisions (what dpi, color settings, framing of the page, and so forth), and thus the scan itself is subject to copyright. That doesn't mean that the scanner has the right to distribute those scans (since it's clearly a derivative work), but they could hold enough right to prevent the original publisher from distributing those scans. There's reason to believe that this won't hold up in court... but it could prove enough of a hassle that it's not worth operating that way.

[lalo]

Well, then I think I'm going to stop to produce anything that you could like, and take on a "real" job where I "create" something "material" that you might like to "want". This is rubbish. If I don't "have" what I create in my mind, why do I "have" a chair that I cut from a piece of wood with my hands? Is that a lie that was forced down our throats as well? Is my hands' work inherently more applicable for theft protection than my mind's work?

You're getting the economics of it wrong, mate.

When you make a chair, you're charging for two different things: the materials you used, and your work. (And, as someone else already said, if I steal it, you don't have it anymore; that's why it's theft.) When you "make" a book, the material cost is irrelevant, and nobody would dream of charging for that. Can you charge for your work? Sure, that's what for-pay creative work is. I'm a Free Software developer by profession, and this is what I do -- someone wants a Django module that connects their website to their super-frobnicator-xyz? They pay me to write it. Then I publish the work, and everyone can use it. They have what they needed, I have the money, everyone is happy.

It's something entirely different to do some work that nobody requested, and then expect the world to have an obligation to pay you for it. You already did it, buddy, on your own. Is it reasonable that you should get some kind of compensation? Sure. It's our governments job to find a system to encourage that. Copyright was such a system, and it worked admirably for a long time. Now, we can argue about whether it's still working; what we can't do is assume it's some kind of intrinsic moral law, because it isn't. It's an artificial system, a government encouragement grant. And that's the only point I'm trying to make.

As seen in the text accompanying my avatar, I'm from Germany, and I don't see why I sound American or whether this makes any difference. And again, it's very cheap to argue along "civil disobedience" lines. This statement is also from a different time with VERY different circumstances (small communities), and it's interesting to see that people pick the laws they think are rightful from former times and leave those they don't like. In addition, as you said, the first step is to use methods WITHIN the system. Did you already bug your congressman? Did you vote for another congressman that may change the law?
What laws do you think can be fought against with "civil disobedience"? Every single law that anybody doesn't like? Why do you choose to state that your acting is simply civil disobedience and cry for the cops when someone takes away your wallet? Things don't work that way in a modern society.

They must, otherwise we'll go stagnant.

The way it works, however, is by numbers. It's a form of democracy. If one, or a few, crazies start taking wallets, because they don't believe in physical property, then, civil disobedience or not, they're committing a crime, and should pay for it. In fact, being willing to pay for it is the uncomfortable, necessary heart of civil disobedience. Now, if a significant portion of the population starts believing in them, and doing the same -- say, more than half -- then the system collapses, and the government has to change the law. In some places, it has to, because otherwise the government can't keep power; in others, it will be natural -- a new government will be voted in to do that. And in some, like America, it's actually there in the Constitution that they have to change it (although with the state of America these days, I doubt they would).

For the record, I'm not American either. I haven't ever set foot there, and probably never will if they continue going in the direction they are now.

[NatGertler]

If you count doing anything with someone's work without express permission as "harm" - and you have every right to - then there is some clear harm. Although that happens legally all the time, such as when a copyright expires.Yes, but copyright doesn't expire during the lifetime of a legally-recognized human creator, and there's much to be said for that.My point was that since they have demonstrated that their ethics allow them to violate the law when they don't agree with it, you can't expect to convince them of anything by saying that what they are doing is illegal.I don't know that that's been being done in this conversation.
Similarly, you can't say that violating the law is unethical and convince them that way, since they've already shown that they are operating under a different ethical code.I do not share your belief that people cannot be brought to change their mind via logical discussion.
But you might convince them if you showed them that what they were doing was immoral, by showing them it harmed other people. And I'm not saying that it doesn't harm creators, only that it's hard to show that.I haven't found it at all hard to show it.
You're using kind of an extreme example here.Says the guy who was comparing it to rape...

[NatGertler]

It's ok if you don't want to have an opinion about copyright; but if you do want to have one, then you should learn more about it, rather than parroting what you hear.Wow, that might be a lesson you might want to take to heart.
There's no such a thing as "intellectual property"That's false. It's a category of rights ownership.
this is a buzzword created by legal vultures very recently and you won't find it in any law. Actually, doing a quick search of the US code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/index.html), I find the term "intellectual property" appears in 162 places.

[lalo]

I stand cluewhacked. I still don't believe it exists morally, but that's a completely separate discussion, so I apologise for that part.

[outlander78]

Thanks for the answers Nat.

I know that RIAA and MPAA are just associations, but they are also a convenient shorthand way (read: "I'm lazy") to refer to their content-providing members.

[NatGertler]

I still don't believe it exists morally, but that's a completely separate discussion, so I apologise for that part.Thank you for the apology. As for whether something "exists morally", human history surely suggests that there is not some uniform moral code agreed to universally. The right to control of what one creates may not have any resonance in your own moral code, but it does for some.

[plainbrownwraper]

It's still mostly a buzzword, the key term being "property" and being used mostly by persons other than the originator of said property.

It's an irony that strikes me every time I hear a song written by a patently liberal artist being played as theme music for some mouthpiece on conservative/corporate talk radio, they probobly think that's really funny.

All the tools are there to make digital media profitable, it's just that few of the digital venues are as convenient, accessable, and content rich as underground file sharing.

Speaking anecdotally, as I've noted before there are basically two kinds of comics fan: rabid, and those who have never read one - meaning that it seems highly plausible that digital file sharers also buy a lot of comics, it's the content they after, the medium is largely irrelevant.

It seems a bit naive to imagine that somebody who lives and breathes say, X-Men, is not going to try and get ahold of everything X related they can lay their hot little paws on, digital of analog, legal or illegal.

One problem is that marketing has actually devolved rather than evolved since the advent of the digital age, perhpas it being so cheap promotes shabby work - contrast CD marketing with the equivelent vinyl product circa 1970 - the "value added" concept has been completely lost at least in the music industry, although DVD films have to some extent taken it up - not sure the comics industry ever had it, but it's never too late to start.

[Steven Grant]

Well yeah there's definitely going to be a loss of sales from illegal downloads of crap comics, but it's hard to feel so bad about that. In fact if we could ever wind up with a model where people only pay for the stuff they actually like that would encourage publishers to produce better comics!

Ummm... seems to me that's the system we've got now (buying stuff at the comics shop) and while it has produced some better comics, that hasn't been an across-the-board result.

- Grant

[NatGertler]

It seems a bit naive to imagine that somebody who lives and breathes say, X-Men, is not going to try and get ahold of everything X related they can lay their hot little paws on, digital of analog, legal or illegal.I can certainly tell you that I do not spend my days trying to find downloadable bootlegs of materials on the things I'm enthusiastic about.

[NatGertler]

Thanks for the answers Nat.One other point I should have made about the practical complications in setting up a downloadable system: the downloadables marketplace is by default an international marketplace. While there are ways (not perhaps all effective) to limit where something is downloaded to, a major publisher is apt to have to go through a number of international publishing agreements to see where an existing publishing contract forbids them from competing with a licensor (if, say, About Comics had licensed the Luxembourg territory rights to Licensable BearTM to a Luxembourgian firm.)

[optichouse]

A side note, not related to the legality issue...

Most of the comic readers I've heard from who oppose digital comics cite lack of portability as a major issue. Considering that Sony's e-Reader runs somewhere in the $300 neighborhood (last time I checked), I'm thinking about purchasing a digital picture frame and trying it out as a portable comics reader. The larger ones are still expensive, but a manga/digest sized screen can be obtained for $100 or less.

Has anyone else tried this?

[Percival]

That picture frame thing is actually a good idea. It would definetly work, as they take flash cards that come in sizes up to 8 gigs now....except I don't know of any digital picture frames that run on battery power, so you stuck reading only in location within 6 feet of a power outlet. More convenient are the plethera of TabletPCs (convertable and slate models) and Ultra Mobile PCs, were the price buys you a fully functioning computer that doesn't limit you to just reading ebooks. They are all over ebay for as little as $100 for a stylistic 3400. If you're gonna be tied to a wall with a picture frame, you might as well just put your LDC monitor on Portrait, and hold that in your lap. You might also consider that most portable DVD players (some of wich have convertable or slate form factors) also have JPG viewers and a DVDr can hold up to 9gigs, and of course they all have batteries.

[optichouse]

Thanks Percival,

That's a much better suggestion! From looking around online, portable DVD players are about the same price (give or take $20) and you get a whole lot more for your money. I can probably borrow one from a friend and try it out before plunking down some ducats.

[Percival]

Before you get all excited, there are things to consider. You would have to format your digital comics for the purpose, since portable DVD players generally don't have a portrait display mode (you'd simply have to batch rotate all the pages). Resolution is the biggest issue though, I think most portable DVD players have pretty poor resolution (picture frames also for that matter). Find out the resolution of the models you are considering, then mapout a window of that resolution on your monitor. You'll find that word ballons are pretty much illegible below the 800X600 level. That said, I know of a lot of people who read comics on their handheld devices, nintendoDS, PSP, phones, ipods and pocket pcs. I have a pocket pc, and can tell you that I find it to be a major pain in the ass as you have to scroll back and forth up and down each page greatly multiplying the amount of time and effort needed to read a comic. That is why I suggested the tabletPC and Ultra Mobile PC. The new ultra mobiles have great resolution, are lightweight, and are fully functional, so you can read ebooks watch movies, play games, surf the net, etc. but they are currently at the early-adopter price range, and quite frankly not worth the price regardless of how neat they are. However, there are a ton of great tablets that are also fully functional, cover a wide range of screen sizes and are very affordable. If you just want a device for reading comics, I'd suggest going on ebay and buying a stylistic 3400 or 3500 they are cheap very functional and have a decent sized screen and resolution, and can be had for $100-$200. Though you can get a brand new gateway or toshiba convertable for less than $1000. Halfway between these you have used or refurbished slates that are lightweight and have decent battery life.

[plainbrownwraper]

I can certainly tell you that I do not spend my days trying to find downloadable bootlegs of materials on the things I'm enthusiastic about.

It's true that as you get older, some enthusiasms replace others - I was thinking of younger fans with large appetites, limited budgets and time on their hands.

Me, I can't tell you how many hours or piles of cutouts I searched through to asemble a modest collection of Hendrix bootlegs, foreign releases, etc. - most of which I could probobly get off the internet now with minimal fuss, if it was still a compulsion.

[badMike]

That doesn't mean that they sold a billion songs that they would not have sold otherwise. It's hard to say what portion of iTunes sales are merely sales diverted from the CD market... but seeing how the CD field has been shrinking and losing outlets at a dangerous rate, there is reason to suspect that it's substantial.I don't know if you need to be a member to read this New York Times editorial, but it's very interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/opinion/05sachsnunziato.html

It's written by a former record store owner who had to close up shop. He doesn't blame downloads or illegal downloads, but how the record companies responded to the shift in digital music consumption: By abandoning CD singles, jacking up album prices, furiously promoting lousy recording acts and "getting into bed" with mega-retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco.

[bartl]

A lot of interesting discussion, albeit similar to many other debates regarding digital music. I think that there are some points worth making:

1) There is a clear difference between taking someone's physical property, thus depriving them of it and making a copy of someone's work and leaving them with the original copy and the means to make more.
You know, you're absolutely right. Publishers should stop paying royalties to writers. After all, the writers can print their own copies and sell them.

If you don't think that's proper, you're beginning to realize the reason for copyright laws.

[superfriend]

Joe Quesada just recently commented on the increasing health of the comics industry and ICV2 seems to indicate that comics are on the upswing.

Whatever is happening in the realm of illegal downloading, comics are doing better?

[glennsim]

Joe Quesada just recently commented on the increasing health of the comics industry and ICV2 seems to indicate that comics are on the upswing.

Whatever is happening in the realm of illegal downloading, comics are doing better?

The correlation isn't clear, though. It could be that comics would be doing even better if not for downloads.

Or it could be that the downloads are helping comics in the short-term, but will hurt in the long term.

Or the two could be completely unrelated.

[dancj]

dancj[/B] ]
Well yeah there's definitely going to be a loss of sales from illegal downloads of crap comics, but it's hard to feel so bad about that. In fact if we could ever wind up with a model where people only pay for the stuff they actually like that would encourage publishers to produce better comics!

Ummm... seems to me that's the system we've got now (buying stuff at the comics shop) and while it has produced some better comics, that hasn't been an across-the-board result.

To a certain extent, but the current system also has a lot of people reading things either out of habit/character loyalty/hope that the comic will improve or because some big crossover requires that they read a comic (whether they enjoy it or not) in order to fully understand other comics which they do enjoy.

Dan

[superfriend]

The correlation isn't clear, though. It could be that comics would be doing even better if not for downloads.

Or it could be that the downloads are helping comics in the short-term, but will hurt in the long term.

Or the two could be completely unrelated.

Completely agree. But at least it can't be automatically assumed that downloading illegal scans of comics are hurtful for the comics market.

[kroline]

I've been a lurker here for a long time but due to the recent posts in this thread, i'd like to point out

1) As a Brazilian comic fan, I feel I could start from a different perspective. For me and I believe for the vast majority of readers outside the USA or Canada, the debate whether to 'download x buy comics' seems sort of meaningless, simply because we can't get in touch with most of the work published in the United States or Europe (and when we do, the planet has already spun around the sun once or twice after the date the comics were originally released). For decades, that has been enough. But once people find the marvelous world of file sharing, I wouldn't dare to stop them from downloading works such as Y: the last man or some Fantagraphics books, just to cite some of the comics I love but couldn't find here for sale. There's a distribution aspect to discuss here.

2) I agree with this
What matters is: The people who own the material did not give permission for the material to be consumed in this manner. Do you want people taking things that you have a right to control and controlling it for you, because they think it's the right thing to do?

but...

I don't believe "permission" has ever rhymed with "file sharing", and as far as I'm concerned, file sharing will never change its route by a stop sign or even a turn right or turn left advice. It's in its nature to be against any type of regulatory system and up till now there's no indication the people can actually control this amount of interaction on the web. If now we can only rely on personal conscience, I don't think "permission" is the nº 1 anxiety of comics industry, nor should it be. I believe in adjustment prior to finding (new) ways of permission. Well, but that's obviously a Brazilian point of view...:-)

[jarod]

hi,
ive been reading and buying comics since jim lees x-men back in the late 80`s/early 90`s up until around 2001 when i had to stop due to the cost and availability.

living in new zealand, your average 22pg comic costs about $7 each, and there are only 2 comic stores in the entire city, neither of which are close by.

For about 5yrs I pretty much lost track of what was going on in comics(except for uncanny & xmen, the only titles I have religiously always bought), unless I read a trade in borders or whatever, but even then I had no idea what was going on around that particular arc or month by month in marvel or dc... until last year when i discovered comic book torrents

Now, I keep up with whats going on with ALL my favourite characters and read the endless crossovers and tie ins without going broke (like Onslaught...)any stuff that I really dig(eg brubakers cap) I buy as a trade and can enjoy the story in context and I have a paper copy for holidays, commuting etc

If marvel,dc etc would put their comics online, for US99c as people have suggested, I would definatly buy my 10-15 favourite titles a month, but to be honest I would still probably torrent the rest just to keep up with each companies universe as a whole and I know for a fact im not the only one.

What would REALLY get me would be if the big 2 opened up their back issue libraries for download

[bartl]

For about 5yrs I pretty much lost track of what was going on in comics(except for uncanny & xmen, the only titles I have religiously always bought), unless I read a trade in borders or whatever, but even then I had no idea what was going on around that particular arc or month by month in marvel or dc... until last year when i discovered comic book torrents

Now, I keep up with whats going on with ALL my favourite characters and read the endless crossovers and tie ins without going broke (like Onslaught...)any stuff that I really dig(eg brubakers cap) I buy as a trade and can enjoy the story in context and I have a paper copy for holidays, commuting etc
Want to keep up, legally? One word: Wikipedia.

[cfutino]

I've been a lurker here for a long time but due to the recent posts in this thread, i'd like to point out

1) As a Brazilian comic fan, I feel I could start from a different perspective. For me and I believe for the vast majority of readers outside the USA or Canada, the debate whether to 'download x buy comics' seems sort of meaningless, simply because we can't get in touch with most of the work published in the United States or Europe (and when we do, the planet has already spun around the sun once or twice after the date the comics were originally released). For decades, that has been enough. But once people find the marvelous world of file sharing, I wouldn't dare to stop them from 'm downloading works such as Y: the last man or some Fantagraphics books, just to cite some of the comics I love but couldn't find here for sale. There's a distribution aspect to discuss here.



I'm not saying "Don't torrent", but there are ways to get comic books before they're published in Brazil. Check Devir's site, there are lots of improts there.

[glennsim]

Completely agree. But at least it can't be automatically assumed that downloading illegal scans of comics are hurtful for the comics market.

But I think barring actual data, we have to assume whatever seems more likely given human nature. And while it sounds cynical, having a bunch of people get the product for free and therefore the owners never seeing any revenue from it seems to be the most likely assumption.

[inhumans99]

Mr Grant,

Any chance you could provide some advice as to which Thomas Pynchon book I should tackle first (I need to read a Thomas Pynchon novel as part of the reading list for my English comps, as I am gunning for my Masters in English). Thanks in advance!

[Steven Grant]

Depends how much time you've got. THE CRYING OF LOT 49 is the shortest Pynchon, but VINELAND is probably the breeziest. But CRYING is more indicative of his general approach.

Me, I'd probably start with V, which did start it all. But Pynchon rarely writes novels less than 1000 pages long, and V might be too time-consuming for short notice. The best Pynchon remains GRAVITY'S RAINBOW, but his only novel that I had trouble getting through was MASON & DIXON.

I don't know why that would help, but I hope it does.

- Grant

[Percival]

Steve's latest column laments the lack of independant titles in the torrent world and suggests that this is bad news indeed for the indies. The reasons for the lack of independant titles are simple as he suggests, the torrenters aren't buying them. They don't get scanned and thus don't get shared. If we take for granted that the net effect of torrenting on sales is zero, as suggested by a recent study of the music industry, then independant publishers should be scanning their own stuff packing it in CBR format (pdf is a sure way to get yourself ignored) and pushing it into the P2P world. Why? Because most downloaders indiscriminately download every link they come accrost (bandwidth and drive space is cheap-cheap) and sort it out later, judging by Diamonds sales list, an indy title is lucky to get 3000 orders, but a torrent is bound to get 30,000 plus (maybe 300000 nobody knows), more exposure for these titles is bound to creat a demand for the good stuff. I don't know how you get scans into the big DCP packs, you might have to infiltrate some kinda secret club to get DCP certification or something, but you definitely want to be in these packs with the big boys.

Lets face it, independants are 90%-95% crapola, not fit to wipe your sphincter with, thats why they don't get ordered, they don't get bought, and they don't get scanned. Just because you think your magnum opus is worth reading, doesn't mean anyone else does. You might think you can draw, but send your pages to Rev. Smooth to be colored, and she'll disinherit you of that dellusion. If the only way to you can get published is to self-publish, that should tell you something.... Then again, the best of the very best stuff can be found from independant smallpress selfpublished creative geniuses, unfortunately its buried beneath an avalanch of crap. Why do audiences concentrate on the big boys? Because they have a proven track record, money to pay for proven talent, and a better understanding of the target audience. This is true in all entertainment industries, music, movies, books, and comics. The big boys might be bland and predictable, but the small boys are usually so far out in left field that they don't apeal to anybody except the poor deluded creators themselves. If you want to get noticed and get a reputation as even worth the effort of being read, get some eyeballs on your books, don't worry about the effects on sales, if you're small press, you're not going to make any money anyway.

I think estimates of revenue streams of $4 or $5 million for Marvel and DC are way understates. These figures are derived as a percentage of current sales, not potential market. 30 years ago, almost eveyone from 5-20 years old were casual readers of comics. Now the market is 1/3 of 1% of the population. There are many reasons for this, but a lack of interest in the comics medium is not one of them. There are 500 million native English speakers in the world, and 2 billion ESL speakers. The potential market is enormous. The main reason eComics are bootlegged is because there isn't any legal way to get them. Convenience is the name of the game, if the industry put all their eggs in one basket, in a format the public wants (CBR), a site that is easy to navigate, fast to download and easy to pay for, the world will flock to it. Downloading bootlegs is NOT-FREE. Downloaders pay in increased electric bills and wear and tear on their computers because the have to leave them on 24-7, or by paying newsgroup membership fees or for accounts at Rapidshare, Megaupload and the like, they pay in the hours it takes to hund down links, and they risk viruses and spyware all because the industry is affraid of the evil bootlegger. An online ecomics megastore would draws many thousands of subscribers/customers. The fanbase would grow, and comic shops, which are hard to find outside the major cities anyway, would benefite from the increased intrest (though they would want to diversify concentrating more on games, trades and licensed merchandise).

[badMike]

Lets face it, independants are 90%-95% crapola*whew* at least that beats the 100% crap coming out of Marvel and DC...

[NatGertler]

Pay-for-digital-download sites are nothing new (Abba-Dabba was doing it about a decade ago.) They don't seem to have set the world ablaze.Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I like to add corrections or more precise information when I have it... and I ran into Howard Simpson, the man behind Abba Dabba the other day. He says that the pay-per dowloads there started in 1994.

Yeah, they were ahead of the curve.