Question about illegal comic book downloads

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Unlikely to be a problem in the modern age, since the comics are all digitized before printing, and I'm sure Marvel and DC each have a hard drive that can store it all.

I wasn't talking about modern comics there. Given my stated interest in golden age comics--that's what I was mainly addressing. Of course, once they decide to do a book, then they get the material together and make the pages and those all go on digital files. So sure, for all the stuff pre-digital, when they've done collected editions in the current era, they've put those on digitial files. But I would assume that they don't do that work until a project is in the pipeline.

For Superboy, as an example, they were going to do an Archive many years ago, but they didn't have all the comics they needed to go ahead. They had to get comics from collectors to go forward with the Archive, but it never did get done. Eventually they got around to doing a Superboy collection--but it wasn't an Archive.

I think for doing the Doctor Fate Archive they had the same problem, but that did get done. And there's tons of stuff that they haven't done yet, so I doubt that they have good digital files for those. Maybe they have scans, but that's not the same thing as having separate CMYK files for each plate.

Then there's more modern examples. I'm pretty sure they lost a lot of their George Perez stats (I think it was either in a fire or when they moved offices). I believe they had to reconstruct a lot of the George Perez art that they did for the Perez Justice League collection. But not every "visionary" from the high royalties period between 1977 and the early 90s has gotten collected. And since DC has to renegotiate with many creators to put together those collections, I doubt that they have gotten to the stage where they would create digital files for the books. And they have lost the stats for many of these comics.

Us old timey comics fans are increasingly swimming upstream in our demand for collecting these good old comics. Because our subset of fandom is dying out, we are not the once mighty consumer group we used to be. It's a lot easier to put out collections of modern stuff--stuff from the digital era--because that already exists on digital files and they don't have to go through as many productions costs in getting ready for new printings. And all the royalties have been worked out for those books already. And these books appeal to the new generation of readers.

Under those conditions, it's very unlikely that most pre-digital, un-reprinted comics will be saved on good CMYK files for such a time when the publishers might want to make them available. I'm sure scans exist, but that's not really the same thing. And even digital files degrade over time.

[Eric Chang]

Well it may surprise you to know that there is more to NZ than just Auckland. No Real Groovy here in Marton, and the prices of theirs I've seen on trade-me arent overly cheap(and always for ex-display books). Nearest Comic shop is in Palmerston North, and they cater mainly to war-gaming. Prices were from a bookshop in Wanganui, and while I have seen trades in Whitcoulls at reasonable prices, the trades at the shop in PN arent cheap.

Thanks for the link though, never even heard of the site, cool to know I can get stuff at good prices without paying a fortune in freight.

Hmm...sorry if I sounded snarky...night shift and all

no snark detected :)

yeah, book depository is awesome, amazon isn't bad too, but you just have to (pre) order smart

[Schnitzy Pretzelpants]

Curious if anyone here has touched on the idea of classic comics that are not yet available in any other format – excepting back issues?

I ask because I will admit to having downloaded torrents of the following comics:

1) Marvel’s The Micronauts 1st series and New Voyages
2) L.E.G.I.O.N. at DC
3) Captain Marvel – Marvel, series that began in the 1960’s.

Now, here’s the thing. All of these I have since started buying as back issues.

I want to make it clear, I am not justifying what I did, but I will confess that it’s likely that I will again torrent comics that fit this description (i.e. unavailable in print, well-past their publication date, and only available – Captain Marvel excepted I would think, as I believe these are in the Masterworks program).

Given my nature – meaning I will always seek out and buy the product – I see this as spirit of the law, rather than letter of the law matter, but I am curious what others think.
s think.

[Jolly Mon]

Curious if anyone here has touched on the idea of classic comics that are not yet available in any other format – excepting back issues?

I ask because I will admit to having downloaded torrents of the following comics:

1) Marvel’s The Micronauts 1st series and New Voyages
2) L.E.G.I.O.N. at DC
3) Captain Marvel – Marvel, series that began in the 1960’s.

Now, here’s the thing. All of these I have since started buying as back issues.

I want to make it clear, I am not justifying what I did, but I will confess that it’s likely that I will again torrent comics that fit this description (i.e. unavailable in print, well-past their publication date, and only available – Captain Marvel excepted I would think, as I believe these are in the Masterworks program).

Given my nature – meaning I will always seek out and buy the product – I see this as spirit of the law, rather than letter of the law matter, but I am curious what others think.
s think.

I find "spirit of the law" conversations to be problematic. Generally, when someone invokes it, it's because they're aware that they're violating the law, but "it's ok because {insert reason here}".

[dr chimp]

Curious if anyone here has touched on the idea of classic comics that are not yet available in any other format – excepting back issues?

Personally I wouldnt have a problem with that

[Jolly Mon]

One other aspect that really hasn't been addressed is computer viruses, malware, spyware. In my work as a computer technician I've found that websites that appeal to our baser instincts (illegal downloads like music & comics, porn, etc) tend to be packed with malicious software. It seems to be generally true that the number and seriousness of viruses on a computer are directly related to the type and quantity of questionable sites in the browsing history. Which just adds another reason I don't download anything illegally. Self preservation.

[Schnitzy Pretzelpants]

I find "spirit of the law" conversations to be problematic. Generally, when someone invokes it, it's because they're aware that they're violating the law, but "it's ok because {insert reason here}".

I completely agree with you, but I've yet to have anyone convince me that what I did was some terrible thing.

New comics, comics available in trade or hard-cover? No way, wouldn't touch them, but I just don't have a big problem with what I did.

I don't think anyone is being cheated in the scenario I outlined.

Now, I'm not an idiot - while I would of course explain my rationalization to a 'judge/jury' - I sure as hell wouldn't think for a second that I'm entitled to this.

Torrenting isn't always cut and dry and I think it really comes down to how it 'works' for you.

I have no qualms with downloading a tv series as it airs, but once it is on DVD, I won't do it. I see no difference between this and how when I was kid, Dr. Who and other, then rare SCI-FI was circulated amongst fans.

I also have a strict rule with TV torrents: if I like the series enough that I watch the whole season, I buy the DVD/Blu-Ray when it comes out, because in my mind it is the right thing to do.

So, in almost any case that I can think of, torrenting for me has resulted in me spending more, not less money, towards either second market sources (comics if not available) like ebay or LCS, or in buying blu-rays.

I have to add that as I'm an actor who at least 2 or 3 times a year lands a tv gig, I have a particular sensitivity to issues like these, as I feel people should be paid for their work whenever there is a means/conduit for doing so.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Well, DC did a lot of licensed characters back in the day. It's possible that some publishers might collect some of these, but with characters like Jerry Lewis or Bob Hope, the rights holders (being big Hollywood types) expect to get paid a fortune for the right to publish stories featuring those high profile celebrities, so they're unlikely to let some comic book publisher have the right to use them in the immediate future (given that a comic publisher is unlikely to make enough of a profit to pay for the licensing fees).

I imagine it's pretty easy to find scans of these online. But since the rights holders have never given their permission, I'm sure we're all guilty of violating those rights every time we look at a scan of a Bob Hope page online.

It's this kind of thing that prevents me from condemning people for looking at comics online. Given how easy it is with Google or Bing to search for images--it doesn't take any real effort. And if you aren't doing it yourself, someone else on the message board you're looking at is doing it for you. So there's a pervasive level of passive "criminality." How do you police that?

We are all guilty and I'm not trying to construct a slippery slope argument to forgive piracy and outright theft. But it's hardly the black and white moral question that some make it out to be. And before I would pretend to judge others, I would have to do a thorough cleaning of my own closet.

[Aaron King]

But it's hardly the black and white moral question that some make it out to be. And before I would pretend to judge others, I would have to do a thorough cleaning of my own closet.

The morals aren't black and white, as I'm sure most people around here will agree that copyright laws favor the big companies that hold the copyrights (as opposed to the artist or the consumer).

The law, though, is black and white, no matter how much you agree or disagree with it. Certain amounts of a book are allowed to be scanned and shown for certain purposes. It may not always make logical or moral sense, but it's there.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

I would like to read the actual law. I've only read about it from third parties. Being in Canada, I know that our copyright law is different from U.S. copyright (as I learned in a course on publishing and the law). And my main understanding of the law is as it applies to publishing, but not as it applies to the internet--since the internet is an internatiional medium. Someone in one country could be obeying the law, while in another nation their actions would be illegal.

And I don't really think that goverments and corporations thought about the medium of the internet--or all the other new electronic media. Which is my main complaint. It angers me that we as a society do not think ahead on how new technologies will impact us--what they will do to our society, our environment, our culture--we just let industries create things absent of any deep philosophical and moral thought.

So we have a world where industries do stuff and then we react to them and change laws or create new laws in a hopeless effort to keep up with the changes. We essentially have a big monster in the form of these new media, and we're using antiquated systems to control it.

In order to be enforceable a law has to be effective. There are many laws that we no longer enforce, because people have ceased to follow them. What citizens do has an effect on the law. This is how new laws come into play.

I don't particularly like the smell of marijuana--and never likely will use it--but I can see that in my city the use of marijuana is so pervasive (even conservative polliticians use it) that enforcing the law would be counter-productive and we might as well look at reforming the law. And more and more this seems to be the commonly held belief.

The law pertaining to the internet and other new media is in flux right now and we've yet to see where it will end up.

[Shawn Hopkins]

One thing aside from the usual arguments is that, at least for me, the fun of back issue collecting is in part dependent on the challenge. If some things weren't rare, out of print, and hard to find, then what the heck kind of hobby would it be? As a collector I think giving into the temptation to access pirated versions of what you're collecting completely ruins the hobby, because you've already "obtained" it before you have it and there's less of that pleasurable feeling you get with a rare find. The issue is there with reprints and legal digital copies, too, of course, but at least those cost money so there's some barrier to filling your collection with those. The ease of hitting an "All Amazing Spider-Man" torrent simply takes every bit of the joy out of collecting comics. I know not everyone is a collector, but that's a big reason why I don't download.

[dr chimp]

Given how easy it is with Google or Bing to search for images--it doesn't take any real effort. And if you aren't doing it yourself, someone else on the message board you're looking at is doing it for you. So there's a pervasive level of passive "criminality." How do you police that?

We are all guilty and I'm not trying to construct a slippery slope argument to forgive piracy and outright theft. But it's hardly the black and white moral question that some make it out to be. And before I would pretend to judge others, I would have to do a thorough cleaning of my own closet.

The point is that scanning single pages or panels isn't breaking copyright.

[Jolly Mon]

Well, DC did a lot of licensed characters back in the day. It's possible that some publishers might collect some of these, but with characters like Jerry Lewis or Bob Hope, the rights holders (being big Hollywood types) expect to get paid a fortune for the right to publish stories featuring those high profile celebrities, so they're unlikely to let some comic book publisher have the right to use them in the immediate future (given that a comic publisher is unlikely to make enough of a profit to pay for the licensing fees).

I imagine it's pretty easy to find scans of these online. But since the rights holders have never given their permission, I'm sure we're all guilty of violating those rights every time we look at a scan of a Bob Hope page online.

Leaving aside the fact that I don't recall ever looking at a page of a Bob Hope comic online, a page isn't a copyright violation, a whole story/comic is. And are the originals that expensive? Really?

It's this kind of thing that prevents me from condemning people for looking at comics online. Given how easy it is with Google or Bing to search for images--it doesn't take any real effort.

Given how easy it is to slip a can of beer in your coat pocket at the convenience store, doesn't prevent me from saying it's theft.

And if you aren't doing it yourself, someone else on the message board you're looking at is doing it for you. So there's a pervasive level of passive "criminality." How do you police that?

Passive criminality is the silliest thing I've heard of yet today. But the day is still young. Or are you going for "guilt by association"?

We are all guilty

Of something, sure. Of this? Not unless you're doing it.

and I'm not trying to construct a slippery slope argument to forgive piracy and outright theft. But it's hardly the black and white moral question that some make it out to be. And before I would pretend to judge others, I would have to do a thorough cleaning of my own closet.

The question is, is it theft? If it is (which it is) then most legal & moral systems believe it to be wrong. As to judgement, I've already said I'm not without sins, I just feel this is wrong.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Again, befoe I say anything else, I'd like to see the actual rules--not everyone's interpretation of them--and how they specifically address internet activity. And when they apply and where they apply. The kind of clear guidelines that the OP was asking for--so I can know when I'm going over the line and when I'm not. If these rules exist, I want to see them and understand them.

There's a lot of fine hair splitting--how many pages can I look at online, before I've broken the rule; is it okay to look at the pages without downloading them; are blog sites that show pages okay, even though they show the whole story; what is truly in the public domain? It's not the same as removing a physical object from one place and putting it somewhere else--unless you are actually downloading the images, although even there you're creating a copy on your own computer or other device, so it's a different logic argument. And apparently, downloading one page is okay, but downloading five? isn't okay--or what is the number of pages?

I think people want to be ethical. Maybe not everyone, but most average citizens. They just need to know and understand the rules, so they can be ethical. But the rules are not being spelled out. And it doesn't help when six different sources give you six different answers.

Don't tell us what terrible people we are. Just show us the law so we can strive to be good people.

[dr chimp]

Again, befoe I say anything else, I'd like to see the actual rules--not everyone's interpretation of them--and how they specifically address internet activity. And when they apply and where they apply. The kind of clear guidelines that the OP was asking for--so I can know when I'm going over the line and when I'm not. If these rules exist, I want to see them and understand them.

Then see them. I'm not sure what the problem is here.