htmlcomics.com Does this change EVERYTHING?

[RichardWrite-migration]

Well again, as I recall, that message was posted several weeks ago, before they went down this time...So this does not necessary explain why they're gone today.

[the blob]

I hope they get back to working. Yes, I'm "that guy" who enjoyed reading their books. And if anybody here watches any TV shows on YouTube that have been uploaded by users, you have no legitimate complaint.

 

I do understand that marvel and dc have their own digital comics services. But to me, that's not the same. I want to see the original comic book. I want to see the goofy ads, the letter column, "Stan's Soapbox," all of that stuff.

 

And i just don't buy the idea that reading a comic book online is stealing. Until the digital age, nobody ever argued that it was possible for me to steal from you if you still are in possession of the thing I supposedly stole.

Tell it brother!

 

copyright includes digital. that's the law, that's the rules we live by. in the u.s. and in parts of europe before then we've had copyright laws for hundreds of years to protect authors, etc. so that your book couldn't just be copied. while we feel that megaconglomerates like Time Warner and now Disney may have milked these properties for all they're worth and shouldn't care...and maybe they don't care, I don't know ... how would you feel if you spent 3 years of your life writing a book, getting it published, hoping to make some money from your 3 years of effort because your wife has been busting your ___s mercilessly during that period, the book is actually selling a bit the first week it's out and KABOOM, a dozen sites like these have decided to scan the book and it's available to read via the internet, free of charge, you find out 20,000 folks have read your book for free (let's say the subject matter of the book has special appeal to internet savy folks who like to read books digitally...), you don't see a cent, hard copy sales of your book go into the tank, your wife leaves you.....

 

sure, it's a hypothetical, and maybe 20,000 readers is great exposure and they'll buy your book next time...maybe, but maybe you don't have another decent book in you or just don't have the time because you just invested so much time and now have to flip burgers, double shifts, to make up for the lost income....

[the blob]

and what about the writers/artists of these comics who may have royalty agreements that pay them for digital downloads of reprints or future TPBs....they're F-ed by this.

 

 

personally, i wouldn't mind reading the first 50 issues of WD for free online to get me up to speed and avoid spending $50-$75 on TPBs. but i don't think it's right that I should be able to do so like this...of course, i could schlep my rear to a library and actually check the TPB out if they have it, but at least there only one person at a time can do it and the book is locked up for however many weeks I have it.

[RichardWrite-migration]

I hope they get back to working. Yes, I'm "that guy" who enjoyed reading their books. And if anybody here watches any TV shows on YouTube that have been uploaded by users, you have no legitimate complaint.

 

I do understand that marvel and dc have their own digital comics services. But to me, that's not the same. I want to see the original comic book. I want to see the goofy ads, the letter column, "Stan's Soapbox," all of that stuff.

 

And i just don't buy the idea that reading a comic book online is stealing. Until the digital age, nobody ever argued that it was possible for me to steal from you if you still are in possession of the thing I supposedly stole.

Tell it brother!

 

copyright includes digital. that's the law, that's the rules we live by. in the u.s. and in parts of europe before then we've had copyright laws for hundreds of years to protect authors, etc. so that your book couldn't just be copied. while we feel that megaconglomerates like Time Warner and now Disney may have milked these properties for all they're worth and shouldn't care...and maybe they don't care, I don't know ... how would you feel if you spent 3 years of your life writing a book, getting it published, hoping to make some money from your 3 years of effort because your wife has been busting your ___s mercilessly during that period, the book is actually selling a bit the first week it's out and KABOOM, a dozen sites like these have decided to scan the book and it's available to read via the internet, free of charge, you find out 20,000 folks have read your book for free (let's say the subject matter of the book has special appeal to internet savy folks who like to read books digitally...), you don't see a cent, hard copy sales of your book go into the tank, your wife leaves you.....

 

sure, it's a hypothetical, and maybe 20,000 readers is great exposure and they'll buy your book next time...maybe, but maybe you don't have another decent book in you or just don't have the time because you just invested so much time and now have to flip burgers, double shifts, to make up for the lost income....

 

Again, I assume that since you feel this way, you refuse to watch videos of TV shows on YouTube.

 

Actually I am a writer. That's what I do for a living. And honestly, I have seen a couple articles I've written, on the Internet, without my permission. And I felt exactly as I do now.....That you cannot steal something from someone if the other person still possesses what you supposedly stole.

[RichardWrite-migration]

and what about the writers/artists of these comics who may have royalty agreements that pay them for digital downloads of reprints or future TPBs....they're F-ed by this.

 

 

personally, i wouldn't mind reading the first 50 issues of WD for free online to get me up to speed and avoid spending $50-$75 on TPBs. but i don't think it's right that I should be able to do so like this...of course, i could schlep my rear to a library and actually check the TPB out if they have it, but at least there only one person at a time can do it and the book is locked up for however many weeks I have it.

 

They're only hurt by it if you would have bought the book except for this. I can promise you that I will never pay money for those early FAWCETT CAPTAIN MARVELs. So whether I read them on HTMLCOMICS or not, I promise you, it will not affect how much money those writer / artist families get.

[RichardWrite-migration]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

I hope they get back to working. Yes, I'm "that guy" who enjoyed reading their books. And if anybody here watches any TV shows on YouTube that have been uploaded by users, you have no legitimate complaint.

 

I do understand that marvel and dc have their own digital comics services. But to me, that's not the same. I want to see the original comic book. I want to see the goofy ads, the letter column, "Stan's Soapbox," all of that stuff.

 

And i just don't buy the idea that reading a comic book online is stealing. Until the digital age, nobody ever argued that it was possible for me to steal from you if you still are in possession of the thing I supposedly stole. Let's be honest, anything that is on my computer is nothing but computer instructions. I told my computer to do something which it did.......And I just do not accept that it is stealing to tell my computer to do the same thing that you told yours to do.....just because you came up with those instructions first.

 

Welcome to the Board.

[comix4fun]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

[RichardWrite-migration]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

Let me say that I am obviously all for writers doing what they must to make as much money as they can from their work. I do the same thing....and if I see someone using something I wrote online and i can figure out a way to make them pay me for it, I'll do so. That's business.

 

But let's not confuse business and morality. I am also in favor of the sanitation department coming to my house each week and taking away the garbage. Because I am smart enough to be in favor of things which benefit me. But I don't confuse the fact that something benefits me with morality or immorality. When the sanitation misses a week because of Christmas, I don't cry that this is somehow immoral for them to do so.

 

And so, I am in favor of writers and artists finding every way possible to get paid for their work. But let's not call it "stealing" if they can't always do so. Because to do so, we have to invent a new definition for stealing....one in which we take the ludicrous position that I can steal from you just because I can make a perfect imitation of something you own.

[Annihilus]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

This.

 

I'm a writer and I'd be pissed as hell if someone used my stuff without permission (and I don't even make any money off of it. Yet.). 'Free' is one thing. 'Without Permission' is something else entirely. This is the whole reason that the DMCA was enacted.

[Ares]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

Or know that Earl Gray Tea is a type of Tea not a brand name thus not subject to copyright law (unless I am miss taken)

[RichardWrite-migration]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

This.

 

I'm a writer and I'd be pissed as hell if someone used my stuff without permission (and I don't even make any money off of it. Yet.). 'Free' is one thing. 'Without Permission' is something else entirely. This is the whole reason that the DMCA was enacted.

 

And I'm not saying you don't have a right to be ticked off about it. I'm just saying that you can't invent a new definition for "stealing" as justification for being upset. Why not start calling it "murder"? It makes as much sense as it does to say it's "stealing" from me, even though I still have what you supposedly stole.

 

Let's be honest: What a person does when he downloads a song or comic book is, he has made the original less valuable by reducing the market for it. But reducing the market for something is not considered stealing in any other area. So yes, be upset, because that person has reduced the market for what you created. But don't call it stealing. Because it's not.

[Annihilus]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

This.

 

I'm a writer and I'd be pissed as hell if someone used my stuff without permission (and I don't even make any money off of it. Yet.). 'Free' is one thing. 'Without Permission' is something else entirely. This is the whole reason that the DMCA was enacted.

 

And I'm not saying you don't have a right to be ticked off about it. I'm just saying that you can't invent a new definition for "stealing" as justification for being upset. Why not start calling it "murder"? It makes as much sense as it does to say it's "stealing" if you take something from me, even though I still have it.

 

If they can't 'invent a new definition for stealing', then how do you explain the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? That's exactly what they did there. You aren't going to win this argument, because it's already been decided. You might not agree with their assessment, but it is what it is.

 

People are getting arrested for downloading 'copies' of songs. By definition, they are stealing.

[the blob]

Again, I assume that since you feel this way, you refuse to watch videos of TV shows on YouTube.

------------

 

actually, i don't watch TV shows on youtube, not because i'm worried about copyright issues, i just don't like watching TV on a computer screen

 

and, with that said, NBC isn't trying to sell me a show. to the extent i pay directTV and they pay licensing fees, i've already paid for all the NBC i want. NBC has no problem with me taping the shows on my DVR/Tivo either. what they do want is for me to watch the commercials, which can be skipped on youtube, DVR, tivo and whatever.

 

----

 

you're using a 1500's definition of "theft". copyright is actually mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (as in it grants congress permission to enact copyright laws), it is not some new concept (and it was already in use in England). so we're talking about legal concepts that have been around since the birth of this country.

[RichardWrite-migration]

Oh and by the way, in this instance, when I read a comic at htmlcomics.com, I'm not even taking possession of something. It's absurd enough to say that I'm stealing because I have created a perfect duplicate of something you have without your permission....even though you still have the item I supposedly stole. It's utterly ludicrous, though, in this case, to say that I'm stealing because I'm reading someone else's comic book, without ever taking possession of it.

[comix4fun]

....an interesting aside, I wonder if the crew of the Starship Enterprise has an "ulimited duplication license" for all the foods that their replicators recreate? If not, surely Capt. Picard is stealing from the makers of Earl Gray Tea every time he replicates a cup.

 

 

I have to say, I have never met or spoken to a writer or creator who was this flip with the application of international copyright law.

 

This.

 

I'm a writer and I'd be pissed as hell if someone used my stuff without permission (and I don't even make any money off of it. Yet.). 'Free' is one thing. 'Without Permission' is something else entirely. This is the whole reason that the DMCA was enacted.

 

And I'm not saying you don't have a right to be ticked off about it. I'm just saying that you can't invent a new definition for "stealing" as justification for being upset. Why not start calling it "murder"? It makes as much sense as it does to say it's "stealing" if you take something from me, even though I still have it.

 

 

I don't think you understand the concept of copyright law.

 

You may have written the story or hold the manuscript from which the story was reproduced and those physical pages may not have been stolen from you, however , copyright law protects the illegal reproduction and distribution of originally created works (visual, aural, and written) without the permission of or compensation to the original creator or copyright holder.

 

Pirating copyrighted material for personal financial gain (which includes unauthorized reproduction of movies, books, comics, songs, etc.), and in many cases without personal financial gain, has been against the law for centuries. This isn't a new concept and the fact that a computer is used as the conduit for copyright violation doesn't eliminate culpability.

 

If you wrote an article for a newspaper and you were going to be paid under a per paper syndication compensation agreement and someone copied your story and gave it to every paper in the country for free you might feel the sting of what I am describing. You still have possession of your original article, but you are eating Ramen noodles instead of Steak.

 

[RichardWrite-migration]

You guys are arguing law. I'm arguing morality. The morality of stealing does not change with the legislature's pen.

[comix4fun]

You guys are arguing law. I'm arguing morality. The morality of stealing does not change with the legislature's pen.

 

 

You are right...stealing is morally wrong regardless of what is legislated.

[Annihilus]

Oh and by the way, in this instance, when I read a comic at htmlcomics.com, I'm not even taking possession of something. It's absurd enough to say that I'm stealing because I have created a perfect duplicate of something you have without your permission....even though you still have the item I supposedly stole. It's utterly ludicrous, though, in this case, to say that I'm stealing because I'm reading someone else's comic book, without ever taking possession of it.

 

The fact that marijuana is illegal is ludicrous, by my definition.

 

But that doesn't make it legal.

[RichardWrite-migration]

Well let's put it to the test. I have a police officer coming over for something unrelated later today. I will admit to him I have been reading comic books off a website that offers them for free. I will tell him I never downloaded or took possession of the comic, I simply took the website owner up on his offer to read the book. And we'll see if he arrests me for theft.