For the TRANSFORMERS Fans: Now you can Read all 80 ISSUES!!!

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

With all due respect, the term "semi-illiterate" in this case is not only inaccurate but offensive. As a professional journalist, published author, and college English instructor, I think I know a thing or two about the English language. As a student of copyright law in its evolving form, I also can speak to that subject with some degree of accuracy.

 

I also think that pairing the notion of copyright protection with grander notions of "helping your fellow man" is a specious comparison to say the least. You can diminish and dismiss any point of argument by tossing out a grandiose statement with no relation to the subject, but it doesn't change anything. Of course there are more important things in the world, there's no disputing that. But we're not dealing with those topics at the moment, just the relatively minor but no less specific matter of copyright and ownership of created material. There's a larger principle here that transcends individual cases. Sure, the publisher no longer makes money on a back issue. That doesn't change the fact that by the principles of copyright - to say nothing of federal law - those issues are still protected and owned, and no one apart from the copyright holder has the right to reproduce them in whole or distribute them in whole without permission. It's that simple.

 

It just doesn't matter where the money goes, who loses or gains, or if it even makes complete sense here. If you don't respect the principles of copyright protection in every single case, you leave the door open to genuine theft. Suppose you wrote a book, eagerly awaited your royalty check as is your right, only to discover you made pennies because someone scanned in the entire book and posted it on the Internet for all to download for free. Were you not entitled to profit from your own creation? Should you not have some measure of control over your creation? Yes, this is different - there is no direct creator or even publisher who stands to make any direct income off a back issue at this point. But if the principle weakens to allow this, then we're on that proverbial slippery slope.

 

All of this used to be common knowledge and generally understood. Now it seems to have become a mystifying proposition to many, which is very sad indeed. And I also know that by writing a calm and reasoned reply, I will probably see snide remarks, childish jabs, and other useless discourse posted very shortly following this message. I'm sure there will be no true dialogue here, and I know I'm only screaming into the wind. But sometimes it's difficult not to say something.

[Rickdogg]

"slippery slope" Read that in Philosophy last week

[CosmicBob]

What sort of dialogue do you want?

 

It's apparent what your take on the issue is. Do you only want to tell people how wrong they are? That's not dialogue, that's preaching. Dialogue would be to listen to someone else's points and acknowledge them. One doesn't need to accept them, but if someone makes a valid observation, then it should be acknowledged.

 

Can you respond to my previous point about back-issues? How is selling back issues not violating copyright laws? Presumably for these Transformer issues, the copyright owner did get thier money when the issue was originally sold (unless it was stolen, which can't really be proven). Since Marvel no longer sells these comics (and they don't sell back-issues), what's the difference between reading them on the web and going to a convention and buying them from a dealer to read?

[chromium]

This reminds me of a crusade Garth Brooks went on during the end of the 90s.

He tried to convince the world, that stores selling second-hand CDs were in fact breaking the copyright law as the artist didn't get a single penny from this reselling.

 

His point was that if you buy a CD you do not buy the art(music) but just the information carrier (Compact Disc) and a license to listen to the music (but not in a public place),so having never owned the art, you could never legally resell it.

 

I have been making digital scans of my entire collection for years, I have about 2000 marvel books already scanned in, as I'm a continuity freak, it's a lot easier going over my CD with say X-men 100 to 150 than it is to thumb through all the issues, not to mention safer.

If I do it carefully I can scan/crop 2-3 books in a hour.

 

I'm quite surprised that no big time CGC seller has offered a free CD with the issue scanned alongside the slabbed book itself.

 

 

[scottish]

I'm quite surprised that no big time CGC seller has offered a free CD with the issue scanned alongside the slabbed book itself.

 

Dang good idea! I might do that when I sell my duplicates.

[Hensley300]

Rick, you must have made quite an impression if the transformers themselves decided to reply to your post. I think you may be one of only a few people on earth that has actually happened to.

[Darthdiesel]

Same statement above that I'm replying to.

 

Scottish and chromium - I have kept scans of all my sales lately and when the folder on my C:drive fills with enough jpgs... and reaches a high enough capacity to fill a CD-R, then I'll copy it and if you are interested, I can share that with you.

 

Arnoldt, sorry I don't share your exact views on copyright. Nor do I hold the subject in as much reverence and passion as you do. to me, it is a "shades of grey" ethics call. I just call it differently. All my work that I do for my boss, since I'm the admin peon, reports to management, budget analysis, powerpoint presentations - all that I work for is credited to my superiors. But so what, I'm paid for it in my salary. Once I'm paid, that's it...I no longer consider it my work of art (although my budget analysis is something to be seen!!!) and am comfortable with it being used, reproduced for the betterment of the Agency... I just don't see how once I'm paid initially for it, I'm entitled to royalties. Maybe an extreme case because my computer work is different from a literary art form...but don't the same principles apply here?

 

 

[scottish]

Thanks Darth! I'd be interested in the CD.

 

In response to your copyright comment, I fully agree. My wife just created an Access DB for her employer. She was told by more than one person to get it published, but she knows it belongs to Honeywell.

[Darthdiesel]

Thanks Darth! I'd be interested in the CD

 

I'm glad Dave - be careful what you wish for - this CD contains a high concentration of "Modern tripe" that other folks here would burn at its slightest touch. but plenty of Bad girl and T&A comics to thrill a prepubescent boy like Ricky!

[scottish]

I don't have a problem with Modern books. If I had to knack you do at flipping the darn things for cash I'd be right beside you in a heart beat! I'm a paper pusher - no head for business.

[chromium]

DARTHDIESEL

Thanks for the offer mate, but I'm currently scanning full issues not just covers. I'm nearing 50 CDs filled with my scans and am not even halfway.

 

Of course this means that once DVDwriters become commonplace I'm going to have to transfer everything again

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Whew, nice to see everyone here does seem to be interested in talking rather than yelling .

 

Yes, I guess I tend to get a bit imperious about this subject and my initial reaction is to state the Gospel of Copyright, but you're also right that it's become so grey that it's hard to define. On the matter of back issues, it does seem to get ludicrous - as Mr. Brooks suggested with CDs - when you suggest that every secondary market sale is somehow a copyright violation. But if I'm not mistaken, secondary market sales are covered in certain aspects of copyright under the notion of Fair Use. It goes like this - ideally, if you purchase a back issue, it's so that you can read it. You might loan it to a friend, show it to a family member, but beyond the original owner, we can say a handful of people have actually gotten to read it.

 

However, scan it in and post it on the web, and now thousands or even tens of thousands of people can find it and read it without paying a cent in original or secondary market sales. Basically you are now distributing something you do not own for free to a mass audience that does not have to pay anything for it. That is no longer Fair Use, because it's not limited by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Does that make sense?

[Darthdiesel]

It makes sense, arnoldt. Thanks for qualifying.

 

I treat copyright "law" as a guide, more than a "commandment".

[CosmicBob]

It makes sense, but it also becomes a matter of interpretation when one invokes "Fair Use". In software the license usually specifies that you can make one copy for archival purposes, in video tapes, people can make copies of broadcasts for their own use.

 

What if you have bunches of people over to watch your copy?

 

I'm just saying that the definition of Fair Use is pretty amorphous. And I would agree that posting on the internet probably ISN'T Fair Use, but I can see how it can be argued, since the comic is out of print and the publisher doesn't try and restrict back issue sales at conventions (or on eBay).

 

However, I don't think that the Transformers website is costing Marvel any money. It's not like Napster, which arguably took sales of existing product from the companies. Marvel doesn't sell this anymore and aren't likely too. Though they may issue a TPB, I suppose, and I can then see how it would be costing them money.

 

I think that the concepts (Copyright and Fair Use) need refining, especially when one can make limitless numbers of digital copies very simply.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I think that's the main problem, Cosmic Bob, and you're right. The digital age, and more specifically the Internet itself, has transformed our understanding of copyright and ownership of material that can be so easily stolen, distributed, copied, etc. It's a whole new world that our print-based notion of copyright was never designed to handle. Who knows how it will shake out? The main problem now is that there are those of us - particularly creators who see copyright as a protection against theft - who are too rooted in print culture to adjust easily, and there are generations of kids now for whom the Internet is second nature who see no problem with copying things, distributing them, passing them along to thousands or millions.

 

It'll certainly keep all the lawyers off the streets...maybe that's the best part of it .

[CosmicBob]

generations of kids now for whom the Internet is second nature who see no problem with copying things, distributing them, passing them along to thousands or millions.

 

I agree that is a big problem. They may grow out of that notion when they start having to make a living, but who knows?