That creators shouldn’t get worked up over Internet piracy because, hey, it enables people to sample the work and, by gosh, they will start buying it. And you’ll find plenty of people who will attest to doing just that.
But then there’s the guy who J.K. Woodward–sitting at the adjacent table right now at the Wildpig convention in New Jersey–told me about, who came up to him at the New York Comic Con. The fan was waxing effusively about J.K.’s work on FALLEN ANGEL, and how much he enjoyed his work…and then felt constrained to add, “I don’t actually buy it. I download it. But it’s great!”
You wonder how someone can be that clueless. Well, it’s easy: the massive sense of entitlement amongst some Internet denizens. People who would never think of shoplifting a comic book from a store do not hesitate to take advantage of stolen goods. Why should they feel any kind of shame when it does not occur to them that they are screwing the publisher and creators out of money? They cannot distinguish between, say, free online content provided by newspapers and pirate sites where they can browse through illegal downloads.
And it’s only going to get worse. Because the current generation of users has witnessed the rise of pirate sites and makes use of them without the slightest intention of providing remuneration for the creators, rationalizing it all the way. The next generation is going to grow up with theft as the norm. No excuses necessary. And if you don’t think that’s going to have a long-term negative impact on publishing, you are quite simply kidding yourself.
Because for every nimrod who’s shameless enough to tell creators point blank, “I love getting your work for free,” I’ll wager there’s plenty who are doing the same thing and just keeping their mouths shut. Because they know what they’re doing is wrong. And they do it anyway.
PAD
• 
I downloaded stuff like music and movies in my teens when the whole piracy thing became easy and Napster was still legal. Over ten years later and I don’t download anything anymore. It’s partially the moral aspect, it’s also due to the fact of avoiding littering my computer with viruses that always come with illegal downloads. But whenever I did download stuff, I never even contemplated doing it with comics.
I can’t wrap my head around not having the physical product in my hands. I can’t afford to buy all the comics I’d like but I reduce costs by sticking to trades for most titles. Alas, I’m aware that I’m probably a dinosaur (at age 28 no less!) with that thinking. It seems to be, as you said, an feeling of entitlement that I’ll never understand.
Allow me to rob that guy’s house on behalf of you and J.K.
Now wait a minute ! I’M THE NASTY, CYNICAL, EMBITTERED ONE HERE ! This is bread robbery !
Been working in the music industry for 15+ years. Seen turnover decreases by 60% in the last 10 years. Feel so sorry for you. Guess it will be said that you were blind to the technological revolution and reluctant to evolve. You are my favorite writer. Best.
If i understand your semi-coherent post, you’re another one of those “It’s free publicity for you – you should be happy” types.
If not, i apologise for misunderstanding you (though i also maintain it’s hardly my fault if i did).
If you are – you are also a jerk.
I *think* he’s saying that the comic industry was slow to adopt digital media.
I would pay full price to just download a .pdf, personally. Bear in mind that I cut my comics open and scan them so I can read them in CDisplay. No, I do not upload them or anything.
Even as a kid I didn’t like physical comic books. I break stuff easily and I always have some source of liquid to drop on whatever I’m working on. Of course, back then there was no digital option.
Know what would be really cool? A system where you sign up for each comic book via a subscription and they all get sent to your email with .pdf attachments.
This is how I interpreted it:
I have been working in the music industry for 15+ years. I’ve seen sales decreases by 60% in the last 10 years. I feel so sorry for you because I’ve been in your shoes. I guess these people that are illegally downloading comics will justify it by saying it is your fault for being blind to the technological revolution and reluctant to evolve just as they have being saying about the music industry. You are my favorite writer. Best.
While the major label Recording Industry has gotten smaller – from what I understand, over-all the total music industry has gotten bigger. It’s just that the smaller people have started getting a better deal than they got under the old system.
I guess the hope for the “current generation” of users is that once they have disposable income, they’ll start actually PURCHASING comics.
I can only speak for myself, but during college I stopped buying music altogether and started downloading. It wasn’t until I found a steady job that I got back to buying albums again. (Though still digitally.) I know it’s anecdotal, but one can hope the same applies for younger comics fans as well.
(And for the record, I took about a 10 year break from comics altogether during my cashless 20s. Your work on X-Factor was a big part of what brought me back to buying monthly floppies.)
Yes, piracy is damaging to the comic book industry and morally wrong. People are killing the golden goose.
.
No, most people never had any innate respect for the law, or any deep philosophical reason for respecting the law. It’s not just this generation. People respect the law out of fear of punishment, social pressure, or empathy for the victim. None of it applies to online piracy.
.
J.K. Woodward should have called the cops to arrest the self-confessed thief. Or campaign for harsher laws that would allow the arrest of the thief. Just bìŧçhìņg about it and expect people to “behave” will not do.
.
And yes, the comic book industry, like most industries, don’t have a clue as to how to make internet downloading work for them, and not against them. I know, I know. They shouldn’t HAVE to, in an ideal world. But it’s in their own interests to survive, right? I only know that it makes no sense to boycott their own efforts at digital distribution of content out of fear to antagonize the owners of physical comic book shops, all the while closing their eyes and praying that the pirates will simply go away.
Yeah, there’s a difference between sampling and outright theft. If I want to sample a writers work I go to the bookstore, library, download a sample chapter onto my kindle or if I want to see something from a particular artist I visit their website or take advantage of sites like comicbookresources when they preview a book. Those that are involved with internet piracy have no clue what kind of work and effort goes into writing and drawing. They probably have this stupid notion that it’s just scribbling and doodling…well if it was that easy why aren’t they making their living that way because I’m certain they aren’t.
I suspect “free” broadcast TV and radio are partly to blame for the modern attidude towards Internet piracy. I grew up with “free” TV broadcasts of James Cameron’s ALIENS and Spielberg’s CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. I grew up listening to “free” radio broadcasts of modern music. As a kid, I did not understand that advertising indirectly paid for these broadcasts. I really thought it was “free” content.
I better understand the system as an adult, but I think a lot of folks grew up accustomed to getting stuff for “free,” and they can’t tell the difference between authentic broadcasts/webcasts and unauthorized YouTube/BitTorrent.
I think another problem is the mental transition from physical copies to digital copies. I suspect that people who bought records, books, tapes, and discs in physical format thought they were paying for the manufacture of the physical record, book, tape or disc and not the content.
To an extent, they were. The Cost of Goods Sold for digital content is notably less for digital goods than for actual physical goods.
It doesn’t excuse things, but some folks may figure downloaded content should have a lower price point that it is being offered at.
Since the problem of copyrighted works being available online is not likely to go away, what can be done so that the copyright owners have their intellectual property protected while still allowing people to download a work if they wish? Right now, it seems were all on the honor system; and not everyone is honorable.
.
From an environmental standpoint a writer and/or a reader might prefer the e-book option over a physical book on paper; and a TV producer and/or viewer might prefer direct downloads as opposed to CDs in cases of cardboard and plastic. There’s nothing wrong with those options, in and of themselves, except those formats can easily be copied and distributed. You can photocopy a book, but it’ll take a while, and be a bit expensive. I can’t imagine many people would go to the trouble of photocopying a book. Certainly not more than once.
.
People post things on YouTube all the time, including movies and episodes of TV shows. I would argue that someone writing, say, a review of Babylon 5 posting a five-minute clip from his or her favorite episode would be able to do so under the “fair use” provision of copyright law. Unfortunately, as I understand it, there’s nothing but his or her own conscience to prevent this hypothetical reviewer from posting the entire episode in question. Or several episodes. Which does not constitute fair use.
.
Yes, some people might be compelled to go out and buy the actual DVDs after having seen entire episodes on YouTube– because contrary to Dr. Horrible’s statement when he interrupted the Emmy awards, most people would probably rather watch TV on a TV than a computer screen– but they should base that decision on having seen some clips (and/or what they’ve read or heard from the reviewer), not because they’ve seen entire episodes posted by the “helpful” reviewer.
.
Some months ago, I was at a friend’s one Friday watching his DVD of Thor (plans to see it in the theater never materialized, as we don’t get together all that often). Supernatural, which I think is one of the best shows on TV, came up in conversation, and he said he’d never seen it. I think he got the impression that because it was on the CW, he wasn’t the target audience. A few days later, I E-Mailed him links to a few select YouTube clips of about 10 minutes each, saying “this is an example of A”; “this in an example of B”, etc., and concluding with a suggestion that he start watching the show and/or get the DVDs.
.
Now, my intent was to reinforce my verbal praise of the show (I also sent him links to blog entries in which I wrote about the show) with a few brief clips that, to my mind, constituted reviews. Though I was taking it on faith that if he were interested, he would watch the show on TV and/or buy the DVDs, not just watch entire episodes on YouTube. I’m not sure to what degree– if any– viewing those clips has convinced my friend to watch Supernatural and/or get the DVDs (it might turn out that my own liking of the show would be enough; I haven’t had a chance to talk to him about the show since we got together that day), but I’d like to think I convinced him to give the show a try.
.
I’ve never posted anything to YouTube myself, so I don’t know much about whatever limitations it might have; but maybe it’d be good if account holders could only post 10 minutes worth of a movie or TV show every two weeks, and whatever they posted would automatically be deleted after X number of days. Of course that would mean any “reviews” would have to be read around the time they were posted in order to see those clips; but it’d also mean posting an entire episode of a show would be a weeks-long endeavor that probably wouldn’t be worth it (like photocopying a book). Someone viewing these hypothetical YouTube posts might decide it’d be less of a hassle to buy the DVDs or check them out from the library, video store or NetFlix.
.
When Doctor Who returned to TV in 2005, I was able to watch it on Canada’s CBC network, which means I saw it several months before those who saw it on the Sci-Fi Channel. Later, for whatever reason, the CBC stopped carrying the show, and the only way to see it in the states was to get cable (or satellite, I suppose). Well, I neither need nor want either. What’s more, as a Doctor Who fan, it was a given that I’d buy the various season/series sets when they came out on DVD. But I didn’t want to wait up to a year to even see the episodes, so I watched them either on YouTube or something similar, the name of which I forget at the moment. But those viewings were “placeholders” for the DVDs I’d already decided to buy.
.
If YouTube hadn’t existed, I still would have bought the DVDs. It didn’t exist in the 1980s when I taped episodes of the 1963-1989 run off of PBS, but I’ve still bought DVDs of those episodes, most of which I already have in video format. Why? Because the DVDs have advantages over both the videotapes and YouTube. However, because YouTube exists, I availed myself of the opportunity to preview, if you will, my chosen purchases. I’m not sure to what degree that’s wrong, as I didn’t post anything myself, and the BBC still got my money.
.
I don’t feel in any way “entitled” to watch things on YouTube, though it’s nice to have the option. If YouTube didn’t exist, I’d still have the library or the option of purchasing the DVD in question. In fact, I have purchased DVDs after checking out copies from the library. Kind of unnecessary when you think about it. My tax dollars help pay for those library DVDS, so they’re “mine.” I’m just storing them at the library. Still, it’s nice to have a DVD available whenever you want, which isn’t always the case with library copies. And I’ve purchased some DVDs without having seen a single frame of the TV series or movie in question. I bought Neverwhere years ago, based on Neil Gaiman’s name; and I bought Firefly based on Joss Whedon’s name and having seen Serenity in the theater.
.
Of course, YouTube isn’t the only means by which people can download creative works, but again, there must be a way to have the various technologies provide downloads and whatnot either in small, review-only segments or only after payment has been made. And I’m guessing that this technology exists at present; that we’re not limited– for the most part– to saying “please don’t do that.” But if it exists, why isn’t it being used? Or if it’s being used, how are people able to circumvent it?
.
I imagine that among the pirates who give lip service to “promoting” a writer’s work as justification for illegal postings there are some who genuinely believe they’re helping. I may be wrong, but I also imagine most in the latter group would stop if they realized their good intentions were actually harmful. But then they’re probably the “honorable” ones.
.
Along those lines, a friend once mailed me a photocopy of a short story that was published in some anthology or other. He thought I’d like it. I told him not to do that any more; just tell me where he read a particular story, and I’ll seek out a copy if I’m interested. Maybe he thought I’d be prompted to go out and buy the book in question, but his suggestion that I read the story (or lending me his own copy of the book) would have been just as effective.
.
I had no idea Fallen Angel was even available for download, though I’d prefer the physical comic myself. Have there been any new issues recently? If so, I’ve never seen them, and the title’s on my pull list.
.
Rick
I’m very glad that I grew up with the notion of paying for products and services.
If you’re as old as me, you must remember watching broadcast TV channels and listening to radio-broadcast music “for free.” You did not directly pay for all of the content you enjoyed.
Everything is paid for in some way. Advertisements pay for TV and radio. I find that in many cases, free services are ones that people don’t realize they’re already paying for. Take the public library for example. People think it’s a “free” way to borrow books and videos, but it’s actually paid for by people’s property taxes.
Bull. You grew up with the notion that you could GO TO JAIL if you failed to pay for products and services, and it was true at the time.
.
Younger people are not any less moral than you. They just grew up in a time when no one is ever arrested for stealing stuff online. You know, most of the new generation do not steal physical goods.
Give it time Rene, a few more multi-million dollar verdicts against file sharers and the criminal will go back to shoplifting, as the penalties are closer to the actual damage…
Bladestar – I think they should go after the average joes too, not only the big guys that run the pirate sites.
.
Of course they can’t prosecute everybody that downloads illegal stuff. But they can make an example of, say, a hundred people. Make them do community service, and warn that reincidence will mean heavy fines and possibly jail.
The problem, Rene, is the law.
.
Copyright holders are TRYING to go after individual users, but Judges are on the side of the bootleggers (it seems). A judge just recently ruled that I.P. addresses cannot be used as evidence that someone stole something online: http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/22622-us-judge-rules-ip-addresses-are-not-enough
The U.S. government can’t even shut down Torrent sites because the physical servers are overseas.
.
So if you can’t go after the people supplying the illegal books, you can go after the people obtaining the book, how do you legally stop someone?
Sadly, there are lots of people who begin with “I want it but don’t want to pay for it” and then come up with sometimes complex, often inane justifications for why their theft is justified.
(As an aside, I wonder how many people already have bootleg copies of THE AVENGERS — and how they justify it to themselves and their friends.)
Here’s a serious question for you, PAD. How long *should* copyrights last for? I couldn’t care less what *Congress* has voted them to extend for – in your opinion, morally, how long should you and your heirs retain the copyrights on your writings? How do you feel about the use of trademarks to effectively extend the copyrights on already public-domain material, such as the Barsoom & Tarzan stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs?
It’s not nearly as simple as you claim about people just wanting it for free – I have an e-book reader loaded with 500+ books, the vast majority of which are either downloaded from the Baen Free Library, the Baen CDs, or Project Gutenberg. My budget limits me to a dozen or so books a year – these last couple of years, that’s been focused on the books of Nathan Lowell, as he gets the whole free/pay thing, and purchases from the Baen e-book store. I haven’t bought a comic book in 20 years, because the value they offer me is nowhere near what I’m asked to pay for them.
The over-whelming perception is that the authors, and the artists do get paid. It’s the corporations that people downloading things for free think they’re sticking. TechDirt includes case after case of artists giving things away for free, and still getting paid. They call it CwF+RtB (Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy).
None of that justifies piracy. If people don’t want to pay the price for something, they can go without (as I presume you do). There is no Right to Content.
And sticking the corporations has a direct effect on the creators. For example, the guy above who pirates Fallen Angel may think he’s sticking it to IDW, but as a result of the lost sale from him and others like him, IDW becomes that less likely to greenlight future Fallen Angel projects. So PAD loses out on more work, and the pirate loses out on more Fallen Angel (along with us paying customers).
Pirates are neither Robin Hood or Jean Valjean. They’re not even Captain Jack Sparrow or Long John Silver. They’re Don Karnage.
There may not be a “right to content” – well, except public domain content. However, with regards to physical goods, people understand the scarcities involved in the creation of many copies. With digital goods, once the initial creation is done, not just the *perception* but the reality is that replication is not significantly resource-limited. People do not believe that increasing corporate profits is sufficient reason for region coding, staggered release dates, and all of the other things the MPAA/RIAA et. al. does to supposedly maximize profits. In addition, the incredible increase in the length of copyright has led people to feel that the copyright bargain has been *COMPLETELY* broken, and is null and void. The patent system is undergoing similar attacks.
And if IDW is less likely to greenlight Fallen Angel projects – so what? There’s a lot of other places & ways to create & distribute Fallen Angel projects – of course, that assumed PAD actually kept the copyrights on Fallen Angel, and didn’t turn them over to IDW (which I presume is a corporation).
Pirates are not Robin Hood, Long John Silver, or even Don Karnage (whoever he is). However, the current crop of kids are not pirates – they’re just people who believe that things have gone massively wrong.
Note: while there may not be a right to content – there also is no automatic right for sellers to sell their stuff at the price they want. Prices keep going up – they’re going to find that people won’t bother.
My comics needs these days? Webcomics like XKCD, Girl & Her Fed, Girl Genius, and Misfile – and japanese anime & manga such as Love Hina, PlanetES, etc, fulfill those. The US “superhero” comic industry does nothing for me, and so I return to it what I get from it.
And if IDW is less likely to greenlight Fallen Angel projects – so what? There’s a lot of other places & ways to create & distribute Fallen Angel projects –
Holy crap.
So if pirates destroy sales on a book, to the point where it’s no longer a viable venture for a publisher, it’s the creator’s problem and his responsibility to find ways to do it himself. The onus is upon me to find ways to produce, I dunno, books or short stories or my own comics…
…and when pirates come along and make THOSE available for free? Well, heck, I suppose I can just go out and find a real job.
Jesus.
PAD
“Pirates are not Robin Hood, Long John Silver, or even Don Karnage (whoever he is). However, the current crop of kids are not pirates – they’re just people who believe that things have gone massively wrong.”
No, they’re people who have decided that they shouldn’t have to bother to pay for something that they want and created elaborate excuses in their heads to rationalize the why of what they’re doing.
Tara Li: there also is no automatic right for sellers to sell their stuff at the price they want
You’re 15, aren’t you?
Because insisting you have a right to do what you want with other people’s stuff, while denying someone else has the right to do what they want with their own stuff is typical teenage logic.
There is no automatic right for sellers to sell their stuff at the price they want??? You’re going to tell someone what price they have to charge? “Sorry, my writer. I don’t want to pay that price for your book, so you’re going to have to sell it to me at the price I name.”
Yeah, that that out at the grocery store next time. Tell the store manager that you don’t think the price he set for his goods is fair, so you’re just going to walk out with them. Let me know how that works out for ya.
In point of fact, I’m 44, Sean. Any and all sellers have a right to offer their goods for sale at a particular price. Buyers have a right to pay, or not pay. Ultimately, the going price for something is a balance between what the seller is willing to sell at, and the buyer is willing to pay.
The industry is saying it needs $X to cover its costs and make a profit. The public is saying that is too much. In addition, the industry is saying “We have it ready, but we won’t give it to you until this future date in the format you want.” The public is saying “Oh, really?” In addition, the industry is saying “Oh, and yeah, once you have it – if we decide we don’t want you to have it any more, we’ll just make it go poof!” Please, feel free to google “Amazon Kindle 1984” for this power in action – while Amazon was technically in the right – the way they did it was a PR nightmare, especially with *THAT* book involved.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
http://labratsgonewild.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pirate-vs-pay.png
It’s not semantics – it’s a basic disconnect between supply and demand.
“Any and all sellers have a right to offer their goods for sale at a particular price. Buyers have a right to pay, or not pay.”
Correct. However, if they chose not to pay, they also choose not to get those goods. If they choose to take the goods anyway, without paying, that constitutes theft.
“Ultimately, the going price for something is a balance between what the seller is willing to sell at, and the buyer is willing to pay.”
Sadly, what too many “buyers” are willing to pay is “nothing at all, because I can take it for free.”
“The industry is saying it needs $X to cover its costs and make a profit. The public is saying that is too much. In addition, the industry is saying “We have it ready, but we won’t give it to you until this future date in the format you want.” The public is saying “Oh, really?””
And who is more likely to know what is genuinely needed to cover the costs? And just because you might have to wait for a bit before it comes in the format you want, that somehow makes theft okay?
If an industry is not producing a product at a price and in the format the public want, then the seller needs to adapt, certainly, and the way the public do that is by choosing to forego the product until it achieves the price and format they find acceptable. But that doesn’t give the public the right to just take it for free in the meantime. Apart from anything else, if too many people do that, the producers of the product don’t drop the price, they stop producing, which means everyone loses out.
Tara Li: Ultimately, the going price for something is a balance between what the seller is willing to sell at, and the buyer is willing to pay.
Correct.
The industry is saying it needs $X to cover its costs and make a profit. The public is saying that is too much.
OK. WIth you so far.
In addition, the industry is saying “We have it ready, but we won’t give it to you until this future date in the format you want.”
A bother, sure. But well withing the seller’s rights to decide when they want to make their goods available.
The public is saying “Oh, really?”
Losing me here. You make that sound like the public is responding with a challenging tone. “Oh, really? Well we’ll just see about that.” Nope, not an acceptable response. The public can be bothered by having to wait, but other than voting with their pocketbooks and deciding not to buy the goods once they do become available (showing the seller that delaying the release didn’t add anything to their coffers) there is nothing the public can do. The seller delaying release does not justify at all any action the public takes to obtain the goods thru illegal channels.
In addition, the industry is saying “Oh, and yeah, once you have it – if we decide we don’t want you to have it any more, we’ll just make it go poof!” Please, feel free to google “Amazon Kindle 1984″ for this power in action
I’m aware of the Amazon 1984 event. THey didn’t just make it go poof on a lark. They made it go poof becuase they didn’t have the rights to have sold it and they refunded customer’s money.
It was a bad PR situation for Amazon, particularly given the irony of 1984 being one of the books. But it was exactly the right legal thing to do. Anyone who would argue that someone who lost their copy of a book in this way is justified in downloading a bootleg copy is arguing that it’s OK to steal just because they don’t like something.
It’s not.
“They cannot distinguish between, say, free online content provided by newspapers and pirate sites where they can browse through illegal downloads. ”
Most of them can. They just justify it. “When you steal something, the original owner loses it. When I take something digitally I’m merely copying it, so the original owner has it AND I have it!” Or the theft is somehow sticking it to the corporations, without any consideration for the ramifications for the creators. It’s amazing how many people I meet who are up in arms about justice and social justice and yet have managed to justify their ongoing theft of videos, books, music and so forth to themselves.
James, in addition to the ‘I want it but don’t want to pay for it’ claim that people bring up, I would add ‘I want it NOW.’ Again, lots of rationalizing before and after the fact. Just because you want it now does not mean you’re entitled to it now. Hey, I’d like to see the second season of Game of Thrones right now, but I don’t have HBO, so I will wait several months for the DVD, just as I did with True Blood this month, just as I do with Dexter and with Spartacus. The fact that I don’t have pay cable doesn’t entitle me find someplace to download those shows illegally.
.
As Peter quite rightly points out, the next generation of young consumers will have an even greater sense of entitlement and therefore even less obligation to pay for anything. The sense of deferred gratification will be replaced by a great sense of instant gratification, and as a result, publishers and studios will charge a greater price for those goods in order to make up the defecit; consequently the people who are willing to pay for them will be forced to pay more.
.
I know other people have been talking about what things were like when they were young. Well, back in the good old days, when televisions could still be found in glorious black and white, if you didn’t see a film during its initial release, you saw it at a second-run cinema at a reduced price. If you didn’t see a television show when it aired, you had to wait for summer reruns (there weren’t newfangled things called VCRs back then). And if you couldn’t afford a new hardcover book and didn’t want to wait several months for the paperback, you went down to the library and put yourself on the waiting list to borrow it. And guess what? If you didn’t have the money for a book or a record or a tape, YOU DID WITHOUT until you had the money! Try explaining that to the next generation; they’ll look at you as through you were extolling the virtues of horse and buggy over a car. And as Peter said, it’s just going to get worse.
Again I say. This generation or the next gerenation are not any less moral than us old timers.
.
It’s just that in the good old days, you could GO TO JAIL if you tried to steal something. There was physical danger involved. That was it.
.
It’s nice pretending that we’d respect the law no matter what, but I imagine that, if we never had any punishment for the act of stealing in the good old days, we’d not behave any better than the “depraved” young persons of today.
I recently got an iPad and have discovered comixology. It’s not an ideal solution in my eyes (I would prefer some way to be able to make a physical backup of my purchases), but I have taken advantage of their frequent 99 cent sales. In my mind, it is an ideal price point for a digital comic. In the last month and a half of having the iPad, I’ve purchased more comics than I have in the last several years combined.
As much as I am enjoying comixology, I am not sure if it is the perfect solution for everyone. I wonder if someone will come up with a free service to the user that is supported through advertising. If I could read a comic for free online and have an ad come up every five or so pages (a commercial break if you will), I would do it in a second. Honestly, I would do that for almost any kind of entertainment. As long as I knew the creators were being compensated, I don’t mind being advertised to. If someone doesn’t want to deal with ads, there would still be options to purchase the material to have an ad less experience.
In the bigger sense, I think a large part of the issue isn’t even rationalization of piracy. I work with young people and speak about this issue a lot with them. Most of them do not have to rationalize the behavior because it is so common and accepted to them. Most of my discussion time with them is just getting them to realize that their actions are harmful and illegal. All of that is to say, I think the situation is going to get worse.
Reminds me a bit of reading about how upset a lot of writers would get before the onset of international copyright laws. For all of his just arguments about the hypocrisy of American doctrines (calling ourselves a bastion of freedom while still permitting slavery) and his frequent outright jingoistic snobbishness (complaining — at length — about colloquial American English) much of Charles Dickens dislike of America stemmed from how often his work was bootlegged — and bowdlerized — here. The problem is, regardless of whatever laws are passed, there’s really no reliable means of enforcement, at least not yet. How do you get through to people that downloading stuff they haven’t paid for is wrong, if they don’t just get it instinctively? Complain all you want about it, but the only real way to combat illegal downloading is to make content available legally immediately, as quickly as it’s likely to become available illegally. That shouldn’t have to be done, but, I’m sorry, it does. That likely won’t completely solve the problem, but it’s the only hope anyone has of combatting it.
On a related note, I’ve read about how the video game industry will occasionally plant bugs in games that only activate when the game is illegally downloaded. Apparently, if one were to illegally download Batman: Arkham Asylum, Batman would steadily get clumsier and his gear would start to malfunction as the game progressed, to the point where the game was impossible to finish. There was another game where in the illegally downloaded version, at a key moment, the player’s character got arrested and thrown into an airport jail from which escape was impossible and was continually subjected to an unending lecture on how crime doesn’t pay. It’s a shame print media can’t do the same; so long as someone has a copy of the original and a scanner, they’re good to go.
I was at the aforementioned Wild Pig show (I got the Nightcrawler head sketch from J.K. and bought a Fallen Angel TPB from him and told you it was the first book I’d read of the series, then came back and told you I liked what I read of it so far, etc.). With the plethora of 50 cent books there, some of which were quite recent, I was getting tempted (and talked about with some people) to just give up on new issues and only buy back issues (I made a comment to someone along the lines of “remember when back issues used to cost MORE than the current issues?”) The back issue market has pretty much collapsed and on the internet, most back issues within the last decade can be found for very cheap, many for under a dollar if you know where to look. But I decided I can’t go that way completely because I need to support the books that I like or there won’t be back issues to buy for cheap. Sure, Batman doesn’t need my help, but the creator owned books do and even the Big Two books that don’t sell as well as some others (one of the specific books I was thinking of was X-Factor). In fact, at the con, I bought 13 issues of X-Factor that I missed because I was out of comics for a bit. They cost me $6.50. After dcbservice.com discount, I can get 3.6 new issues of X-Factor for that same price. But out of the 13 books I bought, you received exactly zero cents. Of the 3.6 books, you received… well I don’t know how much you received because it’s none of my business, but you got something and you got 3.6 extra sales to help you keep your job. Chris (who runs that con) is a great guy and I have no problem putting money in his pocket twice a year, but I have ample opportunity to do so without taking said money out of the pocket of the people who are making the actual books.
So basically, what I’m getting at is that I decided to not only pay for my comics, but to pay MORE for them. And keep in mind, I’m not exactly rich, so don’t take it that way at all. If money wasn’t a concern, I wouldn’t even bother considering the switch to back issues.
And then I considered doing it for the books that don’t need the sales boost (like Batman or Wolverine and the X-Men), but I don’t like that idea because it’s kinda like punishing success. “Mr. Snyder, since you have found that perfect combination of popular character (Batman), marketing stunt (the New 52) and just plain good writing (Court of Owls), I will reward you by not buying your book but waiting for back issues when you don’t get any money from it.” That doesn’t seem right.
I realize though that I’m the exception. If I wasn’t, business would be better. I’m not sure what the solution is. Maybe, Mr. David, you need to just get into a line of work that can’t be digitized and stolen – like prostitution.
“In fact, at the con, I bought 13 issues of X-Factor that I missed because I was out of comics for a bit. They cost me $6.50. After dcbservice.com discount, I can get 3.6 new issues of X-Factor for that same price. But out of the 13 books I bought, you received exactly zero cents. Of the 3.6 books, you received… well I don’t know how much you received because it’s none of my business, but you got something and you got 3.6 extra sales to help you keep your job.”
No, he got paid for the books you bought because he got his cut at the original point of sale when the dealer you bought them from first bought them. But you are right about the problem of lots of people not buying new books to score a lot of cheaper back issues this way. If the sales on the new books drop, the series will end.
Actually, in this instance, that’s not quite the case. Chris from WildPig hasn’t owned a store in a number of years (he just has an open Diamond account to purchase a big stock of trades for his twice yearly shows) and just buys collections in bulk to sell, so PAD and the rest of the creative team, aren’t really paid for that purchase anymore than if I buy a used product. However, if I were to switch to buying back issues on a permanent basis, then you’d be correct, since a lot of my purchases would come from overstock at other stores
It doesn’t matter, Kyle, your statement that Peter got “zero cents” for them is wrong, because Peter isn’t paid by what happens at the retail level. When he’s under an exclusive contract he’s paid directly by Marvel according to his contract (I don’t know if sales factor into it as it does for freelancers), and when he works freelance, he gets paid an up front page rate, and then royalties based on copies sold to the distributor. Not to the retail customer.
I know how that works. But when I buy new comics, 99% of the time, they’re pre-ordered. So if I pre-order 1 copy of X-Factor, that’s one more copy that DCBS buys from Diamond which is 1 more copy that the creative team gets royalties for and 1 more copy sold to make it likely that the book will continue. If I buy a back issue, or even a new comic off the shelf that I didn’t preorder, I’m not affecting the sales of the book at all.
If you’re buying a back issue of a book, that book was already paid for by the retailer when he bought it from the distributor.
Peter, I agree with everything you said. But you have to admit that some record company sometimes shoot themselves in the foot. Case in point:
I’m a big fan of the group Celtic Woman. Bought the CDs, the DVDs, went to the Paris concert in september (after buying my ticket for the London show that was cancelled, but given that I had bought tickets for two other shows -South Pacific and Wicked – and the Doctor Who Experience, the trip was not a loss). All of that I did legally.
But in recent years, we’ve seen EMI come up with something which makes my blood boil every time I hear about it: Exclusive songs, available only on CD published in one country only. “Carolina Rua” and group version of “Danny Boy” ? Available only on Amazon.com. “Princess Toyotomi” ? Only on a japanese compilation. “An Angel” and “There must be an Angel” ? On a german Christmas compilation. Three songs are only available on the german edition of their latest album. And there’s a group version of “The Water is Wide”, with the participation of the Bagad (breton pipe band) Lann Bihoué which is only available on a french compilation.
I don’t know about you, but I won’t buy a CD featuring a majority of songs I already have to get one or two songs I don’t. So, the solution would be to download said songs legally, right ? Except that I can’t. It’s impossible for a resident in one country to buy songs in another country. Believe me, I’ve tried. Aren’t my hard-earned Euros good enough ? Apparently, not for the american Amazon, or the german and japanese iTunes.
So, I would very much like to know how I can solve that problem without having to use semi-legal (recording off YouTube) or completely illegal methods. Because, I repeat, I want to _buy_ those songs. And the same applies to stuff that will never been available on DVD, like “Cold Case”, for example.
So, PAD, how do you feel about public libraries stocking graphic novels and trade paperbacks?
Mavel Masterworks are teaching my son how to read, and I’m not paying for them.
—Matt
A library loaning out a physical copy it has already paid for is substantially different from pirating a comic online.
I hope someone else is teaching your kid about false equivalencies.
And, at least in the UK and possibly some other countries (but not in the USA as I understand it), the authors get a small financial remuneration every time their book is loaned out.
Not as different as one might think – especially to the publishers. See the current problems regarding e-books the Libraries are having. There is a strong suspicion out there that the publishers are doing their best to figure out a way to charge per page read – even if you’ve read the page once already. And don’t take too long on a particular page, or they’ll think you’re re-reading it and charge you again.
There is a problem – and it’s a big one. But it’s not going to be solved by claiming everyone who downloads something without paying for it is a pirate and a thief, and it’s not going to be solved by locking down content to the point nobody can read it at all.
Libraries in certain counties, not the USA but including Austrailia, Canada and the UK have some called the Public Borrowing Right. This is where there a central pot of money that pays money to the authors of works borrowed from a library. It works differently in each country but its not just the cost of a copy that authors get money for where libraries have loaned that work.
claiming everyone who downloads something without paying for it is a pirate and a thief,
That’s not a claim. That’s a fact. Taking something without paying for it is the definition of the word “theft”.
I can understand why people wouldn’t want to face that, but calling it anything else is just sophistry and rationalization.
Tara Li: But it’s not going to be solved by claiming everyone who downloads something without paying for it is a pirate and a thief
Assuming that thing they’re downloading is supposed to be paid for, then, yes, they are thieves.
It really isn’t a difficult concept: The seller gets to decide what price they want to sell their wares at. If the buyer doesn’t like that price, they don’t have to buy it. If the buyer doesn’t like that price and then takes it anyway without paying, the buyer is a thief.
Th buyer can think that the price was unfair, or that companies make enough profit already, or whatever they want. But none of that changes the fact that they took something that they didn’t pay for.
When you could put it to a vote – and *LOSE* – or even get the majority to admit “yeah, it’s wrong, but…” – there’s something more going on. If you can’t see that, you have *NO* hope of solving the problem. Enforcement isn’t doing it. Education doesn’t seem to be doing it. Figure out where the basic societal disconnect is, and you have a change to fix things.
You can’t build enough prisons. You can’t fine people enough. Get a $175,000 judgement against an 18 year old kid, that can’t be discharged by bankruptcy, and that kid has *NO* reason to ever try to get a job – he’ll never be able to make enough to pay off that debt, so why try?
CwF+RtB.
“When you could put it to a vote – and *LOSE* – or even get the majority to admit “yeah, it’s wrong, but…” – there’s something more going on. If you can’t see that, you have *NO* hope of solving the problem. Enforcement isn’t doing it. Education doesn’t seem to be doing it. Figure out where the basic societal disconnect is, and you have a change to fix things.”
We have figured it out. Society has an entitlement mindset where they think that just because the corporations are overcharging for digital product (and I’m not arguing with you on that point one bit), that they have the right to just take it instead of… *gasp* doing without. You are a perfect example of that.
“We have figured it out. Society has an entitlement mindset where they think that just because the corporations are overcharging for digital product (and I’m not arguing with you on that point one bit), that they have the right to just take it instead of… *gasp* doing without. You are a perfect example of that.”
Fine – you’ve figured it out. This wonderful bit of enlightenment led you to solve the problem… how? They’ve found one way *THEY* believe addresses the problem – now, how are you going to get them to change to another way? I don’t need illegal sources of books – Baen, Project Gutenberg, a mailing list that alerts me to free downloads on Amazon, webcomics, and a dozen other methods leaves me with a quite nice sized legal collection. I even *GASP* actually buy a few books – though the ones I buy are DRM free, and under the $5 mark.
Simple, it is not – but other creative artists are making it work despite competing with “free”. Look into it.
Tara Li: You can’t build enough prisons. You can’t fine people enough.
Now you’re arguing that because every thief can’t be caught that it isn’t theft.
Tara –
.
I think there are other options beyond throwing people into jail or subjecting them to huge fines. You could subject them to a warning for their first offense, community service for their second, a moderate fine for their third, etc.
.
Obviously, you can’t punish everybody that downloads illegaly. But I suppose that it could work like police raids. You go after small samples of offenders, chosen randomly, until you instill in the average joe the fear that they could be caught if he keeps stealing… ahem… downloading copyrighted stuff.
.
I don’t know, someone could tell me why this isn’t done already? I suppose the corporations are afraid of alienating costumers if they really crack down on the average joes downloading their stuff illegaly?
Actually, you are paying for them, in the sense that your tax dollars help support your local library.
.
As others have pointed out, a library is loaning you a physical copy of an item; and since an individual library (or a library system) only has a finite number of copies of a particular book, CD, DVD, whatever, only so many people can have access to a copy at any one time. If a library has seven copies of a particular book– because it’s very popular– then seven people can read it “for free”; but if it’s popular, there’s probably a waiting list of people who’ve put the book “on hold.” The book isn’t available to every patron at any time. Some end up having to wait.
.
Libraries have paid for every book, CD, DVD, etc. in their collections. And again, they do so in large part through local taxes. They’re free to loan them to patrons (even to people outside the community if there’s an inter library loan system in place), just as you’re free to loan something you own to a friend. It’s not the same as making illegal copies of something. Not even close.
.
Rick
Are the libraries doing anything illegal?
No?
Then why are you even asking?
PAD
Matthew: So, PAD, how do you feel about public libraries stocking graphic novels and trade paperbacks?
Luigi Novi: Why does everyone persistently trot out the tired library argument every time Peter makes a blog entry about copyright, and for the matter, every other venue in which the topic is brought up? Haven’t we answered this a gazillion times before?
The library books were PAID FOR.
How many times are you people going to try this analogy before you comprehend that it’s utter horseshit?
Libaries can only lend out a book to one person at a time. A digital copy can go out to a thousand people at once with little effort from the person who uploaded it. Plus, the person has to give the physical book back, while the digital copies can be held onto forever and reread at leisure.
Those natural limitations are part of why everyone has always accepted libraries. They can actually make the argument that the price they paid for that one book justifies the boost to people’s access to reading material who wouldn’t otherwise have it.
Because of the particular argument you’re making in your post Peter? I’m not an idiot, of course there’s a difference between the small-scale lending of books to people in a local area through libraries and the mass distribution of them online.
But in this case, “I love getting your work for free” could equally mean “I borrow it all from the library”. Like many others, I grew up doing all my reading from library books and books picked up from charity shops. I got them all for free or a pittance, and the author saw bûggër-áll.
But I grew up, I got a job, a got a bunch of bookcases full of novels, then I got a Kindle and started buying books on that too. Getting all that reading for gratis when I was kid didn’t make me think that words were worthless and had no intrinsic value.
So, PAD, how do you feel about public libraries stocking graphic novels and trade paperbacks?
Mavel Masterworks are teaching my son how to read, and I’m not paying for them.
—Matt
(what does it mean “there was a error your post is too short? Should I just pad my post, like this )
It means that even for this discussion forum, your post was too short on basic logic. Public libraries have paid for their copies – they’re just loaning them out, like borrowing a comic from a friend. Pirated comics often weren’t paid for by anyone (well, unless you count the hidden cost paid by those who’ve downloaded viruses – my roommate used to like downloading movies, until his computer was zombified by a trojan).
I was waiting for the old “what about libraries” bit to show up. As some who just ordered a ton (and given the amount it may be more than a ton) of graphic novels for his library system let me point out again why it is not the same: As others have mentioned we are buying the book. In this case we buy it from a vendor who bought it from Marvel. Now among the order was three copies of the new X-Factor collection. That means only there are only three copies availible to the public. Now they can share it with others but there are still only three purchased copies and if any of them go missing or are damaged then we would need to purchase new editions in order to replace them. This is not an electronic file that can be copied time and again.
Matthew,
A library has finite copies to loan out. It’s no different than you loaning a copy of a book to a friend. Someone scanning the book, uploading it to a website and then having hundreds of thousands or millions of people download copies of it into their computers (thus creating a new copy for each download) is more analogous to illegally printing new copies of a book you don’t own the rights to. It also differs in the fact that you don’t own the library book. Keep it and declare that you’re not giving it back and you get fined and your library card gets yanked. No more “free” (you do pay for library books with tax money) books for you. You can keep an illegal download for as long as you can keep the file working.
Illegal downloads also mean that there’s no incentive for many to actually buy the book. They don’t have to worry about the book being checked out and being told that there’s a huge waiting list for it. That means they might not feel that impatient twitch to just go buy it rather than wait. And, of course, they don’t read it and get the itch to add it to their personal library for later convenient reading since, again, they now own the thing via the illegal download.
The two concepts are not even close to one another.
Matt,
Trades and comics in libraries are PAID FOR or, in some instances, donated, which means the person donating them paid for them.
.
If a lot of them are lent out then will increase the likelihood of MORE graphic novels/comics being bought by the library being bough because demand is there.
.
I love libraries and love comics and have donated quite a few of the latter to the former – but I paid for all of them that I donated.
To me, the solution of the pirate problem should be simple. Use the carrot and the stick. The stick: prosecute a few average joes as example. Stop treating piracy as a “moral” pecadillo that no one is actually punished for.
.
We, as a society, are not so advanced that we can trust people to not commit crimes just on the basis of their own conscience. Why do we expect people to do so, when we talk online piracy? We should treat it as any other theft. People should be made afraid to download illegal stuff.
.
The carrot: the big corporations should provide online content at realistic prices, with a quality and variety equal or BETTER than that offered by pirates.
.
I mean, realistic prices, not this nonsense of charging the same as a physical copy, that is just asking people to keep downloading illegaly. And variety too. It’s ridiculous that Marvel doesn’t offer ALL of their back issues in their site (at least, they didn’t, last I checked).
The “carrot-and-stick” method involves tying a carrot by a string to the end of a stick. The carrot then is dangled in front of a donkey hitched to a cart. The donkey tries to get the carrot and, in the process, pulls the cart. This, of course, moves the carrot forward, obliging the donkey to redouble its efforts.
The stick is used as a handle, not as a weapon.
I’m fascinated by this idea of prosecuting everyone in sight. Since there is no common-law obligation for me not to pirate, it’s NOT like stealing from a store (which is a larceny). If it were otherwise, we’d still be paying royalties to the heirs of Charles Dickens. And, local police could enforce this.
But, not copyright.
Copyright exists solely at federal law, and as long as the federal government is going to operate under the premise that so many people are “entitled,” enforcement always will be a problem. After all, the violators are “just getting even.”
Do pray tell: Just how are you going to pay for all these additional federal police, which (let’s not forget) will have to include executive employees to collect the health-care mandate as well from those who realize THEY’RE being ripped off. I tip the FBI about criminals running computer scams in South Florida which prey on unemployed people seeking jobs, and they send a polite note back, pointing out that the operation is run from Nigeria (where they can do nothing) and therefore is too much a drain on their already overtaxed resources.
It’s not even a crime to pirate a foreigner’s works in Russia or China. They, after all, consider their citizens “entitled.”
It’s the true face of socialism at work.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Is downloading copyrighted material a crime or is it not? If it’s a crime, then people who commit that crime should be prosecuted. It it’s not a crime, then people should not be prosecuted.
I’ve been away for the week; sorry not to get back to you.
Copyright infringement IN AMERICA is a FEDERAL crime deriving from Congress’ plenary power to secure to authors and inventors a TEMPORARY monoploy in the enjoyment of their works, that science and the useful arts be forever advanced. The federal constitution CREATES the property right and establishes its limit, which is unusual because most property rights (and by that I mean almost all of them) are created by STATE law.
Although it is common to call copyright infringement “theft,” technically it is not a theft, where “theft” is a synonym for “larceny.” Larceny has certain elements to it (including trespass on the person, which rarely exists in a copyright claim because usually the pirate already legally has at least one physical copy of what he is ripping off). Copyright infringement almost always is NOT a larceny and cannot be prosecuted as such.
Indeed, copyright infringement actually is more like embezzlement than larceny (here using “embezzlement” in the original meaning of the term employed by the English courts: A crime NOT against property but against the owner’s trust). Copyright infringement, like embezzlement, is purely a statutory offense lying in the executive domain of the government which created the underlying right. (As an aside, that’s why places like libraries can loan copyrighted works without paying — this has nothing to do with paying for the original copy and certainly does not involve any kind of stealing; it’s all simply outside the statutory grant and therefore not actionable.)
For these reasons, there is NO JURISDICTION in the state or local governments to go after rogue downloaders (ONLY the feds can do it).
Protection of patents and copyrights was one of the unique innovations which America brought to the forum of Eighteenth-Century political theory. The idea that David owns his copies as well as his originals, even if I make them from a legally procured copy of his original, did not exist prior to its incorporation into the Constitution, and it simply was not a crime in 1750 or so for me to take another’s work and sell it for my own, nor is it a crime today in some countries (I specifically mentioned Russia and China, but there are others less prominent on this list).
Finally, as a practical matter, liberals still need to learn that one cannot filch a cookie from the jar unless there be a cookie in the jar, and one cannot pop a cop from ones hat unless there’s a cop in the hat. That’s just physics. With all of the things the FBI has to do today, it simply does not have the time or resources to go after every petty pirate downloader on the internet. In their minds, it makes more sense to pass laws like SOPA, which would allow them to go after, e.g., Google for linking to known pirate sites. That, incidentally, is what Perfect 10 (the skin magazine) is trying to do via its lawsuit (so we may get SOPA by judicial decree, whether Congress acts or not).
But, SOPA was on another thread.
An executive officer has to think in terms of bang for the buck. Going after some piss ant so that David can get 30 more cents is not my idea of a prosecution which works.
The fact is that, for the most part, people usually obey the law because they respect the law and will continue to obey if they continue their respect, so abandoning liberal ideas about “free” health care (or anything else which costs) certainly is a step in the right direction, and a prosecution of a major pirate site (with all the attendant publicity) has a far more prophylactic effect than picking on some college kid looking for “free” i-tunes. Prosecutions are very expensive; a criminal case still has to be made beyond reasonable doubt. Tell me: What’s your absolute proof it even was me (or whoever) who downloaded the pirated song? Haven’t you heard of viruses? And, was it even a crime if you downloaded that song from a site in Russia linked to a server in China and managed by a gang of fraudsters with a computer in Nigeria?
Where did your claimed “illegal” transfer occur?
You haven’t yet established even the law of the forum.
out of all of the different people I run across, i only know 2 people who download things illegally. almost everyone who said they didn’t said they either didn’t know how or they were afraid of getting caught “like that 13 year old girl in the city did a few years back.” i’m sure PAD is right about people downloading things illegally not even considering the fact that what they’re doing is wrong, but I don’t thing online piracy is the epidemic it was during the Napster craze. back then, EVERYONE i knew was doing it and now almost no one is.
What I see happen is that I know a number of people who have no idea how to download things illegally, but they buy illegally pirated copies of stuff from people who do. Not so much music, but movies (especially movies that aren’t on DVD yet). And of course, comics are a different beast. Comics and scifi in general tend to appeal to the type of person that is more computer savvy and knows how to download illegally. Of course, most of the comic fans that I know are aware that this is a dying industry and want to support it. Of course, that could just be because I don’t talk to idiots.
Rene, while I can’t agree with many of the points in your last post, you do bring up an important issue, which is cost. Since a significant percentage of the cost goes into printing (for books), duplication (for digital media), warehousing, shipping, etc, one would think the price of a digital book, CD or DVD would be significantly less expensive than the physical equivalent. I don’t mind if publishers, studios and record companies make a bit more money, but when the cost of a digital item is not that different from a physical item, it does get a bit annoying. Believe me, I am not advocating illegal downloading as a means of teaching those companies a lesson, I do wonder if people would be more inclined to buy a digital copy if the cost was more reasonable.
Many people don’t realize the costs that go into the digital end. For starters, iTunes or other apps take about 30% of the total price in the sale. Also, website hosting, maintaining, etc. takes extra staff beyond the initial creation of the comic. It’s similar to printing a comic, except with different people involved.
Not to single you out on this point (more of a general thought for the converation), but price should not have anything to do with this. This is a legal issue, price is an economical issue. When you steal a car, try using the defense of “it shouldn’t cost this much. I’d buy it if it were more reasonably priced.”
PAD’s right, pirating is theft. Any rationalizing about the rationale behind it is superfluous excuses that would not hold up as a defense in a criminal prosecution. I fall into the camp that the problem is lack of enforcement. I don’t know if enforcement is possible, but I do know that people will continue to pirate entertainment until they think that it’s more costly to do so.
The equivalent of the iTunes store taking 30% or so is the equivalent of the distributor (Ingram) or the brick & mortar store (Wal-Mart). Does website hosting and maintenance take anywhere *NEAR* the manpower or other costs of warehousing, transportation, *RETRANSPORTATION* of returns, and destruction of returns? I kind of doubt it.
In part, what we’re seeing is a reaction to the breaking of the copyright bargain. The action is the cost of the material being raised so high, *AND* the artificial limitations being placed on availability. The *reaction* is the copying and distribution – Dr. Who being recorded in the UK and sent via the Internet to the US 3 weeks ahead of the US air date, DVDs that cost $2 in New Deli, $5 shipping, and yet are sold *HERE* for $15-20 (and heavy-duty laws written to try to prevent this from happening), books released in the US, Japan, the UK, Australia – and *never* released elsewhere…
This is far from as simple an issue as “it’s theft!”
1. I support prosecution. I don’t think there is any other way to really combat internet piracy. I know that you can’t prosecute everybody that ever downloaded illegal files, so you’d have to make an example of a sample of the criminals.
.
2. Considerations of cost are not excuses or defenses of piracy, but given how widespread online piracy is, I think an analysis of the motivational factors is valid. If we had a huge epidemic of car theft, with everybody you know being a car thief or knowing someone who is, then you must agree that it became more than just random crime.
.
3. I’ll accept your assertion that people underestimate the cost of producing digital content, but I’m still not convinced that the costs amount to the same of a physical copy.
Tara Li: Does website hosting and maintenance take anywhere *NEAR* the manpower or other costs of warehousing, transportation, *RETRANSPORTATION* of returns, and destruction of returns? I kind of doubt it.
What does that have to do with anything?
Seriously, what?
When you buy something at Barnes&Noble, do you calculate how much they’re spending on lighting, janitorial services, elevator maintenance and then, having decided they really aren’t spending enough on those things to justify the $20 cost of that hardback you want, steal it from the store?
Would you require that same book to cost less at the single-story Barnes&Noble than the one that has three floors of books, because the shorter one doesn’t have any elevator maintenance costs?
The point is, what costs the seller has is irrelevant. They’ve stated a price for their goods and you are free to pay that price or do without. You are not free to steal their goods and then try to justify the theft (Yes, Tara. Theft.) because you don’t like the price they set.
This is far from as simple an issue as “it’s theft!”
No, it’s not.
Why the price is what it is, what factors of advancing technology or global trade or company policy contribute to that price being what the seller has decided it will be are all beside the point.
The price has been set.
You want it, you pay for it.
You don’t like the price, you do without.
You take it without paying for it, you’re a thief.
My blood boils every time I see some pirate (Who sees himself as some kind of hero…) post a semantic argument that goes along the lines of “Theft involves removal of physical property. “Piracy” merely makes a copy and there is no loss of physical property. Learn the difference!”. I know the difference, basement dwelling entitlement boy. Taking someone’s work, physically or electronically while deying them payment for said work is theft, period. Deal with it. I’ve been in numerous aguments with a lot of self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” who think “All information should be free” and think nothing of posting entire books online… Yet will be the first to scream bloody murder if someone reposts their rantings/writings elsewhere.
Actually, if you *DO* want to get all legal about it – the kind of piracy described is not “theft”, but “copyright infringement”. But please, let’s leave the lawyers out of it.
Now, an interesting question, in the trials against these infringers, lies in the calculation of damages, as not all infringements displace sales. As an example – say a movie is copied illegally via the Internet (not physical copies) 100,000 times. Does that mean 100,000 sales were lost? Not even hardly. Perhaps 5-25,000 of those were lost sales. Perhaps less, even. And what would happen if it could be shown that as a result of the infringement, the movie sold more copies than it would have if it had not been infringed upon? What does that do to the damage calculation?
“But please, let’s leave the lawyers out of it.”
Let’s leave the semantics out too. Someone producing something. Production is time consuming and expensive. However, because reproduction has become easy, others feel they can help themselves to the item produced without paying for it. Doesn’t matter whether you call it theft or copyright infringement, what it boils down to is someone helping themselves to something that they didn’t pay for, and the people who made it not being paid for their work.
Creation is time consuming and expensive. When talking about digital products, though, reproduction is not. This is not a matter of semantics – it’s a matter of costs. The cost to create and reproduce 100,000 copies of a paperback book are very different from the costs to create and reproduce 100,000 copies of an e-book. And as parts of those costs are shared, things get even more complicated. No – it’s not simple – and it goes back to my very first comment on this post:
Here’s a serious question for you, PAD. How long *should* copyrights last for? I couldn’t care less what *Congress* has voted them to extend for – in your opinion, morally, how long should you and your heirs retain the copyrights on your writings? How do you feel about the use of trademarks to effectively extend the copyrights on already public-domain material, such as the Barsoom & Tarzan stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs?” Copyrights – the right to limit reproduction – is not a natural right, but the implementation of a monopoly for a certain purpose, as stated in the US Constitution. The deal was struck, and many – even though they do not articulate it so specifically – feel the deal has been broken.
Tara Li: The cost to create and reproduce 100,000 copies of a paperback book are very different from the costs to create and reproduce 100,000 copies of an e-book.
And for that reason I’m very reluctant to pay the same price for a digital book as I am for its physical counterpart.
But that wouldn’t justify my refusing to pay for the digital book and downloading a copy of it anyway.
Again, Tara, what does the cost of manufacture etc have to do with whether you have to pay the required price? If you believe the price is unfair, or not in line with the sellers costs, or for any reason too much then… don’t buy it and do without.
But don’t argue that the price being higher than you think it should be is justification for stealing.
@kyle:
RE: Discount bins “But out of the 13 books I bought, you received exactly zero cents. ”
Incorrect. The retailer who sold you those from the 50 cent bin paid something like $1.50 (if it was a $2.99 issue) for the comic already. 99% of the material in those kinds of bins is entirely unsold-from-the-rack material, which was paid in full by the retailer.
Another way to think about it is that they just effectively paid you $1 to take it away.
-B
“Holy crap.
So if pirates destroy sales on a book, to the point where it’s no longer a viable venture for a publisher, it’s the creator’s problem and his responsibility to find ways to do it himself.”
Is the idea that if you whine loud enough, and condescendingly attack suggestions from fans, the piracy will go away?
Is the idea that if you whine loud enough, and condescendingly attack suggestions from fans, the piracy will go away?
I think the idea is that fans who whine should be treated exactly like the over-entitled children they are.
Or if not to you, specifically, they still paid a dollar for it to get taken away.
And, you know, digital distribution has gotten so much better over the past couple of years that it’s easier to buy a new comic online than to pirate it. I have pretty much zero transportation to my comic book store, but I can go to Dark Horse’s online shop or comiXology and get my Buffy/Angel/Batwoman/etc. every month.
So this is kind of off-topic but I felt I had to voice my opinion somewhere. To start I am a huge fan of yours Mr. David almost everything that has your name on it catches my attention in some way. My favorite series which you currently write is X-Factor. Which I have been reading from the very beggining with the Madrox: Multiple Choice story. Now, I’m such a huge fan not only have I collected the story I’ve also collected all the Hardcover’s of every story. Not downloaded anything just payed cold hard cash for everything. I was furious when Marvel changed their printing for Vol. 15 Super Unnatural because it went agaisn’t every other volume but I got past it. However, now Marvel will not even be collecting the in Hardcover starting with Vol. 17, which only shows me how little Marvel cares about their customers, because this isn’t a limited series this is 16 Volumes I have purchased and also gotten other people interested in only for all my hard work to be dismissed in half a second. Sorry to rant but I’m just such a huge fan and want you to know how Marvel has upset a loyal and diehard fan of yours. Hope to hear back from you if not, then know that I’ll keep reading but only as long as your on the book. 🙂
I’ve argued with my friends a lot on this topic.
I’ve heard stories about artists who owe their success to the exposure that downloading provides. For example, musicians (who would make pennies on the dollar for each album sold) can use these sites to build a fanbase. These fans–though they may not buy the album–may contribute in other ways (e.g., attending shows) for which I believe the artists make significantly more money. (I don’t know what the equivalent would be for those in the comic book industry, which is admittedly a smaller industry.)
Louis C.K. produced his own comedy show and sold it online, commenting on how little money the artist gets for each DVD sold. So another aspect of the whole piracy thing is not wanting to support a studio that gives its artists so little respect or remuneration.
These are some of the reasons I hear when arguing about the issue with my friends… and we do argue about it. I typically take PAD’s side on the issue, that what we are dealing with is a bunch of people who think they deserve free stuff. But at the same time, I also think we are dealing with a bunch of people who would otherwise not have been exposed to the stuff. Therein lies the potential to increase one’s fanbase. I believe that some artists can and do benefit from the exposure that comes from downloading–perhaps they are just better at turning it to their advantage.
Incidentally, I subscribe to Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited, from which I have access to the first 13 volumes of PAD’s X-Factor. This costs me approximately $5 a month. I’m guessing that writers don’t make all that much from trade paperback sales, so I can’t imagine how much less they are making when someone reads their work using this completely legal method.
While I don’t know PAD’s compensation due to his Exclusive with Marvel, but I can say that with my work for Bluewater, it is a flat rate for both.
.
That means it’s X% for both singles and trades. Of course, though the trades generally run $15-20 rather than $4 for the singles, unless – as will be the case usually with trades like PAD’s “X-Factor” – the only way I can get a flat X% is if I do all the books in the trade. Ir I’ve only done one out of four stories in the trade, then I will get 1/4 of x%.
.
And so far, I will get the same flat rate for whatever Bluewater publishes of mine that can be downloaded on a Kindle.