UPDATED 3/1, 9:43 PM–A request to the hit and runners. By that I mean the people who swing by for the express purpose of hurling blame, invoking Gail Simone, calling me names and departing. You might want to consider taking the time to read the thread. Read it in its entirety, read the most recent posts, whatever. The chances are you will already see your comments responded to (since the H&Rs are pretty much all saying the same thing) by myself, various fans, and Gail. Honestly, I don’t expect this message to have much impact on the H&Rs, but I figure it’s worth a shot.
Did you ever hear of Scans Daily?
I had not.
Kathleen informs me that it began as a site on Live Journal where individual scenes from comic books were put up and commented upon. Apparently, this included certain panels from “Young Justice” to which homoerotic subtext was ascribed. It’s a shame I never had a chance to see those. That would have been funny.
But somewhere along the way, it morphed into posters giving page by page summaries of new comics, complete with the entire pages. Writing a critical review and posting up a panel or a page to illustrate a point falls under fair use. Posting over half the book while saying, “This happened, then this happened, then this happened,” is not remotely fair use and a blatant copyright violation.
On an “X-Factor #40” thread on CBR, someone put a link to it. This put it on my radar, and–I suspect–on other people’s radar as well.
Conscientious people have reported to me when they see flagrant copyright violations of my work (typically entire Star Trek novels being posted online). So I did the same thing, informing Marvel of the scans.
Did Marvel then shut them down? No. Because before Marvel legal had an opportunity to do anything, the scans had already been removed for being a violation of terms of service of Photobucket, the site that enabled the posters to put up pictures on line. Perhaps the CBR links put the site on PB’s radar as well as mine.
I did, however, use my wife’s Live Journal account to make my presence known. A fan asked if I had informed Marvel about the scans. An honest question. I replied honestly. I said yes, I had, but that the scans were pulled before Marvel took any action.
Two days later, Scans Daily was shut down completely. Purely a guess: Photobucket complained to Live Journal and LJ said, “Enough’s enough.”
The reaction on the blogosphere? Peter David got Scans Daily shut down.
Well…no. Again: My intervention wound up having no impact. And besides, if anyone got Scans Daily shut down, it was the fans themselves. Some will own up to that reality. Many, I suspect, won’t.
PAD
• 
To PAD, assuming that it was your complaint that brought Scans_Daily down, congratulations. You had the legal and moral right to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
What golden egg was that exactly? Are you implying that S-D was having a material impact on the sales of the comics it was posting? If so, I think you’d be hard pressed to prove such a thing.
To many of PAD’s defenders, Scans_Daily did not produce full issues. (Fullscans_Daily did and was shut down to minimal reaction except rolled eyes). It was not the same as full fledged torrenting because it was pulling highlights rather than presenting whole issues.
Posting half of the pages of a particular comic-book still doesn’t fall under fair use. Sorry.
“The difference being, of course, that when Peter and I disagree with laws against fornication, we provide detailed arguments as to why those laws are wrong, based on logic, history, documented facts, reasoning, an attempt to maintain internal consistency in our adherence to moral principles, provisionalism, etc. “
Ah, I see, so your problem with me isn’t that I support the violation of the law I consider unjust, it’s that I haven’t provided a detailed enough or good enough argument to you. (That was not Mr David’s position ofcourse, so I don’t know why you speak as if you’re talking on his behalf)
Well, I considered the argument I provided detailed enough and good enough. You’re free to disagree of course.
‘My position is not that s_d was a “band of thieves” – since i never heard of it before this blew up, i can’t say – nor is it that the takedown was “a triumph of intellectual property” (same reason). My point it that PAD’s itervention was almost certaionly not the proximate cause (though it possibly could have been the detonator that sets off the big charge of C4 in the arms dealer’s warehouse), and that those who are vilifying him here are Way Off Base.”
That was pretty much my point too. Like everyone else on this thread, I used one person’s comments to springboard off onto more general comments about the world in general without due notice that the direction had changed. On television this is usually done by turning to look into the camera, perhaps taking off glasses and furrowing one’s brow to denote a heightened level of seriousness.
>>>”You’re confused about the timeline, I think. The way I get it:
>>>- Peter David notifies Marvel about copyright violation
>>>- Copyrighted material are taken down
>>>- Marvel notifies LJ about material. (But the particular material have already been taken down)
>>>- In response LJ takes down the WHOLE of the community.
>>>So, Marvel (and indirectly Peter David) are responsible for the removal of the community, not the material.”
The main problem with that chain of events is it assumes several things:
1) That all of them indeed happened. There is no evidence that Marvel actually contacted LJ at all. Lawyers are exceedingly detailed in nature – if Peter notified them about issues xxx of X-factor, then it’s entirely possible that they looked into that specific issue (literally and figuratively), saw it was already gone, and marked it Case Closed.
2) That all of the events are directly connected to each other. According to PAD, the pages in question were taken down before marvel even got a chance to do anything, so there’s no evidence to support the idea that PAD’s alert led to the removal of the pages.
3) That all of the events were done by, or involved, the same party or parties. It’s being ASSUMED (please seek an illegal clip of The Odd Couple of Felix explaining what happens when you assume and insert it here) that either Marvel, or PAD himself in a fit of pique, sent the note to LJ. It could have been anyone. It could have been one of PAD’s famous zombielike apologists, incensed thet their savior was having his income diminished by this evil website. It could have been me (It wasn’t).
It’s popular and, for some, even fun to dogpile on PAD for his opinions and actions. He don’t half make it easy, since he’s in the habit of SHARING those opinions and on occasion acting on them, as opposed to us rational people who keep our yaps shut or come up with witty noms de plume. He is perfectly within his rights to complain if his work is being disseminated outside of established channels to a degree considered illegal. But as far as I know, he is not the type to take down a whole website because it made him cry. If I can recall the line from the Quiet man properly, “If it were, not a scorched stone of your fine house would still be standing”.
As I’ve said, I donate to webcomics artists I like. So it’s not just about my selfish desires. It’s about encouraging a different model.
It’s selfish to assert that you have the right to view content without the permission of the copyright holder. If you were truly concerned with changing the model, you could simply boycott Marvel and DC and donate to webcomics you consider acceptable. No theft involved, and it still makes your point.
…why can’t you accept that I’m doing what *I* think is the right thing?
Because it’s awfully convenient that your version of “the right thing” includes the right to view illegally reproduced works free-of-charge.
I mentioned fanvidding as an example: An art form that might or might not benefit the songmakers whose songs it utilizes, but is a beautiful form of art in its own right.
“Fanvidding” without the permission of the copyright holder isn’t a “beautiful form of art,” it’s the worst sort of coattail riding. If “fanvidders” are concerned about art, why don’t they hook up with a local band who could use the exposure and make videos of their songs? That could make a mutually beneficial partnership and wouldn’t involve any theft.
Again, please stop pretending you care about art. I know some artists and they are hard-working individuals with a need to make a living. Your “model” would reduce them to working for tips in a medium with an audience that has grown accustomed to the idea that they are entitled to everything for free. You may be hitting tip jars but most people don’t.
Claiming to protest an unjust law is very disingenuous when you only come up with it after the fact. And supporting webcomics that give you pleasure is an unselfish act? Hardly. Supporting webcomics that don’t is unselfish. What you claim to do is making sure your pleasure is at your fingertips. Very unselfish.
“Are you implying that S-D was having a material impact on the sales of the comics it was posting? If so, I think you’d be hard pressed to prove such a thing.”
You’d be hard pressed to prove it had a negative effect as well. It’s just as hard to prove that any single ad or publicity event specifically helped sales of anything. In most cases it can only be viewed in the macro, after sales went up or down. if sales went up, everyone is going to claim that it was their idea that did it.
As I’ve said, I’m sure people were inspired to buy a comic or two as a result of the comments on S-D – we’ve had anecdotal evidence of that in this thread. I’m also sure that some people saved a tidy sum as a result of it as well. Did the two numbers balance perfectly? Almost certainly not. And nobody will EVER be able to get an exact number.
“Because it’s awfully convenient that your version of “the right thing” includes the right to view illegally reproduced works free-of-charge.”
I can do that all the time (and legally) when I browse through comics in the comic book store before I buy them. Scans_Daily was convenient in allowing me to browse through comics that WEREN’T available to my comic book store — e.g. things like the Buffy comics, which I ended up buying through Amazon.
As a sidenote DC & Marvel comics I saw in Scans_Daily sucked, so I wouldn’t have bought them anyway.
“Fanvidding” without the permission of the copyright holder isn’t a “beautiful form of art,” it’s the worst sort of coattail riding.
So beauty depends on permission of the copyright holder?
…yeah, that alone tells me that you people’s sanity has left the building
You all seem to have no understanding at all that legitimate art existed before copyright or the very idea of “intellectual property” existed.
Good lord, that Luigi character reads like a bot.
Anyway, Peter, I’ll just reemphasize that there was a much better way to deal with this situation, and hope that in the future you take a little more time to think before you act in cases like this.
Aris Katsaris: Anyway the very fact that you believe the Marvel Corporation is justly using copyright law, makes your whole argument irrelevant to us who believe they’re abusing it instead. Atleast some others (e.g. Craig) argue that we must obey the law even if we find it unjust: Another respectable position, though I wonder if Craig or Peter David would report to “the proper authorities” things like Crimes against Fornication, or if his obedience for the law is (just as mine) dependent on its perceived justice.
Luigi Novi: The difference being, of course, that when Peter and I disagree with laws against fornication, we provide detailed arguments as to why those laws are wrong, based on logic, history, documented facts, reasoning, an attempt to maintain internal consistency in our adherence to moral principles, provisionalism, etc.
Aris Katsaris: Ah, I see, so your problem with me isn’t that I support the violation of the law I consider unjust, it’s that I haven’t provided a detailed enough or good enough argument to you. (That was not Mr David’s position of course, so I don’t know why you speak as if you’re talking on his behalf)
Luigi Novi: I’m not. But a number of the more reasoned visitors to this site share something in common with Peter, and that’s that we tend to illustrate our positions using methodologies that are at least somewhat scientific. This isn’t just me. Bill Myers, Bill Mulligan, Tim Lynch, Micha, David Bjorlin, Jerome Maida, Jason Bryant, Jerry Chandler, all tend to form their arguments in this way. It is because of this that I drew a distinction between the arguments against crimes against fornication that he or I might make, and arguments against violating a corporation’s property rights that you make. The former are argued coherently. The latter are not.
Speaking on his behalf? Never did so. I simply made a distinction between the coherence of how he or I (or others, as aforementioned) respond to arguments and counterarguments, and how you do, which has nothing to do with “speaking on his behalf.” On more than one occasion, Peter has mentioned how I or someone else beat him to the punch by offering a counterargument to some statement here that made a response by him unnecessary. Was he “speaking on my behalf”? Or just concurring with something someone else said?
Aris Katsaris: Well, I considered the argument I provided detailed enough and good enough. You’re free to disagree of course.
Luigi Novi: The fact that it was detailed does not mean that it was logically or morally coherent. Anti-corporatism is just whiny soreness that you’re not living in a gilded mansion, and jealously of someone else who has it better than you do. If it were really about the quality of art, then when someone like Peter expressed a preference for such copyright protection, including that afforded to a corporation of which he is a contracted employee, one would think that you’d at least show a modicum of respect to that, instead of just frothing-at-the-mouth commie/socialist rhetoric, and deliberate falsehoods.
Bill Myers: Because it’s awfully convenient that your version of “the right thing” includes the right to view illegally reproduced works free-of-charge.
Aris Katsaris: I can do that all the time (and legally) when I browse through comics in the comic book store before I buy them.
Luigi Novi: See, this is the sort of distortion from you, the sort of pseudo-clever attempt to gloss over leaps in logic and reality—that makes it difficult for the more reasoned here to take you seriously. Look closely at what Bill said: your version of “the right thing” includes the right to view illegally reproduced works…
The books you read in the store are not illegally reproduced.
And one more little mendacious comment bites the dust.
Aris Katsaris: You all seem to have no understanding at all that legitimate art existed before copyright or the very idea of “intellectual property” existed.
Luigi Novi: And so, we can surmise, did the ability of artists to support themselves securely with any sort of across the board consistently. Allowing them and the companies that hire them to protect their property provides a greater chance for this to change.
“I can do that all the time (and legally) when I browse through comics in the comic book store before I buy them.”
Not according to John Byrne you can’t. And there will likely be people popping on maintaining that this too is theft.
People keep using the phrase “unjust law.” When referring to copyright. Is there a human rights violation going on here that I haven’t been made aware of?
Regardless, Bradley is right. If you want to protest an “unjust law,” then more power to you, BUT you take your punishment when that law catches up with you. The point of such a protest is to inspire others (if you can) to reconsider their positions so that the law can be changed. That’s hardly accomplished when you cry over and over again that it’s not fair as you catch the mere responsibility for what you have done. It makes you look either ignorant, ill-prepared, or a liar. Because if battling an “unjust law” was really that important to one in this case, then they’d be willing to put up with discomfort or inconvenience for the greater good, right? Promoting a supposed altruistic enterprise only when it suits your extreme convenience shows that one truly doesn’t care about anything other than their own selfish pursuits, and any protests they may make to the contrary are nothing more than fraudulent.
Well, it’s a good thing Peter David will now have an influx of new readers after facilitating the suspension of SD – and by his logic, INCREASING sales, because I know I will never buy a book with his name on it again. But surely, the influx of people who randomly enter a comicbook store looking for nothing in particular due to SD’s destruction will be plentiful enough to make up for any lost customers like me who frequented Scans_Daily in order to see what was worth picking up. And since comics are a booming business right now overall, I’m sure this will have no lasting effect on sales. This was a great business move that can only raise customer loyalty. I’m only one random comicbook buyer who never actually posted on SD – but I’m sure there can’t be that many more like me, though. I mean, the internet is a small place, right?
Boycotting Peter David to make a point to Marvel, the same way that Marvel had SD suspended to make a point to comics readers is as much my right as it was for Peter David to report Scans_Daily. So I think I’ll do that. Scans_Daily was the reason I started reading comics. I learned what a TPB was there, and that you can actually go into a comics store and ask them to order things for you that they don’t have on the shelves. Like I said, I was only a casual reader of SD, but this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, so I’m going to start exercising my right to not financially support anything that financially supports Peter David. And life goes on.
I really don’t understand why some people have such hostility towards PAD here from SD being suspended. Sure, he believes that certain SD posts violated copyright, but there’s no reason to believe that PAD actually was the cause of the shutdown. For all we know, Marvel’s lawyers would have actually investigated before complaining, and possibly just flagged the posts that flagrantly violated their copyright. In fact, it looks like Livejournal shut it down themselves. I’d blame Livejournal for its policies before jumping to conclusions about the cause.
Sure, there’s disagreements on what currently violates copyrights, and what should be considered to violate copyright, but even PAD didn’t want the entire site to go away; only the postings that violated the copyright holder’s rights.
PD,
I have nothing new to say on this issue, but wanted to send you my support. You’re a dámņ good writer, and that’s good enough for me. I recommend you to my friends with the highest possible praise- and hey- I go to your blog, because I like what you have to say.
It’s really, really hard to avoid saying snarky things to the people who are being abusive to you right now. I’ve deleted about a dozen potential responses, but I don’t want to contribute to the problem. But I’m THINKING THOSE SNARKY THINGS. REALLY REALLY LOUDLY.
😉
Todd Morgan: Anyway, Peter, I’ll just reemphasize that there was a much better way to deal with this situation, and hope that in the future you take a little more time to think before you act in cases like this.
No there wasn’t. Telling Marvel to check out something he noticed is 100% reasonable.
Again, I offer this hypothetical: If PAD had done *exactly* what he did, but Livejournal hadn’t shut down SD, would you be as upset as you are right now? If Marvel had had a chance to ask SD to remove those particular pages and SD had done so without Photobucket complaining to Livejournal and getting SD in trouble, would you be as upset as you are right now?
You say there was a much better way to deal with the situation, but the way that PAD dealt with it is *exactly* the right way to deal with hit. He told Marvel, Marvel would have asked for SD to take those pages down, that would have been the end of it. If you’re upset that Livejournal yanked SD, that doesn’t have anything to do with PAD.
TacoJim said:
“I’ll be honest, I read the s_d thread spoiling the X-Factor issue and decided that I didn’t need to buy it anymore and save the $4.
Sorry PAD, I understand that it will lose a sale for you and you have the rights to protect it, but after I knew the twist, there was no point in me buying it anymore. “
=====
Exactly the point–people were reading the stories online and not buying the comic.
“Fanvidding” without the permission of the copyright holder isn’t a “beautiful form of art,” it’s the worst sort of coattail riding. If “fanvidders” are concerned about art, why don’t they hook up with a local band who could use the exposure and make videos of their songs? That could make a mutually beneficial partnership and wouldn’t involve any theft.
Again, please stop pretending you care about art. I know some artists and they are hard-working individuals with a need to make a living. Your “model” would reduce them to working for tips in a medium with an audience that has grown accustomed to the idea that they are entitled to everything for free.
Google “Japanese Anime Studio Embraces YouTube Pirates”.
As I said before, this is all about the bottom line. Instead of killing a goose that lays golden eggs because the law says such geese are illegal, you should be getting that goose to work for you.
Moty Python figured it out and are making a tasty profit. Same goes Kadokawa Holdings.
The comics industry is going to figure it out too eventually, and I hope it’s much sooner than later.
Have a day.
“Fanvidding” without the permission of the copyright holder isn’t a “beautiful form of art,” it’s the worst sort of coattail riding. If “fanvidders” are concerned about art, why don’t they hook up with a local band who could use the exposure and make videos of their songs? That could make a mutually beneficial partnership and wouldn’t involve any theft.
Again, please stop pretending you care about art. I know some artists and they are hard-working individuals with a need to make a living. Your “model” would reduce them to working for tips in a medium with an audience that has grown accustomed to the idea that they are entitled to everything for free.
Google “Japanese Anime Studio Embraces YouTube Pirates”.
As I said before, this is all about the bottom line. Instead of killing a goose that lays golden eggs because the law says such geese are illegal, you should be getting that goose to work for you.
Monty Python figured it out and are making a tasty profit. Same goes Kadokawa Holdings.
The comics industry is going to figure it out too eventually, and I hope it’s much sooner than later.
Have a day.
Aris Katsaris–
Livejournal is a corporation. Why do you use Livejournal for your blog?
Exactly the point–people were reading the stories online and not buying the comic.
No, the point is that people were posting too much of single comic stories on line to be considered fair use. If the point was just that people were reading them online and not buying the comic it wouldn’t apply to people buying comics due to S_D.
Though if the site was really good for sales and could be proved good for sales, the copyright holders might approach it carefully.
You’d be hard pressed to prove it had a negative effect as well.
Yes, but I never stated that S-D was hurting sales. I simply questioned whether it helped.
As I’ve said, I’m sure people were inspired to buy a comic or two as a result of the comments on S-D – we’ve had anecdotal evidence of that in this thread. I’m also sure that some people saved a tidy sum as a result of it as well.
Then S-D was hardly the golden-egg-laying goose that Francis tried to portray it as being, now, was it? That was the point I was trying to make.
There is never any excuse for theft.
BUT the comic business really needs to get with the times and start making digital copies of these books easily available for purchase at a fair price.
Don’t screw the retail partners. Put the books out in physical form 4 weeks before the digital scans are available for legal download.
But Marvel and DC need to get with the dámņ program and with the times. I asked Dan Buckley (that is his name yes, the Publisher of Marvel) about why the digital comics (which I pay for every year) on the Marvel site are all updated out of order and so far behind the retail, and he just kind of smilled and gave me a, “Yeah, yeah, it sucks but it’s on our radar” sort of non committal answer. And I’m like: dude, it’s 2010. If we can get brand new music, television, movies, and video games downloaded over the net, we sure as hëll can get a freaking comic book scanned in in a timely manner and sold at a fair price.
Again, the lack of comic company vision is NO excuse for breaking the law. But hëll, Marvel and DC’s lack of an interest or ability at responding to this issue is getting into the realm of ridiculous at this point.
David
Ok, I just jumped ahead in time 🙂 I tend to do that…2009, I mean. 🙂
David
Oi, site layout change alert!
And I’m finally forced to enter my full e-mail. I really hope there’s no problems as there was a couple of years back where our names did get hotlinked to our e-mail addresses, as spammers tend to be all over that. 😛
SCANS DAILY PEOPLE–
Most of you are coming across as vile, vindictive, despicable people. Is this a true indication of the site?
SCANS DAILY MODS–
Is this what you put up with daily?
I hate the new site design. I’m never reading another PAD comic again.
From reading all the postings so far, and the abuse that has been directed towards Peter, it is just lucky for the Scan fans that Peter is not Harlan Elison.
Is ANYBODY here willing to quit playing “YOU SUCK”/”NO U” for five seconds and try to answer the question of what kind of internet framework could be developed to benefit both the creators and fans? I’d suggested a kind of “iTunes for comics” alternative. How many of you would be willing to pay, say $1.00 – $1.50 for a CBR or PDF digital copy of a comic? Or a certain price for a digital subscription?
How would someone even go about implementing a thing like this? (I fail at business models.)
(P.S. Glad to see my commenting hiccups are finally gone. Thanks, Glenn.)
The background of the new site is fine, but this new set-up for the actual comments doesn’t work for me. Having to go from ‘recent, to ‘older’, to ‘older’ in sections is not a good idea.
Hey, Peter – do you have permission ot use all those scans in the background of your new page design?
{grin}
How many of you would be willing to pay, say $1.00 – $1.50 for a CBR or PDF digital copy of a comic? Or a certain price for a digital subscription?
Marvel is already offering a subscription of sorts, where you pay a monthly fee to view their digital catalog. However, the catalog doesn’t have anything within the last six months (although they are now providing exclusive digital content), and I believe not everything available will always be available.
But I’m willing to pay if Marvel did a digital service with “0-day” comics – stuff available the day it hits stores, not 6 months later.
I think there’s plenty of potential for those of us who want to move to full-digital with our comic reading. I could see something like Marvel offering X titles for $ dollars, with perhaps special prices for crossovers and such.
But right now, Marvel (and DC) is not willing to take this step.
One other thought for all those from SD: if LiveJournal came out right now and said PAD and Marvel had nothing to do with SD’s shutdown, how many of you would be here to apologize for your comments?
“Don’t screw the retail partners. Put the books out in physical form 4 weeks before the digital scans are available for legal download.’
Asking people who lose their cookies when the books are delayed one day thanks to national holidays are not going to wait four weeks for “their” books. It’s like asking people to wait while the pie cools.
Comic shops have to start thinking up ways to continue to remain profitable if people start jumping to the (eventual) digital model, or more likely, if they just stop buying comics altogether. Maybe they start seling more trades, or more T-shirts, or pretzels or something. Or they start more actively marketing to people who DON’T want to go to the digital model. Record stores had to change to adapt to MP3s (both legal AND illegal), so too will comics stores. Sad, but true.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get an ice cube for my searing lips…
“Marvel is already offering a subscription of sorts, where you pay a monthly fee to view their digital catalog. However, the catalog doesn’t have anything within the last six months (although they are now providing exclusive digital content), and I believe not everything available will always be available.”
Those are the main reasons that I’m not a member of Marvel’s service. Right now marvel is charging you five dollars a month for permission to read their copies of their comics, for as long they choose to let you.
But I give them credit for being STREETS ahead of DC. It’s a first step.
They’ve started doing web-only books, like Tieri’s recent Galactus book. That’s step two.
Step three will be very interesting.
Google “Japanese Anime Studio Embraces YouTube Pirates”.
.
As I said before, this is all about the bottom line. Instead of killing a goose that lays golden eggs because the law says such geese are illegal, you should be getting that goose to work for you.
.
Yeah, but all of that junk you keep posting about companies embracing online pirates has a major flaw in it. Peter isn’t a company. Peter works for a company where he doesn’t get to make that decision. He saw what looked like violations of fair use involving his employer’s property and told them that they might want to look into it. Did he want the site closed? No. Did he think that the most that would happen was the material being removed with the community left in place? Yes. How can I say I know this? Well, that’s pretty much what always happens elsewhere, it’s pretty much the norm and he’s said so himself.
.
Beyond that, if you want to piss and moan to someone that they need to “get it” and that they need to learn to work with sites like that and pirates; go bug Marvel and DC. You can run your yap all you want to Peter and the posters here, but it will likely do zip about a major company doing anything like what you’re talking about. But then Marvel and DC have pretty much made their view on that clear, haven’t they.
By the way…
.
Blogs new format? Not a fan.
HOLY CRAP – I love the new look.
I’ve having a problem with the address “peterdavid.net”
I’m getting a “godaddy.com” page when I go to peterdavid.net. I didn’t for the first hour or two after the new site design went up, but right now peterdavid.net isn’t working for me. I got here through padwp.malibust.com
Jason, I had to go through my browsing history to get another URL besides peterdavid.net as well.
I like the background and all, but I was also a big fan of all comments being on the one page (even if it took time to load). But, so far, this one does seem to be putting me at first comment since I last visited, which is nice, cause it can be difficult to keep track of.
I guess what I’d go for is for the site to go back to filling the width of my browser window, so the comments themselves aren’t squished in the middle. 🙂
Jason M. Bryant proclaimed:
“I hate the new site design. I’m never reading another PAD comic again.”
Jason am funny.
>In fact, i’ll turn your question on its head – is it fair for the heirs of authors and artists to be deprived of their inheritance after a stated number of years?
How are they deprived of their ‘inheritance’? When my parents die, I’ll get what they made and saved during their lifetime. I’m not expecting to make more after they’ve gone. Retaining ‘copyright’ even just a few years after the originator’s death is already a lot more than that.
>StarWolf: Yet, according to the new laws, I should pay some copyright holder for a computer program I may be using FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR???
Luigi Novi: If that copyright holder is the one making the program that you bought, um, yeah, that’s how it works. What does the death of the author have to do with it?
Either the idea of patents or copyright is set to give an incentive for creative people to produce things which society as a whole benefits from, or it isn’t. If the money is supposed to go to other people instead, then what’s the point? It’s part of the reason why some performers (musicians) are turning to the Web and MP3. It eliminates the middleman and gives them the bulk of the revenue instead of seeing it mostly going to big record companies.
‘I’d suggested a kind of “iTunes for comics” alternative. How many of you would be willing to pay, say $1.00 – $1.50 for a CBR or PDF digital copy of a comic? Or a certain price for a digital subscription?
How would someone even go about implementing a thing like this? (I fail at business models.)”
The vast majority of the pieces needed are already in place. The viewer exists – CBReader. I’ve suggested some alterations to the CBReader format to allow you to view alternate versions of the pages – pencils, inks, colors, and final pages. like left and right for page, up and down for view. If you used the password security of the ZIP and RAR format, you could integrate at least a deterrent-level limit of access to the separate scans.
Any number of e-commerce engines could be used if one didn’t want to build one from scratch, up to and including going through Amazon. comicsxp.com is ready to roll with a store as we speak. They just need the publishers to get on the bandwagon.
The big challenge is getting the buy-in from DC and Marvel, et al. You’ll get a hundred reasons – don’t want to pull business from the shops, don’t want to make it even easier to pirate the material, but all of these arguments were made by the record copmpanies, and they’ve all embraced MP3 a few years later, and all of them are now making money.
Because there’s enough people who are either honest, or just don’t where the pirate sites are, or don’t think it’s worth the trouble, that they will purchase from iTunes or any of the other sites out there. Again, if they weren’t successful, they would have alrteady closed.
94 percent of EVERYTHING DC HAS EVER PUBLISHED is already available from the scan sites. ‘v eno idea what the percentage of marvel’s is – I’ll bet it’s nearly the same. but I STILL maintain that if a good format with better originals and enough extras were made available in a viewing format people like (CBR), people would pay for those books again. And given a chance to have all the originals (as I said, pencils, etc) for each page available for the new books, plus maybe a little interview and a couple extras for LESS money than the print book, enough (not all, I’m no optimistic fool) people would go to them over the scans to make it profitable.
Bear in mind, the actual time and resources required to create a CBR version of a comic is virtually ZERO. The art already exists electronically for nearly every book done today – all that needs doing is kicking them out as a JPG, name them properly (so far this could ALL be done by a Photoshop droplet), collect them into a folder, zip/rar it, and re-name the file. MAYBE an hour per book, tops. You grab the art from the print-ready final. ONE person could get an entire week’s output ready in a day, best case scenario.
Somebody just needs to throw the switch.
You can make the case that it makes it easier to pirate the books (many have) but the argument holds – there are enough people who don’t know HOW to pirate them, or would consider the price fair that in my (and others’) opinion, the benefits would outweigh the downsides.
I’ve said it before – if I ever hit the powerball or am in some other way made able to do so, I will put my money where my mouth is. I have long said that with sufficient capital and innovation, the American comics industry can be brought back to the mainstream of America. The simple best way to increase sales is to expand your market. Even if the percentage of buyers remains the same, 3% of one million is a lot better than 3% of ten thousand. Whether that be digital access, or getting books back into Wal-Mart or any other number of ways to get the books to within arms’ reach of people, the key is to stop making people have to make a trip to a destination shop to get them. They need to be as easy to get as cigarettes or potato chips. So help me, this can happen again.
I’ve said it before – if I ever hit the powerball or am in some other way made able to do so, I will put my money where my mouth is. I have long said that with sufficient capital and innovation, the American comics industry can be brought back to the mainstream of America.
Oh, if only there was somebody on this blog who has been in comic book marketing at a major publisher and could tell us how it’d work… 😉
I just wanted to drop in and say “Cool! New site layout!!”
Mr David,
Your honorary membership in the RIAA has been approved. Welcome to the band.
Sincerely,
Lars Ulrich
The StarWolf Says:
How are they deprived of their ‘inheritance’? When my parents die, I’ll get what they made and saved during their lifetime. I’m not expecting to make more after they’ve gone. Retaining ‘copyright’ even just a few years after the originator’s death is already a lot more than that.
Do your parents own a house? Do they own a business? Do they own rental property?
As i said, if they owned rental property, do you think that after they die, anyone who wants to sahould be abe to live there and do whatever they want with the premises without paying you rent?
And, if you don’t, how is that different from the situation of the heirs of a creative person?
Other than that Intellectual Property doesn’t seem “real” to some people and is a dámņëd sight easier to steal, of course.
Just because it’s not a physical object that someone builds and leaves to his heirs doesn’t make IP any less something that is valuable and should be secured for the creator’s heirs.
Either the idea of patents or copyright is set to give an incentive for creative people to produce things which society as a whole benefits from, or it isn’t. If the money is supposed to go to other people instead, then what’s the point?
Is that “someone else” the heirs of the creator (in which case the incentive to produce something of value is obvious – to leave something for your heirs) or is it the eeevill corporation that paid for its development, paid the creator, supplied him needed materials/workspace/whatever (in which cast, the incentive is also obvious – to enrich the corporation’s shareholders, and the creator is enriched by the corporation whether or not his creation makes money for it)?
So, like Aris, your position seems to be that things you want should be free, though you’re willing to compromise to the extent of at least allowing the creator to benefit, but not his heirs or a company which employs him on a work-made-for-hire basis. All of the creative people in my faily are doubtless grateful you’re willing to wait till they die before you steal their work.
When did these people decide that it was ok to post up to half the pages in a book?
Anyway, scans daily was a place I knew I could go to if I had missed an issue, or something important happened in a book I don’t buy. I knew if I went there I’d see all the most important pages and would get a full summary of everything that happened in the story – the “Cliff’s Notes” version, as it were. I’ll miss it, but I’m not going to pretend it was really a “review site” for me. I didn’t care what the reviewer thought, I just wanted to see what happened.
Ummm: “All of the creative people in my family are doubtless grateful you’re willing to wait till they die before you steal their work.”
Honestly, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.
The site has been shutdown, but the owners/mods have already rebuilt and even have luckily found a google cache that lists all the members that were on S_D. So it was down briefly when you get down to it and new rules are implemented. Maybe a bit more work for the mods and owners, but overall, this whole thing could lead to better improvements of the community and even get new members from all the publicity going on including a few comic professionals to contribute to any questions people have.
Great things could come out of this whole thing and instead of taking the opportunity to make improvements and use some of the publicitiy from all of this, some are in here showing the worst livejournal has to offer and embarrassing the group with their rudeness (death threats? You got to be kidding me! it is internet people and not a family member who was shot dead with no hope of return). You want to convince people to listen to you and take you seriously as a fan or reviewer on a review or fan community, then the members should abide by what all reviewers do and do everything legally and above board.
So again, what is all the fuss about? Take this opportunity to move forward. Life is too short to be dwelling in all this hate and negativity. The original community is gone, but you have a new one so take advantage of it. Learn from mistakes (which is what it looks like the mods are doing) and grow to something even better. If you want to post lots of pictures for “review” purposes, then why not contact the publisher or author/creator? You would be surprised at how many are willing to even contribute a free copy when you do it in a more agreeable manner. If you already have the comic, then pass it on to a freind or have a contest on the community. If it is an old comic out of print, you would be surprised at how many authors keep copies that they might be willing to share or hëll, make scans themselves to send you. It never hurts to ask. The worst they can do is say no which leaves you to move on to something else.
People ask Peter why he didn’t contact the mods. Well, that would’ve been Marvel’s choice to do so as they are the legal copyright holders. It wasn’t Peter’s choice to make on working it out with the mods as he doesn’t own the work. Marvel does. What is hard to understand about that?
People ask why couldn’t he keep his mouth shut on knowing it was there instead of reporting it? Um…that is akin to working for a company and seeing other employees or customers stealing something/doing something questionable and not reporting it. It makes you an accomplice to the fact and you could lose your job. Yes, he is an author, but he can still be “blackballed” by publishers if they find out he violates his contract or their copyright and he has a family to support. He really owes none of us anything, but professionalism and good stories. I think readers forget that occasionally as writing is a JOB that one gets pay for. An author can love their fans, but when you get down to it, it is still a job with rules.
(Then again, I am sure if Peter lost his “job” if the fact came out he did NOT report it, all you posters would support him and his family in this tough economic times, right? And I don’t mean just buying his books either as publishers might not be willing to touch him for allowing copyright violations to go on.)
People blame Peter for shutting it down. Why isn’t anyone blaming livejournal itself? Livejournal has killed communities and blogs before with no prior notice or over the smallest offenses to ones that just don’t make sense. They have that right as they own it. They also have the right to just take down the offending entry without killing it. Why don’t people take their complaints to livejournal about not being given a chance to “correct matters” before the shut down?
Also, IF the mods/owners are not blaming Peter, why the heck are the members? If anyone has a right to say anything, it should be them.
Sorry for the long post and if I don’t convey myself too well. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents worth in the VAGUE hope that it might help.
Complete off topic. Just want to say I love the new look for the website. Very spiffy. Very modern.
StarWolf: Either the idea of patents or copyright is set to give an incentive for creative people to produce things which society as a whole benefits from, or it isn’t. If the money is supposed to go to other people instead, then what’s the point? It’s part of the reason why some performers (musicians) are turning to the Web and MP3. It eliminates the middleman and gives them the bulk of the revenue instead of seeing it mostly going to big record companies.
Luigi Novi: I thought copyright was to protect creative works. But even if it was conceived to be what you say it was, why can’t the creative people produce things like comic books while working for a company like Marvel? In what way is this not an incentive?
As for the new site design, the background is nice, as is the numbering of each post, the little icons (which I assume is to upload pics), and the tabs linking your Bio and Bibliography, but I hate that all the text is scrunched in the middle, divided over different pages (which makes a quick use of a browser’s Find feature to find text on the thread impossible), and that my scroll bar is slowed down. Ugh. I like see as much of a thread on as few pages as possible, and this type of arrangement is the type of message board site that I avoid.