One would think that with a message thread of over five hundred entries, I would have responded to every aspect of a topic imaginable. (Not that responses really matter to the hit and runners who come in with their minds made up, don’t read the thread, hurl invective and boycotts and then split.) But in cruising around the blogosophere that currently portrays me as being so poisonous that a tarantula could bite me and die, there is apparently one aspect that I have yet to address.
It has been wondered in several places whether I concur with the concept that is popularly referred to as “Byrne Stealing.” Namely, John Byrne’s philosophy that reading through a book on the stands and then putting it back is basically theft. Was I, in letting Marvel know about a potential copyright violation, saying that Byrne was right?
Well…hypothetically, he is. In the hypothetical comic shop that he owns (let’s call it Byrne’s Book Store, or Byrne’s BS for short) he is absolutely correct. The books are his physical property. Absent any state or federal laws that prohibit browsing, he gets to decide what does and does not constitute abuse of his property. If you’re willingly dealing with Byrne’s BS, then you don’t get to just stand around in Byrne’s BS, inspecting and fondling comics and reading them while munching on a corn dog, with a big Byrne BS-eating grin on your face. And if he yells at you about it, you can certainly storm out and announce that you are never going to stick your head into Byrne’s BS again. But don’t kid a kidder: It was Byrne, and you knew what sort of BS you were going to be dealing with when you walked in.
However—and here’s the sticky part—Byrne doesn’t get to decide what’s best for other people’s property. Just his own.
Many is the time that I’ve walked into my local Borders and seen people relaxing on couches or in the café, reading books or magazines that they have yet to purchase. They treat the place like a library. They sit there and read books (not mine, of course, because, y’know, who stocks those?) and apparently feel under no obligation to buy them. And if John Byrne waltzed into that store and started accusing them of theft, then the store manager and clerks would have him thrown out.
Why? It’s their store. They get to decide. Again, absent state and federal laws, they set the terms of right and wrong. They have big old magnetic strip detectors set up at the front door to stop you from walking out without paying for a book, but if you sit there, read an entire issue of Final Crisis #7 (presumably without spilling coffee on it or doing a spit-take on it or in some way rendering it unsalable) and put it back, Borders has effectively decided that that’s permissible.
Which they can do.
Because it’s their property and they get to decide what to do with it and what constitutes fair use of it.
So in Borders, reading Final Crisis #7 and putting it back isn’t stealing, Byrne- or otherwise.
Because. It’s their. Property.
Now…here’s where it gets entertaining.
The people who are running around cursing my name and crying boycott and writing my wife threatening e-mails (because she had so much to do with S-D being shut down)—the very same people who would not hesitate to download the latest virus protection software to prevent someone from helping themselves to whatever is on their own computer—are perfectly sanguine with deciding what Marvel should and should not do with Marvel’s property. The images, the characters, the stories…those are all Marvel’s. Legally. Morally. In every way that human beings have to measure such things, it’s Marvel’s property. Granted, the comic book itself is the fan’s property once it has been purchased. Which entitles them to give the physical comic to as many friends as they want to loan it out to, or even resell it if they’re so inclined. It does not, however, give them the right to reproduce it and redistribute it—which is what putting it out onto the net basically is–because there are specific laws that say they can’t do that. For that matter, there are specific rules on Live Journal that say they can’t do that, and Live Journal gets to make their own determinations of how best to handle their own property.
Some people are claiming that Marvel and DC and other major publishers should embrace the concept of having anybody, anytime, do whatever the hëll they want with the publishers’ property because the fans have decided that it’s going to be beneficial to the publishers. The demise of Scans is—I’ve seen this term a lot—killing the golden goose. (Considering that sales have been in a steady decline for the duration of Scans’ existence, I have to observe that golden geese aren’t what they used to be. It seems less a golden goose than golden goose pate.) These fans have judged, on the publishers’ behalf, how the publishers’ property should be disseminated and distributed and marketed. And if the publishers don’t agree with it, then they are somehow uncool or evil or, at the very least, not current with the 21st Century.
Are you following that? These fans are deciding on behalf of the publishers the best way to handle the publishers’ property. It’s not enough that they believe they know the best way to handle their own property (locks on the front door, LoJacks on their cars, virus protection on their computers, etc.) They believe that they have the self-declared right to decide what is right and wrong for the publishers’ property. They believe that their vision of what constitutes theft should supersede that of whose property it truly is.
Just as John Byrne apparently believes that his vision should supersede the opinions of the book store owners whose property the books and magazines are.
So basically…every single fan who is excoriating me and condemning me and boycotting me for slights either real or imagined…
… is buying into Byrne’s BS.
Perhaps some fans should consider boycotting themselves.
PAD
• 
… I’m really going to miss the community.
I can’t really think of anything else to say other than that.
Last post before hit the sack and probably the last post:
Actually, that’s always pìššëd me off, that people slag fans who go dressed up to conventions and such.
I completely agree. I don’t do it, but the enthusiasm is nice to see and some of the work they put into their costumes is amazing. I always sort of cross my fingers that some of them will become professional costumers, because they have some talent at it, and could probably visually do some great stuff in movies or stage stuff. They’re also, to me, part of what makes cons so fun, the rare times I have the time and cash to go to them. Sure, you get the occasional Sailor Bubba, but I’ve seen some very clever, pretty, and sometimes hilariously clever costumes.
Anyway, every Wednesday I’ll be establishing a new comics thread, so if you want to natter here, knock yourself out.
That is actually greatly appreciated, since the hard part is finding a place that’s just the kinda atmosphere I like to do it in. It really does feel like a boys-only club in many places, and they’re the different kinda guys than the ones at S_D, some of whom are really rockin’ dudes. The place wasn’t so much female-oriented as just female-friendly, and it wasn’t just the prevalence of chicks that made it that way.
I still really need to consider culling my pick list, but that’s more my general disenfranchisement with Marvel than anything, and has more to do with my general problems with copyright and supporting the copyright system as is. It just doesn’t feel to me what the Founding Fathers intended and I think in many ways it screws both the consumers and the creators, so… yeah. Every time I see the big corporation throw their legal weight around, I think “They legally have the right to do that, but MAN, should the law be that they can?”
Unfortunately, that does screw you over, and it screws my comic guy over, but it’s hard to figure that stuff out. Whether you should sink your money into that or something like the comic book legal defense fund.
But it really is appreciated, dude. *high fives* I still appreciate a lot of stuff you’ve done, even if I occasionally disagree on matters of opinion.
Hey, Bill Mulligan–apparently one of the off-their-rocker crowd you were referring to is here. You want her? This church mouse is out of patience. If you want to pass, I totally understand.
What am I? you’re trained attack monkey? If so…cool!
I think the guy has beclowned himself far more effectively than anything my modest talents could have accomplished. How long before someone from S_D accuses some of the PAD fans of making up fake posts with the intention of making them all look like jerks?
>>>”But then mix tapes aren’t technically legal either”
OK, please, I ask this of the entire internet, PLEASE stop using this argument. It’s not valid.
(puts on his gown and mortarboard hat)
OK, quick debating lesson. One tactic you can use is similarity. You present a scenario in a one case, and then ask, “Why can’t a similar thing be done in this case?” This is based on the mathematical concept of similar triangles, which says that if a triangle has the same angle measurements, they are mathematically similar, and many math functions can be done on them and get the same answers.
Simlar does NOT mean equal.
The biggest difference between the mix tape scenario and the comic scans is scale. Yes, your mix tape is illegal, as the RIAA is constantly reminding you. But it’s one person sharing with one person. Scans (partial or complete) are available to the entire world, or more correctly, anyone in the world with a computer. That scale changes the shape of the triangle, so the two scenarios are no longer similar.
A proper similarity based argument would be “I make mixtapes for my friend – what if I made up a comics sampler, and copied a few pages from a few books and let him read it?” one person to one person, and only the items copied change. It would still be illegal, or at least riding the line of fair use, but at least it would be a valid comparison. You can debate scans and downloads all you like, but if you use proper artguments, it’s harder to defeat them. All I need to do is show that your argument is false and specious, and I’ve effectively proven you “wrong” without ever having to deal with the facts. Go back and look at all the times people simply dismissed an argument as a strawman, and then walked away. That too is a valid debating tactic. It’s not nearly as enjoyable as actually arguing the facts and making a person SEE he’s wrong, but it’s valid
Seminar over. And in the interests of avoiding confusion, I am not explicitly trying to show that your argument is wrong, just offering help in becoming a better debater.
(Hey, I resisted the obvious joke! I can show self control after all!)
>>>”Yeah, I think the internet tends to undercut a writer’s ability to surprise readers”
People’s inherent desire to know what’s coming next is what undercuts the ability to surprise. There’s a disclaimer at the end of Billy Widler’s _Witness for the Presecution_ that requests that people not tell “the surprise of the ending” of the film to their friends. I recall the National Enquirer printing exacting and detailed spoilers for the last episode of M*A*S*H back in the 80’s. I knew the ending to Jedi weeks before the film came out bcause the comic adaptation shipped early. I went and saw it any, I hasten to add. My wife regularly jumps to the end of mystery novels, then goes back and reads to see how they got there.
The internet simply facilitates that desire. It becomes easier to find those spoilers. And there’s lots of people who want to know what’s coming, or want that slight sense of superiority that having “insider info” can give.
It’s a case of scale again. One guy can tell another guy the ending to a comic, but on the internet, one guy can tell it to EVERYONE. But to be fair, unless that one guy posts it in a public place where there’s no way to miss seeing the spoiler (and as a rule gets lambasted for doing so), actually LEARNING the spoiler requires a postitive act on the reader’s part. The spoilers do not as a rule reveal themselves to me automatically.
So perhaps the message should not be “don’t post the spoilers”, but “don’t read the spoilers – allow yourself to be surprised”. The former could too easily be mis-read as a writer telling people what people can and can’t say about his work, while the latter is a suggestion to allow the work to do its job on you without foresight.
Of course there will be just as many people accusing you of telling them what to think, and just trying to increase your sales, so I guess the end result will be the same – people will accuse you of being a poo-head. Does that give you a sense of futility, or a cold comfort?
Of course there will be just as many people accusing you of telling them what to think, and just trying to increase your sales, so I guess the end result will be the same – people will accuse you of being a poo-head. Does that give you a sense of futility, or a cold comfort?
Seriously, Vinnie? Cold comfort. I start a threat to discuss racism, pointing out that many are reluctant to discuss it because they’re called racists and threatened with economic sanctions…and I’m called a racist and threatened with economic sanctions. I say that people condemn me for things I didn’t say, and I get responses that condemn me for things I didn’t say…including, most conspicuously, a woman who angrily berated me for things that OTHER people said. She never posted again, which implies to me that she walked away from the thread and is going around telling people how mean Peter David was to her. And they will nod their heads and say, Yeah, I heard he was a jerk, and she will never know that she is dead wrong.
Part of me envisions a situation where Starfleet cadets, for a final exam, are told, “Okay, you have to try to navigate the internet without pìššìņg anybody off,” and the response is, “Jesus, I was ready to deal with a no-win scenario, but can’t I have something a less less impossible, like the one with the killer Romulans and the helpless ship?”
PAD
duffgirlohyeah Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 am
Look, man, I just wanna say, on my half, none of this is personal.
==================
Obviously, it IS personal, or you wouldn’t be writing such long replies every time. And coming back for more posting. That you are capable of writing these long entries without major grammar errors and a huge number of typos shows that you are indeed a person of some intelligence. I invite you to hang around for a few weeks, even if only to lurk. You might discover some intelligent people here that are (usually) fun to chat with.
==to send death threats is insane and does little credit to wider comicbook fandom==
My gods, is this STILL going on???
Gotta love the internets for stupidity, sadly 🙂
Btw, love the new layout, love it muchly!
I just have to say: if I ever do break into any forum of media writing, I’m going to stay faaaaar away from interacting with the denizens of the internet.
The sooner you appeal to them on a more personal level, the more they demand and the more personal they become when the worm turns.
“Seriously, Vinnie? Cold comfort. I start a threat to discuss racism, pointing out that many are reluctant to discuss it because they’re called racists and threatened with economic sanctions…and I’m called a racist and threatened with economic sanctions.”
That’s nothing, Peter. You should read the tempest.fluidartist trackback on the Obama thread. You’re sketchy and jerky and don’t apparently know any POC while the rest of us in that thread are having a contest to see who can fail the hardest. And, oddly, no one really addresses the substance of anything said there by anyone here.
I thought it kinda went a long way towards proving your point myself.
You know, leaving aside the legality issues, downloading full scans of comics (or significant fractions thereof) FEELS wrong to me in a way that browsing a book in a book store does not. Speaking as an author who has found a full-on scan of my first book illegally distributed online, I can say that this is a gut-wrenching feeling. I spent countless hours working on Transformers: The Ark, and I don’t think asking people to actually pay the $13.80 that Amazon charges is too much. Whereas, when people sit down and peruse it in a book shop, or a library, it doesn’t bother me. Maybe it’s because with a scan, one can go back and reference the book whenever one has the inclination, whereas browsing a book in a store leaves you with only your memories.
picoJava is a microprocessor specification dedicated to native execution of Java-based bytecode without the need for an interpreter or JIT compiler, thus speeding bytecode execution up to 20 times, compared to standard Intel CPU with a JVM. picoJava-based microprocessors can also execute C/C++ code as efficiently as comparable RISC CPU architectures. This approach results in the fastest Java runtime performance with a small memory footprint and competitive performance on code not written in the Java language.
That’s nothing, Peter. You should read the tempest.fluidartist trackback on the Obama thread.
Honestly, Jerry? At this point in my life, I don’t think I should.
I think you seem to be misinterpreting the purpose of Scans Daily. Yes what it did is copyright violation no matter how you try and spin it, but it was never meant to be make comics available for download. There were many posts that posted a large number of scans, but it was done so with the intention of promoting discussion of the about them.
People weren’t supposed to post full comic issues, and were encouraged only to post the minimum to make a point. For the most part these guidelines were followed and I do believe posts were locked if a full issue was posted.
If Scans Daily has had any impact on comic sales, it is because in seeing and discussing comics people pass over stuff they don’t like. In that regard it’s not that different from you bookstore example. Whether they read six select pages online or the entire issue in a bookstore cafe, if they don’t like what they read they probably won’t buy it. If they do like it, they will. The one difference is the scans daily reader is more likely to wait for the trade, but that has to deal more with the cost of comics then any other factor.
While it might be presumptuous for fans to decide how to handle the publisher’s property, it is incredible short-sighted of the publishers to simple disregard the fans opinions. As much as the industry would like to expand into more casual markets, I’m pretty certain comic book fans are still their biggest consumer. So if a modest portion of the consumer bases wants something within the industry to change doesn’t it at least make sense to conder what they have to say?
Finally, while Scans Daily might, I repeat, might hurt comic book sales, it is unlikely that they will magically increase with it closed. People can still go to Pirate Bay and download the latest issues, which is a much more efficient way to read comics they skimming through posts on Scans Daily. The comic book industry at best can only hope to stem the tide of downloads, but at worst they stand to alienate a large portion of their plans.
So in the end I will agree with you that fans don’t have the right to claim they should be able to do what they like with their comics online. However, the comic book industry really cannot afford to simply snub its fans. So if the industry does not feel that the fans demands are acceptable, then they should attempt to compromise. Why doesn’t Marvel create it’s own version of Scans Daily where people can buy digital downloads from a store and post them? Heck, why not just make a digital store so good people just start using that instead of torrents? These are much more productive solutions than simply attacking people who like comics enough to post their favorite scenes on the web so other people can enjoy them.
One last thing: Closing down Scans Daily is ultimately a very futile act. This is the age of the Internet, and Scans Daily, the Livejournal community, may be closed, but it will never go away. I would bet money that less then 48 hours after Scans Daily was shut down, someone created a new version on another blogging service, and if that one got shut down then they would simply start another. This is to say nothing about the potentially thousand spin-off and copycat versions of Scans Daily lurking somewhere on the Internet. The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way for the comic industry to put it back.
Oh Peter, what happened to you? I almost can’t believe I ever respected you.
I guess the upshot of all of this is that I learned PAD’s thought on Israel and Palestine which makes it easy to finally drop X-Factor after staying loyal for a year of suck. A misplaced fight about copyright I can understand. Cheering the deaths of children I cannot.
As a former marketer, I can also say working with Scans Daily would have been so much better than destroying it. In a world obsessed with “authenticity,” grass-roots communities are frequently targeted by marketers — instead this one was attacked. Marvel and DC should have pushed for a 5-6 page limit, asked for right to refuse specific posts, and encouraged authors to participate. CBR and Newsarama are often seen as corporate shills, where S_D was seen as “by the people and for the people,” and as such had a much broader reach.
David and many editors at the big two are refusing to embrace change. I just hope people wise up before it kills a hobby that I love.
James F Says:
Have you even read the posts on this and the prevous thread?
If you had, you’d know that you are busily fustigating a damp locale of vaguely equine morphology.
You have not added one thing to the discussion that other apologists for S_D of the “It may have been illegal, but the publishers should have been grateful to S_D for promoting their comics instead of taking the evil actions they did to protect their copyrighted property.”
Which translates to “Even if it was illegal, i enjoyed it and the bad mans tooked my candy away wah!”
I’ll repeat an analogy: Would you expect a store to let someone come in and photograph half the pages of a book and then pass those photos around to his buddies with a detaile synopsis of the whole book?
When you can explain to me why it should be okay for someone to do that – and why it would be good for the store’s business {and i mean an actual explanation with real logic, not just an attempted proof by assertion} – then i’ll listen to you trying to justify S_D doing the same thins. Except bigger.
It appears that the Scans_Daily community has now split into two- one community that posts text spoilers of the comics, and another, Daily Scans, that posts a few pages from different books (but no more than a page or two from what I’m seeing, as opposed to 8-12 pages per book).
The former community isn’t doing anything legally wrong. The second community is, but by posting significantly less comics pages, and by shifting the focus from newer books, they’re less on the radar than before.
The fun for me with Scans_Daily wasn’t reading the latest spoilers of new comics; I skipped those posts. I liked the snarky takes on Golden and Silver Age comics.
In a perfect world, I’d love to see some sort of Creative Commons license from the big publishers for older comics. You can license content out to people to “play” with on the internet under certain guidelines. For example, I could create a comic strip and allow people to post it all over the internet, as long as no one was making money on my strip and I was always credited. Cory Doctorow explains this better than I can, so Google him for further explanations.
Of course, this is my wish, not reality. Maybe someday…
I like the new site. And I hate that anyone who didn’t like Peter’s stand decided to email his wife or hack his site…
mike weber Says:
This metaphor is problematic for a couple big reasons. Closing down S_D has a lot more in common with Marvel and DC saying to comic stores that they can only sell comic books in polybags, to prevent customers from leafing through them, reading about half the issue to get a sense of the plot, and then leaving them on the shelves. The comic store could break the rules and let customers read them, but otherwise Marvel, DC, and the store would all ultimately lose revenue.
S_D allowed people who ordered comics online (and people who stole them through bittorrent or other sources) to have an offline comic store experience on their computer.
Conflating the publisher/copyright holder with the point-of-sale/distributor doesn’t really work.
mike weber
I actually did read the previous post, but I did not read through the comments. My mistake, I should have at least glanced through them so I would have been better informed.
That being said, my point wasn’t that comic publishers should have been grateful for Scans Daily, but that they shouldn’t have treated the matter so casually. If Marvel or DC honestly felt that Scans Daily was hurting their sales they could have issued some kind of statement explaining their actions. There is no better way to make people on the Internet angry then shutting something down without an explanation. For all anyone knows, the big publishers had nothing to do with it and this is all a matter of bad timing, but since there is no statement from anybody to indicate that people assume the worse. Which is why I imagine with Peter David is taking most of the flack over any other likely candidates.
To respond to you analogy: No, I would not expect a bookstore to allow someone to preform something like that. However, I would like to respond with another analogy: Would it be alright for a person to hold a comic book discussion group where people frequently bring photocopy of some of their own comic books so they can share them with others?
The problem with your assertion is you are assuming everybody post scans from comics they download. The community is called Scans Daily, so I would like to think it consists of people scanning their own personal comic book collections. The fair use argument might not hold up when someone scans 12 pages of the last issue of Final Crisis, but what is someone scans two pages from a What If comic? In that aspect how does Scans Daily differ from comic book history blogs like Comics 101 or Dial B for Blog that use tons of scans in their articles?
For some reason, today’s Something Positive made me think of the S_D discussion.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp03032009.shtml
“I guess the upshot of all of this is that I learned PAD’s thought on Israel and Palestine which makes it easy to finally drop X-Factor after staying loyal for a year of suck.”
If people are serious about flagging writers and artists who’s politics differ from their own, how can they have a comic, music, movie, etc, collection at all?
Isn’t it kind of bizarre that creative professionals who rely on freedom of speech and expression to make a living often have to impose a gag order on themselves in various discussions for fear of being blacklisted in their own industry and among some segments of their own readership?
There’s something to be said for separating fiction and reality; art from the artist. Blending the two interchangeably seems rather…troubling, for many reasons.
Admittedly, I haven’t read the comments above (cos I don’t have alot of time, right now, not because I’m deliberately ignoring anyone!) but I felt the need to say that I am 100% behind you PAD.
Not withstanding the fact that none of this is your doing, those people who were running SD were breaking US and potentially international copyright LAW… they are lucky to just get away with Live Journal shutting them down. In the UK FACT would’ve been taking them to court! I wonder how they (and anyone who thinks what’s happened to SD is unjust) would feel if I hacked into their computers and ripped off something they had drawn or written and then got it published.
So, to anyone who has threatened to boycott PAD, I say go ahead. If you would buy his stuff then stick it on a website and think that’s OK, he doesn’t need you.
To anyone who has sent any kind of hate mail – especially to ANY member of his family – you should be utterly ashamed of yourself and I hope karma will come to bite you in the ášš!
Tyson D. said
It’s called voting with your dollar. I know the difference between reality and fantasy and I’d rather not support the continued career of someone whose views I consider abhorrent. It’s similar to when a group like “Focus on the Family” boycotts something because of a gay or abortion storyline — I don’t agree with their politics, but I think their tactics are sound.
If you don’t want to upset your readership then don’t have a blog where you express controversial viewpoints. Or post anonymously elsewhere. It’s not censorship, it’s a legitimate form of protest.
Katmid Says:
Whoa there, it’s fine for you to support PAD, but don’t do so at the expensive of overgeneralizing the opposition. I can’t blame for not reading all the comments on the previous support, but at least familiarize yourself with both sides of an argument before you weigh in your opinion.
That being said, while I don’t think PAD should have used his wife’s LJ account to make his original comments (even if the initial posts weren’t intended to provoke flames, the Internet is still a volatile place), it was incredibly irresponsible for anyone to flame that account response. While I doubt the entire community flamed PAD or his family, enough obviously did and managed to give the rest a bad name while they were at it.
Hey … Marvel and DC have every right to issue a cease and desist if they want to. It’s there stuff.
Personally, I choose to vote with my wallet anyway. $3.99 is just too much money for what we get in a typical storyline these days, including those by PAD. So, I just dropped Big Two monthlies (or however often they come out these days) and buy trades that look like they’re worth the investment.
And with the economy the way it is these days, even that’s getting to be too expensive to continue. Good luck selling stuff in this climate, which may ultimately be a greater consideration than any Internet piracy.
That being said, my point wasn’t that comic publishers should have been grateful for Scans Daily, but that they shouldn’t have treated the matter so casually. If Marvel or DC honestly felt that Scans Daily was hurting their sales they could have issued some kind of statement explaining their actions.
Are you sure you read the thread? Because if you did, you’d understand that to Marvel or DC, it’s not about hurting sales. It’s about protecting their copyright. Considering both companies have been sued at various times in copyright challenges for characters, it should be obvious that–rather than taking the matter casually–they do so very seriously.
Copyrights are like muscles. If you don’t vigorously use them, then you lose them. They have to be defended. That’s the law. That’s the way that goes. Marvel and DC didn’t write it; they just have to live with it. If the law were such that Marvel and DC could allow anyone to reproduce sizable chunks of material without the basic ownership being threatened, they probably wouldn’t care. If nothing else, they could save plenty of money on lawyers.
But the law is what it is. And Marvel and DC have no choice. At all.
PAD
If you don’t want to upset your readership then don’t have a blog where you express controversial viewpoints.
So you’re saying PAD should shut up and never have opinions of his own because it mind offend your ridiculous sensibilities?
Well, that’s logical. *insert eye roll here*
I recommend just giving up everything now and going to live in a cave, because the next time an artist or author or songwriter disappoints you your head just might explode.
#
picoJava is a microprocessor specification dedicated to native execution of Java-based bytecode without the need for an interpreter or JIT compiler, thus speeding bytecode execution up to 20 times, compared to standard Intel CPU with a JVM. picoJava-based microprocessors can also execute C/C++ code as efficiently as comparable RISC CPU architectures. This approach results in the fastest Java runtime performance with a small memory footprint and competitive performance on code not written in the Java language.
This may be the single most intelligent and on-point post in this entire thread…
…sadly.
PAD says:
That’s trademarks; copyrights are a lot harder to lose, if it’s possible at all. (Remember, though people sometimes say that DC and Marvel trieds to “copyright” the word “superhero”, what they actually did was file for trademark on it.)
(We went through that question extensively on a USENET group i used to frequent; some of th eposters were people who actually work in the field of publishing and copyright and that was the upshot ot the discussion.)
Craig J. Ries Says:
Let me rephrase that. PAD can say whatever he wants. He knows some of the things he says might offend some readers and he makes that choice. I have the choice to ignore this or instead to let it affect my opinion of him and my buying choices. I’d rather NOT know about my favorite artists’ political and personal opinions for exactly this reason.
I heard a Prussian Blue song once that I liked. I didn’t know who it was by (it was one of their few songs that didn’t reference white supremacy) and when I found out, I didn’t think “Well… they’re Neo-Nazis, but they sure have beautiful voices! I’m going to get the CD anyway!” instead I thought “I wish they weren’t being raised by bigots — I think they could have made some good music.”
I’m NOT NOT NOT saying PAD = Prussian Blue. All that I’m saying is sometimes your opinion of an author effects your ability to like their work.
It’s called voting with your dollar. I know the difference between reality and fantasy and I’d rather not support the continued career of someone whose views I consider abhorrent.
Which is basically showing a refusal to tolerate any whose opinions you actively dislike.
So you support intolerance.
Now: Imagine if you were a public figure, put your name out there, and someone announced on their blog, “I just came from Tyson’s website: Do you know he preaches intolerance? I can’t believe that. I thought he was a decent guy, but he supports intolerance!”
One website over, a brand new thread starts: “Tyson is a bigot.” Fifty people link to it.
Screams of “Boycott!” resound.
And you’re left sitting there saying, “Uh…what?”
Welcome to my world.
PAD
I’m NOT NOT NOT saying PAD = Prussian Blue. All that I’m saying is sometimes your opinion of an author effects your ability to like their work.
Yes. Except those times say far more about you than they do the author.
If John Byrne came out with a new “Next Men” series, I’d buy it. I’ll be buying his upcoming IDW work without hesitation.
So does that mean that I refuse to stand behind my convictions? No. Just means I really DO believe people should have the right to say whatever they want, and that if you don’t like what they have to say, you attack the speech, not the speaker.
PAD
>>>”That’s trademarks; copyrights are a lot harder to lose, if it’s possible at all.”
Tell that to the folks who were fighting over the copyrights to the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents like bums over a discarded stogie. To this day NOBODY can say 100% who owns them – if they could, DC would have gone ahead with the planned series from a few years back. Or how about all those characters Dynamite is now using in the Project Superheroes books?
The difference there is that those were characters not in active use. The idea of lapsed or discarded (not the right term I know) copyrights is an area that doesn’t get discussed as much, but one that I think is more interesting.
AFAIC, if a character like Superman, Mickey Mouse, et al, are still in active use, the copyright holders should be able to extend the copyright. But if you haven’t seen a single use of Schlabotnic-Man in a couple decades, not so much as a reprint, then that’s a character you could argue should go to the public domain.
And what about the idea a few years back (Jesus, decades back, almost – Gorram I’m old) that It’s a Wonderful Life and Night of the Living Dead had fallen to the Public Domain and could be released on video by anyone? Those were films still in active rotation, still popular, but a couple video companies just decided to claim they were, and released them on 6-hour tapes for like five bucks. There’s a lot of companies doing that now with films like Jungle Book (with Sabu), Lil’ Abner and god knows how many old cartoons. And unless the copyright owner stands up and makes cartoon noises to atrtract their attention, that act could easily result in a loss of control of the property. Hëll, the Superman Cartoons – best and most relevant example I can thnk of. How the hëll did THAT happen?
It’s one of the reasons that most fan-sites, fanfic, etc adds in the legal disclaimers of “all rights owned by original creators, no rights implied, etc.” It covers their ášš and makes sure there’s no chance that some Dibbler-esque conniver doesn’t use them as a precedent to allow him to go make Harry Potter Quidditch team scarves or something.
So I’m required to keep your reading your books, even though you support killing children?
That’s it. I’m out.
Of your mind?
PAD
So I’m required to keep your reading your books, even though you support killing children?
have we reached the point where the lunatic left has as many people boycotting PAD as the lunatic right?
I’m not a big fan of the idea that if you are pìššìņg øff people on both sides of the political divide you must be doing something right, but you certainly seem to make the right kinds of people angry.
(just to make it clear–by “kinds” I don’t mean race, creed, color, orientation, library book status, etc. I mean people who try to palm off their own mendacity on others who do not deserve it.)
On the bright side, these people 1- will no longer get the pleasure of a good PAD story and 2- have to live in their own skin, a punishment that i would not wish on most people but one they richly deserve.
I will simply quote from my sig on newsarama.
“Comics fans are mercurial. They are slippery, fluid, react visibly to heat, and prolonged exposure to them will drive you mad.”
Vinnie Bartilucci Says
Let’s try that again – let’s see if *this* time looks any better:
Vinnie Bartilucci Says
“The idea of lapsed or discarded (not the right term I know) copyrights…”
I think the term is ‘abandoned’, but what do I know–I’ve been drinking.
You know, I’ve sat in a Barnes and Noble and read a book there …. and I still end up buying the book because I like to read things more than once … Of course, I’m just a freak that way.
And John Bryne is still a jáçkášš who believes that his opinion actually matters anymore …
Sorry, had to get that off my chest after he nearly killed Spider-Man back in the 90s because he believed that he could improve on Stan Lee. What a jáçkášš:)
Thanks for allowing me to speak … Can’t wait for the next Star Trek New Frontier novel….
Hi Peter, i just wanted to say that it doesn’t matter how much people loved that website, you are a professionist that has given to the comicdom 20 years of great stories, of masterworks, so you have every right to do whatever you think is good for your business and for comics in general. you could put me in jail and i’d still be in awe for your talent. good work!
What am I? you’re trained attack monkey? If so…cool!
You’ve been trained?
Actually it appears I underestimated John. On his website he actually stated that if you lend a book to a friend–your book, which you bought–it’s tantamount to an act of piracy because you’re effectively stealing another sale from the publisher and writer.
Which would make your local library the modern day equivalent of Tortuga, I guess.
PAD
“Which would make your local library the modern day equivalent of Tortuga, I guess.”
That concept is not so eccentric, it seems. Copyright holders associations in many european countries (like mine) are actually lobbying to force public libraries to pay 0.20€ every time they lend a book. The idea was born some years ago and it recently resurfaced with more power after these associations already managed to get some other wacky ideas be put into law.
ie: impose a canon on every digital recording device or platform, for it might be used to copy registred material (songs, movies, etc…). Right now, when I buy a hard drive for my computer I have to pay a hefty 20€ to the Spanish Association of Authors and Producers, regardless of the use I plan to make of that mechanism.
The only advantage of this measure is that since you are paying for a crime you might or might not commit, the goverment is less inclined to put any effort going after private citizens who download protected content.
You’ve been trained?
I snort twice when I locate truffles.
Peter David says
So Marvel and DC have to enforce their copyrights or else they will lose them? Okay, I can understand that logic.
So when is Marvel or DC planning to shut down Fanfiction.net and Deviant Art? Both of those sites host material that is clearly violating their copyrights.
James, again, Marvel didn’t “shut down” anyone. Livejournal shut down Scans Daily. The more appropriate question is when will Marvel and DC ask Deviant Art or any other site to take down particular images.
“These fans are deciding on behalf of the publishers the best way to handle the publishers’ property. ”
It really isn’t that simple.
“They believe that their vision of what constitutes theft should supersede that of whose property it truly is.”
In some cases this it true. In some cases they’re just confused by the laws.
In some cases, whats being debated isn’t even what constitutes theft, but the definition of “whose property it truly is”.
In John Byrnes case, it seems he thinks its always the property of the creator or the company that hired them, and thus any way of looking at it without directly paying the “owner” for the privilege is stealing.
On the other end of the spectrum, is the Free Culture movement, which claims the opposite, that the Creator doesn’t own the ideas at all, and thus if no physical product is removed, there’s no theft.
Thing is, those two ideas can’t coexist peacefully. They’re diametrically opposed. And in that case, claiming you’re right and they’re wrong doesn’t make you a hypocrite at all. It does, however, make you an extremist.
Most people fall somewhere between the two.
The SECOND issue in play is that when the copyright laws were created, the role that duplicating and distributing things had in our lives was vastly different to what it is now. In 1985, the act of creating duplications and distributing things was unlikely to occur very often in everyday life. The same is not the case now.
Likewise, in 1985, the amount of people from the other side of the globe the average person interacted with regularly (on a personal level) was probably pretty low. Again, the same is not the case now.
Things like Ownership of property aren’t set in stone. They change with times, with technology, with public opinion.
Now, you CAN state what laws are at this time. But, something being a law isn’t the same as something being right. If the law isn’t beneficial to a society, the society tends to overthrow it.