Hold Me
August 22, 2005 10:24 AM Subscribe
So save it now before it's gone. And if you want to buy hardcopies, the wikipedia article has a guide to the way Hellblazer has been published.
posted by jb at 10:49 AM on August 22, 2005
posted by jb at 10:49 AM on August 22, 2005
yeah hellblazer was a sometimes awesome book. still haven't seen the movie. so scared. so cold. hold me.
posted by poppo at 11:20 AM on August 22, 2005
posted by poppo at 11:20 AM on August 22, 2005
Um, you can just go out and buy that from a comic store if you want it. Possibly more interesting to fans is this - the never printed Warren Ellis Hellblazer which DC refused to run.
posted by Artw at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2005
posted by Artw at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2005
That was excellent. Thanks jenleigh.
posted by highsignal at 11:59 AM on August 22, 2005
posted by highsignal at 11:59 AM on August 22, 2005
Awesome. Thanks jenleigh and Artw.
posted by doctor_negative at 12:31 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by doctor_negative at 12:31 PM on August 22, 2005
So save it now before it's gone.
No thanks. I'm not going to be a party to ripping off an author.
The cavalier attitude towards author's rights on the Net is sickening. If you like someone's work, pay them for it.
posted by caporal at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2005
No thanks. I'm not going to be a party to ripping off an author.
The cavalier attitude towards author's rights on the Net is sickening. If you like someone's work, pay them for it.
posted by caporal at 12:35 PM on August 22, 2005
"Hold Me" was also reprinted in Neil Gaiman's Midnight Days, which is fairly widely available. Dave McKean's artwork is way nicer without the .jpg artifacts.
Thanks for the links, to this as well as "Shoot." As someone whose introduction to John Constantine came through The Books of Magic and the Sandman series, I'm trying to figure out where to start on Hellblazer while avoiding the film at all costs. Any suggestions?
posted by Saellys at 12:39 PM on August 22, 2005
Thanks for the links, to this as well as "Shoot." As someone whose introduction to John Constantine came through The Books of Magic and the Sandman series, I'm trying to figure out where to start on Hellblazer while avoiding the film at all costs. Any suggestions?
posted by Saellys at 12:39 PM on August 22, 2005
Hmm. If it were an out-of-print issue or one never-ever-published, I'd be okay with it.
But you can buy it right now. The trade adaptation of Constantine contains three other Hellblazer stories, including the much sought after "Hold Me." Admittedly, until this trade came out, you'd pay a pretty penny for the original issue ... but damn, under $15 is a pittance for good work.
posted by grabbingsand at 12:41 PM on August 22, 2005
But you can buy it right now. The trade adaptation of Constantine contains three other Hellblazer stories, including the much sought after "Hold Me." Admittedly, until this trade came out, you'd pay a pretty penny for the original issue ... but damn, under $15 is a pittance for good work.
posted by grabbingsand at 12:41 PM on August 22, 2005
I'm definitely buying the anthology based off of what I saw here today. In a sense, it served as a teaser, even though it was the entire issue, not just an excerpt. If I hadn't seen this post, I wouldn't know what a great story was contained within issue #27, and now I want a hard copy of my own.
FWIW: I've bought reams of CDs based on this same principle. I wonder what Lars Ulrich would say.
posted by highsignal at 1:02 PM on August 22, 2005
FWIW: I've bought reams of CDs based on this same principle. I wonder what Lars Ulrich would say.
posted by highsignal at 1:02 PM on August 22, 2005
BTW, CDisplay comes in quite handy for tasks like this.
posted by Samizdata at 1:10 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Samizdata at 1:10 PM on August 22, 2005
Saellys, I recall really liking Garth Ennis' "Dangerous Habits" storyline. Also, there was a good issue fairly early on about a cujo-like dog (I don't recall it being rabid, though.) And, while it's far from canonical, a lot of people enjoy reading the pitch for Twilight. But really, "Hold Me" was probably as good as it gets. Enjoy, though!
posted by kimota at 1:10 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by kimota at 1:10 PM on August 22, 2005
Personally, The cavalier attitude towards author's rights in libraries is sickening. If you like someone's work, pay them for it.
/she writes, sitting surrounded by very expensive books she hasn't paid for, nicely rebound by librarians to last even longer.
posted by jb at 1:29 PM on August 22, 2005
/she writes, sitting surrounded by very expensive books she hasn't paid for, nicely rebound by librarians to last even longer.
posted by jb at 1:29 PM on August 22, 2005
Actually, on a more serious note - does this consitute fair use? You can reproduce parts of a work without violating copyright, particularly for individial use and promotion. Does an issue of a series count as a single title, or (like a chapter in a book) is it considered part of a greater whole?
posted by jb at 1:33 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by jb at 1:33 PM on August 22, 2005
party to ripping off an author
What about an author who made generous $$$ from the mediocre screen adaption of their work?
An introduction for those unfamiliar with the superior graphic novelizations might increase it's popularity and circulation.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:34 PM on August 22, 2005
What about an author who made generous $$$ from the mediocre screen adaption of their work?
An introduction for those unfamiliar with the superior graphic novelizations might increase it's popularity and circulation.
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:34 PM on August 22, 2005
Actually, on a more serious note - does this consitute fair use?
I don't think it does, but I'm not an IP lawyer.
And despite jb's ludicrous straw man and CynicalKnight's infinitely more valid point, I still think it's better and more polite to go ask the author instead of making grandiose assumptions about what we as consumers can do with his work.
Gaiman deserves to be paid for his work; just because we can scan and distribute his work easily doesn't give us the ethical right to do so.
posted by caporal at 1:45 PM on August 22, 2005
I don't think it does, but I'm not an IP lawyer.
And despite jb's ludicrous straw man and CynicalKnight's infinitely more valid point, I still think it's better and more polite to go ask the author instead of making grandiose assumptions about what we as consumers can do with his work.
Gaiman deserves to be paid for his work; just because we can scan and distribute his work easily doesn't give us the ethical right to do so.
posted by caporal at 1:45 PM on August 22, 2005
According to my notes, I am missing:
HB 1-9 (I have this in trade, I just can't find it)
HB 23, 24, 25
HB 27-61 (I have Dangerous Habits, but it eloped with the other trade)
HB 68, 69, 70
HB 142 (store forgot to pull it)
Other than those, I've got them all.
posted by linux at 1:52 PM on August 22, 2005
HB 1-9 (I have this in trade, I just can't find it)
HB 23, 24, 25
HB 27-61 (I have Dangerous Habits, but it eloped with the other trade)
HB 68, 69, 70
HB 142 (store forgot to pull it)
Other than those, I've got them all.
posted by linux at 1:52 PM on August 22, 2005
CynicalKnight - FWIW Garth Ennis, who wrote the stories that the film cribbed from the most, probably got nothing. Alan Moore, who created the character, would have got some money for it, but is in a bit of a snit about crappy Hollywood adaptations of his work and so refused it all. Gaiman and McKean, who created the peice linked to above, wouldn't have got anything from the movie but probably got a little from the reprint.
posted by Artw at 1:54 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Artw at 1:54 PM on August 22, 2005
Thanks for the details, Artw.
I think this may in fact reinforce my point - if these creators didn't make money from the film (and thus probably did not have much say in it's production) should they not benefit from more exposure to their original work? I contrast the unauthorized scan of this one story to, say, a huge archive of all their work being passed around in one giant zip file.
This is admittedly walking a fine line, but I think in terms of copyright violation this is close to one end of the scale.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:44 PM on August 22, 2005
I think this may in fact reinforce my point - if these creators didn't make money from the film (and thus probably did not have much say in it's production) should they not benefit from more exposure to their original work? I contrast the unauthorized scan of this one story to, say, a huge archive of all their work being passed around in one giant zip file.
This is admittedly walking a fine line, but I think in terms of copyright violation this is close to one end of the scale.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:44 PM on August 22, 2005
This is admittedly walking a fine line, but I think in terms of copyright violation this is close to one end of the scale.
Perhaps, but it should still remain the purview of the author as to whether or not this is acceptable. Would it kill some people to just ask first? We do that in polite society. I suppose certain conclusions can be drawn about people who don't ask.
Also, scanning and distributing the comic is similar to photocopying it and sending out copies to everyone, and a little worse to boot. It's unethical. A copy of a work in a library is more than fine, but photocopying that copy you took out of the library isn't.
If I was Gaiman and I caught wind of this, I'd be more than a little pissed off. Maybe I'd be okay with it, had someone asked first.
posted by caporal at 3:19 PM on August 22, 2005
Perhaps, but it should still remain the purview of the author as to whether or not this is acceptable. Would it kill some people to just ask first? We do that in polite society. I suppose certain conclusions can be drawn about people who don't ask.
Also, scanning and distributing the comic is similar to photocopying it and sending out copies to everyone, and a little worse to boot. It's unethical. A copy of a work in a library is more than fine, but photocopying that copy you took out of the library isn't.
If I was Gaiman and I caught wind of this, I'd be more than a little pissed off. Maybe I'd be okay with it, had someone asked first.
posted by caporal at 3:19 PM on August 22, 2005
Well, that clinches it. Now I have to buy all of these. Damn you Vertigo...
posted by hototogisu at 3:35 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by hototogisu at 3:35 PM on August 22, 2005
Would it kill some people to just ask first?
I dropped Gaiman a note, just because I'm curious. He's got a blog, he's online a lot, this can't be the first time he's been confronted with this. Personally I'd rather have a comic book than an online lousy scan of a comic book any day. It's like listening to a cassette tape of an album you really like.
posted by jessamyn at 4:13 PM on August 22, 2005
I dropped Gaiman a note, just because I'm curious. He's got a blog, he's online a lot, this can't be the first time he's been confronted with this. Personally I'd rather have a comic book than an online lousy scan of a comic book any day. It's like listening to a cassette tape of an album you really like.
posted by jessamyn at 4:13 PM on August 22, 2005
jb, many countries have a system where library copies and library loans do benefit authors. In the UK it's called PLR (Public Lending Right), and speaking from firsthand experience it works very well. I've written several books that have never repaid their advances, but that bring me a small but pleasant annual PLR payment. Just because your country doesn't, don't assume the rest of the world is so backward.
posted by Hogshead at 4:31 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Hogshead at 4:31 PM on August 22, 2005
Well, that clinches it. Now I have to buy all of these. Damn you Vertigo...
Stop making excuses for the pirates.
posted by betaray at 4:33 PM on August 22, 2005
Stop making excuses for the pirates.
posted by betaray at 4:33 PM on August 22, 2005
If we want people to stop stealing copyrights, we need to stop calling these people pirates. I mean, how cool are pirates?
Really cool is the answer.
posted by maxsparber at 4:50 PM on August 22, 2005
Really cool is the answer.
posted by maxsparber at 4:50 PM on August 22, 2005
This Warren Ellis story ("Shoot") is great so far. I wish I could buy THIS one.
And I didn't think I liked Ellis, after trying to get into Transmetropolitan and really really disliking it.
posted by BoringPostcards at 5:11 PM on August 22, 2005
And I didn't think I liked Ellis, after trying to get into Transmetropolitan and really really disliking it.
posted by BoringPostcards at 5:11 PM on August 22, 2005
It's like listening to a cassette tape of an album you really like.
Hey, the only way to listen to the first Weezer album is on a tape of a tape of a tape of a scratched CD in an old car stereo.
posted by Jimbob at 5:11 PM on August 22, 2005
Hey, the only way to listen to the first Weezer album is on a tape of a tape of a tape of a scratched CD in an old car stereo.
posted by Jimbob at 5:11 PM on August 22, 2005
I dropped Gaiman a note, just because I'm curious. He's got a blog, he's online a lot, this can't be the first time he's been confronted with this.
Mr. Gaiman has much experience with copyright enforcement and litigation.
posted by anathema at 5:27 PM on August 22, 2005
Mr. Gaiman has much experience with copyright enforcement and litigation.
posted by anathema at 5:27 PM on August 22, 2005
Would it kill some people to just ask first?
Who are you going to ask? DC owns the work, not Gaiman and Mckean. They couldn't give permission if they wanted to and there's no way in hell that DC is going to.
I've been inspired to pull out my copy to re-read so, thanks for that.
posted by Zetetics at 5:30 PM on August 22, 2005
Who are you going to ask? DC owns the work, not Gaiman and Mckean. They couldn't give permission if they wanted to and there's no way in hell that DC is going to.
I've been inspired to pull out my copy to re-read so, thanks for that.
posted by Zetetics at 5:30 PM on August 22, 2005
The cavalier attitude towards author's rights on the Net is sickening. If you like someone's work, pay them for it.
posted by caporal at 12:35 PM PST on August 22 [!]
I'm totally stealing this line to use on all my friends, as my own.
This post made me want to buy the graphic novel. Does that count?
posted by Balisong at 5:32 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by caporal at 12:35 PM PST on August 22 [!]
I'm totally stealing this line to use on all my friends, as my own.
This post made me want to buy the graphic novel. Does that count?
posted by Balisong at 5:32 PM on August 22, 2005
Very nice. Thanks, jenleigh.
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on August 22, 2005
Who are you going to ask? DC owns the work, not Gaiman and Mckean. They couldn't give permission if they wanted to and there's no way in hell that DC is going to.
Emphasis: and there's no way in hell that DC is going to.
I think that's a safe assumption -- so why do people copy and distribute the work anyway? Rhetorical question. Because they don't give a rat's piss about other people's rights.
If you saw someone photocopying the comic and handing it out, wouldn't that strike you as unethical? This is the same thing.
posted by caporal at 5:48 PM on August 22, 2005
Emphasis: and there's no way in hell that DC is going to.
I think that's a safe assumption -- so why do people copy and distribute the work anyway? Rhetorical question. Because they don't give a rat's piss about other people's rights.
If you saw someone photocopying the comic and handing it out, wouldn't that strike you as unethical? This is the same thing.
posted by caporal at 5:48 PM on August 22, 2005
If you saw someone photocopying the comic and handing it out, wouldn't that strike you as unethical?
If they were standing outside a comic shop, handing it out to people about to go in and buy said comic, it would.
If they were standing at a train station handing it out to confused old ladies who much prefer Mills & Boon, it wouldn't.
That's just me, though.
posted by Jimbob at 5:54 PM on August 22, 2005
If they were standing outside a comic shop, handing it out to people about to go in and buy said comic, it would.
If they were standing at a train station handing it out to confused old ladies who much prefer Mills & Boon, it wouldn't.
That's just me, though.
posted by Jimbob at 5:54 PM on August 22, 2005
There used to be a time when comic book authors/ilustrators really gave a shit about trying to reach the audience that isn't into comics, necessarily, but a group that desperately need the message told.
I used to think Gaiman was one of those writers.
It seems he's comming up a lot of resistance to 'free' expression.
Or maybe he legally persues copywright infingement, I don't know.
posted by Balisong at 6:03 PM on August 22, 2005
I used to think Gaiman was one of those writers.
It seems he's comming up a lot of resistance to 'free' expression.
Or maybe he legally persues copywright infingement, I don't know.
posted by Balisong at 6:03 PM on August 22, 2005
Why on earth would this be fair use? I'd love to hear some reasoning behind that one.
posted by dabitch at 6:06 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by dabitch at 6:06 PM on August 22, 2005
Let's see how I can phrase this without sounding snarky or sarcastic, because it really, really isn't.
Thank you, jenleigh. I've heard so much good stuff about Gaiman, Moore, and Constantine that I was considering buying one of the books from Amazon, sight unseen. Seeing this, which is apparently so highly regarded, has shown me that perhaps Constantine just isn't my bag, and that purchase, while making most people very happy, would have been a bit of a waste of money for me.
None of that is intended as a dig at Constantine, or people who like Constantine, or the like. It's just differing tastes. But I am genuinely thankful for the posting, as it saved me from making a purchasing mistake.
posted by Bugbread at 6:10 PM on August 22, 2005
Thank you, jenleigh. I've heard so much good stuff about Gaiman, Moore, and Constantine that I was considering buying one of the books from Amazon, sight unseen. Seeing this, which is apparently so highly regarded, has shown me that perhaps Constantine just isn't my bag, and that purchase, while making most people very happy, would have been a bit of a waste of money for me.
None of that is intended as a dig at Constantine, or people who like Constantine, or the like. It's just differing tastes. But I am genuinely thankful for the posting, as it saved me from making a purchasing mistake.
posted by Bugbread at 6:10 PM on August 22, 2005
caporal : "Emphasis: and there's no way in hell that DC is going to.
"I think that's a safe assumption -- so why do people copy and distribute the work anyway? Rhetorical question. Because they don't give a rat's piss about other people's rights."
I think your rhetorical may be slightly off. Some people do it because they don't care about people's rights or corporation rights. Some people do it because they just don't care about corporation's rights. Some do it because, while they care about people's or corporation's rights, they care more strongly about various other issues. There isn't as much of a pat answer as you seem to believe.
posted by Bugbread at 6:16 PM on August 22, 2005
"I think that's a safe assumption -- so why do people copy and distribute the work anyway? Rhetorical question. Because they don't give a rat's piss about other people's rights."
I think your rhetorical may be slightly off. Some people do it because they don't care about people's rights or corporation rights. Some people do it because they just don't care about corporation's rights. Some do it because, while they care about people's or corporation's rights, they care more strongly about various other issues. There isn't as much of a pat answer as you seem to believe.
posted by Bugbread at 6:16 PM on August 22, 2005
Er, and also the obvious issue that some may care about some people's (or corporations) rights, but not all of those rights. Generally, copyright infringers tend to support, for example, people's rights to free speech, so to say "they don't give a rat's piss about other people's rights" is somewhat overreaching.
posted by Bugbread at 6:32 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 6:32 PM on August 22, 2005
they care more strongly about various other issues.
By all means enlighten me as to what these related issues are that could possibly justify ripping off an author. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.
This is all aside from the fact that posting Gaiman's and McKean's work without the copyright holder's express permission is an open-and-shut case of infringement.
Why on earth would this be fair use? I'd love to hear some reasoning behind that one.
dabitch, there is no reasoning. I think it's just another case of some consumers working that self-centeredness angle.
posted by caporal at 6:37 PM on August 22, 2005
By all means enlighten me as to what these related issues are that could possibly justify ripping off an author. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.
This is all aside from the fact that posting Gaiman's and McKean's work without the copyright holder's express permission is an open-and-shut case of infringement.
Why on earth would this be fair use? I'd love to hear some reasoning behind that one.
dabitch, there is no reasoning. I think it's just another case of some consumers working that self-centeredness angle.
posted by caporal at 6:37 PM on August 22, 2005
I went to a theater and watched the Sin City movie. It was the first time I had truly been exposed to it, beyond being vaguely familiar with the title. I then proceeded to find some illegal copies of the comic and read them and liked them more (Samizdata is right about the CDisplay part). I then proceeded to go to Borders in order to buy the graphic novels since I liked them so much. They were Expensive. I balked, and left emptyhanded.
There is nothing unique about this series of events. I'm not using them as an excuse for my actions or an endorsement for illegally downloading, which is quite definitely illegal, but they are a good example of a greater truth that this sort of filesharing does not necessarally imply the authors are losing money on the deal. I never would have even thought to buy the novels had I not first illegally downloaded them.
Also, it implies that $30 for a graphic novel is way too much. It's probably cheaper now that the movie hype has died down (Amazon says $12, far more reasonable), but it's that sort of gouging that cost them my business.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:37 PM on August 22, 2005
There is nothing unique about this series of events. I'm not using them as an excuse for my actions or an endorsement for illegally downloading, which is quite definitely illegal, but they are a good example of a greater truth that this sort of filesharing does not necessarally imply the authors are losing money on the deal. I never would have even thought to buy the novels had I not first illegally downloaded them.
Also, it implies that $30 for a graphic novel is way too much. It's probably cheaper now that the movie hype has died down (Amazon says $12, far more reasonable), but it's that sort of gouging that cost them my business.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:37 PM on August 22, 2005
Generally, copyright infringers tend to support, for example, people's rights to free speech, so to say "they don't give a rat's piss about other people's rights" is somewhat overreaching.
Yes, I used the wrong words there. I really meant "the IP rights of the authors/copyright holders."
I stand corrected.
posted by caporal at 6:38 PM on August 22, 2005
Yes, I used the wrong words there. I really meant "the IP rights of the authors/copyright holders."
I stand corrected.
posted by caporal at 6:38 PM on August 22, 2005
Posting "Hold Me" is extremely dubious, seeing as how it is available for purchase and all. But since there is no other way to get "Shoot.", I had a look at that one with no qualms.
I definitely see why "Shoot" was never published. I don't agree with refusing to publish it, but I see why. It's a really powerful issue.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on August 22, 2005
I definitely see why "Shoot" was never published. I don't agree with refusing to publish it, but I see why. It's a really powerful issue.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on August 22, 2005
Also, it implies that $30 for a graphic novel is way too much. It's probably cheaper now that the movie hype has died down (Amazon says $12, far more reasonable), but it's that sort of gouging that cost them my business.
This isn't entirely germane to the central point, but it does serve to illustrate something. The rules of the system in consumerism are: if you want something, but in your opinion it costs too much, you aren't going to buy it. Therefore, the seller will either adjust the price (if enough people feel the way you do) or stick to it (if you're in the minority).
The consumerism game doesn't include a rule where "if you think it's too expensive, you get free license to go rip it off." This rule is clearly excluded as there are laws that tell us doing so will earn us a fine, jail time, or bankruptcy when someone sues our pirating ass.
Beyond that, there's also just plain old common courtesy. If an author (or copyright holder, as the case may be) wants to share his or her work freely, by all means they should! But until we as consumers know this is their express intent we shouldn't assume that they'd be okay with it just because it suits our own agendas.
Asking first is, if nothing else, respect for an author's efforts.
posted by caporal at 6:45 PM on August 22, 2005
This isn't entirely germane to the central point, but it does serve to illustrate something. The rules of the system in consumerism are: if you want something, but in your opinion it costs too much, you aren't going to buy it. Therefore, the seller will either adjust the price (if enough people feel the way you do) or stick to it (if you're in the minority).
The consumerism game doesn't include a rule where "if you think it's too expensive, you get free license to go rip it off." This rule is clearly excluded as there are laws that tell us doing so will earn us a fine, jail time, or bankruptcy when someone sues our pirating ass.
Beyond that, there's also just plain old common courtesy. If an author (or copyright holder, as the case may be) wants to share his or her work freely, by all means they should! But until we as consumers know this is their express intent we shouldn't assume that they'd be okay with it just because it suits our own agendas.
Asking first is, if nothing else, respect for an author's efforts.
posted by caporal at 6:45 PM on August 22, 2005
Caporal "By all means enlighten me as to what these related issues are that could possibly justify ripping off an author. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious."
I never said there are related issues that could justify ripping off the author. I just said that they may care about IP rights, but care about other things more than IP rights. For example, a crazily rabid fan could care about the IP rights of Gaiman, et al, but care far more about popularizing their favorite comic. That doesn't justify what they do, but it does show an example where a person may care about someone's IP rights, and yet violate those rights because they care about something else more.
caporal : "This is all aside from the fact that posting Gaiman's and McKean's work without the copyright holder's express permission is an open-and-shut case of infringement."
No disagreement there.
posted by Bugbread at 6:46 PM on August 22, 2005
I never said there are related issues that could justify ripping off the author. I just said that they may care about IP rights, but care about other things more than IP rights. For example, a crazily rabid fan could care about the IP rights of Gaiman, et al, but care far more about popularizing their favorite comic. That doesn't justify what they do, but it does show an example where a person may care about someone's IP rights, and yet violate those rights because they care about something else more.
caporal : "This is all aside from the fact that posting Gaiman's and McKean's work without the copyright holder's express permission is an open-and-shut case of infringement."
No disagreement there.
posted by Bugbread at 6:46 PM on August 22, 2005
caporal : "The consumerism game doesn't include a rule where 'if you think it's too expensive, you get free license to go rip it off.' This rule is clearly excluded as there are laws that tell us doing so will earn us a fine, jail time, or bankruptcy when someone sues our pirating ass."
Agreed, but I don't think that was Mr. Encyclopedia's main point, which is just that the method for determining loss of income due to piracy is not accurate. It was, admittedly, his secondary (and, in my opinion, weaker) point.
posted by Bugbread at 6:50 PM on August 22, 2005
Agreed, but I don't think that was Mr. Encyclopedia's main point, which is just that the method for determining loss of income due to piracy is not accurate. It was, admittedly, his secondary (and, in my opinion, weaker) point.
posted by Bugbread at 6:50 PM on August 22, 2005
crazily rabid fan could care about the IP rights of Gaiman, et al, but care far more about popularizing their favorite comic
Ah, the Boxing Helena model of love.
posted by dreamsign at 7:02 PM on August 22, 2005
Ah, the Boxing Helena model of love.
posted by dreamsign at 7:02 PM on August 22, 2005
I had a response written out, but after reading dreamsign's post, I have nothing further to say. :)
posted by caporal at 7:07 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by caporal at 7:07 PM on August 22, 2005
I wish I'd spotted this earlier in this thread:
Wikipedia:
Hellblazer at DC Vertigo - for more on Hellblazer trade paperbacks, the very first issue is provided as a free download.
DC Comics:
Free download- Hellblazer #1
posted by BoringPostcards at 7:22 PM on August 22, 2005
Wikipedia:
Hellblazer at DC Vertigo - for more on Hellblazer trade paperbacks, the very first issue is provided as a free download.
DC Comics:
Free download- Hellblazer #1
posted by BoringPostcards at 7:22 PM on August 22, 2005
Oh for the love of God, I’ll be honest here:
I violate copyright for no reason whatsoever and I’m not particularly interested in justifying it, since I’m not trying to recruit or convince anyone. I know it’s wrong and I’m doing it anyways and there’s not a fuck of a lot the higher moral ground can do.
I’ve got Hellblazer, issues 1 to current, in downloaded form. And they’re fucking awesome. And I didn’t pay a cent. And I’m sure, somewhere, Gaiman, Moore, Ennis, Ellis, and all the other fucking awesome people who have written for it are crying their wee little eyes out over it. And if any of them are reading this, I offer them a choice, should they feel the need for redress: a fistfight or a double of Middleton’s. Seriously–if anyone who’s comics I’ve downloaded over the years wants some, they can come to Berkeley and we can have fisticuffs or fine whisky at Beckett’s.
Of course, it’s not their intellectual property rights that I’m violating, but rather DC’s. But DC doesn’t get the option of whisky–they only get the fistfight.
And why? Because I’m an irrational fucking comic fan, that’s why. Anything to look down on another person... I swear. Ride those high horses into the sunset, gentlemen.
posted by Coda at 7:27 PM on August 22, 2005
I violate copyright for no reason whatsoever and I’m not particularly interested in justifying it, since I’m not trying to recruit or convince anyone. I know it’s wrong and I’m doing it anyways and there’s not a fuck of a lot the higher moral ground can do.
I’ve got Hellblazer, issues 1 to current, in downloaded form. And they’re fucking awesome. And I didn’t pay a cent. And I’m sure, somewhere, Gaiman, Moore, Ennis, Ellis, and all the other fucking awesome people who have written for it are crying their wee little eyes out over it. And if any of them are reading this, I offer them a choice, should they feel the need for redress: a fistfight or a double of Middleton’s. Seriously–if anyone who’s comics I’ve downloaded over the years wants some, they can come to Berkeley and we can have fisticuffs or fine whisky at Beckett’s.
Of course, it’s not their intellectual property rights that I’m violating, but rather DC’s. But DC doesn’t get the option of whisky–they only get the fistfight.
And why? Because I’m an irrational fucking comic fan, that’s why. Anything to look down on another person... I swear. Ride those high horses into the sunset, gentlemen.
posted by Coda at 7:27 PM on August 22, 2005
Wait, one addendum: Rob Liefeld doesn't get the option of whisky either. No feet, no whisky.
posted by Coda at 7:29 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Coda at 7:29 PM on August 22, 2005
Can we have some fisticuffs next time I'm in Berkeley? I don't have any infringed copyright, I just like to beat on people.
posted by Justinian at 7:43 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by Justinian at 7:43 PM on August 22, 2005
Seriously–if anyone who’s comics I’ve downloaded over the years wants some, they can come to Berkeley and we can have fisticuffs or fine whisky at Beckett’s.
Oh hell. That's pretty generous. But DC might think otherwise, and if ever they catch you (or someone turns you in) they'll choose neither. Crushing you in court would be their choice, I bet.
Good luck with it.
posted by caporal at 8:47 PM on August 22, 2005
Oh hell. That's pretty generous. But DC might think otherwise, and if ever they catch you (or someone turns you in) they'll choose neither. Crushing you in court would be their choice, I bet.
Good luck with it.
posted by caporal at 8:47 PM on August 22, 2005
No it wouldn't. Downloading isn't any more illegal than buying a ripoff Nike T-shirt. It's making the shirt that's infringing, it's uploading that is copyright infringement. (Of course, if you got them via BitTorrent or similar, you *were* uploading at the same time.)
posted by bonaldi at 9:27 PM on August 22, 2005
posted by bonaldi at 9:27 PM on August 22, 2005
bonaldi : "Downloading isn't any more illegal than buying a ripoff Nike T-shirt."
Depends on what country you live in.
Either way, I'm happy to hear that Coda is only giving Liefeld the fisticuffs option.
posted by Bugbread at 11:10 PM on August 22, 2005
Depends on what country you live in.
Either way, I'm happy to hear that Coda is only giving Liefeld the fisticuffs option.
posted by Bugbread at 11:10 PM on August 22, 2005
betaray: that was profound. So, answer me this: does McKean have the Buddha nature? I'd really like to know. Frankly, I'm out of gurus at the moment.
To the fans: is Hellblazer worth starting at the beginning, or could the first compilation(s) be safely skipped (like, say, Sandman)?
posted by hototogisu at 12:15 AM on August 23, 2005
To the fans: is Hellblazer worth starting at the beginning, or could the first compilation(s) be safely skipped (like, say, Sandman)?
posted by hototogisu at 12:15 AM on August 23, 2005
Downloading isn't any more illegal than buying a ripoff Nike T-shirt. It's making the shirt that's infringing, it's uploading that is copyright infringement.
You must not live in the United States.
posted by anathema at 5:27 AM on August 23, 2005
You must not live in the United States.
posted by anathema at 5:27 AM on August 23, 2005
caporal: Do you by any chance work for DC? Because you're mighty aggressive and single-minded for somebody with no personal stake in the matter.
Yes, copyright is violated. No, that's not the only conceivable issue here. For every bugbread, who looked at the scanned version and decided against buying, there must be many more who, like me, would never have bought Gaiman's work on mere recommendations but are now interested after having seen a sample. (And it's a pretty annoying read online, with chunks of the panels cut off on the right, so it's not exactly an acceptable substitute for the real thing.)
For what it's worth, I care about the rights and income of the creators, but I don't give a rat's ass about DC, and I can't imagine why anyone would unless, as I said, they worked for them. But I guess there are people who are passionate about the rights of monolithic corporations just out of sheer love for monolithic corporations.
posted by languagehat at 6:06 AM on August 23, 2005
Yes, copyright is violated. No, that's not the only conceivable issue here. For every bugbread, who looked at the scanned version and decided against buying, there must be many more who, like me, would never have bought Gaiman's work on mere recommendations but are now interested after having seen a sample. (And it's a pretty annoying read online, with chunks of the panels cut off on the right, so it's not exactly an acceptable substitute for the real thing.)
For what it's worth, I care about the rights and income of the creators, but I don't give a rat's ass about DC, and I can't imagine why anyone would unless, as I said, they worked for them. But I guess there are people who are passionate about the rights of monolithic corporations just out of sheer love for monolithic corporations.
posted by languagehat at 6:06 AM on August 23, 2005
Well, DC does PAY creators. Presumably that's based on the comics they print selling and making money...
Also one doesn't have to be madly keen on the rights of "monolithic corporations" to think that Metafilter probably isn't the best place for posting WareZ.
posted by Artw at 7:43 AM on August 23, 2005
Also one doesn't have to be madly keen on the rights of "monolithic corporations" to think that Metafilter probably isn't the best place for posting WareZ.
posted by Artw at 7:43 AM on August 23, 2005
anathema, I don't, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't appear to be illegal in the US either. My problem with all this is that the copyright owners talk about it in very precise terms that make it appear to the layman that the downloading is illegal. They talk in these precise terms because they know the difference.
Can you provide a cite for downloading being illegal in the US?
From the RIAA I found this:
Yes. It is a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.
But this is the *only* standalone mention of downloading in a lengthy text about copyright violation. And note the use of "copy" there: isn't there precedent that the server does the copying and distribution, while the downloader is just a recipient? The copier is the violator.
I remember there was a fuss when the Canadians upheld this obvious piece of copyright law, which probably made everyone assume America was different. But, so far, all the US cases of those being charged with copyright violation have included elements of uploading. Is somebody scared to set a US precedent?
posted by bonaldi at 7:55 AM on August 23, 2005
Can you provide a cite for downloading being illegal in the US?
From the RIAA I found this:
Yes. It is a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.
But this is the *only* standalone mention of downloading in a lengthy text about copyright violation. And note the use of "copy" there: isn't there precedent that the server does the copying and distribution, while the downloader is just a recipient? The copier is the violator.
I remember there was a fuss when the Canadians upheld this obvious piece of copyright law, which probably made everyone assume America was different. But, so far, all the US cases of those being charged with copyright violation have included elements of uploading. Is somebody scared to set a US precedent?
posted by bonaldi at 7:55 AM on August 23, 2005
Well, DC does PAY creators.
Yeah, Siegel and Shuster made out like bandits.
posted by COBRA! at 8:04 AM on August 23, 2005
Yeah, Siegel and Shuster made out like bandits.
posted by COBRA! at 8:04 AM on August 23, 2005
languagehat: no, I don't work for DC or for that matter any corporation that has a large stake in intellectual property. I'm adamant about this because I respect the rights of authors. I'm pretty good at putting myself in others' shoes, and if I were so incredibly talented as Gaiman et. al. I'd want people to not rip me off for my efforts. I do practice what I preach.
Whether or not scanning and distributing this particular comic of Hellblazer has created Gaiman more readers or not has nothing to do with the legalities or ethics of posting what is effectively warez (thanks ArtW) to the Net.
I can return the favour: I guess there are people who are passionate about ripping off authors just out of sheer love of the practice of ripping off authors.
posted by caporal at 8:33 AM on August 23, 2005
Whether or not scanning and distributing this particular comic of Hellblazer has created Gaiman more readers or not has nothing to do with the legalities or ethics of posting what is effectively warez (thanks ArtW) to the Net.
I can return the favour: I guess there are people who are passionate about ripping off authors just out of sheer love of the practice of ripping off authors.
posted by caporal at 8:33 AM on August 23, 2005
Can you provide a cite for downloading being illegal in the US?
A prima facie copyright infringement action only needs to show two things:
1) Ownership of a valid copyright; and
2) Unauthorized copying
posted by anathema at 9:11 AM on August 23, 2005
A prima facie copyright infringement action only needs to show two things:
1) Ownership of a valid copyright; and
2) Unauthorized copying
posted by anathema at 9:11 AM on August 23, 2005
For every bugbread, who looked at the scanned version and decided against buying, there must be many more who, like me, would never have bought Gaiman's work on mere recommendations but are now interested after having seen a sample.
And perhaps a few like me, who after downloading the first couple issues of, say The Walking Dead, ran out and bought all three trades and placed it on their pull list.
(Not trying to claim everyone does that, just that not everyone who uses filesharing is out to only get things for free.)
posted by shawnj at 9:19 AM on August 23, 2005
And perhaps a few like me, who after downloading the first couple issues of, say The Walking Dead, ran out and bought all three trades and placed it on their pull list.
(Not trying to claim everyone does that, just that not everyone who uses filesharing is out to only get things for free.)
posted by shawnj at 9:19 AM on August 23, 2005
2) And like I said: the server and uploader makes the copy (like the T-shirt or bootleg CD). The downloader just obtains it.
posted by bonaldi at 9:20 AM on August 23, 2005
posted by bonaldi at 9:20 AM on August 23, 2005
I am somewhat amazed at the pure black and white opinions that this issue raises. While I do question the propriety of posting an entire currently available comic book on the internet, I am also at a loss to see how this is a "pure" copyright infringement. The poster did not seek to profit from it personally, afaik. I am not an IP expert, but I do do some work with Creative Commons issues.
I am indebted to Paul D. Miller for leading me to RW Emerson's and JWvGoethe's opinions on quotation and originality, which for me is at the heart of a lot of these discussions on ownership and copyright. From Emerson (through Miller):
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an essay that prefigures much of the discourse
around "originality" in late 20th century culture. His essay was entitled "Of Quotation and
Originality" and in it, Emerson was trying to come to grips with a kind of cultural inertia
that he saw in the literature of his day. The central premise of his essay was that peoples
minds were too burdened with the weight of previous creative work, they only took
elements from the past and reconfigured them to their own taste in their present day. But
Emerson, being the creative individual that he was, tried to look beneath the surface that
this kind of cultural saturation fostered. He wrote: "Our debt to tradition through reading
and conversation is so massive , our protest so rare and insignificant - and this commonly
on the ground of other reading or hearing - that in large sense, one would say there is no
pure originality. All minds quote. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment.
There is no thread that is not a twist of these two strands(170)..."
Yes, the author deserves to be paid. And then at some point, the work becomes part of the common consciousness. Take a look at Miller/DJ Spooky's "Rebirth of a Nation" where he has remixed DW Griffith's movie. Our history of using the works of previous generations to spark creative work of our generations has a far longer history than the restrictive and repressive DMCA and other copyright laws of the 20th century.
Caporal, if you are reading this far, I have no passion for ripping off authors. Nor have I any respect for draconian measures designed to keep art from the masses and in the hands of the elite.
posted by beelzbubba at 9:38 AM on August 23, 2005
I am indebted to Paul D. Miller for leading me to RW Emerson's and JWvGoethe's opinions on quotation and originality, which for me is at the heart of a lot of these discussions on ownership and copyright. From Emerson (through Miller):
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an essay that prefigures much of the discourse
around "originality" in late 20th century culture. His essay was entitled "Of Quotation and
Originality" and in it, Emerson was trying to come to grips with a kind of cultural inertia
that he saw in the literature of his day. The central premise of his essay was that peoples
minds were too burdened with the weight of previous creative work, they only took
elements from the past and reconfigured them to their own taste in their present day. But
Emerson, being the creative individual that he was, tried to look beneath the surface that
this kind of cultural saturation fostered. He wrote: "Our debt to tradition through reading
and conversation is so massive , our protest so rare and insignificant - and this commonly
on the ground of other reading or hearing - that in large sense, one would say there is no
pure originality. All minds quote. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment.
There is no thread that is not a twist of these two strands(170)..."
Yes, the author deserves to be paid. And then at some point, the work becomes part of the common consciousness. Take a look at Miller/DJ Spooky's "Rebirth of a Nation" where he has remixed DW Griffith's movie. Our history of using the works of previous generations to spark creative work of our generations has a far longer history than the restrictive and repressive DMCA and other copyright laws of the 20th century.
Caporal, if you are reading this far, I have no passion for ripping off authors. Nor have I any respect for draconian measures designed to keep art from the masses and in the hands of the elite.
posted by beelzbubba at 9:38 AM on August 23, 2005
beelzbubba - Theres no shades of grey here, it's wareZ pure and simple. All arguments about the legal-ins-and-outs of downloading, the morality of warez, wether or not it's okay to rip off The Man etc... etc... are completely irrelevant to that.
posted by Artw at 9:56 AM on August 23, 2005
posted by Artw at 9:56 AM on August 23, 2005
The reason I was asking about fair use was a question about whether an issue of a comic constitutes the whole or part of a work. As the fair use link notes: "A provision in most copyright conventions or statutes that makes it possible for individuals to copy portions of a document or other piece of work for short-term use.
www.webliminal.com/search/glossary.htm".
Now it may be that an entire issue is too many pages, but normally the amount considered fair use is proportional to the whole. This is both a legal and an artistic question - what is the unit in serial comic publishing?
jb, many countries have a system where library copies and library loans do benefit authors. In the UK it's called PLR (Public Lending Right), and speaking from firsthand experience it works very well. I've written several books that have never repaid their advances, but that bring me a small but pleasant annual PLR payment. Just because your country doesn't, don't assume the rest of the world is so backward.
posted by Hogshead at 4:31 PM PST on August 22 [!]
Hogshead - that is really nice. I don't know what they do in my country; I am not a librarian, just a heavy library user. I was responding to the sentiment that reading copyright material for free never existed before the internet.
I actually violate copyright very often in the course of my research, to obtain the materials I need. I photocopy journal articles, chapters of books - even entire out of print books. It's not something I feel great about, but it's a reality of my life. That said, when Paul Slack's Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England comes back into print (or into the used market - I checked) I'll be first in line.
If Prof. Slack is reading this, please ask for a reprint - it is a very good book.
posted by jb at 9:58 AM on August 23, 2005
www.webliminal.com/search/glossary.htm".
Now it may be that an entire issue is too many pages, but normally the amount considered fair use is proportional to the whole. This is both a legal and an artistic question - what is the unit in serial comic publishing?
jb, many countries have a system where library copies and library loans do benefit authors. In the UK it's called PLR (Public Lending Right), and speaking from firsthand experience it works very well. I've written several books that have never repaid their advances, but that bring me a small but pleasant annual PLR payment. Just because your country doesn't, don't assume the rest of the world is so backward.
posted by Hogshead at 4:31 PM PST on August 22 [!]
Hogshead - that is really nice. I don't know what they do in my country; I am not a librarian, just a heavy library user. I was responding to the sentiment that reading copyright material for free never existed before the internet.
I actually violate copyright very often in the course of my research, to obtain the materials I need. I photocopy journal articles, chapters of books - even entire out of print books. It's not something I feel great about, but it's a reality of my life. That said, when Paul Slack's Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England comes back into print (or into the used market - I checked) I'll be first in line.
If Prof. Slack is reading this, please ask for a reprint - it is a very good book.
posted by jb at 9:58 AM on August 23, 2005
Artw: There are shades of gray here. Not, perhaps, in the posting of the comic, as I did agree. But can the comic author claim "ownership" of his work without acknowledging the work of others that went into it?
I was trying to take the discussion beyond this thread. Let me try to reframe.
First--I agree that copying the whole issue is most likely actionable (IANAL). But some of the statements made indicate that rights reside solely with the author--who often has appropriated ideas him/herself. Will the author compensate those inspirations or continue the myth of originality?
I first became aware of this in music, where folktunes that had been around for centuries were being copyrighted by contemporary folk artists, who then (successfully) sued to maintain their "ownership." To me this is a misuse of copyright. That some people act unethically in response is not surprising.
I am not one of them. My protest does not include the unethical response of trying to "rip off the man" as you put it. My protest is to make my work available with Creative Commons licensing. If someone wants to use it for non-commercial purposes, all I ask is that I am cited somewhere--no need to ask me first. If someone wants to use it as part of a commercial venture, then either stick to fair use or contact me for permission. Not that any of my work is available yet--but soon will be.
And as a Ph.D. student myself, I understand jb's dilemma. There are books I need for my research that are commercially unavailable. There are copies in libraries--but to adequately use the material I either need exceptional access to the one copy in my state, or I need to break fair use by copying the whole damn thing. Where is this utopia of "on-demand" publishing?
posted by beelzbubba at 10:48 AM on August 23, 2005
I was trying to take the discussion beyond this thread. Let me try to reframe.
First--I agree that copying the whole issue is most likely actionable (IANAL). But some of the statements made indicate that rights reside solely with the author--who often has appropriated ideas him/herself. Will the author compensate those inspirations or continue the myth of originality?
I first became aware of this in music, where folktunes that had been around for centuries were being copyrighted by contemporary folk artists, who then (successfully) sued to maintain their "ownership." To me this is a misuse of copyright. That some people act unethically in response is not surprising.
I am not one of them. My protest does not include the unethical response of trying to "rip off the man" as you put it. My protest is to make my work available with Creative Commons licensing. If someone wants to use it for non-commercial purposes, all I ask is that I am cited somewhere--no need to ask me first. If someone wants to use it as part of a commercial venture, then either stick to fair use or contact me for permission. Not that any of my work is available yet--but soon will be.
And as a Ph.D. student myself, I understand jb's dilemma. There are books I need for my research that are commercially unavailable. There are copies in libraries--but to adequately use the material I either need exceptional access to the one copy in my state, or I need to break fair use by copying the whole damn thing. Where is this utopia of "on-demand" publishing?
posted by beelzbubba at 10:48 AM on August 23, 2005
The gap between morality and legality creeps in at a place that's seldom discussed, namely the point at which the ACTUAL AUTHOR of the work SELLS his authorship rights to someone else.
If you think about it, that makes no moral sense at all.
Michael Jackson did not write the Beatles songs. Let him try to write another.
The shareholders of DC Comics Inc have never written a comic, yet somehow, they claim to have the "rights" to them.
It seems to me that once the legal system starts lying in this way about who has the "rights of authorship" to artworks, the whole concept of intellectual property becomes morally null and void.
So to me, once an artist has sold the copyright, that means it doesn't belong to anyone any more. The transaction was morally invalid. Copyright is broken.
So ... if the author wants payment for work he/she has done, that's fine. I'm happy to pay to listen to a good musician, or to read a good book.
But if some random bunch of rich scum forms a corporation, buys up other people's authorship rights for (by definition) less than they're really worth, and then demand payment (and again, by definition, they'll always demand more than it's worth), well, fuck them. I'd rather copy it illegally.
And since everyone basically feels the same way, sooner or later, the legal system will have to reflect that.
(Great comics, by the way - thanks guys!)
posted by cleardawn at 10:48 AM on August 23, 2005
If you think about it, that makes no moral sense at all.
Michael Jackson did not write the Beatles songs. Let him try to write another.
The shareholders of DC Comics Inc have never written a comic, yet somehow, they claim to have the "rights" to them.
It seems to me that once the legal system starts lying in this way about who has the "rights of authorship" to artworks, the whole concept of intellectual property becomes morally null and void.
So to me, once an artist has sold the copyright, that means it doesn't belong to anyone any more. The transaction was morally invalid. Copyright is broken.
So ... if the author wants payment for work he/she has done, that's fine. I'm happy to pay to listen to a good musician, or to read a good book.
But if some random bunch of rich scum forms a corporation, buys up other people's authorship rights for (by definition) less than they're really worth, and then demand payment (and again, by definition, they'll always demand more than it's worth), well, fuck them. I'd rather copy it illegally.
And since everyone basically feels the same way, sooner or later, the legal system will have to reflect that.
(Great comics, by the way - thanks guys!)
posted by cleardawn at 10:48 AM on August 23, 2005
The rules of the system in consumerism are: if you want something, but in your opinion it costs too much, you aren't going to buy it. Therefore, the seller will either adjust the price (if enough people feel the way you do) or stick to it (if you're in the minority).
The consumerism game doesn't include a rule where "if you think it's too expensive, you get free license to go rip it off." This rule is clearly excluded as there are laws that tell us doing so will earn us a fine, jail time, or bankruptcy when someone sues our pirating ass.
caporal-I think you're wrong here, although I am not a big one for justifying piracy on the basis of price-point.
You make a smooth transition, too smooth, between rules and laws, which I would argue are not the same things. Rules are more about how people act within a system; laws, at least in this case, are outside that system and may or may not buttress the rules. What has happened recently is that rules that were previously established by corporations have been changed by consumers. You state that there are just two options, buying or not buying, and that all others are beyond the pale, when the very fact of this discussion indicates that there is now a third option that is very much accepted by many people. Just because corporations, and you, don't like that option, and just because it's illegal (although the laws against it are clearly viewed as technicalities rather than as extensions of moral principles), doesn't obviate it.
I'm not arguing that piracy is ok, nor am I condemning it, but to suggest that all corporations need do is ignore it (by which I mean ignore the message that it sends) and call the cops is to suggest that the rules that you talk about are only acceptable when mandated by corporations. In this case consumers have clearly indicated that they are interested in a different way of doing business and corporations have been unwilling to change. (Not incidentally, consumers have also indicated time and again that they are willing to pay for products in new ways.)
posted by OmieWise at 11:01 AM on August 23, 2005
The consumerism game doesn't include a rule where "if you think it's too expensive, you get free license to go rip it off." This rule is clearly excluded as there are laws that tell us doing so will earn us a fine, jail time, or bankruptcy when someone sues our pirating ass.
caporal-I think you're wrong here, although I am not a big one for justifying piracy on the basis of price-point.
You make a smooth transition, too smooth, between rules and laws, which I would argue are not the same things. Rules are more about how people act within a system; laws, at least in this case, are outside that system and may or may not buttress the rules. What has happened recently is that rules that were previously established by corporations have been changed by consumers. You state that there are just two options, buying or not buying, and that all others are beyond the pale, when the very fact of this discussion indicates that there is now a third option that is very much accepted by many people. Just because corporations, and you, don't like that option, and just because it's illegal (although the laws against it are clearly viewed as technicalities rather than as extensions of moral principles), doesn't obviate it.
I'm not arguing that piracy is ok, nor am I condemning it, but to suggest that all corporations need do is ignore it (by which I mean ignore the message that it sends) and call the cops is to suggest that the rules that you talk about are only acceptable when mandated by corporations. In this case consumers have clearly indicated that they are interested in a different way of doing business and corporations have been unwilling to change. (Not incidentally, consumers have also indicated time and again that they are willing to pay for products in new ways.)
posted by OmieWise at 11:01 AM on August 23, 2005
beelzbubba,
I have no passion for ripping off authors. Nor have I any respect for draconian measures designed to keep art from the masses and in the hands of the elite.
Nor do I! I feel the current copyright regime of life+70 years is purely a play by the dorks at places like Disney. Lifetime of the author, maybe a bit longer, seems about right to me. +70 years is ridiculous.
HOWEVER. The cavalier attitude exhibited by so many (in this forum and elsewhere) with regard to an author's rights is the other end of the copyright attitude spectrum. Extremes are usually thoughtless and destructive, and what's going on in this FPP is no exception.
Disney et. al. are Bad. "I'll rip off what I want so fuck you" is just as Bad. Both require application of blunt objects to cranium.
posted by caporal at 11:06 AM on August 23, 2005
I have no passion for ripping off authors. Nor have I any respect for draconian measures designed to keep art from the masses and in the hands of the elite.
Nor do I! I feel the current copyright regime of life+70 years is purely a play by the dorks at places like Disney. Lifetime of the author, maybe a bit longer, seems about right to me. +70 years is ridiculous.
HOWEVER. The cavalier attitude exhibited by so many (in this forum and elsewhere) with regard to an author's rights is the other end of the copyright attitude spectrum. Extremes are usually thoughtless and destructive, and what's going on in this FPP is no exception.
Disney et. al. are Bad. "I'll rip off what I want so fuck you" is just as Bad. Both require application of blunt objects to cranium.
posted by caporal at 11:06 AM on August 23, 2005
beelzbubba,
But some of the statements made indicate that rights reside solely with the author--who often has appropriated ideas him/herself. Will the author compensate those inspirations or continue the myth of originality?
No, because that's not what copyright protects. Copyright protects an expression of an idea or information. Gaiman retells old myths in modern form. The ideas may not be his, but his expression of them is.
Ideas can not be copyrighted. Only expressions of those ideas. Originality only enters into it when discussing the way an idea or information is expressed.
And the comic book in the FPP is indeed his expression of an idea. That DC holds the copyright to the work doesn't mean that they're the owners of the work. Rather, they are the licensees, and Gaiman the licensor.
As stated before, IANAL, just a lay person interested in Intellectual Property Law.
posted by caporal at 11:24 AM on August 23, 2005
But some of the statements made indicate that rights reside solely with the author--who often has appropriated ideas him/herself. Will the author compensate those inspirations or continue the myth of originality?
No, because that's not what copyright protects. Copyright protects an expression of an idea or information. Gaiman retells old myths in modern form. The ideas may not be his, but his expression of them is.
Ideas can not be copyrighted. Only expressions of those ideas. Originality only enters into it when discussing the way an idea or information is expressed.
And the comic book in the FPP is indeed his expression of an idea. That DC holds the copyright to the work doesn't mean that they're the owners of the work. Rather, they are the licensees, and Gaiman the licensor.
As stated before, IANAL, just a lay person interested in Intellectual Property Law.
posted by caporal at 11:24 AM on August 23, 2005
Whether or not scanning and distributing this particular comic of Hellblazer has created Gaiman more readers or not has nothing to do with the legalities or ethics of posting what is effectively warez (thanks ArtW) to the Net.
Legalities, sure. But the ethics of the action are certainly open for debate, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. Whatever your opinion is, I think our only choice it to wait this one out and either see what society decides is fair, or watch "rightsholders" spend a lot of money to get more legislation passed.
posted by Eamon at 11:25 AM on August 23, 2005
Legalities, sure. But the ethics of the action are certainly open for debate, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. Whatever your opinion is, I think our only choice it to wait this one out and either see what society decides is fair, or watch "rightsholders" spend a lot of money to get more legislation passed.
posted by Eamon at 11:25 AM on August 23, 2005
Artw : "Also one doesn't have to be madly keen on the rights of 'monolithic corporations' to think that Metafilter probably isn't the best place for posting WareZ."
"WareZ" is short for "softwares". A comic is not "warez". This is neither an endorsement nor a rebuttal of the rest of the points you or other people using the term are making, it is merely to point out that putting Constantine online is no more an example of Warez than stealing my sofa is an example of carjacking.
posted by Bugbread at 3:49 PM on August 23, 2005
"WareZ" is short for "softwares". A comic is not "warez". This is neither an endorsement nor a rebuttal of the rest of the points you or other people using the term are making, it is merely to point out that putting Constantine online is no more an example of Warez than stealing my sofa is an example of carjacking.
posted by Bugbread at 3:49 PM on August 23, 2005
What's the "warez" stand for, then?
Like you say, software. But software doesn't have to be an app. It can be pirated data as well, which is exactly what a ripped off comic book is.
posted by caporal at 7:40 AM on August 24, 2005
Like you say, software. But software doesn't have to be an app. It can be pirated data as well, which is exactly what a ripped off comic book is.
posted by caporal at 7:40 AM on August 24, 2005
« Older Boom | Porn blindness Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by boo_radley at 10:39 AM on August 22, 2005