THE Z-CULT FM SAGA: TALKING TO SERJ & ZOG

[reenold]

But we're going to disagree on whether the slaughtering of trackers helps. Every step that is taken to make torrenting stuff illegally just that much harder winds up dissuading more people. It may or may not get someone familiar with the practice to stop looking for a new method, sure...but it makes it that much more difficult for new people to enter into the practice. The legal threats are a deterrent to people looking to download or to host links to illegally torrented software. Do you disagree with that idea?

Napster was triumphantly shut down in July 2001. Six years and many successors after that point, a retarded chimpanzee can download a 0-day game, music, whatever in a few hours. At the same time, MPAA and RIAA who actually have rightful claims, are passionatly loathed by the majority of the net. And they don't even rely on the loyalty of their clients as the Big Two do.

Yes, basing on those results, I am afraid I have to consider this strategy deeply flawed.

Edit: got the napster date a bit wrong

[khuxford]

Originally Posted by reenold

Napster was triumphantly shut down in July 2001. Six years and many successors after that point, a retarded chimpanzee can download a 0-day game, music, whatever in a few hours. At the same time, MPAA and RIAA who actually have rightful claims, are passionatly loathed by the majority of the net. And they don't even rely on the loyalty of their clients as the Big Two do.

Yes, basing on those results, I am afraid I have to consider this strategy deeply flawed.

Edit: got the napster date a bit wrong

The Big Two don't really rely on loyalty to the companies...they rely on loyalty to the characters and to hot creators.

You're going back into dangerously unreasonable territory when you demonstrate that you feel you can accurately say what the majority of the 'net feel about anything.

Of course, you completely glossed over and/or missed the point about how attacking these sites makes it harder for the majority to get the illegal items. The percentage of people getting illegal downloads from those sites drops...the influx of new people into the practice gets reduced...which is all ANY tactic can hope to accomplish. You're never going to have a zero crime society in any aspect...but you work to get it as close as possible. Your position that you should just resign yourself to it and not lift a finger to do anything about it is naive.

[darrenmdr]

Quick update.

Dark Horse have now requested all their stuff be removed and also of course DC too. The Dark Horse email hasn't been published yet but it makes mention of giving previews for use on the site. The DC email is published and is a very polite email which does hint that they would be willing to work with Zcult if things change in the future.

[Alan Coil]

Originally Posted by darrenmdr

Not taking any sides at all here as things are not black and white.

Nope. It is black and white. Downloading copies of Marvel comics from Marvel is legal. Downloading copies from any other source is illegal.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If you possess a physical copy of a comic book, you have the right to sell it to somebody else.
If you possess a physical copy of a comic book, you have the right to give it to somebody else.

In both cases, you legally own that comic book. If you have a copy in digital form that you took off the internet, you are in possession of stolen property.

Copyright and trademark laws are written to protect the property of a corporation, organization, or person. Without those laws, anybody can use that copyrighted material or trademarked material. Without those laws, there would be no good entertainment. Why? Because as soon as a show such as Heroes started to become popular, all the networks could immediately go into production with their own version of Heroes. So could any movie company. So could thousands of YouTube video makers. At that point, nobody would be able to enjoy the original Heroes because it wouldn't be getting enough viewers, meaning less advertising income, meaning the show would have to undergo changes to make it cheaper. Soon the quality is lost and the show is gone. All that would be left is the 47 other versions that just weren't as good. Total entertainment quality would be lower.

[Samheinous]

I'm not gonna lie. I download far more than I buy. I dont really plan to change that anytime soon. Now if Marvel had a download site I think I would be more than willing to get my stuff there. Same with DC or any other company. But they don't And right now it looks like no one is planning such a site. Do I feel bad about his? Not in the least. The comic companies have been, well ripping off isn't the right terminology to use. But short changing fans for years. Mainly on quality, but certainly on price. Right now I buy the few titles that interest me enough to have physical copies of them. I enjoy reading many but lack the money and definitely the space to get everything that I'd read. I understand wht these companies are doing, and of course they are in the right totally. But unlike with music, or movies. You can't make a viable offline copy of any book you download. It simply isnt the same. And digital copies are much easier for travling with. Just load a bunch on a disc and read them on your laptop. And no I'm not talking about those overpriced collections they sell. Really! They werent that great a scans and many people want something other than just the few they feel are worthy of selling like that. So to those of you who are gonna come hear and just rail and rail on how illegal it is. Save those keystrokes. I'm not debating that. I'm saying these companies need a better business model, hell Zcult and the many scanners have shown them the popularity of it already. Otherwise they wouldnt be feeling the need for the tightening.

[darrenmdr]

Originally Posted by Alan Coil

Nope. It is black and white. Downloading copies of Marvel comics from Marvel is legal. Downloading copies from any other source is illegal.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If you possess a physical copy of a comic book, you have the right to sell it to somebody else.
If you possess a physical copy of a comic book, you have the right to give it to somebody else.
.

Wrong. Unlike the USA, Britain's copyright laws are still governed by the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents act. The British or European version of the American DMCA has still not been agreed by member states and is not part of European law and is not on the British statute.

[vbartilucci]

Originally Posted by Alan Coil

Downloading copies of Marvel comics from Marvel is legal. Downloading copies from any other source is illegal.

Part of the issue here is that you CANNOT download copies from Marvel. If you could, many of us would do so, providing the files were good quality and an easy to use format. All you can do is read their copy online, for as long as they choose to make it available.

This does not change the illegality of the second option, but it's not a case of there's a perfectly good alternative from marvel and people are ignoring it.

Originally Posted by Alan Coil

Copyright and trademark laws are written to protect the property of a corporation, organization, or person. Without those laws, anybody can use that copyrighted material or trademarked material. Without those laws, there would be no good entertainment. Why? Because as soon as a show such as Heroes started to become popular, all the networks could immediately go into production with their own version of Heroes. So could any movie company. So could thousands of YouTube video makers. At that point, nobody would be able to enjoy the original Heroes because it wouldn't be getting enough viewers, meaning less advertising income, meaning the show would have to undergo changes to make it cheaper. Soon the quality is lost and the show is gone. All that would be left is the 47 other versions that just weren't as good. Total entertainment quality would be lower.

Spoken like a representative of a corporation if I ever heard one. Copyright law is to allow you and you alone (whether the you in question is an individual or a company) to make money off your creations. It's always been based on money, and to not include it in a defense is at the least disingenuous.

The argument that anyone could make their own Superman, Heroes, whatever and they would all be bad is quite a weak argument. First off, read any number of fanzines and you'll find stories as good if not better than the sources that inspired them. The point is that if there are dozens of knockoffs out there, it confuses the buyer, and the market in general, and that results in lost sales for the creator. Even if the knockoff is better, it's still not your idea and you can't make money off of it.

Making money is a good thing, and laws to prevent others from stealing your ideas are good things. Trying to present said laws as altruistic protectors of the public good is pompous and unneccessary.

And to engage in equinecrosadism, No one is saying the copyright laws are unfair and evil. The argument is that there's a market for digital comics, and the publishers would be better off serving the market than trying to keep the market from existing.

[Alan Coil]

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

Spoken like a representative of a corporation if I ever heard one.

Oh, it so ON. You and me, tomorrow at sunset, in the street outside Munden's Bar.

And don't send no **&^%%^% Tourbot in your place.

[reenold]

Originally Posted by khuxford

The Big Two don't really rely on loyalty to the companies...they rely on loyalty to the characters and to hot creators.

Ah, I wasn't clear enough. I meant loyalty of their clients, comic fans buy it for decades. Bad PR of the like that MPAA and RIAA now enjoy, would hit that too.

Originally Posted by khuxford

The percentage of people getting illegal downloads from those sites drops...the influx of new people into the practice gets reduced...

Ummm, yeah...and here our perceptions will probably remain different... All one can see are very short term drops, after something gets down. People adopt new venues of downloading much faster than corporate lawyers can sue stuff and safety in numbers makes people ignore the legal threat, even in USA. Many simply get more careful or switch to different ways of getting material, like newsgroups, etc.

Heh, i didn't even get to the little well-known fact, that so far no one has independently measured the effect of piracy on affected industries, be it for good or ill Except that canadian goernment-issued research that said that piracy slightly helps cd sales

Originally Posted by "darrenmdr

Dark Horse have now requested all their stuff be removed and also of course DC too. The Dark Horse email hasn't been published yet but it makes mention of giving previews for use on the site. The DC email is published and is a very polite email which does hint that they would be willing to work with Zcult if things change in the future.

Ah well, that was the likely outcome... That makes ZCult officially dead as a valid comic tracker. Good thing that they didn't treat them like evil scoundrels, though. I wonder if anything more will come out of it...

Well, comic torrents were always on the general trackers as well as in a vast array other sources. So it didn't really change anything. And i do think that this was an isolated action by the comic industry, i don't visualise them going on a crusade now, really.

[darrenmdr]

Quick update with the Dark Horse info cut and pasted.


Hi Comic Fans,

Top Cow and ZCult FM have agreed to have all torrents of Top Cow comics removed from ZCult FM's website and trackers. ZCult FM has been incredibly professional and cordial in working with us to protect our copyrighted material. Top Cow sells our comics and graphic novels in comic shops, major book retailers, and online but we also offer digital downloads of our material legally through Direct2Drive.com. We also have a variety of first issues available to read on our website (www.topcow.com) and we're providing ZCult FM with a number of special preview issues of Madame Mirage, The Darkness, Wanted, Tomb Raider, and Witchblade to share with you. We really appreciate how easy Serj and ZCult FM have been to work with and hope you guys will check out our digital download offerings.

All the best,

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

*snipped*

Spoken like a representative of a corporation if I ever heard one. Copyright law is to allow you and you alone (whether the you in question is an individual or a company) to make money off your creations. It's always been based on money, and to not include it in a defense is at the least disingenuous.

The argument that anyone could make their own Superman, Heroes, whatever and they would all be bad is quite a weak argument. First off, read any number of fanzines and you'll find stories as good if not better than the sources that inspired them. The point is that if there are dozens of knockoffs out there, it confuses the buyer, and the market in general, and that results in lost sales for the creator. Even if the knockoff is better, it's still not your idea and you can't make money off of it.

Making money is a good thing, and laws to prevent others from stealing your ideas are good things. Trying to present said laws as altruistic protectors of the public good is pompous and unneccessary.

And to engage in equinecrosadism, No one is saying the copyright laws are unfair and evil. The argument is that there's a market for digital comics, and the publishers would be better off serving the market than trying to keep the market from existing.

If you read Macaulay on copyright (which is where most copyright laws in the English-speaking world originate), there's more to it than simply protecting the rights of IP holders. The purpose of copyright is to balance the needs of the creator to be rewarded for their work with the rights of the public to enjoy, consume and use it. Copyright was designed to follow the same model that patents do today: The creator was granted a monopoly for a limited period of time in order to recoup the benefits of their work, after which time the work would pass into the public domain. It was based on the principle that the public domain was the natural and rightful place of all such works and the entry of works into the public domain was a good thing.

Unfortunately with the advent of corporations which are not bound by the limitations of a single human lifespan holding copyright, there has been a shift in emphasis toward copyright extension as a way to maintain intellectual property rights and as the the natural state of a created work, rather than an artificial monopoly maintained to provide a reward for those who create.

As a writer, I believe in copyright. I make my living from my words. However, I don't believe in ever-extended copyrights for the benefit of corporations at the expense of the public.

[vbartilucci]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As a writer, I believe in copyright. I make my living from my words. However, I don't believe in ever-extended copyrights for the benefit of corporations at the expense of the public.

I'm curious how you mean "at the expense of the public"? How does a company (or anyone) holding the copyright of a character harm (likely not a good choice of term - replace with a better one) anyone?

Seek out a copy of Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson for a whimsical argument against eternal copyrights.

I don't see a direct comparison to patents and copyrights. As opposed to an invention or a medicine, which is created once (and re-patented if mofications are made), a character like Mickey Mouse or Superman is under constant creation, with each cartoon or issue. So I don't see a problem with the copyright lasting longer.

Besides, with trademark law, while specific issues of Action or Superman may go to the public domain, the titles and the name Superman won't, so the character will be protected.

[khuxford]

Originally Posted by reenold

Ah, I wasn't clear enough. I meant loyalty of their clients, comic fans buy it for decades. Bad PR of the like that MPAA and RIAA now enjoy, would hit that too.

Ummm, yeah...and here our perceptions will probably remain different... All one can see are very short term drops, after something gets down. People adopt new venues of downloading much faster than corporate lawyers can sue stuff and safety in numbers makes people ignore the legal threat, even in USA. Many simply get more careful or switch to different ways of getting material, like newsgroups, etc.

Heh, i didn't even get to the little well-known fact, that so far no one has independently measured the effect of piracy on affected industries, be it for good or ill Except that canadian goernment-issued research that said that piracy slightly helps cd sales

1. No...bad PR wouldn't hit DC or Marvel worse than the MPAA and RIAA (which you suggested, because you said the loyalty angle was different for the Big Two comic companies). The consumer loyalty is primarily to characters, not companies. So it wouldn't hurt them so much.

2. No...it wouldn't be short term drops. You don't get it. Every time a site closes, a percentage of the previous users will not migrate to the new option, through disinterest, choice, or ignorance. So the audience shrinks. With each closing, it becomes more difficult for someone to find the illegal product...meaning the rate of growth for downloaders is stunted. There is a significant effect.

3. You can't show cause and effect with downloading increasing the sales. Most evidence is anecdotal, unfortunately. So that's all BS that isn't even relevant. If the owners of the property object to their property being stolen, they have the right to stop it. If they don't see enough benefit to it or don't think it is worth the risk, no number of studies will then justify you stealing it.

[reenold]

I think we kinda reached the point at which we will just agree to disagree

Originally Posted by khuxford

1. No...bad PR wouldn't hit DC or Marvel worse than the MPAA and RIAA (which you suggested, because you said the loyalty angle was different for the Big Two comic companies). The consumer loyalty is primarily to characters, not companies. So it wouldn't hurt them so much.

Um, you sure? Here, in Newsrama, you can see people so loyal to Marvel/DC, that they hate the other one. Also, imagine Spider-Man being published by DC or X-Men published by Avatar. I am afraid one would kinda notice that.

2. No...it wouldn't be short term drops. You don't get it. Every time a site closes, a percentage of the previous users will not migrate to the new option, through disinterest, choice, or ignorance. So the audience shrinks. With each closing, it becomes more difficult for someone to find the illegal product...meaning the rate of growth for downloaders is stunted. There is a significant effect.

Here I am out of arguments, really, you are denying something i thought obvious to virtually everyone except movie and music execs. Oh well, i will go on: Over the years, it is easier and faster to get stuff, and the crowds of newcomers are growing and growing. After one protocol goes down, there is a small drop, but even the slow adopters/less tech-savvy people eventually come around. And the new ones get initiated all the time, especially after they finish the kindergarten. Also nowadays the protocol doesn't even change that often, you just need a new tracker address after the old one goes down. So unless someone is retarded, he will continue file-sharing.

3. You can't show cause and effect with downloading increasing the sales. Most evidence is anecdotal, unfortunately. So that's all BS that isn't even relevant. If the owners of the property object to their property being stolen, they have the right to stop it. If they don't see enough benefit to it or don't think it is worth the risk, no number of studies will then justify you stealing it.

Yes, but some people here decry the comic piracy as something Evil and harmful to comics, while they have no idea whatsoever. And if it ever turns out that piracy is actually beneficial to comic sales - and it is certainly possible - then it will mean that the publishers shot themselves in the foot, thus hurting the comic market.

[khuxford]

Originally Posted by reenold

I think we kinda reached the point at which we will just agree to disagree

Um, you sure? Here, in Newsrama, you can see people so loyal to Marvel/DC, that they hate the other one. Also, imagine Spider-Man being published by DC or X-Men published by Avatar. I am afraid one would kinda notice that.

Here I am out of arguments, really, you are denying something i thought obvious to virtually everyone except movie and music execs. Oh well, i will go on: Over the years, it is easier and faster to get stuff, and the crowds of newcomers are growing and growing. After one protocol goes down, there is a small drop, but even the slow adopters/less tech-savvy people eventually come around. And the new ones get initiated all the time, especially after they finish the kindergarten. Also nowadays the protocol doesn't even change that often, you just need a new tracker address after the old one goes down. So unless someone is retarded, he will continue file-sharing.


Yes, but some people here decry the comic piracy as something Evil and harmful to comics, while they have no idea whatsoever. And if it ever turns out that piracy is actually beneficial to comic sales - and it is certainly possible - then it will mean that the publishers shot themselves in the foot, thus hurting the comic market.

1. Answering back with three paragraphs is kinda the antithesis of agreeing to disagree. Fact.

2. DC vs. Marvel? That's "what I like is better than what you like!". Why the mislabeled brand loyalty? Because they enjoy reading the CHARACTERS each company owns. And I have no idea whatsoever what you're trying to get across with "Spider-Man by DC/X-Men by Avatar". If those companies got the books...they'd SELL. They'd sell approximately what they sell now.

3. You. Miss. The. Point. Again. Either that, or you just love building up a straw man argument. I never said new people don't come to the practice. I said shutting down a site makes coming to the practice that much harder and reminds those interested that they are doing something illegal. Some drop off...many stick around. Some are discouraged from trying, while others search it out anyway.

When Demonoid.com has gone down, I've figured that was the end of 0day downloads through torrents. There are other sites that carry 'em, but none as quickly as Demonoid from what I saw. But then I was told about ZCult, which, despite registering, I have never downloaded from. I knew, though, that it meant 0day was still available for plenty out there.

There are people out there who probably haven't found a 0day alternative after Demonoid went down...and won't find a 0day alternative after ZCult. The number of torrent sites out there makes searching them all to find out which becomes the 0day a little daunting. In the meantime, those addicted to what happens next in a particular comic book universe will have to resume buying their crack from a local distributor (or buy more of it...or try to get their sooner...or whatever their motivation for downloading was).

4. Again...most have only truly asserted that the downloading is ILLEGAL. Not "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil". Have they suggested it hurts? Yeah...because there are some people here that admittedly download the comics because they are free...not for a format preference or because they live in Timbuktu. They don't want to spend the money. I guarantee you that, if they had no free copies, a lot of them would resort to buying at least a handful of comics again. Buying 10% of what they were reading is still better than 0% of what they were reading. The only thing you ever have to argue in favor of letting the downloading continue is your guess/assumption/questionable logic that there is some immeasurable aid it provides to publishers getting new readers...where all the concrete evidence only points to negative results.

Now...you can feel free to put out several paragraphs "agreeing to disagree" and I won't bother you with a response.

[reenold]

Originally Posted by khuxford

1. Answering back with three paragraphs is kinda the antithesis of agreeing to disagree. Fact.

Alas, I am only human cursed with a keyboard But you are essentially right, attempting to limit the dispute:

Publisher loyalty: well, it is all speculative anyway, so we will have to remain in our trenches

File-sharing: Lack of hard data again hampers the topic. We can't even know for sure what the effect of anti-piracy campaigns is. To me, it seems quite ineffective waste of money, though. Maybe, maaaybe it slows the growth a bit. But not significantly.

0-day comic scans - easily available on other public trackers, like tpb.
Demonoid - semi-public tracker that just redistributed.

Effect on comics: We don't know. On one hand, there is the freeloader factor you mentioned, people taking because it is free. On the other hand, there is the promotion aspect - a lot of people got to know, and fall in love with, series they would never even heard of thanks to the downloads, and it made them buy much more paper comics than before. You can dismiss it, but neither you, or me, can know whether the sum is positive or not.

See? Shorter Soon we will be free

[Steve J.]

I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but I thought of a way to eliminate the problem of downloading scanned comics altogether:

Each individual comic would include a unique single-use alphanumeric code and be sealed in a cellophane wrapper like mail subscription issues. The consumer buys the comic book at their LCS, then uses the code to access a digital version of the same comic book on the publisher's website (the code could not be re-used by someone else once it's been entered...of course, the code could be given away, but with a single-use expiration I believe that would be acceptable). The consumer has purchased the paper copy and the digital copy for one price, and they would have access to a digital "collection" of the issues that they've purchased. The digital comics would only be accessible from a limited number of computers (identifiable by IP address or ethernet adapter address) to minimize account sharing.

To combat scanning, chemical inks or digital watermarks could be used that would obscure either the images, the text, or both on a given number of pages. I'm sure that some will say that you should be able to do what you want with the comic book once you purchased it, but buying the paper copy gives you access to the digital version...so why would you need to scan it? (I'm sure someone will offer a reason, but I can't think of one.)

The dual format for one price would eliminate the argument of those who say they like to have digital versions of the comics they buy. And the obscured images would prevent scanning and downloading of scanned comics at the same time.

The reality is that publishers need to incorporate the digital format into their publishing model. That's not to say that it should replace the paper format, rather it adds an option for the consumer who wants it.

So what do you all think? hux, vbartilucci, meteoro7, bent corner, others?

[RichJohnston]

Originally Posted by Alan Coil

And there was no quote at LitG. Rich Johnston barely even covered the story.

What are you talking about, i did a huge piece about DC's legal qualms over making their published work available online.

[vbartilucci]

Originally Posted by Steve J.

I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but I thought of a way to eliminate the problem of downloading scanned comics altogether:

Thing one, all those anti-scanning tricks will drive up the price of the book, which will make those who complain about the price even MORE dedicated to getting the books scanned.

Thing two, the number of people who want both the paper copy AND a digital copy are a small part of the market. Catering to them is not cost-efficient.

The best and most profitable way to counteract scanning is to provide a comparable product at a fair price. iTunes has show this to be true, DRM and all. I'm repeating myself, but if people were not willing to buy legal MP3s and only wanted them for free, iTunes would have failed, so would Emusic, Rhapsody, et al.

If they insist on some trackability, they can embed a serial number in the graphics files. If memory serves, there's space in the header area of a JPG that a few characters can be embedded. if a copy of the legal scan shows up in a torrent, check the header and see who it's registered to. The JPG could be generated on the fly with each order and the info added to the header. Heck, just add it to one (a tag page) to save time, and require that the tag page remain with the issue.
Yes, those numbers could be scraped off, but the act of doing so would add to the time of making the torrent, and like a Club on a car, the more time an act takes, the less likely the act will be done.

But truth to tell, I think the simple act of making the legal alternative available will be enough. Occam's Razor - go for the most obvious answer, and you'll be right more often than not.

[RichJohnston]

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

That is patently insane. And, I must assume, an unenforced law, considering the number of used book stores and comic shops offering back numbers in the country. I can just see the police cracking down on Charing Cross Road as if it were Fallujah...

No, it's nonsense. A performance of a DVD in a public place may need a licence, but a second hand copy being sold on, no.

Again, mad as a mercury-addled milliner. An argument against socialism if there ever was one...well, that and the usurous taxes, but that's boring.

What socialism?

[vbartilucci]

Originally Posted by RichJohnston

No, it's nonsense. A performance of a DVD in a public place may need a licence, but a second hand copy being sold on, no.

Tell that to darrenmdr, who said earlier in the thread that books and the like may not be re-sold in Britain without a license. It sounded pixillated to me as well.

Originally Posted by RichJohnston

What socialism?

Merely a (insufficiently clearly made as whimsical) comment on the fact that if such restrictive laws exist in Britain, it is an argument against their socialist leaning governmental system, along with their high taxes and reliance on entrails in their cooking...
(DISCLAIMER-this too was intended in hunor - did HHOK make the jump from fanzines to the internet?)

[darrenmdr]

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

Tell that to darrenmdr, who said earlier in the thread that books and the like may not be re-sold in Britain without a license. It sounded pixillated to me as well.


Merely a (insufficiently clearly made as whimsical) comment on the fact that if such restrictive laws exist in Britain, it is an argument against their socialist leaning governmental system, along with their high taxes and reliance on entrails in their cooking...
(DISCLAIMER-this too was intended in hunor - did HHOK make the jump from fanzines to the internet?)

Right I've got things mixed up and made mistakes. Sorry.

Firstly to sell second hand goods inlcluding books in second hand book shop you are meant to have a licence., BUT this does depend under which local authority you live under and IS NOT a law that covers teh whole of England and Wales. For example you need a licence in Dorset, but not in Luton. These local laws came into force in the very early eighties and are still in force today in a lot of places. I thought it was a law that covered the whole Country, but was ignored. So again apologies for that mistake.


However the other stuff about not being able to do what you want with a book such as reading it to a group of friiends, photocopying it for your own strange purposes, taking a photo of the cover blowing it up and making a poster for your bedroom that will never be seen by other human eyes and lots of other nonsense is covered under the 1988 act I wittered about earlier. Just becaiuse you have bough the bookand own the book doesn't mean you can do what you want with it as was stated by somebody earlier.

[RichJohnston]

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

Tell that to darrenmdr, who said earlier in the thread that books and the like may not be re-sold in Britain without a license. It sounded pixillated to me as well.

Yeah, he's just wrong. Otherwise, how would ebay.co.uk survive?

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

Merely a (insufficiently clearly made as whimsical) comment on the fact that if such restrictive laws exist in Britain, it is an argument against their socialist leaning governmental system,

We don't have a socialist leaning governmental system.

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

along with their high taxes and reliance on entrails in their cooking...
(DISCLAIMER-this too was intended in hunor - did HHOK make the jump from fanzines to the internet?)

There's nothing wrong with ______s in gravy, you know...

EDIT: Apart from on Newsarama where you can't write the word f a g g o t s it seems.

[Predabot1]

Indeed, why could that possibly be, Mr Johnston... :\

I notice that since I had a gander last time in this thread, the international factor has come slightly into discussion.
In my experience, most of the people that download pirated comics, seem to be from outside of the US, and in countrys that have somewhat bad economy in comparison to the US, or from countries where the distribution and sale of American comics, are slim to nill.

There are for instance, quite a few from former Soviet republics and South-east asia. In these and many other countries ( such as my own), US law has no validity whatsoever. And that's something that I think everyone have to accept and take into consideration.

Let me paint a scenario for you:

A friend of mine pays for, and imports an issue of Final Crisis, that he has to pay TWICE the cover-price for, because of the costs of shipping the damn thing across the atlantic. He then goes on to scan said issue, and spread it trough certain file-sharing venues with me and a number of his other mates. We then in turn, spread it further.

In our country he has then done nothing wrong... he's perfectly innocent, and he has payed for the issue, so that we, all of his mates, won't have to. With our meager student-money. Naturally the scan is spread like wildfire globally within a few days.

But can he, or any number of the pirates outside of the US be blamed for this?? Can Rich Johnston or Dan Didio come to me or my mates house and demand money upfront for scanning or downloading one of their comics, even tho according to the limits of the laws that WE abide by, we HAVEN'T done anything wrong??

Is this feasible..?

[Predabot1]

Darn. Double-post.