I don’t think he missed the point. The point is irrelevant. Protection of Intellectual Property is a concept that only works if everybody agrees it works. Yes, if you create something, you own it and the right to do what you want with it… but good luck with enforcing anything outside of that.

Petty, again: “If I steal your TV, I deprive you of the ability to enjoy it. If I steal your idea (your intellectual property), I derive you of your ability to profit from it. I don’t see the distinction at all. ”

That is incorrect, and I wasn’t going to address this specifically, but I am now compelled by boredom. If someone steals your idea, it actually DOES NOT deprive the creator’s ability to profit from it. It just means other people could potentially profit as well. If you steal a TV, the TV is gone. If you steal a copy of my TV (which is the accurate comparison, for what it’s worth), why should I care? Sony might care, but there’s really nothing they can do about it because they aren’t being deprived of their ability to profit. Their ability to profit is just now limited. There’s a big difference between theft and losing profits, and that’s the core disagreement between downloaders and the people who control the rights to what is being downloaded.

Downloading is only an issue because it’s done in such a public fashion by such a large number of people. If I make a copy of a cd for my friend, it’s no big deal because nobody knows. If I make a digital copy of a cd and send it to several friends across the country, it’s now the end of the world. I still bought the damn CD and supported the artists. So what if I send it to others who weren’t going to buy it in the first place… there isn’t any lost revenue.

I can say without a doubt that downloading increases sales because I’m the proof. However, that’s all I’m to say about that. Maybe it doesn’t ALWAYS increase sales, but it DOES increase sales. The only way to prove that it lowers sales is to get someone to admit that “yeah, I was going to buy the album/comic/movie, but I decided to download it instead because it’s free and I don’t want to spend the money despite already knowing I would really enjoy the cd/comic/dvd and liking the people who made it”. Even if you get someone to admit that, downloading isn’t the problem in this case; that particular individual is and just admitted to a potentially actionable activity… despite not actually stealing anything.

So… good luck with this argument.

“You say that there is no difference between posting scans and stealing a television. I would argue that there is an obvious and fundamental difference. When you steal my television, I don’t have it anymore. When you post a scan online, no one has anything tangible taken away from them. ”

I think you’re missing the whole point of intellectual property. An artist or writer, for example, make their living on ideas and the expression of those ideas. When someone uses those ideas without permission or recompense, it dilutes the ability of the creator to make a living from those ideas. Who are you to say that, when scans are posted illegally, nothing has been lost? Certainly, the copyright holder has lost, to some degree, the ability to control the distribution of the work that they own, and that has value.

Value isn’t only about something you can hold in your hand. The character of Superman, for example, isn’t a tangible thing, but that concept has value to the people who own it. In a very real sense, digital media is exactly like non-digital media, in the sense that someone had to conceive of it and bring it into the world. That person has rights as far as that intellectual property is concerned. Just because you can distribute it doesn’t mean you have the right to.

I once had someone tell me that if it was on the Internet, it’s in the public domain, which is absolutely ridiculous. That’s the kind of misconception that’s at work here. If I steal your TV, I deprive you of the ability to enjoy it. If I steal your idea (your intellectual property), I derive you of your ability to profit from it. I don’t see the distinction at all.

You say that there is no difference between posting scans and stealing a television. I would argue that there is an obvious and fundamental difference. When you steal my television, I don’t have it anymore. When you post a scan online, no one has anything tangible taken away from them. We can talk about hypothetical money that creators are not making, but in terms of actual money, nothing has been lost. Scanning an entire comic is different from stealing a comic from a store. When you steal a comic, you’ve actually taken something. The retailer has lost money, and has less product available for customers. Digital media is not the same as non-digital media, and terms like “theft” blur the distinctions. All of the evidence that SD resulted in fewer sales, or more sales for that matter, are purely anecdotal, making the financial argument difficult one.

and the consequences for the average downloader are … zero. Well not zero but so close to zero to be really really close but really very far way from one. Unless someone alter that, you will see no change in behaviour.

The moral questions are very interesting but a morality based solution to the problem is going nowhere. People simply don’t believe or don’t care that’s it wrong and no amount of angry words will change that.

It’s like people who actually believe that they can OWN land. It’s only true as long as everyone else BELIEVES it’s true.

“1) Marvel, DC, and every other publisher big and small need to set up a dedicated area on their web servers for images. Each image would contain a small legal notice on the image. Reviewers, bloggers, anyone could then link to the image, but not host the image on their own sites. (This allows the copyright holder to control the image, and remove it for whatever reason.)”

Torsten, I understand where you’re coming from with this, but this isn’t a reasonable request. First of all, server space costs money. Secondly, even under this plan, the copyright holder wold have no say in how the image is used. You’re putting the onus on the copyright owner, rather than on the person who wants to use the image, and that’s exactly backwards.

“2) Each publisher needs to place a boilerplate statement regarding how they view copyright, trademarks, creative individuals, and the larger fan community. On this page should be a contact address (both email and postal) to whomever handles requests for reprints, permission, and other legal niceties.”

Why? The only time I can see doing this is when a publisher has an attitude towards their own copyrights that is different from the prevailing societal attitudes. For example, if you were to publish a comic and decide you wanted it to be freely available for anyone to modify, distribute, reprint, etc., than you need to make that clear. As far as contact info goes, virtually all publishers have someone in Marketing or PR or Licensing or whatever that can grant permission for the use of images and copyrighted material. Again, it’s up to the person who wants to use the material to make the contact.

“3) The Copyright Clearance Center should gather publishers, websites, journalists, librarians, academics, and create an understanding on what amount of a material might be reproduced. It should not be legally binding, but instead be a guideline which entities could then agree to follow. If this works, then you adapt it to other media. Certification would require sites to police themselves, in return for better “fair use” terms. (Five pages instead of two, for example.) Within these guidelines would be procedures for settling disputes.”

There’s already such an understanding in place: it’s called the Berne Convention for the Protection of LIterary and Artistic Works, as well as the Copyright Act of 1976. The Copyright Clearance Center can’t establish new rules and regulations that circumvent these laws. And there are guidelines for settling disputes, called a court of law. What else is needed? Again, the onus is on the person that wants to use a copyrighted work to understand and follow these laws.

“4. The Copyright Clearance Center or some such similar organization would create a copyright boilerplate which each contributor to any website would have to agree. Each website would be able to set their own terms regarding any violation of these terms.”

Again, all of this is already covered in existing law. Websites don’t get to decide for themselves which laws they’ll follow and which they won’t in regards to copyright, any more than you and I get to decide whether or not we’ll obey the laws based on theft and burglary. If we break those laws, we have to be ready to suffer the consequences.

“It’s a horrible horrible thought that someone is ripping you off but from a pragmatic stance, it’s something that creators are simply going to have to get used to.”

Under your scenario, what’s the incentive for a creator to create? If I accept your thesis that I’m just going to have to accept getting ripped off, why would I create anything for your enjoyment? That’s why the copyright laws were established, to incentivize creators to create things that benefit society. This is exactly the debate that was at the center of the movement that resulted in the formation of Image Comics, for example. Those creators wanted to actually own, and profit from, their ideas and creations, rather than signing their work over to a larger corporation. Would you suggest that it’s all right for someone to publish SPAWN without compensating Todd Mcfarlane. Would you tell him that he “just has to get used to it?”

What’s most disturbing in this thread is how apathetic people are about theft, and how little they seem to care for the rights of artists, writers, etc. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. If someone burglarizes your home, do you expect the police to tell you to “just get used to it,” or do you expect them to go out and catch and punish the guilty person? This is no different.

Perhaps, as someone else in this thread suggested, we have to start by changing people’s attitudes. I assume people are reading this thread on this board because they love comics. Why then do so many seem to approve of stealing from the very creators they seem to support.

“Just get used to it” isn’t an answer. “That’s just the way things are” isn’t an answer The answer is to do the right thing and not steal from someone else.

2) Each publisher needs to place a boilerplate statement regarding how they view copyright, trademarks, creative individuals, and the larger fan community. On this page should be a contact address (both email and postal) to whomever handles requests for reprints, permission, and other legal niceties.

3) The Copyright Clearance Center should gather publishers, websites, journalists, librarians, academics, and create an understanding on what amount of a material might be reproduced. It should not be legally binding, but instead be a guideline which entities could then agree to follow. If this works, then you adapt it to other media. Certification would require sites to police themselves, in return for better “fair use” terms. (Five pages instead of two, for example.) Within these guidelines would be procedures for settling disputes.

4. The Copyright Clearance Center or some such similar organization would create a copyright boilerplate which each contributor to any website would have to agree. Each website would be able to set their own terms regarding any violation of these terms.

5. Comicbook publishers should standardize their websites so that “PREVIEWS.secondleveldomain.topleveldomain” always links to whatever new titles the publisher wishes to feature. The website would of course be free to duplicate this information on the site’s homepage or elsewhere within.

All the way back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled Congress actually wanted to try and crack down on “questionable content” on the Internet, even back then - including both pornography and materials that violated copyright - and no less an authority than Newt Gingrich, who WANTED to censor the Internet, told his fellow Republicans that IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DONE, TO ANY MEANINGFUL DEGREE WHATSOEVER.

Bear in mind, Newt Gingrich is not some wild-eyed anarchist liberal who thinks that The Wealth Should be Shared - this is a dyed-in-the-wool, Ayn Rand-reading, what’s-mine-is-mine capitalist, and when his fellow conservatives turned to him and asked how they could crack down on those nasty thieves on that newfangled World Wide Web who were snatching potential profits from the mouths of copyright-holders, Gingrich shared their outrage, but nonetheless informed them that NOTHING COULD BE DONE TO STOP IT.

And this was in the mid-1990s, when the Internet was practically EMPTY, compared to what it is today.

There are moral and ethical arguments to be made on both sides of the copyright debate, but the fact of the matter is that the morals and ethics make not one bit of difference, because past a certain point, the limit of a worthwhile law is an ENFORCEABLE law, and the main difference between copyright protection and Prohibition is that Prohibition was LIGHT YEARS easier to enforce than copyrights are now.

I not advocating rolling over and accepting the theft but the truth is that the theft is now so widespread and so broad that even if, as the copyright, holder, you go after 0.00000000001% of the people ripping you off, you’d be overwhelmed. It’s a horrible horrible thought that someone is ripping you off but from a pragmatic stance, it’s something that creators are simply going to have to get used to.

And I don’t mean “get used to” in “yahoo sucks to be you!”, I mean get used to in that the business models of the future are going to based around the fact that only a certain percentage will pay for the core product, the comic - so you either have to treat everyone else as invisible *or* you concentrate on adding value via other means - hats, toys,ads whatever and increase revenue that way

Now most comic creators are not interested in doing that but in five, ten years where e-readers are colour and high quality and a kid can load the whole run of Spider-man onto a device that runs for a week and is comfortable to read on the sofa - well that business plan needs to be worked out or people are going to be shit out of luck.

Is this is me advocating piracy? no it is, I believe in creator rights and control but I’m not a comic book writer or producer, I’m actually interested in and write about people’s use of innovative and disruptive technology - and the piracy we have now is the tip of the iceberg, because the current generation of devices are particular suitable for mainstream audiences. As soon as those e-readers get cheap and colour - it’s over - well unless you have a business model better than the current one - because in the same way, that most people don’t buy for music, most people will not pay for comics - they will simply steal them. So you have to concentrate on adding value for those who *will* and forget about the rest. or you can spend a lot of time and money chasing them to no real advantage.

Sure I’d like to see the bastards go to jail but it’s not going to happen.

“Yes, I understand that artists have to take action but pirate material replicates like a virus - as soon as it’s copied, it’s out there forever regardless of what action an artist tries to take, that’s why you have no control.”

So is your point that if something is difficult to control, one shouldn’t even try? Your virus analogy is apt: if a potentially destructive virus is released into the population, public health officials are going to do everything they can to contain and eradicate it. They don’t just throw up their hands and say, “Well, it’s out there now. No sense in doing anything abut it.”

In the same way that doctors and public health organizations protect us from viruses and diseases, copyright laws are intended to protect creative individuals. Yes, the Internet and the proliferation of pirated material makes this exponentially harder, but that doesn’t justify someone who steals another persons intellectual property, nor does it mean that the rights holder should simply roll over and accept the theft.

Generally against other legal entities - best of luck getting some money out of jumnu85 who operates his torrent site/DC++ site whatever out of thailand.

Yes, I understand that artists have to take action but pirate material replicates like a virus - as soon as it’s copied, it’s out there forever regardless of what action an artist tries to take, that’s why you have no control.

No, it isn’t. And while you may not be able to control every time someone steals your work, you still have to call out copyright infringement when you see it. Artists have to do this all the time via copyrighting AND trademarking their work. It gives them legal recourse they wouldn’t otherwise have, and it can be extremely important in cases of outright work theft where profits are involved. Many artists have won large cases in this way and it sets precedent.

Just because something happens a lot, or will happen, doesn’t mean you just give up. You do what you can and you try to teach people the difference between right and wrong. We teach kids not to plagiarize in school…we should be teaching them this as well.

“Fruits of your labors? Don’t take this the wrong way, but I have no idea who you are or what fruits you are producing. I’m fairly certain I have not infringed on your fruits.”

Don’t be ridiculous, Rick. I’m sure you know I was speaking in general terms. The question still remains: do you support the rights of creators to profit from their work or don’t you? Do you believe in the concept of IP or not?

“I just think there is a double-standard when it comes to intellectual property in the world of comic books.”

There’s really not. I’d recommend you do a little reading on Fair Use so that you can understand what it is and isn’t. Besides, “consistency” isn’t the issue here. SD’s flagrant disregard for copyright law is.

The question is very simple: do you support the rights of creators to profit from their creations or don’t you? Do you believe in the concept of intellectual property, or do you believe that you somehow have a right to the fruits of my labors?

Fruits of your labors? Don’t take this the wrong way, but I have no idea who you are or what fruits you are producing. I’m fairly certain I have not infringed on your fruits.

As far as what I support or don’t support, I support consistency. For instance, if someone is going to report an online comic book community for posting a few images to the legal department of Marvel Comics, I would also expect them to report one of their fellow comic book professional s who is selling unauthorized, unlicensed prints of Doctor Strange at a comic book convention.

I just think there is a double-standard when it comes to intellectual property in the world of comic books.

“Can you show me any proof of this anywhere? Has DC or Marvel ever publicly said it was OK for artists to create artwork based on their properties? Turning a blind eye is not the same thing as condoning it. The same could be said about scans_daily. Neither company told anyone from scans_daily to stop posting images of their properties. Just because they turned a blind eye to it over the years doesn’t mean they ever said it was OK.”

No, I can’t show you any proof, as I said this was my understanding. Besides, I think there’s a difference between creating an original image of a character and posting scans of a comic book. One is a creative act, and the other is not. If you look at the laws regarding Fair Use, you’ll see that it makes a distinction between newly-created works of art based on an original property and the simple pirating of a copyrighted work. In fact, courts have upheld this difference many times. The artist who does a drawing of Batman, for example, at a convention is creating a wholly new work. The person who posts sans on a website like SD is not. Selling a drawing of Batman does not, in most cases, diminish the value of Batman to DC. Posting scans of a comic DC is trying to sell does.

And none of this changes the fact that what SD was doing was incontrovertibly wrong. Whether or not you support the current copyright laws, there’s really no arguing that SD broke them. Yes, you can cite many other examples of individuals and groups breaking the same law, but that doesn’t justify what SD did. Plenty of people commit murders every day, but that doesn’t make it right. The question is very simple: do you support the rights of creators to profit from their creations or don’t you? Do you believe in the concept of intellectual property, or do you believe that you somehow have a right to the fruits of my labors?

No, it’ OK when the copyright holder says it’s OK. As I said, my understanding is that both Marvel and DC have a long-standing policy of supporting these creator-to-fan activities. That’s their right, and it’s not analogous at all to what SD was doing.

Can you show me any proof of this anywhere? Has DC or Marvel ever publicly said it was OK for artists to create artwork based on their properties? Turning a blind eye is not the same thing as condoning it. The same could be said about scans_daily. Neither company told anyone from scans_daily to stop posting images of their properties. Just because they turned a blind eye to it over the years doesn’t mean they ever said it was OK.

“I’m guessing you haven’t checked out eBay’s “Comics > Original Comic Art >Drawings, Sketches” section lately.”

Sure I have. And anybody involved in the original art hobby knows that both DC and Marvel occasionally go on a spree of shutting down auctions. It’s not a regular thing, but they do it frequently enough that they can show they’re protecting their copyright.

“Why is one thing morally wrong, while the other isn’t? IP theft is IP theft, right? Why is it when it’s done for financial gain, it’s somehow OK?”

No, it’ OK when the copyright holder says it’s OK. As I said, my understanding is that both Marvel and DC have a long-standing policy of supporting these creator-to-fan activities. That’s their right, and it’s not analogous at all to what SD was doing.

Both DC and Marvel have made a practice of, for example, shutting down eBay auctions of sketches based on their characters in the past, and I’m sure they will continue to do so. You’re right that it’s a widespread phenomenon, but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it justify anyone who infringes on copyright.

I’m guessing you haven’t checked out eBay’s “Comics > Original Comic Art >Drawings, Sketches” section lately.

The problem I have with some comic book creators is the double-standard they seem to have when it comes to intellectual property. They are all for coming down on people that post images of their work without any type of financial gain, but they themselves seem to think nothing about charging someone hundreds of dollars for artwork featuring characters they don’t own the rights to. Why is one thing morally wrong, while the other isn’t? IP theft is IP theft, right? Why is it when it’s done for financial gain, it’s somehow OK?

And it’s not only a one-to-one, creator-to-fan, activity. There were quite a few artists on the sales floor selling mass produced prints of comic book characters they do not own the rights to.

“So if you want to strictly adhere to that. We need to clean it all up. All the fan fics, fan art scattered all over place like DeviantART (they don’t own the characters so they shouldn’t draw them! no matter that they aren’t profiting from it or might actually be promoting their characters for them)”

Both DC and Marvel have made a practice of, for example, shutting down eBay auctions of sketches based on their characters in the past, and I’m sure they will continue to do so. You’re right that it’s a widespread phenomenon, but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it justify anyone who infringes on copyright. You would never justify murder by saying, “well, other people are doing it and getting away with it, so it must be all right.” What’s the difference.

“or even say all the pros that sell commission work at cons or online of Big Two characters. ”

As I understand the situation, both DC and Marvel allow and encourage this practice, especially since it’s a one-to-one, creator-to-fan, activity. If one of those creators were to market, say, a print of Spider-Man, I think you’d see a very different reaction from Marvel.

“Get rid of all those secondary markets where say people are selling their old Batman comics and making money off of it. That’s people making money on Batman that aren’t DC! ”

I’m sure you realize that this isn’t the same situation at all. A comic book is a commodity, and once you own a commodity, you can sell or trade it as you like. That’s a far cry from posting scans of that comic on the Internet. The same with toy customizers. If you’re doing that as a hobby, and not marketing a line of toys based on copyrighted characters, you’re in the clear as far as the law is concerned. Let’s try to stick to the real facts here.

“I HAVE created my own comic and am looking for the right venue where I can offer it as a free download so I can maybe build an audience for future issues. ”

That’s great, and I hope you’re very successful. As the creator, you have every right to determine how your work is distributed. If you chose to share it freely with others, that’s entirely your right. Why would you deny the right of self-determination to others just because they don’t happen to follow a business model that you favor? Perhaps free distribution is the way of the future, and perhaps not. The fact is, though, that’s not the way it is now, and simply breaking the law isn’t going to help to change things.

“There is little to no question that SD was violating copyright law, but to saw that makes SD wrong is not as clear. Things such as the Free Culture movement complicate the argument about right and wrong in internet piracy cases (which is really what this is), and make clear distinctions less black and white.”

I disagree. Where is the right in denying creators their rights and their abilities to profit from their work? IMO, the Free Culture Movement is absolutely wrong. How dare anyone say they have a right to distribute or modify my creative work? I’m sure you wouldn’t agree that I had a right to walk into your house and take your TV, claiming that just because I had a truck big enough to cart it away that I had a right to take it. What’s the difference?

Intellectual property is still property, whether or not there’s a tangible “thing” to steal. I find it interesting that this is the same comic’s fandom that is regularly incensed over, say, Marvel’s treatment of Jack Kirby in regards to not returning all of his original art. By the line of reasoning offered here, not only was it OK to deny Kirby the return of his art, but that art should have been distributed freely to everyone who wanted it. That doesn’t make one bit of sense to me. Either you support creator’s rights or you don’t. This argument seems to be primarily about people who want something for nothing.

There are plenty of reviewers that are able to discuss a particular comic without illegally distributing scans of the interior pages. There are plenty of sites and forums that are capable of discussing comics without infringing on a copyright holder’s rights. SD was wrong in every sense of the word, and I’ll stand by that opinion.

“And I’m amazed that you still haven’t figured out what’s REALLY being debated, because it sure as hell isn’t about some misplaced sense of ‘entitlement’.

Legalities aside, scans_daily was in essence a SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE, and the awkward circumstances over it being shut down temporarily are the real issue here.”

No, they’re not. SD wasn’t shut down due to social networking. It was shut down because they were illegally posting scans of copyrighted work. You can try to minimize that as much as you want, or try to ignore that fact all together, but that is most assuredly the issue.

So if you want to strictly adhere to that. We need to clean it all up. All the fan fics, fan art scattered all over place like DeviantART (they don’t own the characters so they shouldn’t draw them! no matter that they aren’t profiting from it or might actually be promoting their characters for them), or even say all the pros that sell commission work at cons or online of Big Two characters. Get rid of all those secondary markets where say people are selling their old Batman comics and making money off of it. That’s people making money on Batman that aren’t DC! Take down all the fan sites because they are blatantly thumbing their noses at the pros by celebrating (raping!) those characters they have no right to be handling. Do an image search at Google for oh say “Superman”. All those people need to be dealt with too because you know 99.9999% of those sites hosting those Superman images aren’t DC. Then there are toy customizers. Making their own toys of characters they don’t own. Wrong! Fan films. Wrong! If you want to get really strict on this high ground of ownership vs. fans there’s a LOT of work to be done.

“For everyone that complains that SD wasn’t doing something wrong, I dare you to go out and create and publish something of value and then see how you feel when someone rips it off.”

I HAVE created my own comic and am looking for the right venue where I can offer it as a free download so I can maybe build an audience for future issues. It also has a Noncommercial Share-Alike Creative Commons license stamped on it which encourages others to remix, share and participate in the work as long as they don’t profit from it. Because I fully understand that’s the way progressive minded companies are going to involve their customers in the future. Engage your fanbase instead of treating them like they are your worst enemy.

I’d be careful with the differences between right and wrong, and legal and illegal.

You begin by saying, “The simple fact is, what Scans Daily was doing was wrong,” and then proceed to argue that what SD was doing was illegal. There is little to no question that SD was violating copyright law, but to saw that makes SD wrong is not as clear. Things such as the Free Culture movement complicate the argument about right and wrong in internet piracy cases (which is really what this is), and make clear distinctions less black and white.

I would just argue that it’s wise to stick with legal terms, which are easier to discuss, and to stay away from moral and ethical terms, which are more nuanced, and which some people may have legitimate reasons to disagree with.