Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Shaddim · 05:17 PM

Ok, I made a new thread since the old one was causing confusion.

Today I took my bi-weekly trip to my friendly neighborhood comic book store and there was much excitement, the new issue of Buffy Season 8 came out this week. I have a subscription there and usually get around ten books every two weeks. I'm not one of their biggest customers, but I'm very loyal and I've shopped at that particular store for over 7 years.

So, I'm standing at the counter, after wandering around the shop for thirty minutes, jawing with one of the employees. They're ringing up my purchases and I comment about how I often grab some issues from torrents, but only the ones I buy. Since most titles come out monthly, and sometimes I don't remember everything that happened previously, I often go back and read certain issues several times. After a while, that can damage a comic and I'm rather picky about condition. Anyway, the girl behind the counter starts getting snotty and basically tells me that I'm a crook for downloading books that I'm already buying. She then informs me that I should be buying multiple copies of each issue, so I can have one to put away and one that's a "read copy".

What's your take? Am I wrong? Am I evil? (ok, I probably am evil, so skip that part.)

Note: Marvel comics don't apply, I pay for their digital service and can get just about anything I want from it.

Doofy · Feb 9, 2008, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

What's your take? Am I wrong?

Torrents bad. Since you're actually uploading at the same time to other folks who haven't paid and all that.

However, if the company providing Buffy 8 can't be arsed to make a TV series about it then as far as I'm concerned you're legit.

Shaddim · Feb 9, 2008, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Torrents bad. Since you're actually uploading at the same time to other folks who haven't paid and all that.

However, if the company providing Buffy 8 can't be arsed to make a TV series about it then as far as I'm concerned you're legit.

Well, I was skeptical, but it's actually not bad. My complaint is that it's moving too slowly. Four comics seem to equal one TV episode, so that means it's four months per episode. Ugh.

As for torrents being bad, it only takes about a minute to grab an issue, and then I log out and move it to another folder. I guess I could just have a friend email them to me.

subego · 06:29 AM

Separate from the whole issue of how you can't control what people who hook into your torrent are doing, I think the issue centers around why you are picky about condition.

If you never intend to sell these comics within your lifetime, then I'd say it's okay.

If you are keeping them in good condition so they maintain their sale value, how does it feel to be a thief?

Cipher13 · Feb 10, 2008, 06:17 AM

She's an idiot. Ignore her.

Chuckit · Feb 10, 2008, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Separate from the whole issue of how you can't control what people who hook into your torrent are doing, I think the issue centers around why you are picky about condition.

If you never intend to sell these comics within your lifetime, then I'd say it's okay.

If you are keeping them in good condition so they maintain their sale value, how does it feel to be a thief?

Wait, what? You're trying to say he's stealing lifespan for his comic books?

peeb · Feb 10, 2008, 06:54 AM

I don't consider what he is doing to be 'wrong', but under today's ludicrous copyright laws, it is illegal.

Shaddim · Feb 10, 2008, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Separate from the whole issue of how you can't control what people who hook into your torrent are doing, I think the issue centers around why you are picky about condition.

If you never intend to sell these comics within your lifetime, then I'd say it's okay.

If you are keeping them in good condition so they maintain their sale value, how does it feel to be a thief?

Who's to say I'll never sell them? It's likely that I won't, but you never know. I may lose interest in 10 years.

Also, why does it matter?

Part of collecting comics is to keep them in the best condition you can. With most, I even change the bags and boards every 3-4 years, it's a discipline. Though, for a while now I've been sending my high dollar books ($200+) to be professionally graded and sealed.

subego · Feb 10, 2008, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wait, what? You're trying to say he's stealing lifespan for his comic books?

No, but that sounds cool.

It's a question of whether he intends to make a profit off of it, and whether that is the motivation behind him keeping it pristine.

If he also wants to get enjoyment out of his commodity, then the onus is upon him to treat it properly while doing so, or to buy another copy he can touch with the Cheeto fingers. By downloading it, he is essentially stealing that second copy.

OTOH, if it's really just about having the comic, and having it be nice, sure, don't waste your time or money.

Not that this is 100% relevant, but I actually don't care whether it's legal or not. Plenty of laws I break because they are stupid, and plenty of legal things I don't do because they're wrong.

subego · Feb 10, 2008, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Also, why does it matter?

Part of collecting comics is to keep them in the best condition you can. With most, I even change the bags and boards every 3-4 years, it's a discipline. Though, for a while now I've been sending my high dollar books ($200+) to be professionally graded and sealed.

I totally get this. That's why I think it's about intent. If the intent is to keep your collection pristine because that's part of the deal being a collector, I think you should have at it.

A good test of this would be do you intentionally buy comics that you don't like or would never want to read? If you don't, then I think you're fine.

If you buy comics that you don't like or particularly care about, you aren't really a collector, you're a speculator. As such, I think you should cough-up for the extra copy.

Chongo · Feb 10, 2008, 10:23 AM

Until you will get a nastygram from your ISP and Dark Horse go for it.

starman · Feb 10, 2008, 01:30 PM

Not for nothing, but back in my comic days before torrents, I did the same thing - bought two. You're basically cheating the system. Sorry it's not what you wanted to hear.

I don't buy comics anymore but if I did, I'd still buy two.

Big Mac · Feb 11, 2008, 04:00 AM

Shaddim, I have to say I think you're far too intelligent to be relying on the forums for an answer to that question. The use of torrents to download copyrighted material comes down to a personal judgment call.

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 09:37 AM

I just think it's bad form that you said right to the face of the owner "I'm using the internet to take money away from you". That's essentially what you're doing.

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

What's your take? Am I wrong? Am I evil? (ok, I probably am evil, so skip that part.)

So, in an imaginary world w/o internet, ~~I would have never posted this,~~ would you buy a second copy, or just be real careful with the first copy ?

-t

Chuckit · Feb 11, 2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by starman

I just think it's bad form that you said right to the face of the owner "I'm using the internet to take money away from you". That's essentially what you're doing.

Similar to how using a freeware application is like taking money away from commercial developers? "Not giving money to" is different from "taking money away from."

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

"Not giving money to" is different from "taking money away from."

Really always ?

-t

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 12:30 PM

There's a really unpleasant culture of entitlement from copyright holders these days - want to read it twice? Buy two copies!

Chuckit · Feb 11, 2008, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

There's a really unpleasant culture of entitlement from copyright holders these days - want to read it twice? Buy two copies!

I agree. People are trying to bury the original ideas behind copyright. The idea that I'm obligated to buy something twice if I want a backup copy does not seem in line with the principles of copyright to me.

Big Mac · Feb 11, 2008, 12:39 PM

Many people have no understanding of fair use, or they choose to ignore it.

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Similar to how using a freeware application is like taking money away from commercial developers? "Not giving money to" is different from "taking money away from."

Oh really? Let's say the internet didn't exist. You'd be paying for two.

The bottom line is that the 'net has grown this culture of people that feel that just because it IS free, that they shouldn't have to pay for it, and reverse-justify their morals to fit that culture.

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 01:08 PM

Let's say libraries didn't exist either - then you'd have to buy every book you read - so is library lending sealing too?

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Let's say libraries didn't exist either - then you'd have to buy every book you read - so is library lending sealing too?

So you want to abolish libraries?

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Many people have no understanding of fair use, or they choose to ignore it.

And how exactly is it "fair use"?

If someone lends you a copy of a comic they paid for, there's a loss, but it's not that bad. If you take a comic and distribute it across the internet so that THOUSANDS of people can read it for free, is that "fair use"?

Big Mac · Feb 11, 2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by starman

And how exactly is it "fair use"?

If someone lends you a copy of a comic they paid for, there's a loss, but it's not that bad. If you take a comic and distribute it across the internet so that THOUSANDS of people can read it for free, is that "fair use"?

I was responding in that post, specifically, to Chuckit's comment that it's absurd for rights holders to claim copyrights mean one has to buy two copies of a given product in order to have a backup copy. Backups are part of the fair use limitation of copyrights. I was not talking about torrents in that reply.

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I was responding in that post, specifically, to Chuckit's comment that it's absurd for rights holders to claim copyrights mean one has to buy two copies of a given product in order to have a backup copy. Backups are part of the fair use limitation of copyrights. I was not talking about torrents in that reply.

Understood.

Here's my opinion on fair use. If you buy a comic and "back it up" somehow (photocopy, etc.), I could understand that because you did it on your own. However, when you start getting into downloading digital copies of things like graphic novels, then I start to think that there's a line that's crossed. Someone is distributing unauthorized copies and there's really no way to know if the people that are downloading them are doing so for "archival purposes" or not.

Hence the name "copyright". The "copyright" holder owns the rights of how something gets copied.

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by starman

So you want to abolish libraries?

Not at all, but some copyright holders associations do.

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Hence the name "copyright". The "copyright" holder owns the rights of how something gets copied.

To an extent, yes. They don't have the right to prevent the owner making a personal backup though, which is the issue here.

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

To an extent, yes. They don't have the right to prevent the owner making a personal backup though, which is the issue here.

No it's not. He's taking a copy that SOMEONE ELSE made from the internet. He's not making it himself because that would ruin the original copy.

Big, major difference there.

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 01:40 PM

Well, maybe - it's not clear to me how a court would rule on this issue, but yes, I take your point. The problem is it is a black box. Suppose I run a business that sells fair use backups of comics. You mail me the comic, and I mail you back the original comic and a backup copy of it. Suppose that I had a new photocopier that could copy without damaging the original - would that be illegal?
What if, instead, I had another copy of the comic, and I photocopied that one, and mailed it back to you with your original? Whether or not this was illegal would then depend on exactly which copy of the comic I copied - I'd have to keep very detailed audit records. It would be kind of silly, no?

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 01:54 PM

The inherent problem is that nobody knows what copies are being made for. There's nothing that ties copies to you.

Ok, how about this - let's say you make copies but the copy has your name on the front cover. That way, it's well known that the copy is tied to you and not being distributed. Kind of like a photocopy watermark.

I think that the studios would allow backups if the copies themselves were somehow watermarked also.

I suppose that my problem, now that I think about it more, is where these "copies" are coming from.

For example - I buy a Disney movie on DVD and I know my kids are going to misuse the disc at some point, so I make a backup. Now, this backup isn't for "archival purposes", it's so that once it gets scratched, I still have the original to make another backup from. I think that's fair because the copy does not come from outside my possession, nor is it going outside my possession.

When you factor in the internet, you're essentially getting a copy for free. You didn't do any of the work youself, and the distribution is questionable.

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 02:33 PM

So your archive of your kids dvd would be legal, if you hadn't had to break the DMCA to make it... The problem is that recent copyright law changes really undermine your rights to personal use copyright exemptions. The whole watermarking game also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the consumer, not a good idea IMO.

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

So your archive of your kids dvd would be legal, if you hadn't had to break the DMCA to make it... The problem is that recent copyright law changes really undermine your rights to personal use copyright exemptions. The whole watermarking game also shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the consumer, not a good idea IMO.

That's why most consumers say "F@ck what's legal or not, I do what I think is morally right."

Morally right to me is to make and/or obtain backups for fair use in *any* way I chose to, as long as I don't steal money from the copyright holder.

-t

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 03:21 PM

Indeed. Copyright holders are shooting themselves in the foot by making what most normal people think of as reasonable illegal. Whenever you have a situation where most people are breaking the law the problem is usually the law.

Shaddim · Feb 11, 2008, 05:18 PM

It's interesting to see these perspectives. I can't say I agree with most of them, but it's good to see where people are coming from.

I've decided that since I've already paid the company (and artists) for the story and the work going into it, I'm not at fault in this. The law and comic companies may say otherwise, but they can kiss my ass. The girl at the store probably just wants to bump up sales and saw a way to squeeze another $10-20 /month from me. Can't say that I blame her, it's her job.

So, thank you, **** them, and have a nice day.

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

So, thank you, **** them, and have a nice day.

I should start signing my work emails with this

-t

peeb · Feb 11, 2008, 05:40 PM

Totally!

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

It's interesting to see these perspectives. I can't say I agree with most of them, but it's good to see where people are coming from.

I've decided that since I've already paid the company (and artists) for the story and the work going into it, I'm not at fault in this. The law and comic companies may say otherwise, but they can kiss my ass. The girl at the store probably just wants to bump up sales and saw a way to squeeze another $10-20 /month from me. Can't say that I blame her, it's her job.

So, thank you, **** them, and have a nice day.

And when the place goes out of business...

Chuckit · Feb 11, 2008, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by starman

And when the place goes out of business...

If your business model relies on everybody buying redundant copies of your wares out of some bizarre sense of capitalistic charity, your business kind of deserves to go under. That's never been a workable model.

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If your business model relies on everybody buying redundant copies of your wares out of some bizarre sense of capitalistic charity, your business kind of deserves to go under. That's never been a workable model.

Who said anything about REDUNDANT copies? Have you been reading the thread? People seem to think that paying for things is obsolete and make excuses for not paying at all.

Chuckit · Feb 11, 2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Who said anything about REDUNDANT copies? Have you been reading the thread? People seem to think that paying for things is obsolete and make excuses for not paying at all.

I thought Shaddim's post, which you quoted in yours, was referring to a girl's suggestion that he should buy multiple copies if he wants a backup even though he's within his rights to make a backup for himself.

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 07:43 PM

Yes, but I'm talking about the mentality people have nowadays that just because it's "out there" for free, you shouldn't have to pay for it. A friend of mine used to yell at me for buying CDs and that I should pirate them all

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Have you been reading the thread? People seem to think that paying for things is obsolete and make excuses for not paying at all.

Originally Posted by starman

Yes, but I'm talking about the mentality people have nowadays that just because it's "out there" for free, you shouldn't have to pay for it. A friend of mine used to yell at me for buying CDs and that I should pirate them all

Maybe YOU should have been reading this thread, because THIS thread is not about that at all

-t

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Maybe YOU should have been reading this thread, because THIS thread is not about that at all

-t

Isn't it? People always seem to be making excuses lately for not paying for things. This thread is a perfect example of it.

Shaddim · Feb 11, 2008, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by starman

And when the place goes out of business...

I know they won't go under. Why? Because the 34 y/o guy who owns it is independently wealthy, the store is his hobby.

That doesn't change the peril that other such businesses face, and I believe that people should pay for products they use and enjoy. However, why should I pay for more than one license?

Who said anything about REDUNDANT copies?

I did, that's what this thread is about.

Shaddim · Feb 11, 2008, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Isn't it? People always seem to be making excuses lately for not paying for things. This thread is a perfect example of it.

Mule fritters!

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Isn't it? People always seem to be making excuses lately for not paying for things. This thread is a perfect example of it.

Oh come, stop derailing this thread with your own agenda. Start a new thread.

-t

Uncle Skeleton · Feb 11, 2008, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

I should start signing my work emails with this

-t

starman · Feb 11, 2008, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Oh come, stop derailing this thread with your own agenda. Start a new thread.

-t

Hmm. Topic says "breaking copyright laws".

turtle777 · Feb 11, 2008, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Hmm. Topic says "breaking copyright laws".

So you are saying that the Shaddim's original post, which explains in detail what he wants this thread to be all about, is utterly useless and unimportant, because YOU already defined the content of this thread in your mind after reading the title ?

-t