Reading or collecting

[dandy mad]

Forgot to add I'm on about content thst hasn't been paid for and wheather it's legit or not...

[barrys]

No fire & brimstone yet Marionette

I'm certainly not doing anything illegal - I have a problem re storage space and I've had a few people thank me on e-bay when I've sold my old comics, for helping to fill gaps in their collection.

Everyone's happy.

[barrys]

Just read the Comics on CD-ROM posts (sorry, I'm new on here) so now I understand your comment Marionette (personally I very much agree with a lot of what you say there). As it was, I was only intending to debate the collecting v reading issue, stressing that I believe that comics are meant to be read - the scarcity of back issues available of many titles often makes that very difficult. Even if piracy disappeared tomorrow, I very much doubt whether the vast majority of UK comic material will ever be available legally – there simply would not be enough demand.

[Marionette]

Just read the Comics on CD-ROM posts (sorry, I'm new on here) so now I understand your comment Marionette (personally I very much agree with a lot of what you say there). As it was, I was only intending to debate the collecting v reading issue, stressing that I believe that comics are meant to be read - the scarcity of back issues available of many titles often makes that very difficult. Even if piracy disappeared tomorrow, I very much doubt whether the vast majority of UK comic material will ever be available legally – there simply would not be enough demand.

I completely agree with you, but I did rather get dogpiled by those who disagree when I ventured to mention it in one of my first posts. If they started reprinting the comics I want to read, I'd be first in the queue. In fact that's already happened; I scanned some American comics that had been out of print for fifty years. Then a few years later they were finally reprinted, and the reprints now sit on my bookshelf.

[-MikeD-]

You were 'dogpiled' (Jesus, I feel old!) because you continually failed to address Lew's main point, addressed personally, which questioned your sense of entitlement. Nobody needs every issue of anything, nobody has a right to own or read these things. Collecting scans, and the subsequent whinging about the lack of legitimate reprints, is, when boiled down, borne out of this sense of entitlement.

It's a universal problem, exasperated by new technology, and really isn't the same as arguing for and against the legal technicalities, or the curation of our comic heritage. The fact that this point was left unanswered by anyone, when I'm sure the scanning community must have a well rehearsed riposte by now, was a little frustrating.

[Marionette]

You were 'dogpiled' (Jesus, I feel old!) because you continually failed to address Lew's main point, addressed personally, which questioned your sense of entitlement. Nobody needs every issue of anything, nobody has a right to own or read these things. Collecting scans, and the subsequent whinging about the lack of legitimate reprints, is, when boiled down, borne out of this sense of entitlement.

It's a universal problem, exasperated by new technology, and really isn't the same as arguing for and against the legal technicalities, or the curation of our comic heritage. The fact that this point was left unanswered by anyone, when I'm sure the scanning community must have a well rehearsed riposte by now, was a little frustrating.

Entitlement? You talk like I'm expecting to get scans of every comic I want to read for free, when in fact I am spending considerable amounts of money on them. The most I've ever looked for is to share this particular hobby so I don't have to buy every single issue and scan it myself. The main entitlement I've seen lately is from those who bought comics for pennies, and now they've turfed them out of the attic they think they can make hundreds of pounds on them.

It's not as if a single penny of what I spend now on old comics will ever go back to the copyright holders, so they are losing out whether I read a scan or an original comic.

[-MikeD-]

Entitlement? You talk like I'm expecting to get scans of every comic I want to read for free, when in fact I am spending considerable amounts of money on them. The most I've ever looked for is to share this particular hobby so I don't have to buy every single issue and scan it myself. The main entitlement I've seen lately is from those who bought comics for pennies, and now they've turfed them out of the attic they think they can make hundreds of pounds on them.

It's not as if a single penny of what I spend now on old comics will ever go back to the copyright holders, so they are losing out whether I read a scan or an original comic.

I made exactly the same point on page 1 of this thread. Go back and take a look. The difference is, I merely lament the situation whereas you almost justify raiding your local antique shop. How dare folks sell stuff that's appreciated in value? It sounds like your sense of entitlement is absolute.

I admit - it's easy and it's fun, but your justification is weak. That said, I'm no King Cnut - scanning is a fact of modern comic collecting...it's something we've all got to accept.

[philcom55]

I'll probably get roundly lambasted for saying this but I do think that the public has a kind of entitlement to certain works of art and literature once they've been let loose on the world - particularly those with any special merit that sets them above mere work for hire. The only exception to my mind would be if the original creator decided to withdraw his work from public view, as Stanley Kubrick did with A Clockwork Orange - but in the case of a corporate entity that jealously guards its ownership of an artist's work and, either through malice or indifference, keeps it indefinitely locked away from public view I'm inclined to think that we have every right to feel a sense of moral outrage. There's no question that RKO was legally entitled to butcher Orson Welles' rough cut of 'The Magnificent Ambersons', deliberately 'losing' over an hour of footage in the process, but few people today would defend such an act of vandalism. And just imagine if it became possible for someone like Rupert Murdoch to buy the exclusive rights to Shakespeare in the way that he did with HBO and Mad Men!

It's important to bear in mind that the question of entitlement to cultural artifacts is quite separate from the desire to have something for nothing. This really isn't a matter of screwing artists out of their just reward but rather the opposite: it's about preventing faceless businessmen from coming between an artist and those people who are ready and willing to pay for items from his back catalogue, while at the same time keeping his work and reputation alive.

- Phil Rushton

[barrys]

"nobody has a right to own or read these things."

I must admit that I find this a rather strange standpoint to take. Of course it isn't a "right" but surely the creators of these strips wanted their work to be seen by as many people as possible. If I were an author or a comic strip artist I would love the fact that future generations would be enjoying my work. To turn the argument around why would anyone want to deprive anyone else the right to read the stories? Should readership rights be limited the people who are lucky enough to still own the original comics? If these stories were available through official channels of course it would be a different story - but they are not and most are never likely to be - certainly not in our lifetimes (i do reckon one day the entire contents of the British newspaper library will be available online but not for many many years sadly). I suspect that most of the people who bought the scans like myself did purchase as many of these comics as they could afford in childhood but parted with them for various reasons e.g. space, "growing up", thrown away by parents etc. Why would anyone deprive someone of the chance to wallow in nostalgia? And I personally don't class it the same as owning the comic - much as I would dearly love to able to do so. Are public libraries wrong because people reading their books don't own them?

[Marionette]

Mike, much as I love a good discussion, it becomes pointless when the other person reframes everything you say to be the most extreme interpretation possible and then points a finger at it for being extreme. I am interested in hearing the other side of the debate, but your defence of your position seems to consist of saying anyone with an opposing view is wrong and bad, and claim any point they put forward is weak, without actually challenging it.

Unless you want to discuss this topic sensibly, that's the last thing I have to say to you. Feel free to get in a last word.

[paw broon]

Marionette, Phil, barrys, what you said. And you're all much better at putting the argument than I have been. Thank you, all 3.
Bet it's not the last word.

[chrisb]

I second that thanks and while I'm here, some people seem to think that scanning old comics is taking money from artists and writers but how? Even if they were legally available they wouldn't get a penny. The copyright holder would. Or am I wrong?

[Digifiend]

Nobody's losing money if they're not legally available. Artists and writers who get paid a lump sum instead of a share of any profits (which isn't everyone), also don't lose out. The only losers are the owners of the copyright.

[philcom55]

The sad thing about this discussion is that, in spite of the bad feeling generated along the way, I suspect that most of our positions aren't really all that far apart. The problem is that the old laws relating to ownership of creative properties were never designed with today's almost unlimited digital platforms in mind. I've no doubt that the copyright law will have to change quite radically in due course in order to accommodate the new reality - and in ways that few of us can yet imagine.

In the meantime I can't help feeling that there ought to be some kind of 'use it or lose it' clause attached to material that is neglected for a long time by its owners, similar to the movie options taken out on novels by production companies and studios (particularly when some of these 'owners' have turned out to be multinational corporations with little or no interest in the vast bulk of their creative portfolio). Admittedly, this system would also have its pitfalls in the case of high-profile properties such as Alan Moore's Watchmen, yet in the case of Pete Morisi's old Charlton character Thunderbolt a similar contract has allowed Pete's family to take the concept elsewhere when DC Comics lost interest - hence the appearance of the new Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt title from Dynamite this week (including the unseen 'ashcan' by PAM himself that DC never got around to releasing during his lifetime!).

Similarly, I'd like to see a situation where the ownership of something like Dandy's 'Dark Newt' would automatically revert to its creator (one Lew Stringer, late of this Parish) if DC Thomson didn't actually use it within a set number of years.

- Phil Rushton

[Digifiend]

Incidentally, did you know that next year's Doctor Who anniversary was almost bad news for BBC Worldwide? An Unearthly Child's copyright was due to expire, but the EU saved their skins by a matter of weeks.

50 years after release; if not released, 50 years after making (sound recordings).

EU Directive 2011/77/EU, extending this period to 70 years from 1 November 2013, has been adopted but not yet ratified by Parliament. Phonograms already out of copyright in 2013 will not be retroactively protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ght_length