comics on c-d rom

[Lew Stringer]

So none of this will impact on you personally or professionally. I can well understand that you are stressed at the current turn of events.

I'm afraid I've felt the need to return and explain yet another misreading of my posts. Cap, my attitude against piracy has nothing to do with thinking anyone would be pirating my work. (If I thought my stuff was being pirated they'd have heard from me privately on the matter before now, just as a certain now ex-pirate in the USA did a while back.)

My comments also have no relation to the news of The Dandy closing. This thread, and similar ones about "sharing" started way before that. Please don't try to portray me as someone acting out of self interest or someone in a bad mood due to outside factors. That's not me at all, as anyone who knows me will tell you.

I'm against piracy because I think it does more harm than good. Simple as that. Constantly telling me that you do it because the copyright holders won't do it makes no difference. The property isn't yours to distribute. End of story. For further explanation, see my earlier comments throughout this long thread.

I hope I won't need to return again to explain more. I'm sure I've covered my stance on this more than enough times over the 10 pages of this discussion. Quite frankly I'm not the one breaking any laws so I shouldn't be having to explain myself at all.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Lew, the BBC employees who half-inched solitary videotapes/reels of film of otherwise-extinct episodes of DOCTOR WHO in the 60s and hid them under their bed were clearly breaking the Law, and likely would have lost their jobs if caught, but whoever salvaged these rare copies [or struck their own copies] actually saved rare material [some of this material was thought lost forever, but has resurfaced] from extinction, that benefitted future Historians, and even the BBC would be grateful to these vagabonds in the future.



I assume these episodes were nicked by insiders who knew this stuff was earmarked for destruction.....


Some of us on here are thinking decades ahead, when most people will have never heard of TOPPER, SPARKY, or MISTY, etc. We think it would be tragic if these comics' histories would be consigned to the trashcan of History, and as no official body [other than perhaps the cartoon museum as Marrionette mentions, I will look into this one] seems to place any priority in officially preserving this stuff, the bootleggers are the only 'saving grace' for the future. Not an ideal situation I agree, but neccessity is the mother of invention, and the bootleggers are the only 'archivists' out there , storing all this material in detail.

The only difference is, the bootleggers know that if everyone waits until legal procedures are sorted out, then it will be too late, and something needs to be done in the here and now, as fatcat solicitors care nothing about storing old comics, only how they can make a financial killing for themselves out of prolonged legal technicalities, it is not in their interests to sort this out pronto.


I get what you say about store a few pages, but that leaves out a lot of good stuff that deserves to be stored, even including in-house/outside advertising, which were part of these comics' identities.

Surely if I make multiple copies of SPARKY using scans and try to get them into public libraries, [in the hope that somebody will be aware this stuff existed in future society], this act is well-intentioned if technically illegal? The actual Law is often an ass, as History shows us. I get a lot of good vibes looking at old I SPY strips: but I don't want to be the last person who ever lived who ever appreciated this stuff [or indeed other worthy comics material, of which there are hundreds of examples].

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Some of you will doubtless recognize this image, or the film this frame originates from:






It's the 1922 NOSFERATU, which after it's initial release was earmarked for destruction, as the copyright holders of Bram Stoker's DRACULA deemed the film was a rip-off. I certainly think the silent film is a better bet than the first 'official' Dracula film.

Well, maybe it was a ripoff, bit in the eyes of many, this silent version is creepier and more memorable than the Dracula talkie put out by Universal in 1930.


Nosferatu only exists today because a bootlegger had the foresight to strike a solitary illegal copy.....all official copies were burnt deliberately, this was the Law being enforced. Clearly the bootleg copy is a case of breaking the Law, but if this bootlegger stuck rigidly to the letter of the Law, then this film would be extinct today.



The legal practices are peopled by those who are non-creative by nature, that's one of the reasons they have chosen that profession. Preserving works of art--especially popular-culture works of art------ is not anywhere on their lists of priorities, and these people a who make these laws are not, by their very nature, the best dudes and dudettes to be in charge of preserving works of popular culture.


I'm not trying to promote anarchy, I'm just stating that the legal practices do not have comics fans' best interests at heart, by the very nature of their dry, non-creative outlook .

[Raven]

Nosferatu only exists today because a bootlegger had the foresight to strike a solitary illegal copy.....all official copies were burnt deliberately, this was the Law being enforced. Clearly the bootleg copy is a case of breaking the Law, but if this bootlegger stuck rigidly to the letter of the Law, then this film would be extinct today.

Not so, ISPY. The English court's order that the negative be burned and all copies destroyed due to the unauthorised use of Bram Stoker's Dracula was unenforceable in Germany where the film was made, and the producers sold the material to Deutsche Film Produktion there, who hired someone to re-edit the film without director Murnau's consent - and again for a later American release, hence later attempts to find the original. No bootlegger. No solitary illegal copy! It had already been distributed around the world anyway. I think the recent 'Masters of Cinema' release was from a French archive copy, along with bits from other prints.

[Lew Stringer]

Lew, the BBC employees who half-inched solitary videotapes/reels of film of otherwise-extinct episodes of DOCTOR WHO in the 60s and hid them under their bed were clearly breaking the Law, and likely would have lost their jobs if caught, but whoever salvaged these rare copies [or struck their own copies] actually saved rare material [some of this material was thought lost forever, but has resurfaced] from extinction, that benefitted future Historians, and even the BBC would be grateful to these vagabonds in the future.

Good grief, how much longer is this going on? Mr Smith, I refer you to my earlier comment which you've either misread or ignored:

No one is saying you shouldn't scan comics to store for personal use. So if some future publisher puts the call out asking if anyone has Buster from January 1980 for example, then yes, of course fans can then share their copies with the new copyright owner. And for a good fee too I hope.

It's "scanners" who take it upon themselves to distribute scans (ie: file sharing) that are breaking the law, not the ones who store scans for their personal archives.

In short: storing files for when copyright holder decides to reprint this stuff is good, distribution without copyright holder's permission is bad.

[Tin Can Tommy]

Lew, the BBC employees who half-inched solitary videotapes/reels of film of otherwise-extinct episodes of DOCTOR WHO in the 60s and hid them under their bed were clearly breaking the Law, and likely would have lost their jobs if caught, but whoever salvaged these rare copies [or struck their own copies] actually saved rare material [some of this material was thought lost forever, but has resurfaced] from extinction, that benefitted future Historians, and even the BBC would be grateful to these vagabonds in the future.

I dont think this is really the case with comics because DC Thomson have an archive of their comics. Which i'd like to see put online with a sensible fee needed to allow you to look at it. But that's unlikely to happen because they just have so much stuff in their archive but then again with the e-Dandy this may become more likely. This might not be the case for other publishers but dont some libraries have complete runs/archives of comics.

[Lew Stringer]

I dont think this is really the case with comics because DC Thomson have an archive of their comics. Which i'd like to see put online with a sensible fee needed to allow you to look at it. But that's unlikely to happen because they just have so much stuff in their archive but then again with the e-Dandy this may become more likely. This might not be the case for other publishers but dont some libraries have complete runs/archives of comics.

Anything is possible, but the decision to make this material available for download rests with the people who own it, not the readers, not the fans.

Who'd have thought, a few years back, that certain top newspapers would be archived online? But they are, and for a fee anyone can read the adventures of Garth, The Perishers, The Fosdyke Saga, Jane, and many other classic strips in the context of the newspapers they originally appeared in, adverts and all.

http://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/

It's entirely possible that DC Thomson and other publishers will also one day make their archive available online.

Of course, some "scanners" would still prefer to stick to pirating strips, 'cos it costs them nowt. Says it all.

[paw broon]

You neglected to mention ADCCC, who release limited edition reprints in paper form of many UK newspaper strips and have , I think what they describe as, grudging permission from Mirror group to produce a limited number of these reprints. They are very good and I can recommend the Buck Ryan and Paul Temple reprints.
When I said,"neglected", I meant no criticism.
I see no reason, however to continue to slam "scanners" without differentiating between those who are doing the work for free, of old comics and strips which are otherwise unavailable, in order to preserve. As opposed to those flogging their pinched stuff, some of whom will be at Collectormania this Sat. And not all "scanners" are file sharing. Then again, if everything is black and white with no exceptions, shadings or degrees of contravention, at which point most of us should turn ourselves in, I'm not sure who will be left to create the comics. But we seem to have reached an impasse with no expectation of an agreed solution without further "misunderstandings" of positions stated.

[Digifiend]

Lew, the BBC employees who half-inched solitary videotapes/reels of film of otherwise-extinct episodes of DOCTOR WHO in the 60s and hid them under their bed were clearly breaking the Law, and likely would have lost their jobs if caught, but whoever salvaged these rare copies [or struck their own copies] actually saved rare material [some of this material was thought lost forever, but has resurfaced] from extinction, that benefitted future Historians, and even the BBC would be grateful to these vagabonds in the future.

I dont think this is really the case with comics because DC Thomson have an archive of their comics.

Is the same true for IPC and Fleetway?

[Lew Stringer]

You neglected to mention ADCCC, who release limited edition reprints in paper form of many UK newspaper strips and have , I think what they describe as, grudging permission from Mirror group to produce a limited number of these reprints. They are very good and I can recommend the Buck Ryan and Paul Temple reprints.
When I said,"neglected", I meant no criticism.

I didn't neglect them. I'd never heard of them until now!

I see no reason, however to continue to slam "scanners" without differentiating between those who are doing the work for free, of old comics and strips which are otherwise unavailable, in order to preserve. As opposed to those flogging their pinched stuff, some of whom will be at Collectormania this Sat. And not all "scanners" are file sharing. Then again, if everything is black and white with no exceptions, shadings or degrees of contravention, at which point most of us should turn ourselves in, I'm not sure who will be left to create the comics. But we seem to have reached an impasse with no expectation of an agreed solution without further "misunderstandings" of positions stated.

That's why I said some scanners.

But we seem to have reached an impasse with no expectation of an agreed solution without further "misunderstandings" of positions stated.

There is no solution, and no one expected one I'm sure. It's just an airing of opinions and facts, not a battle to try and change opinions. I was just challenging some of the transparent excuses that people use to justify distributing material they don't own.

All this "we must scan to preserve comics for future generations" stuff is noble and worthy. No one's saying otherwise. It's putting the comics online for people to download that's the problem.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself again. If the file-sharers still don't "get it" after all this then there's no hope for them.

Is the same true for IPC and Fleetway?

By Fleetway I presume you mean Egmont. Yes, I understand they have the material on file in some format and most likely also have the comics themselves, of recent years at any rate. IPC? I don't know. Anyway, the point, again, is that it's still their copyright, not the fans. Scan the IPC comics, keep them on file privately, and IF IPC (or rather, Time Warner) ask for copies then bob's your uncle. Until then, fans have no rights to publish them online. Can you appreciate that?

[starscape]

By Fleetway I presume you mean Egmont. Yes, I understand they have the material on file in some format and most likely also have the comics themselves, of recent years at any rate. IPC? I don't know. Anyway, the point, again, is that it's still their copyright, not the fans. Scan the IPC comics, keep them on file privately, and IF IPC (or rather, Time Warner) ask for copies then bob's your uncle. Until then, fans have no rights to publish them online. Can you appreciate that?

Is it though? An argument for another time perhaps.

A victimless crime, which has been proven in court after a company was sued for producing Roy of the Rovers trainers. The judge ruled that Egmont had done nothing over a significant time to preserve his value. Fine around £250. Not much, especially when you consider that Roy has been used more than virtually every other archive character.

Technically illegal to share a copy of Scorcher #14 (again, ignoring copyright disputes on who really owns the strips) but then, so is naming Ryan Giggs when he has a super-injunction*, yet MPs, newspapers, TV programmes etc took a sensible line of the law in theory and the law in practice.


*I think Giggs revoked it but the point still stands

[Digifiend]

A victimless crime, which has been proven in court after a company was sued for producing Roy of the Rovers trainers. The judge ruled that Egmont had done nothing over a significant time to preserve his value. Fine around £250. Not much, especially when you consider that Roy has been used more than virtually every other archive character.

When was that? Because you're right, they do release archive material of Roy, they haven't left him languishing in the archives like a lot of other comic characters.

[chrisb]

Realistically, will the companies concerned go to the time and trouble of making their archives available online? Scanning after all is time consuming and as the saying goes, time is money.

Will they see a big enough profit to go to the bother of doing it? Sadly, I doubt it. Our comic community is tiny in the grand scheme of things and getting smaller every year.

[starscape]

A victimless crime, which has been proven in court after a company was sued for producing Roy of the Rovers trainers. The judge ruled that Egmont had done nothing over a significant time to preserve his value. Fine around £250. Not much, especially when you consider that Roy has been used more than virtually every other archive character.

When was that? Because you're right, they do release archive material of Roy, they haven't left him languishing in the archives like a lot of other comic characters.

It was before the archives. Maybe 2003 or something? Can't quite remember.

[Marionette]

The creators of the Misty fan website scanned the entire run of the comic and would put the whole of an individual serial online at a time, changing it every month or so. They eventually became recognised as the official site of Misty, and Edgemont only asked them to pause this publication (not cease it entirely or take down what was already there) around the time the 2009 special was published.

Although the site doesn't seem to be updating much anymore, you can still find 12 complete serials available online, for free, scanned by fans but subsequently given official status by the publisher.

I think I might start a Tammy website.