Preview: That book I dont get to read because I wont pay up

[Brapbrap]

because someone else has to pay for the petrol and rubber you use up test driving it?

because you're invading someone else's privacy by taking THEIR car out without permission?

pirating a comic does not have ANY effect on other people's copies of that comic and the person who shared it had to buy it legally, they are choosing to let other people see their comic unlike the car owner.

[jeremycoe]

because someone else has to pay for the petrol and rubber you use up test driving it?

because you're invading someone else's privacy by taking THEIR car out without permission?

pirating a comic does not have ANY effect on other people's copies of that comic and the person who shared it had to buy it legally, they are choosing to let other people see their comic unlike the car owner.

I think Greg would fill up the tank and replace the tires regularly. He's that kind of guy.

[greg]

pirating a comic does not have ANY effect on other people's copies of that comic and the person who shared it had to buy it legally, they are choosing to let other people see their comic unlike the car owner.

The original owner buys ONE copy. They can share it, they can give it away, but they can't make a second copy so that two copies exist. They bought one.
If you have a copy and you know that someone paid for your copy, then you have a legal copy. Someone else paid for you.

If you have a copy and someone else has a copy but only one of these two copies was paid for, then someone has an illegal copy.
If you know you didn't pay for your copy, then the one with the illegal copy... is you.

[ilzuccone]

I'm pretty sure everyone here does something wrong/ immoral/ illegal on a somewhat regular basis and doesn't feel remotely guilty or ashamed by it. why get all riled up over a guy who doesn't put that much weight on torrenting metalica's enter sandman?

i knew a guy that never went over the speed limit and was convinced i was going straight to hell for speeding. seems silly. to each his own.





Next on the docket:
religion
politics.

[geocarr]

What I find interesting about this conversation is not whether people do anything wrong or immoral but how people justify and rationalize what they do, their choices, and their thought process related to it.

[geocarr]

it isn't stealing lol. as i just explained when you steal something someone else loses it. would you report your car as stolen if it was still where you parked it?

I don't agree. If you steal my idea... I still have my idea... but you have it too, and you didn't pay for it.

This. Greg's logic is solid.

yeah but while i would potentially get access to Fred Van Lente's ideas for free it's not like I'm going to use his idea to make money, I'm not going to print out his comic and sell it to other people or anything like that.

Irrelevant and justifies nothing. If I steal a candy bar and eat it, I still stole it. If I steal a candy bar and sell it for a penny or a $100, I still stole it.

I will even buy it properly if it gets a Deluxe HC release down the line. I think I will probably pirate it though when it comes out because I want to read it as it is released,

Then you admit that you will be intentionally and knowingly "breaking the rule". Psychopathic behavior is breaking the rules because it's fun to do. Sociopathic behavior is breaking the rules because one believes the rules don't or shouldn't apply to them. Which is it for you?

i am not ever going to buy one of those copies in their current format so they lose $0 if i pirate it
if it doesnt get scanned im still not going to buy it so i was never a potential customer for this issue

This rationalization keeps popping up. VEI and the book's creators and contributors invested tangible and intangible resources to create something that they offered to the public within a set of "rules" and pirating is intentionally and knowingly breaking those rules to obtain that creation without permission. The absence of profit loss doesn't absolve someone who pirates of "wrongness".

and if i did not pirate comics i wouldnt be here, i wouldn't even know what valiant was. i found valiant because i pirated some of the original summer of valiant stuff and loved it, now I own physical copies of all those comics. they actually gained money from me pirating because before i pirated those comics i would never have bought stuff from a publisher like valiant that had no creators i had heard of previously

I would challenge this since VEI seems to have offered free previews of most of the books they have published to date, that may have enticed you to make purchases without pirating the efforts of someone else without permission, but without Ivar's help we will never know for sure.

Lastly, to everyone who thinks it's okay to pirate I would ask the following. Imagine the person you care about most in the world creates something as a way to make a living for themselves and the people they care most about. They offer some form of free preview or sample of their creation as a way to help potential customers to decide if they wish to patronize them. They have priced their creation commensurate with other similar creations at a fair market value or possibly cheaper. Would you still believe that it is justifiably okay for people to pirate your loved one's creation?

[ilzuccone]

What I find interesting about this conversation is not whether people do anything wrong or immoral but how people justify and rationalize what they do, their choices, and their thought process related to it.

dude that's exactly what my lady and i were talking about just now when i brought up this thread.

[hunter_peterson]

@ricomortis:

Yes, theft is theft. And copyright infringement is copyright infringement. The two are both crimes, but they are different crimes, which is my whole point. They simply do not work in the same way at all, despite how the movie and music industry has characterised it. If anything, copyright infringement is forgery.

And seriously, saying "theft is theft" is not a substantive argument. It doesn't actually explain HOW it is theft. The money that is stolen by theft exists. The money lost to piracy never did. Hence; not theft. Just copyright infringement.

@kjohanson:

I reiterate- you cannot steal something that does not exist. Piracy is only copyright infringement. You know, like when you watch a movie in a a room win people. You're all viewing the same product, but only one of you paid for it, which means he money that COULD have been spent WASN'T. This is not even logically a loss, as to lose something one must have possessed it in the first place. Referring to it as theft is disingenuous, really.

As for damage caused, there really is no evidence of that, due to it being hypothetical damage done to hypothetical earnings. If I sell a lemonade without a price tag and get ten dollars, I didn't lose ten billion dollars just because I didn't get given it. I gained ten dollars.

And whether or not the original purchaser maintains possession of the material is irrelevant. It actually supports that it isn't theft if it is in both hands, because that is most similar to forgery.

Which is duplication- the opposite of theft.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to change your minds, because I know you guys will stick to your anti-pirate guns. I'm enjoying the debate about copyright infringement. Which is, by its very definition, not theft.

Forgery is not an accurate analogy to piracy. Forgery suggests one is trying to pass off a (presumably low-value) copy as the (presumably valuable) genuine article. That's not what is going on here. The more applicable analogy is theft of service.

What's disingenuous is to suggest that the thing does not exist. It may not be a physical copy of the book, but it exists as a string of zeroes and ones in a computer file. And it is the product of someone's time and energy. Which you are accessing without being entitled to access it. Theft.

Forgery is actually illegal duplication, and can range from poor to perfect quality. It is exactly the same. You don't have to convince some one it's authentic if you don't want to.

And, somehow, you have missed that I am saying the PROFITS that are supposedly "lost" not only don't exist, they never have. You cannot have something taken from you that never existed. I can't steal a chunk of Pluto rock from your bedroom, because you don't have a chunk of Pluto rock in your bedroom and are unlikely to ever have one... probably.

Also, Greg- just because politicians bought by industry called an act about copyright infringement "No Theft" doesn't mean that theft is actually what it's about. It means they were paid to spin something by corporations with an interest in limiting what amounts to value dilution. It's just politics.

But I think this thread is growing tiresome, what with the "theft is theft" mantra being repeated as if it were logically consistent. So I'm more or less out.

[jeremycoe]

@ricomortis:

Yes, theft is theft. And copyright infringement is copyright infringement. The two are both crimes, but they are different crimes, which is my whole point. They simply do not work in the same way at all, despite how the movie and music industry has characterised it. If anything, copyright infringement is forgery.

And seriously, saying "theft is theft" is not a substantive argument. It doesn't actually explain HOW it is theft. The money that is stolen by theft exists. The money lost to piracy never did. Hence; not theft. Just copyright infringement.

@kjohanson:

I reiterate- you cannot steal something that does not exist. Piracy is only copyright infringement. You know, like when you watch a movie in a a room win people. You're all viewing the same product, but only one of you paid for it, which means he money that COULD have been spent WASN'T. This is not even logically a loss, as to lose something one must have possessed it in the first place. Referring to it as theft is disingenuous, really.

As for damage caused, there really is no evidence of that, due to it being hypothetical damage done to hypothetical earnings. If I sell a lemonade without a price tag and get ten dollars, I didn't lose ten billion dollars just because I didn't get given it. I gained ten dollars.

And whether or not the original purchaser maintains possession of the material is irrelevant. It actually supports that it isn't theft if it is in both hands, because that is most similar to forgery.

Which is duplication- the opposite of theft.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to change your minds, because I know you guys will stick to your anti-pirate guns. I'm enjoying the debate about copyright infringement. Which is, by its very definition, not theft.

Forgery is not an accurate analogy to piracy. Forgery suggests one is trying to pass off a (presumably low-value) copy as the (presumably valuable) genuine article. That's not what is going on here. The more applicable analogy is theft of service.

What's disingenuous is to suggest that the thing does not exist. It may not be a physical copy of the book, but it exists as a string of zeroes and ones in a computer file. And it is the product of someone's time and energy. Which you are accessing without being entitled to access it. Theft.

Forgery is actually illegal duplication, and can range from poor to perfect quality. It is exactly the same. You don't have to convince some one it's authentic if you don't want to.

And, somehow, you have missed that I am saying the PROFITS that are supposedly "lost" not only don't exist, they never have. You cannot have something taken from you that never existed. I can't steal a chunk of Pluto rock from your bedroom, because you don't have a chunk of Pluto rock in your bedroom and are unlikely to ever have one... probably.

Also, Greg- just because politicians bought by industry called an act about copyright infringement "No Theft" doesn't mean that theft is actually what it's about. It means they were paid to spin something by corporations with an interest in limiting what amounts to value dilution. It's just politics.

But I think this thread is growing tiresome, what with the "theft is theft" mantra being repeated as if it were logically consistent. So I'm more or less out.

I've been wondering where my Pluto rock went.

[lorddunlow]

I like this thread. It's pointless and is gradually moving the counter to 1 million at a perfect rate for me...

My is piracy is immoral, but piracy is hard to define (like pornography). That'd where the problem lies.

[ilzuccone]

I like this thread. It's pointless and is gradually moving the counter to 1 million at a perfect rate for me...

My is piracy is immoral, but piracy is hard to define (like pornography). That'd where the problem lies.

wrong.

[ilzuccone]

(just trying to help spur some more debate.... lets get to 1 million!

[hunter_peterson]

@ricomortis:

Yes, theft is theft. And copyright infringement is copyright infringement. The two are both crimes, but they are different crimes, which is my whole point. They simply do not work in the same way at all, despite how the movie and music industry has characterised it. If anything, copyright infringement is forgery.

And seriously, saying "theft is theft" is not a substantive argument. It doesn't actually explain HOW it is theft. The money that is stolen by theft exists. The money lost to piracy never did. Hence; not theft. Just copyright infringement.

@kjohanson:

I reiterate- you cannot steal something that does not exist. Piracy is only copyright infringement. You know, like when you watch a movie in a a room win people. You're all viewing the same product, but only one of you paid for it, which means he money that COULD have been spent WASN'T. This is not even logically a loss, as to lose something one must have possessed it in the first place. Referring to it as theft is disingenuous, really.

As for damage caused, there really is no evidence of that, due to it being hypothetical damage done to hypothetical earnings. If I sell a lemonade without a price tag and get ten dollars, I didn't lose ten billion dollars just because I didn't get given it. I gained ten dollars.

And whether or not the original purchaser maintains possession of the material is irrelevant. It actually supports that it isn't theft if it is in both hands, because that is most similar to forgery.

Which is duplication- the opposite of theft.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to change your minds, because I know you guys will stick to your anti-pirate guns. I'm enjoying the debate about copyright infringement. Which is, by its very definition, not theft.

Forgery is not an accurate analogy to piracy. Forgery suggests one is trying to pass off a (presumably low-value) copy as the (presumably valuable) genuine article. That's not what is going on here. The more applicable analogy is theft of service.

What's disingenuous is to suggest that the thing does not exist. It may not be a physical copy of the book, but it exists as a string of zeroes and ones in a computer file. And it is the product of someone's time and energy. Which you are accessing without being entitled to access it. Theft.

Forgery is actually illegal duplication, and can range from poor to perfect quality. It is exactly the same. You don't have to convince some one it's authentic if you don't want to.

And, somehow, you have missed that I am saying the PROFITS that are supposedly "lost" not only don't exist, they never have. You cannot have something taken from you that never existed. I can't steal a chunk of Pluto rock from your bedroom, because you don't have a chunk of Pluto rock in your bedroom and are unlikely to ever have one... probably.

Also, Greg- just because politicians bought by industry called an act about copyright infringement "No Theft" doesn't mean that theft is actually what it's about. It means they were paid to spin something by corporations with an interest in limiting what amounts to value dilution. It's just politics.

But I think this thread is growing tiresome, what with the "theft is theft" mantra being repeated as if it were logically consistent. So I'm more or less out.

I've been wondering where my Pluto rock went.

I wonder what percentage of the posts so far are just ones that say "funny post?"

[kjjohanson]

So they would have to prove that you personally cost the company money by not buying the material in question. Ameirca's laws are really restrictive and, IMHO, unethical when it comes to freedom of information on the Internet.

What you call freedom of information other people call their livelihood. That's like a bank robber saying that he didn't intend to earn all the money he stole, therefore it's his for the taking. He wasn't gonna earn it anyway, so what's the harm? Those rich depositors lie and cheat and steal, so they deserve it.

hahahaha no

its like if a bank robber stole 1 million pounds without the bank losing a single penny

if i pirate a comic its not like someone else's copy of that comic disappears, nobody is losing out if i never intended to buy it

If you didn't intend on buying it then why are you stealing it? The bottom line is that the demand is there to read it (unless you're just a klepto), and that demand has value. Trying to rationalize it doesn't make it right.

it isn't stealing lol. as i just explained when you steal something someone else loses it. would you report your car as stolen if it was still where you parked it?

i would like to read the comic but I would rather not read it at all than buy it. I do not want to fund these incentives with my money. I do not want Valiant to do another incentive like this.

It is ridiculous for me to financially support a business strategy that I don't agree with.

Fine. Then don't read the book. You have two choices; read it or don't read it. Your decision to read it indicates that there is some value to you in reading it. You are, at the very least, stealing that value from those who own the content.

https://litreactor.com/columns/top-10-r ... eyre-wrong" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, nothing physical is taken in a variety of crimes classified as "theft of services" (e.g. turnstile jumping, tampering with a utility meter, etc.), but they're still prosecuted as larceny.

we're not talking about whether or not piracy is legal, we are talking about whether or not it is morally wrong. If your only moral compass is whether or not its legal it shows that you cannot be very good at thinking for yourself

the article you posted is awful because it makes a lot of assumptions about me. I DO always support small creators, even if I originally pirate their work I will buy a physical copy if I enjoy it. I DO have an interest in games and comics that are genuinely not available any more. It makes nonsense comparisons like saying pirating is like trying to steal a paperback book because you own the ebook - stealing a paperback book is taking a physical product out of the bookstore - they would have sold it to someone else if you hadn't stolen it. No sale is lost if I pirate an ebook, read 20 pages, decide I don't like it and delete it.

Maybe scroll up and check out the post where I respond to hunter_peterson's reply to this list. I explain why piracy is wrong, not why it's illegal. The article makes no assumptions. It's a variety of justifications that pirates try to use to defend their actions. Not all of them apply to this situation. Several of them do, and it's laid out why piracy is wrong and is theft.

[kjjohanson]

And, somehow, you have missed that I am saying the PROFITS that are supposedly "lost" not only don't exist, they never have. You cannot have something taken from you that never existed. I can't steal a chunk of Pluto rock from your bedroom, because you don't have a chunk of Pluto rock in your bedroom and are unlikely to ever have one... probably.

You're ignoring the point that has been brought up several times. That for you to access the content rather than not access it indicates that you see some value in accessing the content. Different people may value that access at different level. If your estimate of that value is lower than the price tag that owners of the content have placed on it, then you have several legitimate options, such as sucking it up and paying the price, not paying the price and avoiding the content, b!tching about it to the people that set the price, etc. What's not a legitimate option is accessing the content anyway.

Bottom line: you see value in the content or else you wouldn't be interested in the content in the first place. It's selfish, and it's theft, for you to decide you're going to access that content because you don't like the price tag.

[ilzuccone]

[jmatt]

Bottom line: you see value in the content or else you wouldn't be interested in the content in the first place. It's selfish, and it's theft, for you to decide you're going to access that content because you don't like the price tag.

I'm gonna leave it up to you stalwart warriors to continue the fight. It's just shocking to me that people have to argue over whether they should pay for the efforts and goods produced by another.

"I want something and will take it away from another if it suits my needs" is literally *SQUEE* they try to breed out of you in pre-school. I guess some lessons are never learned.

[ilzuccone]

[depluto]

Pirates are OK. Pilates suck.

[Phantom]

I misread the last two pages of thread,
go really confussed.
Was wondering about waht all the fuss was about

.....then I realized it wasn't about pilates.

[Brapbrap]

it isn't stealing lol. as i just explained when you steal something someone else loses it. would you report your car as stolen if it was still where you parked it?

I don't agree. If you steal my idea... I still have my idea... but you have it too, and you didn't pay for it.

This. Greg's logic is solid.

its not, its even legal to steal someone's idea

yeah but while i would potentially get access to Fred Van Lente's ideas for free it's not like I'm going to use his idea to make money, I'm not going to print out his comic and sell it to other people or anything like that.

Irrelevant and justifies nothing. If I steal a candy bar and eat it, I still stole it. If I steal a candy bar and sell it for a penny or a $100, I still stole it.

"If I steal a candy bar" not even going to read past this bit because i've explained why that analogy doesn't work about 4 times now

I will even buy it properly if it gets a Deluxe HC release down the line. I think I will probably pirate it though when it comes out because I want to read it as it is released,

Then you admit that you will be intentionally and knowingly "breaking the rule". Psychopathic behavior is breaking the rules because it's fun to do. Sociopathic behavior is breaking the rules because one believes the rules don't or shouldn't apply to them. Which is it for you?

no, sociopathic behaviour is when you dont have any morals. i do have morals, I buy any self published comics or music that i pirated and enjoyed and many that are not self published but simply from companies I like (e.g. Valiant). There is a difference between laws and morals. If you base all your morals on what the law says it shows that you cannot think for yourself. In some countries it is illegal to speak out against the government but doing that doesn't make you a sociopath does it (and no i don't think piracy is AT ALL comparable to speaking out against an oppressive government but its still a good example of breaking the rules in a moral way).

i am not ever going to buy one of those copies in their current format so they lose $0 if i pirate it
if it doesnt get scanned im still not going to buy it so i was never a potential customer for this issue

This rationalization keeps popping up. VEI and the book's creators and contributors invested tangible and intangible resources to create something that they offered to the public within a set of "rules" and pirating is intentionally and knowingly breaking those rules to obtain that creation without permission. The absence of profit loss doesn't absolve someone who pirates of "wrongness".

Some people at Valiant are pro-piracy; Steve Lieber (who does covers for Valiant and drew Q&W must die) has no problem with piracy, he goes on websites where people have posted scans of his comics and leaves comments about his creative process. His comics have demonstrably gained sales from piracy. http://comicsalliance.com/underground-4 ... ted-scans/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i don't see how I have done anything wrong when there are no negative effects on anyone else. the creators and publishers and distributors can't lose money on a comic i never would have bought, they only stand to gain money because i will potentially enjoy it and buy the trade. i buy more self published comics and music than most people i know, i probably support more small creators than some of the people in this thread who are calling me immoral

and if i did not pirate comics i wouldnt be here, i wouldn't even know what valiant was. i found valiant because i pirated some of the original summer of valiant stuff and loved it, now I own physical copies of all those comics. they actually gained money from me pirating because before i pirated those comics i would never have bought stuff from a publisher like valiant that had no creators i had heard of previously

I would challenge this since VEI seems to have offered free previews of most of the books they have published to date, that may have enticed you to make purchases without pirating the efforts of someone else without permission, but without Ivar's help we will never know for sure.

i didn't even know what valiant was though, i just gave it a try (as i do with most newly scanned #1s unless theyre from a creator i already know and don't enjoy) and ended up enjoying it. if i hadn't done that i wouldn't have even heard of them until The Valiant came out and they got a higher profile, and even then it might still have flown under my radar.

Lastly, to everyone who thinks it's okay to pirate I would ask the following. Imagine the person you care about most in the world creates something as a way to make a living for themselves and the people they care most about. They offer some form of free preview or sample of their creation as a way to help potential customers to decide if they wish to patronize them. They have priced their creation commensurate with other similar creations at a fair market value or possibly cheaper. Would you still believe that it is justifiably okay for people to pirate your loved one's creation?

i think so, i believe that anyone who enjoyed the creation and has the money to spare will do what they can to support it. if they don't have the money or means to support the creation why not let them enjoy it anyway? they can always support it at a later date when they have more money.

i think its pretty obvious that the people criticizing piracy don't know what the pirate community is like. if you look at the places where scans are posted you will find that many comics gain a following from pirated scans and rips, just look at brandon graham's prophet - it starts on issue #21, its a continuation of a rob liefeld comic, its written by a very low profile creator who few had heard of. nobody looked at that and thought 'i want to spend my hard earned money on this', yet people read the scans and found an original, interesting comic and the trades were initially selling out everywhere. it's hard to find a posted scan without people saying something like 'wow this is actually really great, i'll have to start buying this!'. this is especially true for valiant scans because nobody knows what valiant is and they aren't willing to pay $4 for 25 pages of a universe they have never heard of - here are some comments from one thread where a guy posted The Valiant

Wow this was amazing. I haven't read much of valiant, guess I'm gonna read more of valiant now.I mite actually buy em if they are good. Is there any site which ships these books? I really do wanna support the company

Is this comic available in hardback?

Its funny how I have never seen or hear about this before. And I am surprise how good it is.

[hunter_peterson]

And, somehow, you have missed that I am saying the PROFITS that are supposedly "lost" not only don't exist, they never have. You cannot have something taken from you that never existed. I can't steal a chunk of Pluto rock from your bedroom, because you don't have a chunk of Pluto rock in your bedroom and are unlikely to ever have one... probably.

You're ignoring the point that has been brought up several times. That for you to access the content rather than not access it indicates that you see some value in accessing the content. Different people may value that access at different level. If your estimate of that value is lower than the price tag that owners of the content have placed on it, then you have several legitimate options, such as sucking it up and paying the price, not paying the price and avoiding the content, b!tching about it to the people that set the price, etc. What's not a legitimate option is accessing the content anyway.

Bottom line: you see value in the content or else you wouldn't be interested in the content in the first place. It's selfish, and it's theft, for you to decide you're going to access that content because you don't like the price tag.

I'll respond to this because you are addressing me directly, but please quit bringing me into the argument ad nauseum. Unless you're just helping the post count go up, of course.

Please, do explain how piracy deprives anyone of anything. And specifically HOW. If you can prove that something that someone possesses is removed from them, I will concede that it fits the definition of theft. Otherwise, calling it theft is just morally superior deflection that only serves to avoid the argument. Saying "but it's theft!" without explaining HOW it is theft is just silly.

As for value- you would be right if there were not free options online, legitimate or not. That puts pressure on business to make their products conveniently accessible. It really doesn't take much to prevent piracy, especially in comics. And despite being illegitimate, piracy is still duplication, not theft. They're wholly different crimes. By definition.

And of course it's selfish, it's consumption. That's the whole point!

[Chiclo]

it isn't stealing lol. as i just explained when you steal something someone else loses it. would you report your car as stolen if it was still where you parked it?

Intellectual property is a lot like physical property but they are not exactly alike. The unauthorized use of intellectual property is the theft of that property. Maybe IP theft is more analogous to trespassing on physical property - similarly, the theft of IP and trespassing on physical property are injurious to the owners.

[Phantom]

You don't even have to pay for it!
Met Shadowman99 in town today, walked home in the pouring rain (see second photo).
MAIL CALL from Diamond distributers UK.
Both Shadowm99 and I have read it.
(Just email Diamond UK, and asked about the book and got sent this........






Who wants a scan?????? Jokes, wait for your own.

[leonmallett]

Can't wait to pirate this online from someone else's PDF scans!

I was under the impression that Valiant needed all the sales it could get...

I won't be pirating it, nor advocating pirating it, nor criticising those that do in this instance.

But while VEI may need all the sales it can get, by creating a sales model that actually makes it difficult for customers to pick up the book, or buy it at an acceptable price, that is surely not the way to 'get all the sales they can'.

VEI already have shown that with incentive books and special items that they are not all equally accessible (Rai Plus Edition #1 in the UK as an example; even at cover price that book is super scarce here and I have still not been able to secure a copy - I mention that purely as an illustrative example).