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

[leonmallett]

There will be 12 total books for Book of Death and Legends of the Geomancer. Hardcover seems like a perfect fit.

Honestly I hope so; I believe that would be the most satisfactory way for VEI to recover form the negative aspects of this initiative (while also accepting there appear to be some positives for VEI from it as well).

[ilzuccone]

This thread should be titled "you're wrong and im not going to stop until i get the last word thread"

[leonmallett]

...This whole LOTG fiasco has rubbed me wrong and I hope Valiant doesn't do this kind of thing again...

Totally agree with this statement.

[ilzuccone]

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.

Uk comics have really gone down hill. Looks like they are just printing them at kinkos.

[leonmallett]

I really do not understand the lack of tolerance for people expressing disapproval with this incentive.

If I was not a big Valiant fan I would quietly just stop buying the books. Valiant would lose a long-time fan and maybe 2-3 others would step in to fill my place... maybe not. Because I love Valiant and do consider myself a fan (I have most of VH1 and all of VEI) I think it is all the more important to voice my opinion.

If you feel like you are Valiant's #1 fan by spending the money to buy this incentive and support it... great I am sure Valiant wants your feedback too. Just realize that by buying this book you are essentially voting this type of incentive into acceptance.

I hear all the arguments from Ed and Valiant about the business side of things. I will let people on the business side worry about how to make the business side work and whether or not this is necessary.

My role is a fan. I read the books and I decide on a constant basis whether Valiant is serving me as a fan. From that perspective I feel jerked around and I cannot support this type of incentive model. In my opinion this incentive serves only the speculators who will go where the opportunities lie at any given time rather than the loyal readers who stick around and sustain the brand long-term.

[leonmallett]

Maybe a local restaurant would let me eat there every night and only make me pay if I really enjoy the food.

"But sir, you ate everything on the plate."
"But I didn't enjoy it enough to support it financially - maybe tomorrow"

I buy a $4 hamburger every day at a restaurant.
I find out they are going to offer a $20 steak on a special day.
I will figure out how to eat that steak for free on that special day because it costs more than the $4 that I like to pay for beef.
It's their fault for charging more for beef.
I'm the victim.

Actually you are buying a a 'special' scarce $20 hamburger (same type of product not apples and oranges as steak is to hanburger). BoD is just a comic book after all, and not a graphic novel or some special variant of the format, it is simply a comic book with in-built scarcity - the analogous item would probably be a nice chunky book, maybe in hard-cover, with tons of extras? , and one that will only be sold in quantities relative to the number of $4 burgers sold.

[leonmallett]

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

[leonmallett]

This thread should be titled "you're wrong and im not going to stop until i get the last word thread"

[greg]

Maybe a local restaurant would let me eat there every night and only make me pay if I really enjoy the food.

"But sir, you ate everything on the plate."
"But I didn't enjoy it enough to support it financially - maybe tomorrow"

I buy a $4 hamburger every day at a restaurant.
I find out they are going to offer a $20 steak on a special day.
I will figure out how to eat that steak for free on that special day because it costs more than the $4 that I like to pay for beef.
It's their fault for charging more for beef.
I'm the victim.

Actually you are buying a a 'special' $20 hamburger (same type of product - BoD is just a comic book after all, and not a graphic novel or some special variant of the format, it is simply a comic book with in-built scarcity - the analogous item would probably be a nice chunky book, maybe in hard-cover, with tons of extras? ), that will only be sold in quantities relative to the number of $4 burgers sold.

My analogy was that it was the same number of ounces of beef. (Same number of pages in a standard comic book.)
Ribeye steak vs. ground chuck - same weight, same cow, vastly different price.

[leonmallett]

Maybe a local restaurant would let me eat there every night and only make me pay if I really enjoy the food.

"But sir, you ate everything on the plate."
"But I didn't enjoy it enough to support it financially - maybe tomorrow"

I buy a $4 hamburger every day at a restaurant.
I find out they are going to offer a $20 steak on a special day.
I will figure out how to eat that steak for free on that special day because it costs more than the $4 that I like to pay for beef.
It's their fault for charging more for beef.
I'm the victim.

Actually you are buying a a 'special' $20 hamburger (same type of product - BoD is just a comic book after all, and not a graphic novel or some special variant of the format, it is simply a comic book with in-built scarcity - the analogous item would probably be a nice chunky book, maybe in hard-cover, with tons of extras? ), that will only be sold in quantities relative to the number of $4 burgers sold.

My analogy was that it was the same number of ounces of beef. (Same number of pages in a standard comic book.)
Ribeye steak vs. ground chuck - same weight, same cow, vastly different price.

LOL.

[leonmallett]

Maybe a local restaurant would let me eat there every night and only make me pay if I really enjoy the food.

"But sir, you ate everything on the plate."
"But I didn't enjoy it enough to support it financially - maybe tomorrow"

I buy a $4 hamburger every day at a restaurant.
I find out they are going to offer a $20 steak on a special day.
I will figure out how to eat that steak for free on that special day because it costs more than the $4 that I like to pay for beef.
It's their fault for charging more for beef.
I'm the victim.

Actually you are buying a a 'special' $20 hamburger (same type of product - BoD is just a comic book after all, and not a graphic novel or some special variant of the format, it is simply a comic book with in-built scarcity - the analogous item would probably be a nice chunky book, maybe in hard-cover, with tons of extras? ), that will only be sold in quantities relative to the number of $4 burgers sold.

My analogy was that it was the same number of ounces of beef. (Same number of pages in a standard comic book.)
Ribeye steak vs. ground chuck - same weight, same cow, vastly different price.

Not quite I would argue: how many restaurants say they will/can only sell that steak to a single customer if they sell 25 hamburgers first...

[kjjohanson]

This thread should be titled "you're wrong and im not going to stop until i get the last word thread"

I've decided I'm done with it after this post, because it's obvious that rational arguments as to why piracy does real damage is falling on deaf ears of people who never learned right from wrong.

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

See, geocarr? He has morals. They just happen to be very limited in scope, based on personal preference rather than whether any actual damages are done.

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!

FFS, are you really that dense that you need a big arrow connecting A to B? You admit in the bolded text above that access to the product has value. Not paying the price tag that the owner of the content that you are accessing is the damage being done here. You may not want to label it as "theft" because you're not taking a physical item away, but morally it's the same thing. It's no different than using the fire door to get into a movie theater or sneaking into a venue to see a concert.

[ilzuccone]

Maybe a local restaurant would let me eat there every night and only make me pay if I really enjoy the food.

"But sir, you ate everything on the plate."
"But I didn't enjoy it enough to support it financially - maybe tomorrow"

I buy a $4 hamburger every day at a restaurant.
I find out they are going to offer a $20 steak on a special day.
I will figure out how to eat that steak for free on that special day because it costs more than the $4 that I like to pay for beef.
It's their fault for charging more for beef.
I'm the victim.

Actually you are buying a a 'special' $20 hamburger (same type of product - BoD is just a comic book after all, and not a graphic novel or some special variant of the format, it is simply a comic book with in-built scarcity - the analogous item would probably be a nice chunky book, maybe in hard-cover, with tons of extras? ), that will only be sold in quantities relative to the number of $4 burgers sold.

My analogy was that it was the same number of ounces of beef. (Same number of pages in a standard comic book.)
Ribeye steak vs. ground chuck - same weight, same cow, vastly different price.

if i could torrent a ribeye steak i would never leave the house.
porn and steak... what more do i need?!

[leonmallett]

Maybe a local restaurant would let me eat there every night and only make me pay if I really enjoy the food.

"But sir, you ate everything on the plate."
"But I didn't enjoy it enough to support it financially - maybe tomorrow"

I buy a $4 hamburger every day at a restaurant.
I find out they are going to offer a $20 steak on a special day.
I will figure out how to eat that steak for free on that special day because it costs more than the $4 that I like to pay for beef.
It's their fault for charging more for beef.
I'm the victim.

Actually you are buying a a 'special' $20 hamburger (same type of product - BoD is just a comic book after all, and not a graphic novel or some special variant of the format, it is simply a comic book with in-built scarcity - the analogous item would probably be a nice chunky book, maybe in hard-cover, with tons of extras? ), that will only be sold in quantities relative to the number of $4 burgers sold.

My analogy was that it was the same number of ounces of beef. (Same number of pages in a standard comic book.)
Ribeye steak vs. ground chuck - same weight, same cow, vastly different price.

if i could torrent a ribeye steak i would never leave the house.
porn and steak... what more do i need?!

I am not sure? Tea? Wine? Cover those and I agree!

[String]

first time i've ever read a preview.

I stay away from previews, even those in the back of the issues because I don't like to be spoiled as much as possible.

Of course, that's for books that I read so since I'm not buying this book, let's read it then....Interesting but still not worth the jacked-up prices that it's been generating.

[geocarr]

porn and steak... what more do i need?!

Tissue to clean up after both?

[hunter_peterson]

This thread should be titled "you're wrong and im not going to stop until i get the last word thread"

I've decided I'm done with it after this post, because it's obvious that rational arguments as to why piracy does real damage is falling on deaf ears of people who never learned right from wrong.

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

See, geocarr? He has morals. They just happen to be very limited in scope, based on personal preference rather than whether any actual damages are done.

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!

FFS, are you really that dense that you need a big arrow connecting A to B? You admit in the bolded text above that access to the product has value. Not paying the price tag that the owner of the content that you are accessing is the damage being done here. You may not want to label it as "theft" because you're not taking a physical item away, but morally it's the same thing. It's no different than using the fire door to get into a movie theater or sneaking into a venue to see a concert.

It's more like watching a video of the concert your friends made, really. Because you don't have to be there and you don't deprive anyone of space at the concert, similarly to not actually depriving a business of money yet still accessing the content.

Anyway, the content has value, but the consumer and the company don't necessarily place the same value on the goods, wherein the conflict lies. Nobody is obligated to agree with the set price point if there is an easy, free alternative that they are willing to use. It's just one of many options.

And no, the damage done isn't in lost sales. That can't be quantified and so cannot be lost. THOSE SALES NEVER EXISTED FOR THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEM. It's very, very simple. Saying that is patently ridiculous.

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

Also notice that I've never said I pirated things, I was just explaining that it doesn't fit the definition of theft. I would say while it isn't morally wrong, it is morally ambiguous. I actually will probably just read spoilers, as I did before digital comics made single issues available to me. No need to proselytise.

[geocarr]

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with the following statement relevant to this discussion about pirating comics:
"Less harmful does not mean harmless."
Yes, no, maybe?

[hunter_peterson]

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with the following statement relevant to this discussion about pirating comics:
"Less harmful does not mean harmless."
Yes, no, maybe?

No. I would say it is harmless, yet also not legal. And less harmful can mean harmless, obviously. Zero harm is less harm than any given amount of harm more than zero.

Especially in relation to comics, as most creator owned works aren't pirated and the remainder is work for hire in which those involved in making it have already been paid. As has been shown earlier in the thread, some comics even increase in sales due to piracy. I think that's largely due to Comixology being easier than torrenting, and very convenient. That and the market being so niche.

But anyway, that leads us into a discussion of what the laws dealing with piracy should be and how current legislation is entirely ill-suited to deal with it, which is a conversation for another day.

[GammaJosh]

OK, small disclaimer that I don't feel like reading 6 pages of posts right now so I have not read the whole thread. That being said...

Exclusives are only exclusive for so long. All of Marvel's digital-exclusive comics have eventually been added to hardcovers as bonus material. I assume Valiant will hold off on reprinting the LotG material just long enough to make their original statement about not reprinting meaningful, but that before long this material will be reprinted. Maybe the BoD TPB comes out immediately after the monthlies end and it does NOT include the LotG material, but a deluxe hardcover follows a year later and includes LotG. That is what I'm assuming will happen, or something similar. That accomplishes the goal of getting more BoD comics into shops now, gives the psycho-collectors something cool all of their own for a while, and lets everyone else read the material eventually.

Honestly, putting out books of this high quality at the print runs Valiant has going right now, I guarantee you these comics are loss leaders and their game plan is to hold out for movie and licensing money. Cut them some slack and let them do what they need to do to increase visibility and grow their comics audience. BoD making a big splash and doing really well can only mean more good things for all of us.

[lorddunlow]

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with the following statement relevant to this discussion about pirating comics:
"Less harmful does not mean harmless."
Yes, no, maybe?

No. I would say it is harmless, yet also not legal. And less harmful can mean harmless, obviously. Zero harm is less harm than any given amount of harm more than zero.

Especially in relation to comics, as most creator owned works aren't pirated and the remainder is work for hire in which those involved in making it have already been paid. As has been shown earlier in the thread, some comics even increase in sales due to piracy. I think that's largely due to Comixology being easier than torrenting, and very convenient. That and the market being so niche.

But anyway, that leads us into a discussion of what the laws dealing with piracy should be and how current legislation is entirely ill-suited to deal with it, which is a conversation for another day.

Okay, I was going to stay out of this, but you are just delusional if you think consuming the creative works produced by artists and publishers/distributors is harmless.

Also, where are numbers that support your statement that most creator owned works aren't pirated? I would say The Walking Dead is the most pirated comic of all time. Just pull up some torrents and check seed/leech numbers... I'll wait. In fact, I'd say Image books are pirated much more than other books. Popularity determines how often things are pirated. In fact, there are several studies showing that for TV shows and movies, that seed/leech numbers and distributed copies correlate very well with how well that show or movie will do. There are some networks that even use these numbers to judge how popular a show is.

I used to download tons of Image books before they went DRM-free. I purchased the hard copies, but downloaded torrents to read. I was unwilling to commit my money to digital copies from Comixology that, according to their TOS, I did not actually own. Now, I purchase direct from Image,and occasionally Comixology.

Also, Comixology is not easier than torrenting. Safer, but not easier.

Bottom line is regardless of what your rationalization is, if you consume a product without giving money to the creators (either directly or indirectly), you are depriving them if livelihood. That is stealing.

[hunter_peterson]

And for a further counterpoint; theft applies to all cases of goods being stolen, but piracy only applies when there is a copyright on the work. This would suggest that there is nothing innately wrong with duplicating works, only a legal penalty for infringing a specific document. It hardly is the same level of crime as stealing a wallet or a tv or embezzlement. All of which are individually more harmful to businesses in demonstrable ways. Just a thought.

So, it sounds like you're agreeing with the following statement relevant to this discussion about pirating comics:
"Less harmful does not mean harmless."
Yes, no, maybe?

No. I would say it is harmless, yet also not legal. And less harmful can mean harmless, obviously. Zero harm is less harm than any given amount of harm more than zero.

Especially in relation to comics, as most creator owned works aren't pirated and the remainder is work for hire in which those involved in making it have already been paid. As has been shown earlier in the thread, some comics even increase in sales due to piracy. I think that's largely due to Comixology being easier than torrenting, and very convenient. That and the market being so niche.

But anyway, that leads us into a discussion of what the laws dealing with piracy should be and how current legislation is entirely ill-suited to deal with it, which is a conversation for another day.

Okay, I was going to stay out of this, but you are just delusional if you think consuming the creative works produced by artists and publishers/distributors is harmless.

Also, where are numbers that support your statement that most creator owned works aren't pirated? I would say The Walking Dead is the most pirated comic of all time. Just pull up some torrents and check seed/leech numbers... I'll wait. In fact, I'd say Image books are pirated much more than other books. Popularity determines how often things are pirated. In fact, there are several studies showing that for TV shows and movies, that seed/leech numbers and distributed copies correlate very well with how well that show or movie will do. There are some networks that even use these numbers to judge how popular a show is.

I used to download tons of Image books before they went DRM-free. I purchased the hard copies, but downloaded torrents to read. I was unwilling to commit my money to digital copies from Comixology that, according to their TOS, I did not actually own. Now, I purchase direct from Image,and occasionally Comixology.

Also, Comixology is not easier than torrenting. Safer, but not easier.

Bottom line is regardless of what your rationalization is, if you consume a product without giving money to the creators (either directly or indirectly), you are depriving them if livelihood. That is stealing.

I was trying to remember, I've only ever glanced at comics torrents. I already read enough without downloading more in a different way! Also I forget that The Walking Dead is a creator-owned book. I only read it in compendiums and dislike the show, so I forget it exists most of the time. So that would be why I make mistakes like that, as I'm not particularly familiar with comic torrents. I do know that it's considered to not really be a problem with American comics, though, because I've read some stuff about how it's a much greater phenomenon with manga and the like.

As for ease of access, I find a storefront with nearly every book released in real time to be superior to a search engine for torrents, but that's obviously just my opinion. It's just a much nicer format.

And since when is not gaining from something a loss? By basic logic copyright infringement is at worst perfectly neutral as far as finances go. It's not delusional to recognise that the "damage" is purely imaginary. Which of course it is, because we aren't talking about physical goods, so the same standards simply don't apply. YOU CANNOT STEAL SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

Seriously, this is like Shrodinger's Profits or something. They exist and do not exist until they are observed. The profits that are claimed to be lost do not exist until the individual buys the work, so if they don't buy it, the profit doesn't exist. Whether or not someone has read the book has no impact on that one way or the other.

TLDR: Not gaining from something is not the same as losing something. It's extremely entitled to suggest otherwise.

[ilzuccone]

Popularity determines how often things are pirated. In fact, there are several studies showing that for TV shows and movies, that seed/leech numbers and distributed copies correlate very well with how well that show or movie will do. There are some networks that even use these numbers to judge how popular a show is.

you just said heavily torrented tv shows/ movies are successful.



also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not. yes a creator has the opportunity to make a lot of money. possibly way more than anybody here. their income compared to the talentless execs is nothing. a christmas bonus for one of these tie wearing d-bags will look a lot like the creator's entire year. (i have a friend in HR at one of these soulless studios)

*SQUEE* that *SQUEE*.

[Donovan]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

[lorddunlow]

also lets make one thing very clear here. the company is making all the money the creator is not

The contract I signed with Marvel that outlines royalties paid to me based on number of sold copies of books containing my work says otherwise....

This.