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

[GammaJosh]

Illegal downloading =/= "borrowing". That's not an "opinion". You don't get free *SQUEE* just because you can't afford to pay for it or are trying to protest, "vote with your wallet", etc. And yes, in this context "get" includes use of digital content into which someone else poured their blood, sweat and tears. I'm sorry but I feel that if more people tried to shame illegal downloaders instead of just going with the flow, we could have at least some impact on the overall trend.

[BugsySig]

Look what I started with a little sarcastic comment...the longest preview pages thread ever!!!

Go me

[lorddunlow]

Look what I started with a little sarcastic comment...the longest preview pages thread ever!!!

Go me

Congratulations?

[ShadowTuga]

Look what I started with a little sarcastic comment...the longest preview pages thread ever!!!

Go me

Damn right!!!!!

I don't "do illegal comics" (aka torrents, whatever) but I am SOOOOOOOOO p***** off by this, that I'm tempted to. Because there's no OTHER way to get it, unless you don't mind paying that money for a comic book story that should be available to every fan.
IMHO, this is an elitist move and I'm ALL for the people, blue collar and all that jazz. Only the deepest pockets will get this, or in my case, the stupidest ones.

Like someone said in the respective thread, if this was Marvel or DC we'd all be laughing at it.
I'm not a Zombie, Marvel, DC or VEI. This whole thing SUCKS and it will take a LOOOOOOONG time before the bad taste in my mouth goes away.

And I'm probably getting the book by legal means, i.e. by ways of buying it. Doesn't mean I'm less angry about it.

Sorry, rant for a few secs. Nothing to see here.

[erwinrafael]

For those that justify pirating books, why don't you send Dinesh a PM (and all the people responsible for creating the book) and let him know you would like to "borrow" a copy of their work. Let him know you have no intention on paying for it. You just want to read it and explain to him that you never intended to pay for it so he and all the people Valiant employs aren't out anything.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable then ask yourself why?

Oh, a lot of people intend to pay for it AT A REASONABLE PRICE.

The context of the "pirating" is the ridiculous terms VEI themselves set. I can not believe that in a postmodern world, people still look at this in absolutist rather than contextual terms.

[omega_override]

I will be honest, sometimes I do pirate things, but it's mostly just to "demo" something. If I do enjoy it, I go out of my way to purchase it (whenever I have the cash, I'm currently unemployed) to make sure that the person who made said thing goes onto make more and even better things

[lorddunlow]

For those that justify pirating books, why don't you send Dinesh a PM (and all the people responsible for creating the book) and let him know you would like to "borrow" a copy of their work. Let him know you have no intention on paying for it. You just want to read it and explain to him that you never intended to pay for it so he and all the people Valiant employs aren't out anything.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable then ask yourself why?

Oh, a lot of people intend to pay for it AT A REASONABLE PRICE.

The context of the "pirating" is the ridiculous terms VEI themselves set. I can not believe that in a postmodern world, people still look at this in absolutist rather than contextual terms.

Exactly.

[FormerReader]

For those that justify pirating books, why don't you send Dinesh a PM (and all the people responsible for creating the book) and let him know you would like to "borrow" a copy of their work. Let him know you have no intention on paying for it. You just want to read it and explain to him that you never intended to pay for it so he and all the people Valiant employs aren't out anything.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable then ask yourself why?

Oh, a lot of people intend to pay for it AT A REASONABLE PRICE.

The context of the "pirating" is the ridiculous terms VEI themselves set. I can not believe that in a postmodern world, people still look at this in absolutist rather than contextual terms.

Who determines what a reasonable price is? The manufacturer. They are the only one with the right to price the product. If they overprice the product it doesn't sell. The only right the consumer has to determine the price of a product is to not purchase it. By not buying the product they have told the manufacturer the product is overpriced.

If they don't like the price it doesn't then mean the consumer can take it for free because they FEEL it is overpriced.

[Donovan]

I can not believe that in a postmodern world, people still look at this in absolutist rather than contextual terms.

You can point this finger both ways.

IN CONTEXT, this is VEI taking a risk to get more books into shops. Anyone who doesn't see this is being intentionally obstinate and viewing it in absolutist terms.

Say it's a bad idea all you want. I'm close to agreeing with you - it's incredibly risky. But VEI has tried nearly every trick in the book to raise their profiles in the shops (How many other companies have a guy like Atom! phoning LCSs on a regular basis?). Now, with nine figures of investment by a film distributor, VEI needs to justify that investment to the guys paying those bills. No company invests in another and doesn't expect them to grow. To quote Ackroyd's best line in Ghostbusters: I've worked in the private sector... they expect results!

Imagine trying to collect rainwater, and you have a hundred buckets (LCS) in the backyard, but a large number of them are covered (LCS that don't pay VEI any attention). More precipitation (titles) isn't going to help you collect more rainfall. Not until you get more buckets to collect it. This incentive is a risky way to blow the lids off of those other buckets. Once you have those barriers removed, let it rain, increase the titles, and raise your success.

[GammaJosh]

For those that justify pirating books, why don't you send Dinesh a PM (and all the people responsible for creating the book) and let him know you would like to "borrow" a copy of their work. Let him know you have no intention on paying for it. You just want to read it and explain to him that you never intended to pay for it so he and all the people Valiant employs aren't out anything.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable then ask yourself why?

Oh, a lot of people intend to pay for it AT A REASONABLE PRICE.

The context of the "pirating" is the ridiculous terms VEI themselves set. I can not believe that in a postmodern world, people still look at this in absolutist rather than contextual terms.

Exactly.

Yes, but if the terms are ridiculous that just means people can and should choose not to buy it. It doesn't mean that people get to take it for free. There is no contextual argument for pirating. You don't have a right to the material until you pay for it.

Again, I think more people need to realize what a gut-punch pirating is to creative people. It *SQUEE* sucks, and when you do it, you are not just taking from a corporation, you are being a *SQUEE* to real human beings.

[GammaJosh]

Who determines what a reasonable price is? The manufacturer. They are the only one with the right to price the product. If they overprice the product it doesn't sell. The only right the consumer has to determine the price of a product is to not purchase it. By not buying the product they have told the manufacturer the product is overpriced.

If they don't like the price it doesn't then mean the consumer can take it for free because they FEEL it is overpriced.

[lorddunlow]

For those that justify pirating books, why don't you send Dinesh a PM (and all the people responsible for creating the book) and let him know you would like to "borrow" a copy of their work. Let him know you have no intention on paying for it. You just want to read it and explain to him that you never intended to pay for it so he and all the people Valiant employs aren't out anything.

If this makes you feel uncomfortable then ask yourself why?

Oh, a lot of people intend to pay for it AT A REASONABLE PRICE.

The context of the "pirating" is the ridiculous terms VEI themselves set. I can not believe that in a postmodern world, people still look at this in absolutist rather than contextual terms.

Who determines what a reasonable price is? The manufacturer. They are the only one with the right to price the product. If they overprice the product it doesn't sell. The only right the consumer has to determine the price of a product is to not purchase it. By not buying the product they have told the manufacturer the product is overpriced.

If they don't like the price it doesn't then mean the consumer can take it for free because they FEEL it is overpriced.

Well, technically, this book doesn't even have a price. It is not technically available for purchase. It is an incentive for RETAILERS for ordering a certain number of books. It is not actually marketed to consumers.

The RETAILERS set the price of this book, IF they decide to sell their copies. Ed and others have set their prices based on how much risk they took to increase orders. I totally understand their rationale and understand why they charge so much, but in reality, this book is free to them. They pay only for the Book of Death issues that are associated with the incentive deal. However, as Ed has said, setting a price the way most retailers have actually means that for each copy of LotG sold to a CONSUMER who wants this product, they essentially just paid for their entire order of Book of Death. Retailer pricing is set up to ensure that they increase order numbers RISK-free (but not hassle-free) at the CONSUMER's expense - literally.

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut. I believe the cuts for each should be proportional to the risk taken and amount of work involved. I don't know how VEI handles this, but Marvel and DC (considered the most evil of all publishers) have a profit sharing model at a minimum (there are numerous examples of how they try to not pay creators, but that's another discussion). Fred Van Lente and Juan Jose Ryp are two of the creators that we know that are involved in LotG. They are not involved in Book of Death (as far as I know). If there is a profit-sharing model in place, then I cannot give my money for LotG in any way to FVL and Ryp. My purchase from Ed makes sure that he orders additional copies of BoD from VEI, but that will give other creators money instead. (I acknowledge that VEI may have worked out a deal with FVL and Ryp and any others involved, but that is not known.)

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work. I have purchased the books from Ed, but I won't receive them until after the 4th book has shipped. I plan to give FVL $16 at SDCC and tell him to split it as he sees fit with the other creators and VEI.

[FormerReader]

Well, technically, this book doesn't even have a price.

The book does have a price. It is tied into the price for the BOD orders. It cost Valiant a certain amount for them to make the books. Yes the cost to the consumer is determined by the retailer, but Valiant has determined that for every certain amount of orders you get a copy of the book. To them that is their cost.

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut.

This is a decision that should be made between Valiant and the talent that works for them is it not?

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work.

So because you disagree with how a product is sold you believe it is ok to steal the product? I get that you are buying them from Ed, but wherever you pirate from now is incentivized to steal from Valiant to meet the demand. You are as guilty of stealing as the party who is actually creating the pirated product.

[ilzuccone]

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...

Something is seriously wrong with you if you freely talk about piracy in a fan forum for an independent comic book company

i agree with this almost 100% but i think it's important to have dinesh see this type of reaction.

or my reaction… i won't pirate it. i just won't read it. i have more than enough to read. my reading time is wandering over to other companies. what's worse in the long run?

[ilzuccone]

(How many other companies have a guy like Atom! phoning LCSs on a regular basis?).

don't forget there are a couple guys who go out to comic shops and hustle valiant all day showing the owner how to do it and the great potential.

[lorddunlow]

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work.

So because you disagree with how a product is sold you believe it is ok to steal the product? I get that you are buying them from Ed, but wherever you pirate from now is incentivized to steal from Valiant to meet the demand. You are as guilty of stealing as the party who is actually creating the pirated product.

You make valid points, even though I disagree that this book can be purchased through traditional means, so it technically has no price.

I do want to point out that in most cases of piracy, there is no incentivization for online piracy. It's all risk and no gain for the pirates. They do it because they feel like ilzuccone does - "information should be free!" They make it available even if no one downloads it. I suppose if no one downloaded it for some time, they might take down the torrent if they deleted their copy of it so that they could save on hard drive space, but otherwise, these people just leave this stuff available forever.

My act of downloading it is a separate act from the pirate who likely purchased the goods and then decided to "share" with the world. In my personal opinion, there are times when downloading illegal copies is not unethical. Other times it is. That decision has to be made on a personal basis. However, I don't see how if I purchase something in the only way it can be purchased but then download a copy in a format that the company does not plan to make available (which happens to be my preferred format for reading), that I have done any harm...

I disagree with hunter and ilzuccone on many of the points they've made, but they have a rationale for it. I can't see a rationale in which purchasing a product in the only way possible and then downloading a scan for reading digitally is a problem. Would you think it was wrong/harmful if I made my own scan for my own personal use? That's what I did with Shadowman 13X. I even asked Dino if I could share the file with the board (to which he politely asked that I do not, and I respected his wishes).


Companies shoot themselves in the foot all the time. VUDU has a disc to digital program. I was trying to pay them $12 to get a digital copy of each Star Wars movie on their service. Disney and/or VUDU have blocked Star Wars from this program. So, I ripped my own blu-rays to my Plex server and have them available whenever and wherever I want. It took more effort (but not much) from me and no cost. I tried to give them $12 to support that service, but they wouldn't take my money. If I had decided to download a torrent of the same content, then that would be considered illegal. That's ridiculous. The end result is the same - I purchased the discs legitimately and have digital copies on my server. I can even legally share my digital content with friends via Plex.

The unfortunate thing about all of this, is the technology has outpaced the laws. I love these discussions. They shed light on a changing way to consume media. I was watching TV shows digitally well before Netflix existed. The only thing that will decrease piracy is companies learning how people want to consume media. The music industry has shown that people are willing to pay instead of pirate if you make it available in the format we desire. I don't know why comics and TV/video industries are being so stubborn.

DRM and encryption and copy protections and novel distribution methods (I'm looking at you VEI...) do nothing but get in the way of enjoying creative works. Pirates will always find a way to pirate. People who don't think they should have to pay, will never pay. This is the way of things. Just let me buy things outright. Then, I can vote with my wallet.

[GammaJosh]

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut. I believe the cuts for each should be proportional to the risk taken and amount of work involved. I don't know how VEI handles this, but Marvel and DC (considered the most evil of all publishers) have a profit sharing model at a minimum (there are numerous examples of how they try to not pay creators, but that's another discussion). Fred Van Lente and Juan Jose Ryp are two of the creators that we know that are involved in LotG. They are not involved in Book of Death (as far as I know). If there is a profit-sharing model in place, then I cannot give my money for LotG in any way to FVL and Ryp. My purchase from Ed makes sure that he orders additional copies of BoD from VEI, but that will give other creators money instead. (I acknowledge that VEI may have worked out a deal with FVL and Ryp and any others involved, but that is not known.)

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work. I have purchased the books from Ed, but I won't receive them until after the 4th book has shipped. I plan to give FVL $16 at SDCC and tell him to split it as he sees fit with the other creators and VEI.

That is a really good example of the mental hoops that people will jump through in order to make themselves feel ok with stealing something.

[kjjohanson]

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut. I believe the cuts for each should be proportional to the risk taken and amount of work involved. I don't know how VEI handles this, but Marvel and DC (considered the most evil of all publishers) have a profit sharing model at a minimum (there are numerous examples of how they try to not pay creators, but that's another discussion). Fred Van Lente and Juan Jose Ryp are two of the creators that we know that are involved in LotG. They are not involved in Book of Death (as far as I know). If there is a profit-sharing model in place, then I cannot give my money for LotG in any way to FVL and Ryp. My purchase from Ed makes sure that he orders additional copies of BoD from VEI, but that will give other creators money instead. (I acknowledge that VEI may have worked out a deal with FVL and Ryp and any others involved, but that is not known.)

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work. I have purchased the books from Ed, but I won't receive them until after the 4th book has shipped. I plan to give FVL $16 at SDCC and tell him to split it as he sees fit with the other creators and VEI.

That is a really good example of the mental hoops that people will jump through in order to make themselves feel ok with stealing something.

In this particular case, I don't see an issue with it. He's paid for the books. It's not even a matter of him deciding that he's going to buy them later. He's already made the financial contribution. He doesn't have them in his preferred reading format, and they will not be available in that format. I might think of it differently if the book had been released digitally, and he knew someone that bought the digital version and he bought hard copies, so he didn't see a problem with making copies of the files. In that case, there would have been a commercial product that had been obtained without compensation.

[GammaJosh]

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut. I believe the cuts for each should be proportional to the risk taken and amount of work involved. I don't know how VEI handles this, but Marvel and DC (considered the most evil of all publishers) have a profit sharing model at a minimum (there are numerous examples of how they try to not pay creators, but that's another discussion). Fred Van Lente and Juan Jose Ryp are two of the creators that we know that are involved in LotG. They are not involved in Book of Death (as far as I know). If there is a profit-sharing model in place, then I cannot give my money for LotG in any way to FVL and Ryp. My purchase from Ed makes sure that he orders additional copies of BoD from VEI, but that will give other creators money instead. (I acknowledge that VEI may have worked out a deal with FVL and Ryp and any others involved, but that is not known.)

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work. I have purchased the books from Ed, but I won't receive them until after the 4th book has shipped. I plan to give FVL $16 at SDCC and tell him to split it as he sees fit with the other creators and VEI.

That is a really good example of the mental hoops that people will jump through in order to make themselves feel ok with stealing something.

In this particular case, I don't see an issue with it. He's paid for the books. It's not even a matter of him deciding that he's going to buy them later. He's already made the financial contribution. He doesn't have them in his preferred reading format, and they will not be available in that format. I might think of it differently if the book had been released digitally, and he knew someone that bought the digital version and he bought hard copies, so he didn't see a problem with making copies of the files. In that case, there would have been a commercial product that had been obtained without compensation.

Fair enough, I misunderstood (let's be honest, I didn't read closely enough). Anti-pirating rage! This makes sense to me as long as this logic ("I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work.") doesn't also apply to others who didn't acquire a copy legally.

[FormerReader]

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut. I believe the cuts for each should be proportional to the risk taken and amount of work involved. I don't know how VEI handles this, but Marvel and DC (considered the most evil of all publishers) have a profit sharing model at a minimum (there are numerous examples of how they try to not pay creators, but that's another discussion). Fred Van Lente and Juan Jose Ryp are two of the creators that we know that are involved in LotG. They are not involved in Book of Death (as far as I know). If there is a profit-sharing model in place, then I cannot give my money for LotG in any way to FVL and Ryp. My purchase from Ed makes sure that he orders additional copies of BoD from VEI, but that will give other creators money instead. (I acknowledge that VEI may have worked out a deal with FVL and Ryp and any others involved, but that is not known.)

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work. I have purchased the books from Ed, but I won't receive them until after the 4th book has shipped. I plan to give FVL $16 at SDCC and tell him to split it as he sees fit with the other creators and VEI.

That is a really good example of the mental hoops that people will jump through in order to make themselves feel ok with stealing something.

In this particular case, I don't see an issue with it. He's paid for the books. It's not even a matter of him deciding that he's going to buy them later. He's already made the financial contribution. He doesn't have them in his preferred reading format, and they will not be available in that format. I might think of it differently if the book had been released digitally, and he knew someone that bought the digital version and he bought hard copies, so he didn't see a problem with making copies of the files. In that case, there would have been a commercial product that had been obtained without compensation.

For me the answer to whether this is right or wrong in this case is a provided by a simple question. How do you think Dinesh and all the creators we all enjoy interacting with feel about it? This is their hard work. If you want a digital copy of the work why don't you ask them if they are ok with you scanning it from someone who has a physical copy? How would you feel shaking the hand of any of these people knowing you have taken stolen copies of their work? I wonder how many of us have been given gold books, signed books and other items for free from Valiant. How many of us have gotten group discounts on the con variants? To me there is no gray area when it comes to pirating from Valiant these are people many on these boards consider friends. I know others view this differently, but to me there is no gray area. It is fundamentally wrong to steal from someone who has been so good to us.

[kjjohanson]

Here's the crux of the matter in my opinion:

I believe the creators (the "talent" who make the actual words, pictures, letters, colors, etc.) should be due a cut of profits. I also believe the company who makes the creation possible (through capital, IP rights, etc.) also deserves a cut. I believe the cuts for each should be proportional to the risk taken and amount of work involved. I don't know how VEI handles this, but Marvel and DC (considered the most evil of all publishers) have a profit sharing model at a minimum (there are numerous examples of how they try to not pay creators, but that's another discussion). Fred Van Lente and Juan Jose Ryp are two of the creators that we know that are involved in LotG. They are not involved in Book of Death (as far as I know). If there is a profit-sharing model in place, then I cannot give my money for LotG in any way to FVL and Ryp. My purchase from Ed makes sure that he orders additional copies of BoD from VEI, but that will give other creators money instead. (I acknowledge that VEI may have worked out a deal with FVL and Ryp and any others involved, but that is not known.)

So, in my opinion, this falls into the category of out of print works. I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work. I have purchased the books from Ed, but I won't receive them until after the 4th book has shipped. I plan to give FVL $16 at SDCC and tell him to split it as he sees fit with the other creators and VEI.

That is a really good example of the mental hoops that people will jump through in order to make themselves feel ok with stealing something.

In this particular case, I don't see an issue with it. He's paid for the books. It's not even a matter of him deciding that he's going to buy them later. He's already made the financial contribution. He doesn't have them in his preferred reading format, and they will not be available in that format. I might think of it differently if the book had been released digitally, and he knew someone that bought the digital version and he bought hard copies, so he didn't see a problem with making copies of the files. In that case, there would have been a commercial product that had been obtained without compensation.

Fair enough, I misunderstood (let's be honest, I didn't read closely enough). Anti-pirating rage! This makes sense to me as long as this logic ("I cannot legally purchase this book from the publisher. Therefore, I see no issue with pirating the work.") doesn't also apply to others who didn't acquire a copy legally.

Agreed!

[NinJZA]

It looks like these message boards were overdue for a discussion on this topic.

I get that some Valiant readers will wait to buy the hardcover and pirate this book until then in order to read it as it is released, but my response to that is, aren't there enough other books in your backlog to read until the hardcover comes out anyway? I know others wouldn't want to do this, but for me personally, I don't mind just reading something else until then, and then joining the book discussion online whenever I get to it.

I've still got these in addition to whatever is on Marvel Unlimited/Scribd/my local library to tide me over until I can read the Book of Death HC:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0iB34 ... sp=sharing

(Top shelf is to-read, bottom shelf is have-read.)

[ilzuccone]

It looks like these message boards were overdue for a discussion on this topic.

I get that some Valiant readers will wait to buy the hardcover and pirate this book until then in order to read it as it is released, but my response to that is, aren't there enough other books in your backlog to read until the hardcover comes out anyway? I know others wouldn't want to do this, but for me personally, I don't mind just reading something else until then, and then joining the book discussion online whenever I get to it.

I've still got these in addition to whatever is on Marvel Unlimited/Scribd/my local library to tide me over until I can read the Book of Death HC:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0iB34 ... sp=sharing

(Top shelf is to-read, bottom shelf is have-read.)

pffft.
come back when you have a backlog that doesn't fit on one shelf.

[lorddunlow]

I thought we were talking about Internet porn...

[geocarr]

I thought we were talking about Internet porn...

Yeah, sorry. No one "talks" about internet porn. It's more an "action-based" kind of thing".