[Groop] My Last e-mail on this. I promise!

[Mark Brown]

>>>>Sergio is not profitting from the increased resale of the back issue....


So how do I complete my collection when these books are no longer available
and still give Sergio his dues...  you want me to pay him twice ?
But Hey !- it works for actors so why not comic book artists/writers.
Does the artist of a painting get a slice when it is re-sold ?

?

Mark



   -----Original Message-----
  From: groop-bounces at groo.com [mailto:groop-bounces at groo.com]On Behalf Of
Groopunk at aol.com
  Sent: 30 January, 2004 05:51
  To: groop at groo.com
  Subject: Re: [Groop] My Last e-mail on this. I promise!


  In a message dated 1/30/2004 12:32:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
grossfam at olywa.net writes:


    As I said in the last message to you, getting up to pee during
advertisements also negates their purpose.  By your logic then, getting up
to pee is a copyright infringement or hurts people in the same way as a
copyright infringement..


  It affects me in the same way it would affect Sergio if you photocopied
his comic so you could take it with you to read on vacation.
  You are copying a legal broadcast for your own purposes.  That's illegal,
I believe.

  As far as the airing of commercials, I was using this in response to
something different someone mentioned.  Someone said that used
music/book/comic stores aren't as bad as filesharing because the product
still was paid for initally (thus $ goes to artist) and the increased price
and resale helps other stores/employees/etc.  Now, according to the other
arguments going on today, I would think people would be opposed to this as
well because, technically, Sergio is not profitting from the increased
resale of the back issue. Many people were taking the stand of artist lost
royalties to filesharing because one person buys a song, makes it available
to the WWW and no more royalties to that artist.
  I was making a point that if someone wants to make the case for "Used"
stores being better than filesharing because they do support businesses,
employees and such, then - by that arguement, taping a show and editing out
commercials is altering the way a program was meant to be seen: "we give you
10 minutes of show, you check out our sponsor and buy their stuff because
their stuff pays for our show!"  By editing a show it hurts all the people
that bring that show to fruition.  Someone's gotta pay for the show.  If
people are concerned with helping the chain of employment, I ask to please
watch the commercials and buy products.
  -seth-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.newdream.net/pipermail/groop/attachments/20040202/5fd3331c/attachment.html