<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14pt"><div></div><div>The trouble is, Tone, no one is selling then deleting ONE copy of digital content. By duplicating digital content and selling or giving it away, you are PUBLISHING that material illegally.</div><div><br></div><div>Most people who are for free sharing of digital content simply like the idea of getting free stuff and could care less about anything other than getting stuff for free. </div><div><br></div><div>If you've got to sue the occasional 6 year old to teach people basic lessons about stealing and the difference between right and wrong (as opposed to What I Want To Be Right...) then so be it.<br> </div>-Larry "mrgrooism" Steller <br><div><br></div><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14pt"><br><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica,
sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Tone <Tone@cranksgiving.net><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> groop@groo.com<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Wed, September 1, 2010 11:33:20 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Groop] Fw: OT - Harvey Awards night<br></font><br> I read the blog/debate about Sergio versus Waid, and I think there is an<br>argument for/against digital copyrighted content, which I have not heard<br>yet… resale. Now before I begin to explain, I do believe artists/creators<br>should be able to maintain copyrights to their works, and with it control<br>over exactly how they desire the content to be sold, resold, and/or<br>distributed… so any examples I give here are referring to legal copyright<br>sales/transfers, etc. rather than piracy. I realize resale
is not<br>specifically what the debate is about, but it does have great<br>ramifications down the line.<br> Getting back to my point of resale…anyone, who buys a physical copy of<br>say a movie, music CD, video game, e-book, art print, or comic book, can<br>sell the tangible physical object at possibly a loss because of<br>wear-n-tear/low-demand or profit due to rarity/high-demand. Most people,<br>who buy any piece of video or audio material, do not usually take into<br>account that possible return in value when originally buying an item, but<br>many comic collectors do.<br><br> However, when buying digital copyrighted content, there really has not<br>been any procedure put in place to allow a consumer to legally sell, or<br>even give away, his or her usage rights to the copyrighted material. For<br>instance, when I buy and download a video game through Xbox Live Arcade,<br>once I beat it and get bored with it I can
not offer a sale of my “copy”<br>possibly at a loss from my original payment amount or even give my “copy”<br>away to another Xbox player. In most of the Xbox Live content downloads I<br>do not even think I could include any downloaded games as added value on<br>the Xbox hard drive if I wanted to sell my used Xbox 360. That is because<br>the content I downloaded on the hard drive is associated with my<br>gamer-tag/user-name and not usually the Xbox itself, which means any<br>person receiving my Xbox would not be able to use the games I bought<br>unless I gave up my own gamer-tag identity as well. If the receiver<br>wanted to play one of my downloaded games under their own gamer-tag, then<br>they would have to buy the rights to it themselves with the only extra<br>benefit of not having to spend the time downloading the big game files<br>because the files are already on my hard drive.<br> Of course this also restricts the use of
possibly a son inheriting a<br>father’s Xbox upon his death, which has downloaded games the two played<br>together when the son was younger. This restriction might especially suck<br>if the Xbox Live download system no longer supports Xbox 360 titles or<br>its rights usage after so many years. The son might never be able to play<br>the downloaded content as a remembrance of the good times they spent<br>together. The only thing allowed seems to be a gamer’s ability to delete<br>the content with the permission to download and delete it unlimited times<br>in the future as long as the Xbox Live network is still running. I am not<br>a big iTunes or other similar service user, nor have I ever subscribed to<br>digital comics, but I imagine it might work the same on those systems.<br><br> This presents a couple of issues. Obviously, a digital copy will not<br>degrade and can be infinitely reproduced as long as the source<br>system/network
is functioning properly. In my opinion this negates<br>possible arguments about rarity causing sale values to increase, so no<br>copyright owner can gain super profits due to price increases as if there<br>are only two “copies” left in the world like might be the case for a<br>comic book. Price increases might only be practical if there is simply a<br>demand in the market where consumers are willing to pay more… even though<br>the copyright owner knows they have an infinite supply and reproduction<br>costs them nothing. This is not all that ethical, but as long as people<br>are willing to pay, it becomes the reality.<br> For rights-holding end-users this presents a somewhat unfair situation,<br>not just because certain people might have paid more for the same content<br>than others… but also because they are not allowed to resell their usage<br>rights in direct competition to the source-providing copyright owner.<br>Therefore,
in this case a comic book creator, like Sergio, would have a<br>clear and significant advantage. If Sergio went the digital-only route<br>for all his future publications, then all those non-existent physical<br>comics being resold on eBay would not cut into his market value. He would<br>not miss out on additional income generation like he does now whenever<br>his current paper comics get sold on eBay because there simply would not<br>be competition. All consumers would legally have to purchase from his<br>content network. This is presuming of course an ideal world where digital<br>piracy was kept under control and he would have complete control of his<br>sales (more about that possibility further down in my post).<br><br> What happens upon his death though? As some people in the blog-debate<br>mentioned… would his rights fade into the public domain. If this is the<br>case, then who would be providing the ongoing source copies for
future<br>generations? Would Sergio’s children take up that task or even have the<br>rights to do so… or would all his content legally be released to the<br>public domain. If digital content became the standard, then some might<br>argue whoever could universally provide a source network for consumers to<br>purchase/acquire copies in the future, should have the copyright. In a<br>situation like this, I would imagine Sergio would have to will his<br>content to possibly some corporation/company with a legal clause stating<br>his direct descendants would be given a cut of the sales. I say a “cut”<br>because keeping a network running, even when sales are down, takes money.<br>Therefore in some ways being a copyright holder and provider does take a<br>certain amount of expense and risk. Alternatively, Sergio could will his<br>content to some sort of non-profit museum, where on-line visitors could<br>view his content for free or a possible small
donation to maintain the<br>costs of the museums digital network.<br><br> In either the digital copy or physical print realm… it still somewhat<br>boils down to a physical item… whether that be a disc, hard drive,<br>network, soft cover comic, or hard cover book. In terms of long time<br>spans, who ever has ownership of a legally permitted physical “copy”, can<br>resell at least one copy as long as they take measures to keep their<br>“copy” in good condition. The primary difference in the physical and<br>digital realms is the fear of duplication and the sales or lack of sales<br>(as in free copy give-aways) diminishing the income of a<br>creator/copyright-holder.<br> This brings me back to video gaming as an example. Like on some web sites<br>with simplistic puzzle games, technology and internet speed have<br>developed to the point where someone can buy a physical gaming system<br>along with a
“gamer-tag” associated with it, then log in to a network to<br>play a selection of video games directly from the network without ever<br>downloading content to their home-based hardware. Basically, it is like<br>downloading video game content as you play, which is almost exactly like<br>watching a streaming video on your computer from Netflix. This streaming<br>digital format greatly restricts the spread of “copies” because it uses a<br>similar “gamer-tag” usage-rights association to a piece of content rather<br>than ever transferring a digital copy to something the end-user<br>physically owns. Furthermore, hardware designed specifically to work with<br>such a streaming system can greatly prevent piracy. There are ways to<br>defeat this system, but it takes some effort and the vast majority of<br>consumers would most likely opt to go the legal route to avoid the<br>hassles.<br><br> Again, the primary issue with digital
content systems like this, which<br>are inherently more pirate resistant, is the consumer with his/her<br>right-usage does not have a way to resell what they bought. However, the<br>way I view it is a digital consumer chooses to purchase a digital copy<br>rather than a physical copy, like a disc or book, and thus gives up<br>his/her right to resell the content. Ideally in this scenario the<br>copy-right owner would and shoulder recognize the difference by keeping<br>the price of digital content much cheaper. This is only fair because…<br>1) The copyright owner does not have to spend money on the production,<br>distribution, and marketing of physical devices/products.<br>2) The copyright owner knows they can instantly, freely, and endlessly<br>produce digital copies for sale, which in its own way devalues the digital<br>market because no “limited editions” can be sold.<br>3) The copyright owner knows the sale of a digital rights-usage
restricts<br>consumers from future resale of what the consumer bought, and thus greatly<br>reduces future sales competition against the copyright owner.<br><br> Despite the restrictions to the end-user, this sales model of a<br>higher-cost for a physical copy I believe is incredibly beneficial…<br>1) It encourages consumers to purchase a digital copy, which reduces the<br>resource costs of a physical item’s production, distribution, and<br>marketing. Therefore there is less pollution by trucks, processing of the<br>end paper, plastic, or whatever product, and no waste generation from<br>marketing-enhanced packaging.<br>2) The end user might also be able to experience his/her copy in different<br>interesting and convenient ways. With digital comics for example, as a<br>reader gets older and their eye-sight diminishes they can most likely<br>instantly zoom in to read otherwise small text. Even before aging they can<br>zoom in to
appreciate/study the artistic pen/paint-brush strokes of the<br>artist, which is quite the case in so much of Sergio’s detailed scenes.<br>3) Also, a reader’s comic book collection with thousands of titles<br>associated with it can be accessed through a single portable space-saving<br>device, which will ultimately never degrade in quality because even if<br>damaged, stolen, or lost a reader can acquire a replacement device and<br>still access all their purchased rights-usage content. Again, in this<br>scenario all the content would be accessed through a user-name on a remote<br>server, so a lost/stolen device would hardly provide any value and could<br>even have its serial number banned and possibly even traced by the police.<br><br> When I met Sergio at his table in Baltimore I spoke to him about digital<br>content, and I could immediately tell he was opposed to it. He obviously<br>fears the possibility of illegal duplication and
resulting loss of<br>income, but he also greatly prefers a tangible object to cherish. He is<br>clearly more old-school, and his choice to allow his work in only<br>physical formats is his right as a copy-right owner. During this current<br>infancy period of change into digital formats we will have people on both<br>sides, but I think eventually once the kinks are worked out (mostly<br>piracy issues) I do believe digital and physical formats can exist<br>harmoniously together.<br><br> Aside from the physical/digital resale values I bring up, the other<br>arguments regarding a creator’s work not having value and immediately<br>becoming public domain simply because of the artist’s love of creation<br>are ridiculous to me. In most cases common sense should dictate when<br>someone creates anything they should expect it to have value even if, AND<br>ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, they created it out of love of the art. People, who<br>argue the
opposite, are clearly lamers (a term originating from<br>hacking/piracy itself), who have no skills to create their own content<br>and do not even appreciate the process of producing content.<br><br>_TONE_<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Groop mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Groop@groo.com" href="mailto:Groop@groo.com">Groop@groo.com</a><br><a href="http://mailman.newdream.net/mailman/listinfo/groop" target="_blank">http://mailman.newdream.net/mailman/listinfo/groop</a><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div><br>
</body></html>