Digital Destruction

"I like the feel of a book."

About the only thing I'll personally miss when all things go digital is not having DVD boxes / books on a shelf to display. I like having a book shelf show off my tastes and personality, as well as a shelf of dvds. I like browsing by the lined up spines.

That's it, though.

I dunno if it'll take another generation or even less, but this argument is going to fade into the obscurity of those people who claimed that vinyl sounds better than CDs.

Does anyone still argue for film over digital (pictures or movies)?

When I can hold the Library of Congress in a stick smaller than a pack of chewing gum, I'll gladly give up "the feel" of paper.

If you've never worked at a retail book store, and had to see the sheer waste that comes from the volume of books that get strip covered and dumped in the compactor, then you don't really understand why moving to digital is a GOOD thing.


"The screen hurts my eyes."

If the person saying this watches hours of tv, sits on their computer for hours, or plays video games for hours AND THEN says this, I call hypocrisy.

If the book reader doesn't do any of the above at all, deal.

This stupid argument bothers me about as much as the "I work at a computer all day and the last thing I want to do when I get home is stare at a computer screen again" people who in turn for relaxation watch hours of tv.

If you prefer print over digital, that's your prerogative. I don't really have a preference, personally, other than seeing the numerous benefits that digital provides over paper.

Finally -

Tony Whitt dealt with this topic several years back, and my opinion was stated then. http://www.mania.com/40268.html?action=add_comment

I spend about 100-150 dollars a month on comics and even then I can't afford to read all the stuff flooding the racks. Downloading has allowed me to keep up with multiple cross-overs from both DC & Marvel. It also saves me from buying crap (most of Countdown for example). If the big two trim down their monthly offerings, maybe I wouldn't have to look elsewhere to get the whole story. Even if bittorrents went away, I would just stand there at the comic store and read the titles I don't buy FOR FREE. Either way, they aren't getting my money for needless crossover events.

If they think they can get me to spend more by stretching out a story among several titles, they are dead wrong. Nice try. Don't let me get started on mutliple covers....

I'm with Kurt on the issue of paper.
People have 5 count them 5 senses. Printing on paper will never NEVER die. We can't just give up our sense of feeling the book, leafing through it, touching the slickness of the cover. Pulling it close to my face to check out the intricacies of the drawing, holding the page with the anticipation of turning it (because the story is sooo compelling) THEN when I pull it to my face the smell of the comic, takes me back, but it doesn't get me a buzz like ditto sheets from when I was in elementary school;).
Yeah I know a lot of you guys like reading off the screen, BUT MERIN,
I REALLY DON'T WANNA GO HOME AND READ OFF MY COMPUTER, AFTER STARING AT A COMPUTER ALL DAY. Why is that argument so offensive to you. I don't watch hours of TV either. That incandescent glare of the screen makes my head hurt when I tried to read comics on my computer.
The web is good, and if you like reading comics online more power to ya. I'll still be shelling out $80 bucks a month at my local comic store. It's more than just reading the book, It's owning it, having it in my box o comics.
I however could care less about having a DVD box on my shelf. I have books and books of DVD's that take up little space, and I think if you can feel that way about displaying your DVD's You should be able to understand why It's important to a person to have the actual Physical book in their hand while they read it.
Print is not dead (Sorry David Carson, but it's not) Like I said FIVE SENSES we need to nurture them all, Although the digital world is great, we simply will never replace the physical world in which we live. At least I hpe not. I'm a Graphic Designer, and Illustrator, who has (probably) turned down MANY money making opportunities, by NOT doing web design. I focus on PRINT, and I always will. Of course I also do digital art, but my focus is PRINT and keeping it around for as long as possible. I believe BOTH world s can live and thrive off of each other. Theres no need for the EXTREMELY close minded view that there has to be either Print or Digital.
p.s. FUCK THE RIAA, AND THE MPAA

Oh, BTW, Ben you owe me lunch after spitting out half my sandwich after reading your Marvel Two-In-One comment. I think I still have some lettuce stuck in my sinuses.

Merin, I read the article you posted, thank you for that. I was especially moved (sorry if that exaggerates) by the part that mentions the scanner's "love" of comics.

It's true.

The idea that these are a bunch of individuals who loathe the medium and wring their hands in glee at the hopes of tearing it all down are ludicrous. I participate in the community referenced in that story, a community which has recently been rocked by a DMCA takedown uppercut to the noggin (ok, the "rockee" was a more or less renegade offshoot of the original but I consider it all the same community anyway.) I participate for access to the old stuff, the stuff from my youth, most of which I own but prefer a digital copy that is easy to pull up and leaf through.

Now with all that said...the fact is it's stealing. Doesn't matter if the book is a month old or 30 years old, I don't see a distinction. If you don't have the permission to copy and reproduce the work, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm old enough to remember a time when we downloaded mp3s from websites full of just random links. No Napster, no BitTorrent, just basic (poorly laid out) websites with links to song so-and-so. Just because there weren't even a hundredth of the people doing it then as are now doesn't make it any less the truth that we were stealing.

As far as impact to the industry goes, I'm not sure how it can be argued that the scanning of books even a year out doesn't lead to the "well, it will be free in a year so I'll just wait" mentality. Once you're on the cycle so to speak, it's like they're new. I mean c'mon, it's not that hard to stay out of the present where comic storylines are concerned if you really try.

Anyway, I've managed to vacillate between both sides in this rant so I have zero credibility and to be honest, after the nightmare of the early to mid 90s and the way the fans were pimp slapped repeatedly by the comic industry, I can't say I feel all that sympathetic for them, karma's a bitch.

But it's a great discussion about a great art form, keep it going....

Almost all DVD movies released, all video games, all hardcover paperback novels, all movies shown in high-priced movie theaters -

will be in bargain bins in 1-2 years time. Or be in cheaper paperback format for books. Whatever. If it was ALL about paying as little as possible, no hardcovers would ever sell and no one would buy video games right when they come out and the movie theaters would be empty.

There are plenty of people who, for whatever reason, pay more to get it as soon as possible.

Something being "free" awhile down the road doesn't mean much to most consumers who are buying the product right away.

Also -

I'm sorry, but my concept of the "stealing" is to take something away from someone in a way that they lose it. So even "stealing an idea" is stealing as if you take credit/profit for another's idea, they lose that credit/profit.
Copying a movie and giving it to a friend may well be illegal, but it isn't stealing in my book. It may be wrong to you or to the courts or whomever, but it still isn't stealing to me. Any more than someone is stealing when they borrow a book or movie or whatever from a friend.

I agree with your stance on the stealing issue, Merin. Is giving my copy of X-men to another to read stealing from the company? It's CALLED SHARING. The companies (record, movie, comic) aren't losing $$$ to pirates. We'll all be in the seats at a theater when a movie opens, and a small fraction will download it for free, as People downloading a comic, that I will be in line to buy next week. OH YEAh and we'll alll pay WAAAAY too much for these products.
I'll still never go for digital comics don't like em. Want mine on paper.

Sharing a comic book with a friend and downloading a digital copy are not the same thing. They're not even close. The only reason to claim they are is to try and convince yourself that illegally downloading copyright material is ok.

The comparison is made, nax37, because what the distribution industry (RIAA, MPAA) are saying is that you getting to VIEW that media without paying is the illegal part.
Sharing a copy with a friend (whether you hand that copy over or send a digital copy) has the same end result - your friend gets to experience that media WITHOUT the distributor getting money for it.

Copyright laws were created to protect the creators of products AND the consumers of products from BUSINESSES exploiting both. Do a little historical research on Copyright laws prior to the 70's, when everything started changing legislatively to Copyright laws protecting businesses rights to make a profit off material.

I'm against money changing hands for copies. I'm against people profiting in any way from selling property that isn't theirs. This includes Microsoft giving away "free" Internet Explorer embedded in Windows as to destroy Netscape's competitiveness.

If someone were making millions of copies of CDs or books or movies and distributing them for free with the intent of destroying the market for a distributor, then I'm all for that someone being fined and made to stop.

People online sharing their music collections or scanned comics? Sorry, there's an illegal war going on, @50 million uninsured Americans, rampant homelessness, and environmental crisis, and staggering poverty worldwide. It sickens me that people get so worked up over file sharing.

It's illegal to drive over the speed limit, or have oral sex in some states. Breaking both of those laws bothers me not at all. This is not a non-sequitor, they are examples of "illegal activity" that is by no means immoral. Illegal != Immoral. Illegal != Evil. Illegal = Against the Law.
Laws exist for an ordered society, and an ordered society exists to protect the people of that society.
Laws should not exist to allow a privileged group (wealthy corporations) to exploit those less privileged (struggling creators, consumers.)
This is also neither a non-sequitor nor a red-herring. My point is that the big media campaigns (read: propaganda) by the RIAA and MPAA is not to protect the rights of creators nor consumers (why Copyright laws were initially created), for if they WERE concerned about that they wouldn't be trying to screw the Writers out of their pay for their work being used digitally (say, can you say HYPOCRISY? sure you can) - these are the same people who wanted to DIVX to be a way to make sure that NO ONE OWNED a copy of a movie or music, but that they had to "pay to play" every time you wanted to view said media.

The bottom line is about intent.
Most file-sharers are not trying to rip off creators, they are sampling. Most file-sharers (this is anectdotal, but my experience and research) purchase what they like and support and do not keep what they do not like.
The industries like the MPAA and RIAA are not concerned one iota about "creator's rights" or any such smoke-screen (Writer's Strike, again, a VIVID depiction of this) - they are concerned with making money EVERY TIME ANYONE VIEWS THE MEDIA, period. Boiled down = they care about bigger profit margins.

Intent, people.

Sharing your physical comic book and your electronic version are just not the same thing. In general terms, copyright controls the replication and distribution of materials. By sharing your physical comic book with another person, you are not replicating it.

But giving them an electronic version of your comic book (either scanned or purchased online) entails your making a second electronic version of the book. It's no different than making a Xerox-ed version of a comic and handing it out (which equates to publishing it without permission).

(I will avoid special circumstances in this example such as purchasing an electronic comic, putting it on a flash drive and temporarily loading it from that device on a friend's computer for them to read... we are talking about the bigger picture here)

So while the end result may be the same (i.e. your friend reads the book for free), the difference is that one is a violation of copyright law and the other is not.

And Merin, I am not sure I buy that argument about "intent". If my goal is to take something to which I do not have legal rights, that is breaking the law... regardless of whether my goal is to hurt a wealthy corporate owner or if I am blindly hindering a mom-n-pop shop owner. Not every publisher is a hegemonic powerhouse.

As for DIVX, that is a perfectly sound vehicle for content distribution. It didn't survive because the market did not like that system. It might have worked if they offered dramatically lower prices than the sale of a DVD. But with Red Box $1 rentals that give the same sort of temporary access, I don't think they would have been able to lower their price to a point where the consumer would have found value in their offering.