Yeah we did go for visibility with that endcap, but we did share it with two other companies. And I'm actually much more of a salesman than my compatriots in a lot of ways, but it takes a lot of energy and I like drawing on my computer more. Chris pretty much lets people walk by and talks to them when they show interest, where I'll get right out in people's faces and sell them our comic, I have no shame whatsoever. [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Meanwhile, I posted this over in the News/Ebooks thing:

"Hey, I really love how Stephen King just came right out and said, "Hey, I only spent $124,000, and grossed $500,000, and the publisher didn't get a penny of it!!!" (Splash report) THAT'S AWESOME! And that was just through an HONOR SYSTEM, with people downloading the book and paying if they felt like it. Even though the project has been put on hold, reportedly because the honor system started to fail (with more and more downloaders not paying), I'd call that a success, wouldn't you? A 300% profit margin is pretty damned impressive if you ask me...

Well, okay, that's Stephen King, he's bound to be able to sell whatever he wants to to someone. But hey, what a happy thought. No paper, no warehouse, no shipping, no retailer, no storefront = only cost is marketing = PURE PROFIT. Believe you me, with him just coming out and saying it, every writer in the English speaking world (who's paying attention) is now going, "SAY, maybe that can work for me, too!" I'm sure Mr. King knows that, and that's why he's said so in that way. I think the experiment was successful, tho obviously there's a few kinks to work out. Doing something like this with encrypted PDFs might work a bit better..."

Okay, now before you start shooting Nat, (heh heh) I just want to acknowledge that yes, this was a high-profile project from one of the most famous writers in the English-speaking world, so the success of this venture needs to be judged in that context. Obviously we nearly-invisible comics people would have an uphill fight compared to the Pride of Ogunquit.

However, I still think it is a positive result, and that it should encourage us to TRY. The "honor system" actually made King THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. $376,000. And that was selling single chapters for a DOLLAR apiece. Although it's obviously not a perfect solution, it still worked for him.

And I'm sure that there are now bootleg free copies of this whole thing floating around (since the download is on the honor system I can't imagine why, but I'm sure they're there). So the thing is likely circulating to some extent with no cash flow back to King. So that digital copy security thing is of course still a problem. But remember I talk about giving a bunch of your stuff away, but hanging onto some of it to sell after creating demand for it.

Anyway, I like King's "hey, this is cool!" attitude, especially the "publisher not involved" part. I think it's a positive development, and a demonstration of some of the potential of what I'm espousing.

Okay, here's something I promised some time ago, the link to John Perry Barlow's article about the implications of fast and easy digital distribution on intellectual property, which spurred my starting this thread:

http://www.wired.com:80/wired/archive/8.10/download.html

Please take your time to read this and try to digest what it says. It will spur some instant kneejerks from many -- as it did for me, the first being "oh my god, how will i EVER be able to make money drawing??" -- but it's worth reading carefully and reflecting thoughtfully upon.

------------------
Jeff Zugale
Pagan City Comics
www.pagancity.com

The author picks rather convenient angles to look at each thing, ignore the other and larger questions. He makes claims to ethics down the road, but makes no attempt to look at the ethics of the millions of thieves at work. He makes claims for an "economy", but shows none. He uses examples that suggest that recording artists should make their money off of touring and writers should make their money off of readings... rather than practicing what they may be good at, recording and writing. One talks about the new ease of copying... but if there was no ease of copying, there would've been no copyright laws in the first place. He tries to use patronage as the example, but fails to note that that system didn't do much for creating works for the common man. He tries to use software piracy as an example, but that's been limited by 3 obvious things: the need for support (surely, we don't want music to be as complex as Microsoft Office), the size of modern software in comparison to the data pipes (which is what MP3 has already injured in the music world) and the existence of legal ramifications (particularly since much software is used by corporations with relatively high chances for detection and much to lose.) And even with those, plenty of software companies fail who might succeed if not for theft.
As for the unstoppability of this all: Napster is unlikely to remain free and unrestrained, Scour filed for bankruptcy, Gnutella proved problematic, and while there have been a number of attempts, I've yet to see any of them really take hold.
Maybe it's time to try teaching that theft is wrong, and showing that copyright laws can indeed be enforced. (Of course, the music business as an example is tricky, because they shot themselves in the big toe with the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.)

Good points Nat. I have to agree that there's a lot of blue sky here, and I certainly agree that as you say, some of this is looked at from "convenient angles". Allow me to address:



OK, this was a bit iffy to me off the bat too. However, I'd like you to give this a bit of leeway, since it's pretty clear to me that Barlow is defining theivery differently than you are.

Now Nat, we've already established your solid belief in the concept of "ideas" as "things," or "nouns," items which can be "owned." This is quite in accordance with current copyright law. And I accept this belief. However it's clear that Barlow's position is that "ideas" should be considered "verbs" (his word) and that they are NOT something which can be owned.

And in the rest of the article he goes on to try to allay our fears of not being able to sell our ideas, by describing ways in which other "knowledge workers", like lawyers and doctors, make their living providing services, which are "verbs," as opposed to "goods," which are "nouns."

Later in the article he talks about "ethics" being forged or growing naturally out of these new business relationships. Yes, I find this to be a bit foggy. But, I'm willing to explore it and see what happens.



I disagree, he cites the example of himself getting paid excellent money to give talks and even more as a consultant, because his unique talents are desired by people who value his opinion. He's not copyrighting the ideas that his clients pay him to talk about; he's getting paid to express them in his own unique way. Thousands of consultants do this every day. Nat, when you write the Idiot's Guides, aren't they actually paying you for your expertise and insight? I'm not sure how those books work, but if you are the one who personally learns the program in question, and then writes everything he knows about it in easily comprehensible form, isn't the publisher paying Nat Gertler primarily for his software skill and "translation" ability, with the actual physical writing being secondary (tho obviously important)? Sounds to me like you're already participating in a "knowledge worker" relationship with your publisher.

I don't say that this is a fully-developed economy, but there are many people making a living in that way right now. Including me.



Nat, a little factual info on the music biz for you, which I've laid out before, but I'll repeat: Most musical artists, even big famous ones that everyone knows about, DO NOT IN REALITY GET PAID FOR RECORDING ALBUMS OR FROM THE SALES OF THEIR RECORDS. They do, in fact, actually make FAR MORE money out there touring and selling t-shirts than they make from album sales. I'm not gonna go over the fine points of this again, so I ask you to please accept that for the sake of this discussion (and we can rap about it privately in meatspace later. [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ) Anyway, musicians DO make most of their money touring, so that statement is valid.

And frankly, most of the famous "recording artists" out there are HORRIBLE at recording music -- you'd be astounded at how many bands use uncredited studio musicians because Johnny Guitar Punk can't handle the studio and would take 100 takes to get down one solo, where Lukather will come in and blow it out -- uncredited -- in 1 take for triple scale (around $1000), which is cheap compared to a whole day of Punkboy stumbling at $500/hr.

As far as writers go, I don't believe he was suggesting that they do readings to make money; he cited the specific example of:



Now hold on, I will get into the glaring copyright problem with that example later on in this post. But I don't think that Barlow is suggesting that writers give their stuff away and then go get paid to read it out loud, I think you took that the wrong way.



OK, I have to totally disagree with you here, but remember, in a gentle and conversational way. I don't think that ANYONE is under the illusion that copyright law can stop ANYONE from ACTUALLY MAKING A COPY OF SOMETHING -- although it is of course technically illegal. Certainly back in 1710 (when the first copyright law was created), even with printing presses, it was NOT easy to make copies of things.

There is no force on earth, Nat (other than a bad SCSI cable), that can stop me from scanning The Factor #1 into my computer, nor even making a distributable electronic file of it. And the likelihood of a legal entity prosecuting me for it is low, even though you could certainly technically file suit against me for infringement if I did this (be aware that out of my personal respect for you, I would not do this).

No, the logical, practical INTENT of the law is to stop people from making copies that they can SELL AND MAKE A PROFIT FROM, and to give a remedy to the owner of the original for such improper sale. While "unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws," in a practical sense there's no way to stop people from copying things. Copying most things in bulk has its own built-in deterrence to people who want to copy stuff: you need skill and time and equipment and manpower, so it costs money to do it. Therefore the only reason to lay out the expense to make copies of something is to sell those copies at a profit, right?

Remember, the "ease of copying" we're talking about here is proliferating intangible digital copies as opposed to bulky, tangible things like paper books. Until the Net, it cost a lot of money to make copies of comic books. Now, if I suffered an extreme moral lapse and actually DID scan The Factor #1, I could email it to a few hundred people, therefore making a few hundred copies, for FREE. If I wanted to send it to a few hundred friends by snailmail, I'd have to go to Kinko's and spend money. While both are illegal copying, only one is expensive.

Anyway, the upshot is that previous to the Web, the only practical reason to make a whole bunch of illegal copies of something is to SELL them, and THAT is what copyright law is meant to address. Nat, I do understand (as we discussed on page 1 of this I believe) that you believe that ANY copy made of your intellectual property without your permission is an illegal copy, and the law supports that. I accept your belief, but I'm sure you realize that there is no way you can practically enforce the law to that extent.

Especially since here in the US, copyright is CIVIL law as opposed to CRIMINAL law, which means in practical terms that the only way you can enforce your own copyright is if you can afford to sue someone over it. Which means you have to be very wealthy, period, AND have pretty much incontrovertible proof that your copyright has been infringed. I have a friend who did some music which is copyrighted in his name at the US Copyright Office, which you hear every day on a well-known sports network -- which he never gave his permission for that network to use. He has on the face of it a solid case -- but no copyright lawyer in this Los Angeles or New York will touch it. He isn't rich. He can't afford any of these lawyers. Plus, these lawyers have relationships with the entertainment companies which they're not willing to jeopardize. Tell me Nat, how is copyright law helping my friend, who should be getting residuals about every ten minutes? (I'll be happy to introduce you to him if you'd like corroboration on this story.)



Not then, no. But now, with "the common human" having more and more access to the Net, this would not hold true. And even for works created then, can you not go to a gallery and enjoy the Mona Lisa, or go to the Vatican and look up at the Cappella ceiling, or to the Met and marvel at Giotto, or the Getty to see Raphael? Do we not still see and enjoy Shakespeare? [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Don't be so quick to downplay the benefit to everyone.



I think I'd like to hear some very specific examples of this occurrence, Nat, before I can take it at face value. Gimme a list, mon -- and not those done in by industrial espionage, either, ones done in by actual illegal copying of their finished market product.



That I'll agree with you on entirely. [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



It is, definitely! But this depends on the definition of theft and of what is thievable, which is not an absolute even in a legal sense, and even specifically in terms of copyright. See above. Does stealing a trailer full of Nat's comics make it tough for Nat to make a living? You bet!

But... does emailing 5000 copies of The Factor #1 to people who want it make it tough for Nat to make a living? AHHHH... we DON'T KNOW the answer to this. YET. Nat, you believe it does hurt your living. Well, it may. I believe otherwise, as does Barlow. Maybe you should try it out, and see what happens? You do have three more issues; perhaps a good chunk of those 5000 recipients might want to buy the whole set of PRINTED copies. [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

The title of this thread is not "Giving it ALL Away", after all!



Barlow's position, which I totally agree with, is that they can't be, especially not now. Historically, they've never been fully enforced, any more than speed laws. If you can't stop me from making a copy, you can't enforce the law. And you can't stop me, not anymore. Hell I can even encrypt the copy I make so well that you'd have a hell of a time unlocking it to prove that it's a copy -- using FREE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. Imagine that, free ideas can beat trapped ones any day of the week. Hmmmm...

Oh and by the way, I still play my songs any time I want to, even tho the record company owns them. They can't stop me either. [img]/resources/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

------------------
Jeff Zugale
Pagan City Comics www.pagancity.com

[This message has been edited by Jeff Zugale (edited 12-12-2000).]

Let me clarify: he makes claims that this online music theft is an economy.
No, the publisher is paying me for my product, not for my knowledge. They couldn't care less about how much I know about the program before the project or how much I remember afterwards, and if I used an infinite number of monkeys to write my book, the only problem they'd hav e is that it's hard to secure a clear license from an infinite number of monkeys.
Some do... but even your message discusses the studio musicians. And of course there are producers and engineers and other people who work in the art of recording.
It was sufficiently easy that there was a concern. "Easy" is a relative thing, of course...
Which is why we should be increasing the likelihood of taking all your possessions from you and even slinging your Factor-copying ass in jail, rather than saying "ooh, you figured out how to steal, so it must be okay! Next you might figure out how to murder someone, so we'd better legalize that, too..."
No, the intent is to stop people from making copies that will interfere with my ability to sell and make a profit from it.
There's no way to stop people from murdering folks, either, but we discourage it by having legal consequence when they're caught doing it.
Actually, it's both. One can face criminal penalties including 5 years in jail.
Only if your opponent is very wealthy. Fighting WNSN (Well-Known Sports Network) is a big expense because they have deep pockets to defend themselves. But if you started spreading The Factor around, I could probably sue you to within your abilities to defend yourself quite easily. Might it cost me more money than I'd gain? Sure, but it could go a long way toward discouraging the next would-be Factor theft from pulling the same trick.
I disagree. Sure, some people might pony up some money, but creating a well-funded creative force? I don't see it. Yes, we have access to some creators-for-the-rich. But I don't see those patrons ponying up the money for my beloved Backstreet Boys.... except when they need the Boys to be hucksters, which they only want because they are already a success.
The very concept of price-based software competition is done in by it. Microsoft Word is the standard world-round, even places where a $100 word processor is a relative extravagance. Why aren't those manufacturers who offer a $15 word processor thriving? Because they end up competing with bootleg disks full of software being sold on every corner for less than $15. It's a niche-killer. Would you want to make software for the Vietnamese market when 98% of the programs in use there are pirated?
AAAAH! We don't KNOW THAT! Because stealing my comics may cause the karma fairies to come down and leave me a pile of gold!
Yes, we do, with the very simplest of logic. If you send around 5000 copies of The Factor, it definitely inteferes with my ability to make a living, because it interferes with my ability to make choices about my work, to pick the most appropriate distribution and promotion system. I am quite capable of distributing those 5000 copies in reaction to the marketing possibilities of the time, or to not make that choice if the market seems otherwise. However, if YOU give them away without my permission, then I no longer have the option of reacting to conditions.
Four, actually. The Factor ran issues 0 (the reprints from Negative Burn) to 4. And believe it or not, I've been fairly active in giving away actual cost-me-money-to-print copies of the book, because I have spare and because it seems wise on this serial work. However, if the next thing I self-publish is a graphic novel, you aren't likely to see me giving thousands away for free, because there's no payback in it. That's my choice to make.

Yes, some really good stuff here Nat. I want to formulate a cogent reply but my brain is currently not up to the task... maybe tomorrow.

Nat, would you be interested in having a preview or something for The Factor on panelpusher?

(I figured it couldn't hurt to ask...)

------------------
Justin Savage
President/Editor/Web-bozo
www.sabresedge.com

Not at this point... I'm saving up my promo pushes until it's about time for the TPB, sometime next year.

Stop that. You undermine your argument.

What I can tell from Barlow and possibly Jeff (correct me if I'm wrong) is that some of us are inveterate hippies who believe practical ownership of an artistic creation isn't all that important if people pay you enough to live. We all agree that it's terrible the Beatles don't own most their songs, right? And yet, I don't recall hearing about any of them going hungry lately.

However, Jeff, your position has a problem. What you're saying is something *similar* to: "Well, I'm a Buddhist and this is fine with me. You should be a Buddhist too and get over it." While I like Buddhism, I want a G4. Why should I play by your rules?

Getting back to comics, my prediction is that print comics going online will play out similar to video tapes. It's relatively easy to scan in a comic, but in an age where people are impatient for the tv dinner in the frigging microwave, it's going to happen about as often as video tapes get copied. Comics that are initially delivered over the net are different. There's always going to be people that won't copy them (like Nat, who has most certainly put a downpayment on a mansion in Purgatory), people who won't have access to the equipment or time (i.e. po' folks) and your mom. And there's also self-interest. Stephen King "threatened" (my word) his audience by telling them that if he didn't get enough money for subsequent chapters, he'd kill the book in the middle. I think a good number of us would be willing to pay decent prices for the work. CDs are 16bucks. I had NO PROBLEM buying them when they were ten. 99.9% of the people I know who pirate software do so because they have no money and want to learn to use it. There are people like that one fucker who makes a grand an hour and still won't pay for Photoshop, but I think the rest of us outnumber them.

And for an example of software that has made use of this very thing, I once again refer you to FruityLoops. Sold on the net, pirated like hell, they made their software cheap and gave paying customers all sorts of treats you don't even get from the big guys. But their product was so good, their prices very reasonable, and their services unique, that it only made sense to pay. And now, they've partnered with a larger company for distribution purposes and will be putting their software in stores for neo-Luddites who don't like paying for things on the net. This is a great model.

However, I don't think I could tell Nat to trust in human decency and forget about the law. Law exists because ethics is no guarantee of anything. Call it skeptical optimism.

And how long ago was that? And what were comic books priced at in those days? Or milk, for that matter?

(I'm also going to make a small note that even without inflation, it's not a one-to-one comparison. Early CDs arrived in a market where vinyl was still the king, and "album" lengths were built around groove length on a two-sided vinyl slab. It seems to me (and this is just working purely anecdotally here) that newer recordings designed with CD mind are tending to be longer in playing time. This is quite clearly true with "Greatest Hits" disks, where they keep throwing on stuff to get up around that 70 minute mark, whereas if you get a hits disk that was originally issued for vinyl, you get more like 44 minutes (unless it was a two-record set).

Some quick examples: Warren Zevon's Excitable Boy (1978, half of a perfect album found there) comes in at about 31.5 minutes; his latest, Life'll Kill ya, comes in about 9 minutes longer, with 25% more songs. Roger Waters, The Pros And Cons of Hitchhiking (1984), is about 42 minutes, his Amused To Death (1992) comes in at 72:45.

Anyway, that's a digression. (I like looking at numbers!)

That the pirates you know are poor folks (relatively speaking; if they own a computer, they're likely better off than 95% of the world) doesn't excuse it. Photoshop ain't exactly food to feed a starving kid. I also don't think it's particularly a relevant judgment; I hang largely with poor folk, and many of them pirate, but when I hang with the well-off, I find they swipe as well. Corporations, educational institutions... there's a lot of pirates out there.
You're right about the Buddhist remark, but I think it goes beyond that. Those who argue that we should abandon the cpoyright protections are more in line with forcing people to become buddhist at gunpoint.