No, I'm just needling Mike. I've learned through arduous experience that there's little point in actually engaging him on any topic.

He's not very bright, you see.



What part of "enjoy your comics!" is complicated? If you feel the need to sit at home and go, "Oh, Silk Spectre! What crazy adventures will you get into this month?" then have at it.

But if you want to come to a public forum and defend your comics, then dumb, already-addressed arguments will be called out as such.

Now, if you're really having trouble wrapping your head around any notion other than, as Mike puts it, "either it's wrong to use the creations of others for your own ends or it's not," then I suggest you go back to the piracy thread, where you insisted that the root of piracy's immorality was that it denied an artist the right to determine the fate of his work, and at varying points compared such a denial to rape, murder, and slavery.

Then come back here and apologize for being a murdering rapist slavedriver.

Or, alternately, go, "okay, I guess it's not a valid argument to just go 'A is always A. Good men know that. Like Harry Truman. Or my father. Hurm.'"

Why do you always misattribute your nonsense to other people?

Joe, you seem to not be hearing anything other than your own guilty conscience.

LOL, as the kids say.

Wow for a guy who doesn't want to discuss the topic anymore you sure seem to be putting in the effort.

I find it interesting that some of the people who claimed internet piracy was admittedly legally wrong, BUT LOUDLY PROCLAIMED it was morally right, and rightly attack DC's use of characters legally but not morally theirs to use (something Moore was paid by DC to do as well), BUT then somehow defend Moore for doing exactly the same thing.

Like Mike said, "either it's wrong to use the creations of others for your own ends or it's not." And I'm honestly struggling with that.

Moore is dressing his own creations as the creations of others in LoEG, Lost Girls, etc. Before Watchmen is expanding Moore's creations.




No, you should be sorry because you have no aesthetic taste.

You obviously have no idea how ridiculous some things sound coming from you. Ever heard the phrase "consider the source?"

Wrong. The argument was that piracy helped SOME OF US spend more money on entertainment. Some OTHERS of us didn't want to give out the details of their entertainment budget.

I think you'll find that all declarations of me not wanting to talk about this subject were made by you.

I don't want to rehash the same shit over and over again, and will just mock you if you try. That's different.



Loudly proclaimed that it was most often morally fine, because the arguments you made that it was immoral did not hold up in the vast majority of cases. And they become downright hypocritical when applied here.

Either way, I have no moral opinion on Before Watchmen. My opinion is that it's creatively bankrupt... which, you'll note, is exactly how I've described it on this thread.



So just to be clear, your main argument against piracy... that an artist should be allowed to determine the fate of his work... only applies sometimes.

Presumably, the exception is "when you want to read a prequel."

Now, if your stance is that the legal owner should have the right to determine the fate of the work, no matter what the wishes of the artist are, then that's a different argument. And it undercuts quite a bit of the righteous indignation you had on that thread.

However, we're not defending Moore for doing exactly the same thing. I've already explained how it's different, and if you'd like to address that, I'm happy to engage you on the subject. If you want to endlessly repeat, "BUT IT'S THE SAME THING!" over and over, then hey. You enjoy those comics, big guy. I bet they're super.

Yes I've heard that logic before. Internet piracy allows you to test drive albums. And then you will somehow be inspired to spend money on other albums. That only works if you planned on paying for all the albums you keep.

Because when you test drive a car you give the car back, unless you pay for it.

And it would only be morally fine if the musicians gave you permission. And some do, and it's worked out well for many entertainers. But it was their choice.