Why boycott everyone connected to BEFORE WATCHMEN?
"Purely intended for educational purposes." Do with the list what you will.
DC went out of its way in the 1980s, through the munificence of its top executives at the time, to give Kirby retroactive ownership rights on his Fourth World characters, so that he (or his estate) would get paid when those characters are used.
Like I said when this was brought up before
: if it is still true that the Kirby estate receives compensation for Jack's creations, please provide another source than a remark at a convention made by a kid who may or may not have been in the room when the deal was struck, who then went on to become the company president twenty years later, relating the story at the beginning of his time as president in an effort to generate good will for his company. Also, some details as to how much that compensation is would be nice (that is to say, is it more than the price of a Happy Meal).
I don't know enough about the contract Alan Moore signed in the 1980s to tell you if DC committed a true act of fraud there.
Ask Bungee. He seems to know all about it.
Why didn't DC let WATCHMEN go out of print?
Because it sells.
True, but that's only part of the full answer. It was also to maintain the copyright. After DC flooded the market with the ten dollar edition just prior to the movie, they offered to give the copyrights back to Moore and Gibbons in exchange for a guarantee of no legal challenges to the ongoing trademarks.
if that point was so important to him - "WATCHMEN will revert to me and Dave by XX date" - he should have gotten it in writing.
Never mind that Moore is British, where certain conventions (like reversion of rights back to the creators) are common practice. Never mind that the book market for comics collections was almost non-existent at the time.
I understand that Moore didn't want a sequel (and let's face it, Gibbons didn't, either).
I'd like a citation for that, as well.