As much as I was drawn to this WBBM-TV video about Devil’s Due Publishing because it resides in my former Chicago domain, it conjures up a question that I’m not sure is much of a problem: Scanning comics with the intention of sharing them via the Internet, like, for example, that infamous Captain America #25 so many of you are all choked up about (you MUST check out Kevin Melrose’s funereal photo concerning a shrine for an imaginary character).
We do get a chance to visit with DD staff artist Tim Seeley, who’s obviously a talented artist, but how many people really want to download print comics of his… yet?
Is the problem a big one as Devil’s Due president Josh Blaylock believes it is? What say you folks?
March 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Count the number of finished downloads on the top ten torrent trackers, and you’ll see more than 100,000 completed downloads of the most popular titles. Any title outside the top 30 by sales will have been downloaded more often than purchased.
And this is just from the large, public trackers. Add in smaller public trackers, private trackers, IRC, DC++, sharing via links to storage sites like RapidShare, MediaFire and MegaUpload, and I predict that only the outliers are being purchased more than downloaded.
Is this a problem? Sales are better than they have been in years, and sales keep getting better even as downloading increases. I think Blaylock’s got it backwards: it isn’t a problem. It might be the only thing keeping his company alive.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I contend that all of those scanned comics fell of a truck and into my computer.
March 12th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Nope, because 95% of those people likely wouldn’t buy the comic for $3.00+ in the first place. Pretty much that cut and dry.
Be glad that you’ve got the exposure. Curse the 5% that DL when they’d buy if they didn’t have the option and be glad sales keep going up industry wide.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I don’t know if it’s helping sales, maybe a bit. But it’s sure not hurting them. The very last thing this industry needs to do is get locked into an RIAA-style mexican standoff/deathspiral with its consumers.
What someone needs to do is start the itunes equivalent for comics, and capture all the sales that would otherwise be legitimate, if an alternative was out there.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I was talking to it with Landry Walker (writer of Tron and Little Gloomy) and as an experiment, he has been trying to find as many comic downloads as he can. The number of comics he’s found is unbelievable, so much so that I can’t recall the right number.
Publishers, I think, are a bit behind in realizing that although they themselves all about the tactile experience of reading printed comics, people are willing to forgo that if they can get those comics for free. With http://www.Eyemelt.com, we’re hedging that if they can get comics for 69 cents in a legitimate way, some of them will choose that over pirated comics.
I agree that an iTunes for comics would be great. Sites like Pullbox and Eyemelt.com are open to distributing work by artists other than those published by their parent companies, so artists who want to get in on digital distribution should consider trying to sign up with one of us.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Personal anecdote - I rediscovered comics about 2 years ago thanks to stumbling upon the illegal download scene. I found them unsatisfying in that format, but a tempting taste. I’ve spend at least a couple of thousand dollars on comics since. I can pretty much guarantee that I wouldn’t have bought a single floppy had those files not been out there.
I’m sure my experience isn’t unique, and while I’m quite sure there are those who spend less on comics now that they can download anything they want, I’m of the opinion that the net is a huge plus to publishers and the industry as a whole.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
One thing people need to relize is a lot of downloaders are collectors of digital content, not consumers. They suck down as much of any thing possible to have it, and for no other reason. Bandwidth and harddrive space is cheap, and there is no percived cost to grabbing the content. They only grab it becuase it is there, not becuase they want it.
On the other hand, I DL comics and use them to look into things I might want to buy. If anything, I but much more comics then I otherwise would. With comic shops selling trades in shinkwrap and no way to flip through them, DLed comics and Wikipedia is the best way I have found to find more items to buy.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:04 am
If the people who download and are said to never buy at 3.00….but would at .99…the industry would be a whole new ball of wax.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:15 am
I see digital comics as being in the same vein as MP3s. If comics makers tap into a latent market they can increase their bottom line. Otherwise they’re missing out but likely still benefiting from increased exposure.
March 13th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I buy a lot fewer comics these days, but it has nothing to do with illegal downloads.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:17 am
But I’m sure it’s nice to have a boogeyman to explain why your comics aren’t selling as much as they are.
I personally prefer “ARGH BIG COMPANY CROSSOVERS!” myself, but hey, that’s just me.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:23 am
For the comic industry it is hard for them to call the downloads illegal.
Comics fall under the magizine arena. hence after 60 days most comics are then cosidered back issue. With magazines the covers are torn off and the retailer destroys the issue. With comics the book are mylar bagged and sold BY THE COMIC BOOK STORE. Any downloads of original issued books after 60 days cannot be illegal. The digital rights remain with the creating company but there in lies the problem…digital covnersion of an analog copy over 60 days old would be hard to enforce a right to. The companies already allow for back issue resale since they dont profit from the resale only the original sale. Of course, copyright remains and issue but then again most copyright issues involve the use of the material and the loss of sale to the parent company. Very hard to show the loss of back issue sales to free digital dwonloads materially harms the creating company in a way that resale of back issues doesnt.
Just my two cents
March 13th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Justme, that’s an interesting point that I haven’t seen raised elsewhere. But just because the damages would be hard or impossible to assess (meaning there is little incentive to bring cases to court) doesn’t mean it is not illegal.
Similarly, a lot of people argue that downloaded MP3s do not represent lost sales, so how would you assess the damages to the record companies, but that hasn’t stopped the RIAA et al from moving forward with legal action.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Michael - I think the difference between the RIAA and comicdom is the RIAA still wons the rights to the music. When it is take in digital form (CD, etc) and placed in digital form (mp3) online for free it circumvents their sales. But comicdom has a analog form, the rights to which expire after 60 days giving rise to the cottage industry of comic book back issue resale with decades of endorsement by comicdom itself. Even convention halls filled with the sale of this product. The RIAA has never allowed such a thing. Reselling comic books is identical to reselling your CDs to be sure but RIAA is claiming thw ownership of the digital rights. Comicdom cant claime digital rights to a digital version of an analog original. Just as the RIAA has never claimed a right to a digital conversion of an analog original. Under the DCMA the RIAAs teeth in the matter it is digital to digital that is the crime; not analog to digital.
On top of that a analog to digital conversion of a 60day old book leaves no one with damages that the court can rule for - so the case gets thrown out for lack of an aggreved party (a standing issue).
March 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Even the NET Act cant be used (in its current form) (the NET is the NO Electronic Theft Act) Since the NET bases guilt on the assessed value of the copyrighted work in question. In comicdom the value of a comic is lost after 60 or so days to the industry. After that is becomes a back issue with no value to the comic industry as show by the lack of royalities given to the industry for any back issue sales. The comic sotre enjoys the value of the reseller but doesnt have any copyright rights to enforce. Therefore neither the comic company nor the retail reseller would be able to use the NET Act. Comic company - no value of product after 60 days (time book becomes a back issue) & retail reseller - no copyright rights at all.
But the RIAA always enjoys the copyruight rights with an assessable value that isnt diminished over time.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“In comicdom the value of a comic is lost after 60 or so days to the industry”
By no means. It can be reprinted in perpetuity, and often is. The publisher doesn’t lose any rights merely because the pamphelt isn’t currently in print.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Justme, I am not a lawyer, but what you’re saying doesn’t sound correct. Having worked for a magazine, we secured (for everything we published) rights to publish in perpetuity. These rights don’t expire in 60 days, they expire when the work enters the public domain (99 years?). When you want to reprint something, you have to get written permission and pay the rights-holding original publisher. Why isn’t any third party selling digital copies of these analog products if it is indeed legal?
And it is legal for me to rip all my vinyl to MP3 and distribute it online (sell it?!?) under current laws? Then why arenn’t there digital download sites that offer such legal products? I would have to do some more research to refute this (and I will look into it), but it sounds incorrect.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
PS> Do you suggest any resources/references to verify this?
March 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
If the comic companies still retained rights then they would get royalities to the issues. Since thye have never demanded royalties from back issue sales they have abandoned any rights that go along with royalities. If the rights are abandoned they are not enforcable.
comics are very differnt from music. music industry has never relinquished their rights and have even tired to suppress the resale of albums (many record & tape traders are long gone) Comicdom endorses back issue sales and all of the issues that go with that.
NET wont allow you to sell analog converted MP3s since the MP3s still retain a value. comics do not retain a value after their original sale except on the secondary market. If they did retain any value after that time royalties would have to be paid back to the comic companies. Without value the NET act cannot be used.
The DCMA comes into play when copyright protection is circumvented which comics dont have.
I suspect fear of suit has keep many away from the arena as well as lack of profit for taking comicbooks and transferring them into digital form.
Reprints exist but in the end simply fall prey to the same issues of any other comic issue. They become back issues and do not generate royalities for the cimic company. When the royalities are not enforced it is hard to claim damages and succeed in a law suit.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Think about it this way…Why is it legal for a retail to sell a comic book in back issue for for in some cases for thousands of dollars per year without giving the company that created the work a cut of the money. But in becomes illegal for you to purchase that same book make a digital copy and give it away. I cuold sell that book for any profit legally or give it away but not make a digital copy and give it away.
In the music world you cant. The DMCA doesnt allow for circumventing digital protection software. In addition, the RIAA has always made sure any use the corporation was given royalities.
Comicdom has choosen another path and allows for the resale of its product without any cut for itself. Dangerous path to take for a corporation not collecting all it can.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
“If the comic companies still retained rights then they would get royalities to the issues. Since thye have never demanded royalties from back issue sales they have abandoned any rights that go along with royalities”
I’m not sure you know what a royalty is. The publishers generally own the works outright — they might pay royalties, not receive them.
“If the rights are abandoned they are not enforcable.”
The publishers are not abandoning any rights, and you are incorrect in any case — copyright does not need to be enforced to be maintained, unlike, for example, trademarks, which can be considered abandoned if not protected.
“Think about it this way…Why is it legal for a retail to sell a comic book in back issue for for in some cases for thousands of dollars per year without giving the company that created the work a cut of the money.”
Because of the doctrine of first sale. If you own a physical work, whether a book, comic, CD, car, home or set of steak knives, you have the right to resell it without giving any benefit to any previous owner.
With respect, you haven’t got clue one as to what you’re talking about.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:28 am
To Old-timey Usenet hack Thank you for the info and education.
Now I understand how it works.
So the first time rule gives right to resale but not reproduction!
Thank you sensei!!!