Network: 
During my brief time as a Blog@Newsarama writer, I hit what amounted to the blog "jackpot" with an evidently well-timed April 1 post about the pirated downloading of current American comics on Web sites like Demonoid, sparking pleas from then She-Hulk writer Dan Slott for readers to stop it.
This one short post generated an amazing 137 responses (a Blog@Newsarama record at the time), most of them fairly debating the pros and cons of illegally downloading new and recent comics on the Web.
Those posts came immediately to mind when I saw these news briefs from IF Magazine and the Anime News Network about 11 Manga artists (including Go Nagai, creator of Devilman) awarded more than $175,000 in damages by the Tokyo District Court against Internet companies and homepage maintainers for uploading publishers works without permission.
Even more interesting, the court created a formula for calculating the damage those cartoonists incurred as a result of unauthorized downloading.
For many, I suspect this concern just doesn't register because most people would sooner watch paint dry than to download digital comics -- even new ones -- at all, legally or illegally, even without a broadband connection, much less read 'em. Having been involved in the digital production phase of producing graphic novels, books and magazines, believe me, reading them via your favorite 20-inch LCD monitor is much more work than fun, especially on the eyes...
Here's the $64,000 question: Is the Tokyo court right or wrong about cartoonists and publishing companies being hurt by the illegal downloading of comics? Or, as some folks have wisely pointed out, would those same downloaders just stop reading comics altogether if they couldn't get their "free" digital fix every week?
Comments:
(1)Add a comment
Sunday 30 September
By Just one guy's opinion
I agree that reading comics on a computer screen feels unpleasant.
In fact to the connoisseur, most downloadable media against the copyright features an unpleasant experience. You can hear much more detail with a higher bit rate mp3 file, but with the increasing use of Variable Bit Rate--where the quality changes throughout--your ear will cringe at the annoyance. Or watch a film mpeg and the quality usually is not that high, a 700 megabyte file sets the standard. One would hope with better internet connections, the highest quality files would be available for download. I mean if you are going to break some copyright laws possibly, then at least go out and do it right.
Also in the end, most computers are not set up with high quality sound systems. Although large size monitors are much more common, they do not compare to the deluxe theatre experience.
So why would one download media against copyright permissions when the experience lacks? Firstly, you cannot obtain the media any other way. Try getting a lot of anime in the United States of America at the same release time as in Japan or even just try getting Korean television series . . . Secondly, you are a cheapskate. Even though, you can afford to pay the authors and publishers of content for their work, you simply choose not to. These people form the mass majority of downloaders. Lastly, you cannot afford to purchase the media.
I form a member of the last group. I have been downloading games, mp3s, and comics since the early 90s. When video download became possible, I downloaded them also. We simply cannot participate as members of the audience of media if copyrights were strictly adhered to. I am sure some people would simply choose not to read digital comics, even though they could pay for them. I could not pay for them, and I would pay for them if I could. I would love to own all the albums that I enjoy with the album art, books, etceteras--jpegs don't do them justice. I would love to own physical comic books. Libraries do not cut it and shops generally do not countenance you treating them as libraries.
Maybe copyright owners do not care about people like me, and their prerogative allows them to decide so and deny us. If I cannot taste a mango because I cannot afford, then I am not allowed to steal it. Although some kind shopkeeper, might allow me to partake of one or even begrudgingly allow the occasional single minor theft. A trespass as such in the grand scheme of things might be considered the cost of doing business or insignificant to the bottom line. However, the consternation occurs when great trespass occurs, and all the patrons forgo payment and threaten the livelihoods of the entrepreneurs.
So I can see what upsets content producers. If they do succeed, then many people like me simply will not have a choice and will have to stop experiencing their content. I think one of the great developments in our day is that media content is so easily available. If you are poor in the US, or even poor in India or wherever, with some now widely available cheap equipment, then you are a part of the great Information Age. If those that can afford so continue to supply their money to record companies, publishers, theaters, etceteras, then I think even if they partook in free content online there would be less scrutiny. Hopefully, the means and end of copyright enforcement does not result in the end of this great period in history where content is available to almost everyone.
Reply