Keskustelujen arkisto

> From: Antonio Svevi <robert662 at caramail.com>

> (Of course nobody on this list has anything to do with
> Aparteid or Milosevic

You never know...
Perhaps Slobo is a Disney comics fan and a lurking member of this list.
(hey Per, any suspect Serbian address in your list?)

Ugo

In DCML digest, Vol 1 #296, Santiago Garcia Banhos wrote:

>IMHO: information is *researched*; art is *created* (more or less):
>Information is a thing to make your living easier, and everybody has the
>right to access it (like Mathematics, Phyisics, Chemistry, etc), and
>everyone sees and knows it the same way. Art is an extension of the soul,
>originated in one individual Human Being, and everyone may have his own
>vision of Art.

Of course Art is personal but it is difficult, IMO, to define it as
individual in fact a Human Being produce art because he/she lives in a
history, in the nature and in a society that condition him and inspire him.

IMO the prove of these is that almost all artists like to express their art
outside because they know that their art is something who came from
outside, it is worked in their souls and has to go outside again.

IMO yuo cannot pay for an "extension of the soul", you can just pay for the
time the artist use to "exent his soul" ... once that time was paied the
extension of soul is free because I explained it befoure

At 10:36 AM -0700 10/21/00, Rob Klein wrote:

>If there is no way to ensure that, the only writer/artists that will create
>anything to be shown to the public will be those who have a different
>source of income to live on. Such a scenario would be a terrible loss to
>society. Those who advocate diseminating all art for free to anyone
>interested should think twice. Would I risk putting all my time and effort
>into creating graphic stories to sell if I knew that anyone could reproduce
>them and distribute them for no cost to anyone who wants them? No! I have
>no other source of income that allows me the free time to be such a
>philanthropist.

Just as a side note: Most "classical" art (DaVinci, Botticelli, et
cetera) was produced either as a commission or under the patronage of
a wealthy family. The phenomenon of artist as self-supporting entity
is a relatively new one, which is why the term "starving artist" is
so common... :)

-MMM-

ObDisney: Jay Leno made a rather funny remark in his monologue the
other night, speculating whether researchers studying Viagra in
laboratory rats used deshabille pictures of Minnie Mouse as visual
stimuli for their subjects...

Arie:
"I must say thank you to the ones who've put scans of Barks' stories like
Treasure of marco Polo and Darkest Africa stories. If not for em, i may
never enjoy those stories since last time i participated, a single issue of
CBLiC containing Darkest Africa story sold for >$70. Imagine that for a $9
comic album. Sigh."

One of the other great things about the internet: Disney can no longer "rewrite" history and
pretend that the racism (and other isms) of the 40s and 50s did not exist. I bought the entire
Barks library in the 80s and you can't imagine how disappointed I was to learn that many of the
stories had been heavily edited and censored. Since most can't afford Darkest Africa, reading
it online is currently the only way you will EVER see it in its original form.

Rob Klein:

"Mass distribution of complete
stories (or completely rproduced comic books) over the Internet would ruin
sales from BOTH types of purchasers. In the future, ever more people will
connect to the internet and the costs of computer graphics equipment will
be getting evermore affordable to the average person. Downloaders will be
able to obtain free copies of each page of a comic book (with opportunity
to put it on better paper with better colour quality); and they could bind
it into any format they would like. "

Traditional notions of publishing, collecting, and reading are going to change, like it or
not. Almost all major publishers are experimenting with E-books and print-on-demand books. If
you are a collector, what does it mean to have a "collection" of comics you downloaded and
printed yourself? Will these things ever have true collector value? I doubt it.

"If there is no way to ensure that, the only writer/artists that will create
anything to be shown to the public will be those who have a different
source of income to live on. Such a scenario would be a terrible loss to
society. Those who advocate diseminating all art for free to anyone
interested should think twice. Would I risk putting all my time and effort
into creating graphic stories to sell if I knew that anyone could reproduce
them and distribute them for no cost to anyone who wants them? No! I have
no other source of income that allows me the free time to be such a
philanthropist."

Traditional ways of buying, selling, and yes stealing, will all be changed by the internet.
Lets say that Carl Barks wanted to publish his own comin in 1965, like Zap. He writes and
draws it, takes it to a printer, and takes his printed copies to local shops to sell them. If
I really like his stories and want to "steal" them and print them myself, what do I have to
do? In 1965, there are no photocopiers, color or otherwise, and no scanners, so I trace his
book with a mimeograph stencil. Who would buy that? Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Technology changes everything.

I disagree that "such a scenario" is a terrible loss to anyone. The music industry will not be
destroyed by Napster. Nor will the publishing industry be destroyed by the internet.
Paradigms will shift.

"This problem relates to the basic reasons societal rules and laws exist: to
create a way people can live together in a system that works. When we have
an orderly system that works (to some extent fairly) as we do in the
"Western World" we should not try to overthrow that order by deciding to
break whichever laws we consider "unjust or bad". It is true that most of
the nations represented by DCML are not "true democracies"; but are at
least (in most cases) representative governments. If enough people in
those countries unite to make their wishes known, they can make changes
within the system. When individuals on a large scale break laws because
the don't agree with them, chaos, or at least large scale turbulance
occurs."

Uh huh. And what if that "orderly system" is in place to protect the rights of corporations to
make money and empowered by a legal system that doesn't care about right or wrong, but about
who has the most lawyers? Civil disobedience is absolutely a valid way to make change. I
don't want to beat a dead horse here, so I'm going to drop this thread. I'll just point out
that the proof in what I say is all around you: there are so many copyright infringments on
the internet RIGHT NOW that the various legal communities will never be able to stop them.

"It is up to the people using the internet to use it reasonably and respect
the "spirit" of current national and international rules and laws. You can
choose to disregard them. But if enough people do, the very product you
enjoy to receive for free, will become extinct."

You mean I won't be able to buy Disney comics in America anymore? Terrors. I hate to be the
bearer of bad news, but comics in America are already dead as a viable means of making money,
at least the kind of money that a corporation thinks is worthwhile. I create video games for a
living, write for them, do art for them, make movies for them, design them, etc. By a factor
of 10 more kids play video games than read comics. The internet changed our industry as well
(we've been dealing with piracy for a long time), but it did not put us out of business.

"The bottom line in anything that regards human society is that "The Golden
Rule" should be applied. Always think of all the people who might be
affected by an action, and imagine yourself in all of their places. Then,
consider the consequences of your action."

Alas, while good in theory, this is not very practical. For one thing, you would be hard
pressed to give me the name of a single major corporation that follows this rule: it gets in
the way of profits. I'll follow the golden rule, when Disney does.

"Here's an idea! Get every Disney Comic fan you know together and all write
this note to every Disney Comics publisher worldwide: "We will not buy any
more Disney Comics until you pay royalties to your contracted or employed
creators!" "Do not worry about your additional costs, as if you pay the
royalties, we promise to bring you new customers by telling everyone we
know about your comics, and showing them to many potential new fans!""

How many millions of profit did Michael Eisner take in stock options last year? I don't think
profit sharing for creators would affect Disney's bottom line at all.

To bring this argument full circle:

We are talking about who gets hurt when a fan of a Disney Story scans it and posts it to the
web. My argument is very simple: NO ONE. The creator makes a story (writer or artist) and
gets paid for it. Egmont takes that story and reprints it all over Europe, it gets sent to
Brazil, Greece, Italy and reprinted again and again. Disney editions snags it and reprints it
in a fancy hardback edition. That's a lot of money being made, by printers, publishers,
editors, translators, distributors. If someone copies that story and posts it onto the
internet and none of that other money gets made, who suffers? Not the creator: he made his
money ONCE via a pernicious work-for-hire contract and will never see another dime from it.
Disagree with me if you like, but he is the only one who counts as far as I am concerned. If
the internet prevents corporations from exploiting the work of hardworking artists, so be it..

If someone gets an address and wants to start a letter writing campaign, I'll join in
absolutely.

Steven:

"dan wrote"
I'm John.

"<<a. How much money do you think Carl Barks made for Western Publishing and
the Disney Corporation? Carl saw none of this until he started doing oil
paintings in his 70s and 80s, and Disney even tried to take that away from
him.>>

Actualy Western did have a profit-sharing plan in the early 1950s, I'm
told...(I could have been told wrong)."

In all of the research I've done on Barks, I've never heard of any profit sharing plan. I know
he did get a modest pension after he became an employee.

"<<b. How much money did Superman make National Periodicals? Joe Shuster and
Jerry Siegel died in near poverty.>>

Thanks to Neal Adams and bad publicity, Warner Communications gave Shuster
and Siegel a pension from the time of the first Superman movie till their
deaths.
The poverty was prior to that. "

Well, It's all relative, isn't it? Yes they got a pension, but no where enar the amount they
deserved, and it didn't come until very late and until after much bad publicity. So much for
the Golden Rule.

"<< c. How much money did Dan DeCarlo make Harvey Publications? They just
fired
him for standing up for his claim to characters he created.>>

That would be Archie. The harvey comics ended and most were sold years ago."

That would, of course, be very correct. I gotta say, though Steven, that your remarks remind
me very much of a college writing instructor who returns a paper fully marked up with spelling
and grammar mistakes, but no comments as to the substance of the essay.

I have a friend that has three of those Gottfredson portfolios
containing the complete years of the Mickey Mouse daily newspaper
strips. This has been discussed earlier on this list so I hope you all
know what portfolio I'm referring to.
Anyhow these three are from the ones that Horst Schr?der published some
years ago. They are loose papers in black and white and they are in a
red paper folder
He has the years 1937, 1944 and 1953 and he wants to sell them.
They are a little damaged from damp not so it can be seen directly but
if you bend the pack you notice that the papers don't follow the bending
until they give in for the bending power and suddenly bends over.
Also there are some red stains on the title paper and on the last paper
from the red paper folder I presume.

I and he has no idea of what can be an appropriate value for these
portfolios but we understand that they might have some value. It would
be interesting to know if anyone here on this list can help us with an
appropriate price for these.

If there is anyone that would be interested in buying these then please
contact me privately.

Ola in cloudy Stockholm +6 and calm

Marco:

>And speaking of corollaries...
>>
>>Information is a thing to make your living easier, and everybody has the
>>right to access it (like Mathematics, Phyisics, Chemistry, etc)
>>
>...why am I NOT allowed to copyright my math theorems?
>(Think of what Descartes would have earned, had he been allowed to
>copyright his coordinate system!)

Because it's hard enough to encourage children to study Maths, for making'em
even pay royalties! :-)

Santiago.

People seem to use the word "true" in a way I don't understand. First, Rob
Klein:

> most of
> the nations represented by DCML are not "true democracies"; but are at
> least (in most cases) representative governments.

I guess I shouldn't consider this as "my country is better than yours",
since I don't know if Rob thinks the USA is a "true democracy". But I still
don't know what a "true democracy" might be...

And then John Garvin:

> If
> you are a collector, what does it mean to have a "collection"
> of comics you downloaded and
> printed yourself? Will these things ever have true collector
> value? I doubt it.

I guess, in this case, "true collector value" means "money".
I collect the *stories* in order to *enjoy* them (and brag about them to
others). Not to *sell* them at any point. So that means I am not a true
collector? (Or my collection has no "true collector value"?) To me, I am
(and it does).

> [someone's] remarks remind
> me very much of a college writing instructor who returns a
> paper fully marked up with spelling
> and grammar mistakes, but no comments as to the substance of
> the essay.

A factual error is something different from a spelling mistake. And noting
that doesn't necessarily disturb a discussion (especially on a mailing
list). As long as noone sees it as a personal attack.

--Harry.
(A false collector from a false democracy)

This is a bit off topic, but an answer to Harry Fluks question about "true
democracy". I consider the USA as a republic with a loosely
"representative" government. Individual citizens vote directly on very few
issues and not even directly for their most important representatives
(national president). The citizen votes for someone to represent him(her)
in congress (parliament). Then he(she) must hope that the representative
votes the same way as his(her) wishes. In a "true" democracy, all adults
should be able to vote directly on all important issues affecting their
lives. Danmark comes much closer to that situation than USA, but even it
is more a representative government than a "true" democracy. The ancient
Greek states wer not "true" democracies either, as they allowed slavery,
and women did not vote. But, Harry, are you not yourself a stickler for us
not drifting off topic? -Rob Klein