Keskustelujen arkisto

Okay, I think we've had enough by now. I know I have. Everyone is welcome
to an opinion, and with a certain amount of manners any opinion can be
posted and tolerated, no matter how disagreeable the idea itself may be.

But since this is a mailing list about Disney comics, it shouldn't be used
as a forum for debate about Internet law. Nor should it be haven for
confessed pirates. There are plenty of WAREZ newsgroups for that.

Since Mr. Toti-Totti has declared himself a proud and unabashed purloiner of
other folks' hard work, and responds to every recommendation to mature in
his thinking with more barbs and insults...

I hereby dub thee...

TROLL!

And we all know what to do with trolls, eh? No more munchies.

--
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)

Angelo Toti:

>When I say "tomorrow, 1 + 1 will still equal 2" this
>is a prediction, and this is also the truth.
>
>The error in your reasoning is at the last part of
>your sentence: "we don't know the future yet". We do
>know part of what the future will be.

I was going to respond to this, but ... forget it! No reason to argue
further here!

Martin

Petri:

> I thought an introducktion would be nice.

Indeed! Welcome here!

> The thing that really rocked my world where the
> pocket books. [...] Italian comics. As I grew with them they have the
> splendor in my eyes that can overcome the
> not-the-best-possible quality.

I think this is a general thing. In my youth, I had the opposite: I grew up
with the weeklies (in Holland), and considered the pocket books crap stuff.
Even a few years ago, when we started Inducks, I didn't think it was
necessary to index all the Italian junk! 8-)

I also think I have found a way to cope with this: I am now reading all
Dutch pocket books *without any expectations*. Like a child, so to speak. I
don't expect Barks quality or Gottfredson quality. I expect nothing. And
guess what: I'm really *enjoying* the good stories in the pocket books
(about 50% of the stories turn out to be "fair" to "good", some 10% is
"excellent").

Since then, I became a fan of Scarpa (or a "ventilator of Shoe"), and I fell
in love with the artwork of Cavazzano. I'm in the process of recognising
(and enjoying) Bottaro, Carpi, and Massimo de Vita.
(And I'm still hating the work of Perego and P.L. De Vita...)

Maybe (just maybe) the same *can* happen to you (and others) if you read
Egmont stories with a blank mind. Worth a try?
A good place to start could be Kari Korhonen's stories. They usually are
very good!

> And Egmont's Mickey stories... I don't know where
> the idea to put his red shorts back on came but I don't like
> it one bit.

I think the origin was a reader's investigation, which showed that readers
didn't like the "boring" Mickey stories where he is a detective, in the
Murry/Tello style.
I think it was Byron Erickson, one of the big Gottfredson fans, who proposed
to re-introduce Mickey in his shorts. David Gerstein, another big
Gottfredson fan, helped a lot in developing this new Mickey universe.
Egmont was smart enough to use the *best* artists for these stories, like
Ferioli!

> It's not the Mickey I grew with.

Same problem again! 8-)
Did you ever read the good Gottfredson stories from the mid- to late 1930s?
They should give you the atmosphere and characters that Egmont is re-using
(or trying to). I see that same atmosphere in the Tintin comics.

> Finally we get to the bottom of things with S-coded and
> Westerns non-Barks comics.
> I can't say much of Brasilian ja French comics

I guess you can't say much about Dutch comics either. 8-)
There are some very good Hiawatha stories from the 1960s. At least *I* think
they are very good - I grew up with them... 8-)

--Harry.

In my previous email I wrote:

> In the discussion about copyrights and stealing, I've seen comparisons
> with stealing someone's possessions. Even though I agree with the thought
> behind that comparison, I can imagine that it can be a bit confusing when
> what possesion is copyrighted material.

The last line contains a typo.

I meant: "I can imagine that it can be a bit confusing when THAT possesion
is copyrighted material."

Best wishes,

--- Daniel

Daniel van Eijmeren

I've always found the Terms of Service of Web servers very clearly written.
A little dry, perhaps, but they tend to be composed in such a way as to be
understandable by any reader of normal intelligence. They know very well
that people looking for free Web sites aren't lawyers, and they have very
good reasons to make sure everyone using their services knows what is and is
not allowed.

Here's an example, from Article 5 of the Yahoo/Geocities Terms of Service:

>> You agree to not use the Service to:
(... irrelevant copy deleted ...)
>> (f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that
>> infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright
>> or other proprietary rights of any party;

What's hard to understand about that?

Quack, Don

Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm

Look at the byline on this news story -- don't you think they should have
credited the Duckburg newspaper for using its reporter? --

Clash Erupts Hours Before Americas Summit 4:46 PM ET April 20,2001

By Angus MacSwan

QUEBEC CITY (Reuters) - A clash erupted between police and
anti-globalization demonstrators in Quebec on Friday hours before the start
of a summit of leaders from across the Americas, with police firing tear gas
at protesters who hauled down part of a security fence around the city
center.

DON MARKSTEIN, 20-04-2001:

> I've always found the Terms of Service of Web servers very clearly
> written. A little dry, perhaps, but they tend to be composed in such
> a way as to be understandable by any reader of normal intelligence.

I also mentioned the software terms of use (either on paper or as message
on the screen when installing the software).

Also, when the terms are written in English, they are harder to understand
for someone who has learnt English as a second language at school.

> They know very well that people looking for free Web sites aren't
> lawyers, and they have very good reasons to make sure everyone using
> their services knows what is and is not allowed.

Unfortunately, there are apparently many people who think that the person
who
reads the terms is "crazy". I remember times that I was reading a site's
terms
of service when people (independently) told me not to waste my time on
that.
So, apparently people are learning each other not to waste time on dry
facts
like "rules". This is wrong, of course, but for me it explains a lot of
misbehaviour on internet (and in real life as well).

> Here's an example, from Article 5 of the Yahoo/Geocities Terms of
> Service:
>
>>> You agree to not use the Service to:
>>> (... irrelevant copy deleted ...)
>>> (f) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that
>>> infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright
>>> or other proprietary rights of any party;

> What's hard to understand about that?

In general, I think that "patent", "trademark", "trade secret", "copyright"
and "other proprietary rights" are rather unknown words for people who are
not familiar with copyright laws.

(I even remember that "trademark" has been explained on this list, because
people didn't understand what it is. I think it had to do with the
publication of the oldest Mickey Mouse strips by a company other than
Disney. Even though Disney lost its copyrights on those, they still had the
trademark. So, that other company had to stop publishing the strips.
Please note that I'm writing this from memory.)

I hope you know that I *agree* with your email. I'm only trying to explain
that "copyright laws" can be rather abstract for people who do not
understand it in the first place (especially when it's not written in their
own language).

To make matters worse, The Netherlands (like Italy) also is a country where
you'll have to pay royalties for blanco CDs. In Germany there even are
plans to do the same with *computers*. I have more than hundred
(formerly) blanco CDs here, *all* contain my own material.

What's the use of following the law, if that same law looks at me as a
potential thief anyway? Just because they *think* that I *might* possibly
use the blanco CD for copyright violation, I'm punished by paying an extra
amount.

In other words, "let's be safe and punish *everyone* because there might
be *some* thieves among them."

And if I would decide to use the blanco CD for copying (let's say) a
Beatles-CD from a friend, then I still would get *another* *extra*
punishment when being arrested for that.

I think that the extra amount on blanco CDs may also result in *more* CDs
being copied. Simply because many people feel that *they* are robbed
instead of the record company.

Reading comments which say that internet is meant for free distribution
of any material that can be found on it, reminds me of Robin Hood.
Apparently, those people feel like they're stealing something (back) from
the rich who apparently don't care about them at all.

Sometimes people are even strongly advised NOT to ask for permission
for the usage of material, because the big company won't allow them
anyway. And if they do allow to use their material, the chance is big
that they'll want an amount which most people reasonably can't afford.

I'd say that copyright laws are missing their goal when being used
that way. But the copyright owners who will suffer the most are those
who just try to get an income by being an independent writer, musician
or artist.

(The above paragraphs were examples of why I can imagine that some people
get confused or ignorant in learning what copyright is.)

> Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary. What's today?
> http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm

I've visited your site and I've had a very great time reading some of the
articles! (The other articles will have to wait for my next visit, which
will be soon.)

You have a good design and good contents!
For me, this is what internet is (or should be) about.

Best wishes,

--- Daniel

Harry: I have no information as to whether or not Jaime Diaz worked,
himself, on any Disney comics. I suspect (as you) that he did not. The
comics his studio produced, that were used in the "Disney Studio produced
comics" were likely done by a group of underlings. I believe that the
animation and advertising work produced by his studio is much more
lucrative than comics, and thereby requires more top-level attention. As
the long-term chief entrepeneur of a large studio, with many artists, he
may not have time to do significant artwork on ANY project any more. This
situation may well have existed for many years before the present.

My limited knowledge of Jaime Diaz (other than my US Disney Sudio's comics)
comes from an old work colleague of mine, (Albert deMello) who was a free
lance artist in Brasil from 1950s to 1964 (a bit of work for Abril), and
was a storyboarder for animation in Toronto (1964 - 65) and for various TV
and feature film animation studios in Los Angeles. I worked with him at
Turner Feature Animation from 1994 - 1996, and at Warner Brothers Feature
Animation from 1996 -1998.
He was friendly with most of the Latin American (and European Spanish)
animation - related artists. ALL of whom knew of Jaime Diaz (most had
personal contact with him). Most of them were from Argentina, Brasil,
Spain and Mexico. I met several of those people at the studios. Almost
all of them had spoke of Jaime in conversations I was party to. It is a
relatively small business (world wide), and everyone seems to know everyone
else. I seem to remember that some of those people liked Jaime's work, and
some did not. I rather dought that you will ever see his name as an
INDIVIDUAL Disney comic story creator. If anyone else can shed more light
on this studio head, please do. - Rob Klein