Hello !
Jerry:
>>>>> I realize that this may be a question without a satisfying answer, but does anyone know if there are
>>>>> any copies of the limited edition Complete Floyd Gottfredson Mickey Mouse book (daily strips from
>>>>> 1930 to 1955) still available for sale? I've heard the book used to be carried by a German company
>>>>> called Dreidreizehn's, but they don't offer it anymore. Any information will be greatly appreciated.
I got my set from Galerie Laqua (in 1999) :
http://www.galerielaqua.de/seiten_englisch/eframeset.htm
They do not have any for sale on their site (though I can't remember exactly, I don't think they had many to start with) but they might have some leads.
I remember seeing the set on Dreidreizehn's site later, indeed.
Best wishes to all of you,
Olivier
Author
Topic: 201002
(31 messages)
Olivier
Complete Mickey
Message 16 -
2010-02-23 at 12:11:06
MIQUEU
Goofy's ans Mickey's family trees
Message 17 -
2010-02-23 at 12:13:13
Hi everyone!
My name is Adrien Miqueu, I'm 16, I'm French and also keen on Disney
comics!
I'm new on the list, and I don't know if it's the right place to ask this.
I've recently discovered the incredible work on the Duck's genealogy
done by Gilles Maurice (a country fellow!) and I ask myself: why not to
do this with Goofy or Mickey family? So I began some researches in my
own comics collection, and build these trees, (you can have a look at it
here: http://duckburg.over-blog.com/#)
(I also made a Duck family tree, but rather small compared with Gilles'
one). I know that Gilles also made Goofy and Mickey trees, but they've
not been made updated for a long time!
So I ask everybody here, if you could send me characters of Mickey or
Goofy family you've found, it'd be really nice!
I'd need a scan an a short description of the relationship between the
relative and the main character.
Thank you so much!
Look forward to receive your answers!
Best regards
Adrien
My name is Adrien Miqueu, I'm 16, I'm French and also keen on Disney
comics!
I'm new on the list, and I don't know if it's the right place to ask this.
I've recently discovered the incredible work on the Duck's genealogy
done by Gilles Maurice (a country fellow!) and I ask myself: why not to
do this with Goofy or Mickey family? So I began some researches in my
own comics collection, and build these trees, (you can have a look at it
here: http://duckburg.over-blog.com/#)
(I also made a Duck family tree, but rather small compared with Gilles'
one). I know that Gilles also made Goofy and Mickey trees, but they've
not been made updated for a long time!
So I ask everybody here, if you could send me characters of Mickey or
Goofy family you've found, it'd be really nice!
I'd need a scan an a short description of the relationship between the
relative and the main character.
Thank you so much!
Look forward to receive your answers!
Best regards
Adrien
Gary Leach
E-Books, More About
Message 18 -
2010-02-23 at 19:37:45
Daniel:
> As far as I know, songs are also rentals. By "buying" a song of The
> Beatles,
> one will never own it. One only owns the vinyl it is printed on. The
> same
> for Disney comics. Buyers only own the paper on which someone else's
> (Disney's) intellectual property is printed.
I don't believe the "rental" idea really applies here. You don't
(normally) rent a vinyl record or a printed comic book and then return
it after a certain period. You buy and subsequently own that copy--and
the key word here is "copy." It's what the entire issue of copyright
revolves around.
Copying used to mean producing a physical duplicate, on paper or vinyl
or tape or what have you. These copies were--as they still are, for
the most part--sold, not rented. Sales and rentals are two very
distinct commercial transactions with their own rules and regulations
and never the twain shall meet. Just because the office chair I'm
sitting on was built to a design I had no input into, do not own, and
certainly have no right to duplicate, does not mean I don't own the
chair. It is precisely the same for a comic book or a vinyl record,
inasmuch as these are purchased in sale transactions that establish
the purchasers possession in perpetuity of that copy for its intended
purpose, i.e. reading or listening.
> With digital copies this
> situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the e-
> reader.
I'm not so sure about this myself, but I admit it comes to the point
and you may very well be right in terms of how things will ultimately
shake out. There is, after all, little to nothing that's distinctly or
even definably physical about a digital copy. It's one reason I've
been very reluctant to do more than download legit e-book freebies up
to this point. If I actually pay money for an e-book, what am I buying
and under what terms am I buying it? Or am I indeed just renting, or
engaging in some new form of transaction that has yet to be adequately
codified?
Gary
> As far as I know, songs are also rentals. By "buying" a song of The
> Beatles,
> one will never own it. One only owns the vinyl it is printed on. The
> same
> for Disney comics. Buyers only own the paper on which someone else's
> (Disney's) intellectual property is printed.
I don't believe the "rental" idea really applies here. You don't
(normally) rent a vinyl record or a printed comic book and then return
it after a certain period. You buy and subsequently own that copy--and
the key word here is "copy." It's what the entire issue of copyright
revolves around.
Copying used to mean producing a physical duplicate, on paper or vinyl
or tape or what have you. These copies were--as they still are, for
the most part--sold, not rented. Sales and rentals are two very
distinct commercial transactions with their own rules and regulations
and never the twain shall meet. Just because the office chair I'm
sitting on was built to a design I had no input into, do not own, and
certainly have no right to duplicate, does not mean I don't own the
chair. It is precisely the same for a comic book or a vinyl record,
inasmuch as these are purchased in sale transactions that establish
the purchasers possession in perpetuity of that copy for its intended
purpose, i.e. reading or listening.
> With digital copies this
> situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the e-
> reader.
I'm not so sure about this myself, but I admit it comes to the point
and you may very well be right in terms of how things will ultimately
shake out. There is, after all, little to nothing that's distinctly or
even definably physical about a digital copy. It's one reason I've
been very reluctant to do more than download legit e-book freebies up
to this point. If I actually pay money for an e-book, what am I buying
and under what terms am I buying it? Or am I indeed just renting, or
engaging in some new form of transaction that has yet to be adequately
codified?
Gary
Tony Leopold
E-Books, More About
Message 19 -
2010-02-23 at 19:54:02
I'm not a lawyer and I'm missing the context in which this was
written, but I feel that I should point out that this is not true. If
you buy an mp3, on amazon.com for example, you own that mp3. You can
play it on your computer, put it on all 13 of your mp3 players and
even your phone. It is not legal to give copies of it away, of course,
but you can use it in the ways I have described above legally.
There are certain music subscription services, the Zune Pass, to name
one very good such service, where you download mp3s to your player
without actually owning the mp3s, but this is clearly a subscription
service and is marketed and advertised as such.
>
>> ?With digital copies this
>> situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the
>> e-reader.
>
>
written, but I feel that I should point out that this is not true. If
you buy an mp3, on amazon.com for example, you own that mp3. You can
play it on your computer, put it on all 13 of your mp3 players and
even your phone. It is not legal to give copies of it away, of course,
but you can use it in the ways I have described above legally.
There are certain music subscription services, the Zune Pass, to name
one very good such service, where you download mp3s to your player
without actually owning the mp3s, but this is clearly a subscription
service and is marketed and advertised as such.
>
>> ?With digital copies this
>> situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the
>> e-reader.
>
>
Nuno J. Silva
E-Books, More About
Message 20 -
2010-02-24 at 00:44:05
Gary Leach <bangfish at cableone.net> writes:
> Daniel:
>
[...]
>> With digital copies this
>> situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the e-
>> reader.
>
> I'm not so sure about this myself, but I admit it comes to the point
> and you may very well be right in terms of how things will ultimately
> shake out. There is, after all, little to nothing that's distinctly or
> even definably physical about a digital copy. It's one reason I've
> been very reluctant to do more than download legit e-book freebies up
> to this point. If I actually pay money for an e-book, what am I buying
> and under what terms am I buying it? Or am I indeed just renting, or
> engaging in some new form of transaction that has yet to be adequately
> codified?
When you buy a physical book, you get the the right to have a copy
forever. Thus, we would expect to own the bits and bytes the same way.
And with a physical book you are able to put them over a copier or
scanner and get an analog or digital copy of it, even if it is illegal
to do so. If you have access to the binary data of an ebook, you can do
the same.
Some may sell the e-book so that you can see it on your computer, others
will only sell it through a specific device (see Amazon kindle). I
wonder what are the conditions of the transaction, but as you can see
from what Amazon did, things can go wrong.
There are publishers pushing for ebooks with DRM[1] and people against
that, and new e-reading platforms appearing (and this itself is a
growing market).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
In my opinion, you're right: it still has to be codified, as there are
certainly developments and decisions going to happen in the (near?)
future.
--
Nuno J. Silva
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg
> Daniel:
>
[...]
>> With digital copies this
>> situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the e-
>> reader.
>
> I'm not so sure about this myself, but I admit it comes to the point
> and you may very well be right in terms of how things will ultimately
> shake out. There is, after all, little to nothing that's distinctly or
> even definably physical about a digital copy. It's one reason I've
> been very reluctant to do more than download legit e-book freebies up
> to this point. If I actually pay money for an e-book, what am I buying
> and under what terms am I buying it? Or am I indeed just renting, or
> engaging in some new form of transaction that has yet to be adequately
> codified?
When you buy a physical book, you get the the right to have a copy
forever. Thus, we would expect to own the bits and bytes the same way.
And with a physical book you are able to put them over a copier or
scanner and get an analog or digital copy of it, even if it is illegal
to do so. If you have access to the binary data of an ebook, you can do
the same.
Some may sell the e-book so that you can see it on your computer, others
will only sell it through a specific device (see Amazon kindle). I
wonder what are the conditions of the transaction, but as you can see
from what Amazon did, things can go wrong.
There are publishers pushing for ebooks with DRM[1] and people against
that, and new e-reading platforms appearing (and this itself is a
growing market).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
In my opinion, you're right: it still has to be codified, as there are
certainly developments and decisions going to happen in the (near?)
future.
--
Nuno J. Silva
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg
Mark Baker-Wright
E-Books, More About
Message 21 -
2010-02-24 at 18:53:16
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:13 AM, <dcml-request at nafsk.se> wrote:
>
> From: Gary Leach <bangfish at cableone.net>
> Subject: E-Books, More About
> To: dcml at nafsk.se
> Message-ID: <6F60AA4C-DF7B-438A-B66A-28C7731C0A48 at cableone.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Daniel:
>
> > As far as I know, songs are also rentals. By "buying" a song of The
> > Beatles,
> > one will never own it. One only owns the vinyl it is printed on. The
> > same
> > for Disney comics. Buyers only own the paper on which someone else's
> > (Disney's) intellectual property is printed.
>
> I don't believe the "rental" idea really applies here. You don't
> (normally) rent a vinyl record or a printed comic book and then return
> it after a certain period. You buy and subsequently own that copy--and
> the key word here is "copy." It's what the entire issue of copyright
> revolves around.
>
> Copying used to mean producing a physical duplicate, on paper or vinyl
> or tape or what have you. These copies were--as they still are, for
> the most part--sold, not rented. Sales and rentals are two very
> distinct commercial transactions with their own rules and regulations
> and never the twain shall meet. Just because the office chair I'm
> sitting on was built to a design I had no input into, do not own, and
> certainly have no right to duplicate, does not mean I don't own the
> chair. It is precisely the same for a comic book or a vinyl record,
> inasmuch as these are purchased in sale transactions that establish
> the purchasers possession in perpetuity of that copy for its intended
> purpose, i.e. reading or listening.
>
> > With digital copies this
> > situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the e-
> > reader.
>
> I'm not so sure about this myself, but I admit it comes to the point
> and you may very well be right in terms of how things will ultimately
> shake out. There is, after all, little to nothing that's distinctly or
> even definably physical about a digital copy. It's one reason I've
> been very reluctant to do more than download legit e-book freebies up
> to this point. If I actually pay money for an e-book, what am I buying
> and under what terms am I buying it? Or am I indeed just renting, or
> engaging in some new form of transaction that has yet to be adequately
> codified?
>
> Gary
At the risk of self-promotion, I sell an e-book ("Women's Speaking Justified
- the 1666 Classic with Modern English" - http://twurl.nl/pyajjr) and think
I might have something to add here (if this has already been said elsewhere
and I've missed it, please accept my apologies).
If someone buys my e-book, they download a PDF file. The bits and bytes of
that PDF file are actually on their computer, and they have the ability to
save it to a storage device and perhaps copy it to another device should
they so choose. Even if I decided I didn't want you to have my book later,
once you've purchased it, I have no ability to delete the file from your
computer.
My understanding with the way Amazon.com handles Kindle is rather
different. Although the bits and bytes of a Kindle book do reside on the
Kindle (at least while you're reading it, but I'm not 100% clear on the
point of storage when you're not reading it), 1) you cannot save the file to
a storage device, let alone copy it to another reader. 2) Should Amazon.com
decide that the Kindle book you "bought" is somehow not yours anymore, THEY
can remove the file from your Kindle without your prior knowledge, despite
you having paid money to get the book. It is this second factor, in
particular,that causes people to complain that they are "renting" books they
thought that they had "purchased," and it really is a significant
difference, the lack of physicality notwithstanding.
Hope that helps,
Mark Baker-Wright
--
Visit my blog, Transforming Seminarian:
http://transformingseminarian.blogspot.com
>
> From: Gary Leach <bangfish at cableone.net>
> Subject: E-Books, More About
> To: dcml at nafsk.se
> Message-ID: <6F60AA4C-DF7B-438A-B66A-28C7731C0A48 at cableone.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Daniel:
>
> > As far as I know, songs are also rentals. By "buying" a song of The
> > Beatles,
> > one will never own it. One only owns the vinyl it is printed on. The
> > same
> > for Disney comics. Buyers only own the paper on which someone else's
> > (Disney's) intellectual property is printed.
>
> I don't believe the "rental" idea really applies here. You don't
> (normally) rent a vinyl record or a printed comic book and then return
> it after a certain period. You buy and subsequently own that copy--and
> the key word here is "copy." It's what the entire issue of copyright
> revolves around.
>
> Copying used to mean producing a physical duplicate, on paper or vinyl
> or tape or what have you. These copies were--as they still are, for
> the most part--sold, not rented. Sales and rentals are two very
> distinct commercial transactions with their own rules and regulations
> and never the twain shall meet. Just because the office chair I'm
> sitting on was built to a design I had no input into, do not own, and
> certainly have no right to duplicate, does not mean I don't own the
> chair. It is precisely the same for a comic book or a vinyl record,
> inasmuch as these are purchased in sale transactions that establish
> the purchasers possession in perpetuity of that copy for its intended
> purpose, i.e. reading or listening.
>
> > With digital copies this
> > situation becomes very clear: one only owns the mp3-player or the e-
> > reader.
>
> I'm not so sure about this myself, but I admit it comes to the point
> and you may very well be right in terms of how things will ultimately
> shake out. There is, after all, little to nothing that's distinctly or
> even definably physical about a digital copy. It's one reason I've
> been very reluctant to do more than download legit e-book freebies up
> to this point. If I actually pay money for an e-book, what am I buying
> and under what terms am I buying it? Or am I indeed just renting, or
> engaging in some new form of transaction that has yet to be adequately
> codified?
>
> Gary
At the risk of self-promotion, I sell an e-book ("Women's Speaking Justified
- the 1666 Classic with Modern English" - http://twurl.nl/pyajjr) and think
I might have something to add here (if this has already been said elsewhere
and I've missed it, please accept my apologies).
If someone buys my e-book, they download a PDF file. The bits and bytes of
that PDF file are actually on their computer, and they have the ability to
save it to a storage device and perhaps copy it to another device should
they so choose. Even if I decided I didn't want you to have my book later,
once you've purchased it, I have no ability to delete the file from your
computer.
My understanding with the way Amazon.com handles Kindle is rather
different. Although the bits and bytes of a Kindle book do reside on the
Kindle (at least while you're reading it, but I'm not 100% clear on the
point of storage when you're not reading it), 1) you cannot save the file to
a storage device, let alone copy it to another reader. 2) Should Amazon.com
decide that the Kindle book you "bought" is somehow not yours anymore, THEY
can remove the file from your Kindle without your prior knowledge, despite
you having paid money to get the book. It is this second factor, in
particular,that causes people to complain that they are "renting" books they
thought that they had "purchased," and it really is a significant
difference, the lack of physicality notwithstanding.
Hope that helps,
Mark Baker-Wright
--
Visit my blog, Transforming Seminarian:
http://transformingseminarian.blogspot.com
Gary Leach
And More About E-Books
Message 22 -
2010-02-24 at 19:15:38
This subject has really got my brain in a whirl, so I hope you'll all
bear with me.
Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, not in any way, shape or form. Disclosure:
My sister is running for the Missouri state legislature. Never saw
that coming.
But to proceed?
Scenario 1: I take my printed collection of Uncle Scrooge comics to a
used book seller and the used book seller buys the comics from me and
then puts them out in the store for sale (or, these days, offers it on
the store web site) and eventually (fingers crossed) sells them. A
very ordinary chain of events, and one we're all familiar with and
have probably participated in at some point.
Scenario 2: I take my collection of Uncle Scrooge e-comics to a used e-
book seller.
The reason Scenario 2 is so brief is because, to the best of my
knowledge, there is no such thing as a used e-book seller. An e-book
can be considered used in the sense of having been owned by a previous
purchaser, but there's one very big problem with that: unlike with my
printed collection of Uncle Scrooges, I'm quite able to retain
possession of my "original" e-copies while selling e-copies--exact
duplicates of my "originals"--to the supposed used e-book seller.
We can talk about owning the bits and bytes of a digital file, and
there are very legitimate points to be made about that (I'm for the
idea myself, believe me), but let's face it: a printed book is paper,
ink, binding, covers, dimensions, weight, mass and content, while a
digital file is nothing but content. (A layman will certainly never
perceive it as anything else.) In such terms it seems to me that a
very legitimate case can be made that a digital file is a violation of
copyright by simply existing, at least as anything other than the
creator's original file (and I'm not so sure that wouldn't at least
technically violate copyright in some way). As the ownership and
protection of copyright is what's causing all the fur to fly among all
the dogs in the current cat fight over the commercial exploitation of
the e-book, these things do concern me quite a bit.
To run on a bit further?one can take a printed book and photocopy it,
sure, but it's a relatively cumbersome process which offers the
copyright owner a certain degree of inherent protection because of
that very cumbersomeness. Much the same can be said for OCR scanning,
but the end result is?a digital file, substantively no different from
any other digital file and therefore solving none of the issues of
digital files.
A final thought, i.e. a slight digression?I've gotten quite used to
reading daily comic strips online. One of the almost miraculous things
about the strips is that they are very nice, clean and legible on my
screen at a file resolution that's far too low for adequate print
reproduction. That's substantial copyright protection right there, at
least when it comes to preventing online graphic materials from being
pirated in print.
Okay, brain less whirly now. Thank you for your patience and attention.
Gary
bear with me.
Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, not in any way, shape or form. Disclosure:
My sister is running for the Missouri state legislature. Never saw
that coming.
But to proceed?
Scenario 1: I take my printed collection of Uncle Scrooge comics to a
used book seller and the used book seller buys the comics from me and
then puts them out in the store for sale (or, these days, offers it on
the store web site) and eventually (fingers crossed) sells them. A
very ordinary chain of events, and one we're all familiar with and
have probably participated in at some point.
Scenario 2: I take my collection of Uncle Scrooge e-comics to a used e-
book seller.
The reason Scenario 2 is so brief is because, to the best of my
knowledge, there is no such thing as a used e-book seller. An e-book
can be considered used in the sense of having been owned by a previous
purchaser, but there's one very big problem with that: unlike with my
printed collection of Uncle Scrooges, I'm quite able to retain
possession of my "original" e-copies while selling e-copies--exact
duplicates of my "originals"--to the supposed used e-book seller.
We can talk about owning the bits and bytes of a digital file, and
there are very legitimate points to be made about that (I'm for the
idea myself, believe me), but let's face it: a printed book is paper,
ink, binding, covers, dimensions, weight, mass and content, while a
digital file is nothing but content. (A layman will certainly never
perceive it as anything else.) In such terms it seems to me that a
very legitimate case can be made that a digital file is a violation of
copyright by simply existing, at least as anything other than the
creator's original file (and I'm not so sure that wouldn't at least
technically violate copyright in some way). As the ownership and
protection of copyright is what's causing all the fur to fly among all
the dogs in the current cat fight over the commercial exploitation of
the e-book, these things do concern me quite a bit.
To run on a bit further?one can take a printed book and photocopy it,
sure, but it's a relatively cumbersome process which offers the
copyright owner a certain degree of inherent protection because of
that very cumbersomeness. Much the same can be said for OCR scanning,
but the end result is?a digital file, substantively no different from
any other digital file and therefore solving none of the issues of
digital files.
A final thought, i.e. a slight digression?I've gotten quite used to
reading daily comic strips online. One of the almost miraculous things
about the strips is that they are very nice, clean and legible on my
screen at a file resolution that's far too low for adequate print
reproduction. That's substantial copyright protection right there, at
least when it comes to preventing online graphic materials from being
pirated in print.
Okay, brain less whirly now. Thank you for your patience and attention.
Gary
Guy Lapointe
More about e-books from Gary
Message 23 -
2010-02-25 at 21:33:36
Hi Gary and DCML Community,
This is my first answer on this forum so I hope that I follow the right procedure!
Disney Productions, at least in the US, along with WMG (the Warner Entertainment Group) have been the most aggressive corporations as far as copyright enforcement goes. Disney was the first one to sue Sony for their release of the Betamax VCR back in the seventies. They also supported aggressively any limiting if not destroying of any devices that can copy analog/digital music or videos (Napster, DVD's, CD & DVD writers (on PC's), Video Recorders, etc...
WMG has a team that routinely scans youtube clips and goes after anyone that puts up videos of their products (and they own a lot of them since they have bought the entire Hanna-Barbera library).
Instead of using the web to extend their products of classic comics, cartoons, et... to a new generation of kids (and adults) that never experienced them, using this media as free publicity, they spend millions bottling up their possessions for possible future profits.
This is sadly hurting them in the long run because it:
-Prevents exposure of the younger generation to these films
-By the same token, it lowers their sales of the products (in favor of more recent productions)
-Creates an adversarial relationship with the public (think of the spectacularly insane lawsuits that the RIAA has conducted against older people, teachers, kids, etc... in the States.
-Given enough time, if the newer public is not exposed to these vintage classics, there will be a very small demand for these except for the older generations that grew up with them.
I fully agree with your idea though especially since there are many stories that have completely disappeared from circulation. An "e-library" would be a wonderful way to keep like in a museum for free access for future generations to enjoy the works of Carl Barks, Don Rosa, and the other writers/artists who contributed to the history of these Disney characters.
Without exposure, there is much less demand for these as tastes of generations change.
As a baby boomer, I grew up with Disney characters and many others such as Belgique's or France's Tintin, Spirou, Journal de Mickey,... Unfortunately, my younger children were more what is available on TV nowadays.
In any case, I fully support your idea - I would love to get my hands on all the work that was produced on the Disney characters.
By the way, the "Journal de Mickey", a large French youth-oriented weekly publication, has been in production since 1934! They have published an unbelievable number of Disney comics stories not only from Mr. Barks and Rosa but also from also from other writers from Italy, France... They are still publishing new stories. It would be so good to have these available again.
Sincerely,
Guy "Lancelot"
From: bangfish at cableone.net
To: dcml at nafsk.se
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:15:38 -0700
Subject: And More About E-Books
This subject has really got my brain in a whirl, so I hope you'll all
bear with me.
Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, not in any way, shape or form. Disclosure:
My sister is running for the Missouri state legislature. Never saw
that coming.
But to proceed?
Scenario 1: I take my printed collection of Uncle Scrooge comics to a
used book seller and the used book seller buys the comics from me and
then puts them out in the store for sale (or, these days, offers it on
the store web site) and eventually (fingers crossed) sells them. A
very ordinary chain of events, and one we're all familiar with and
have probably participated in at some point.
Scenario 2: I take my collection of Uncle Scrooge e-comics to a used e-
book seller.
The reason Scenario 2 is so brief is because, to the best of my
knowledge, there is no such thing as a used e-book seller. An e-book
can be considered used in the sense of having been owned by a previous
purchaser, but there's one very big problem with that: unlike with my
printed collection of Uncle Scrooges, I'm quite able to retain
possession of my "original" e-copies while selling e-copies--exact
duplicates of my "originals"--to the supposed used e-book seller.
We can talk about owning the bits and bytes of a digital file, and
there are very legitimate points to be made about that (I'm for the
idea myself, believe me), but let's face it: a printed book is paper,
ink, binding, covers, dimensions, weight, mass and content, while a
digital file is nothing but content. (A layman will certainly never
perceive it as anything else.) In such terms it seems to me that a
very legitimate case can be made that a digital file is a violation of
copyright by simply existing, at least as anything other than the
creator's original file (and I'm not so sure that wouldn't at least
technically violate copyright in some way). As the ownership and
protection of copyright is what's causing all the fur to fly among all
the dogs in the current cat fight over the commercial exploitation of
the e-book, these things do concern me quite a bit.
To run on a bit further?one can take a printed book and photocopy it,
sure, but it's a relatively cumbersome process which offers the
copyright owner a certain degree of inherent protection because of
that very cumbersomeness. Much the same can be said for OCR scanning,
but the end result is?a digital file, substantively no different from
any other digital file and therefore solving none of the issues of
digital files.
A final thought, i.e. a slight digression?I've gotten quite used to
reading daily comic strips online. One of the almost miraculous things
about the strips is that they are very nice, clean and legible on my
screen at a file resolution that's far too low for adequate print
reproduction. That's substantial copyright protection right there, at
least when it comes to preventing online graphic materials from being
pirated in print.
Okay, brain less whirly now. Thank you for your patience and attention.
Gary
This is my first answer on this forum so I hope that I follow the right procedure!
Disney Productions, at least in the US, along with WMG (the Warner Entertainment Group) have been the most aggressive corporations as far as copyright enforcement goes. Disney was the first one to sue Sony for their release of the Betamax VCR back in the seventies. They also supported aggressively any limiting if not destroying of any devices that can copy analog/digital music or videos (Napster, DVD's, CD & DVD writers (on PC's), Video Recorders, etc...
WMG has a team that routinely scans youtube clips and goes after anyone that puts up videos of their products (and they own a lot of them since they have bought the entire Hanna-Barbera library).
Instead of using the web to extend their products of classic comics, cartoons, et... to a new generation of kids (and adults) that never experienced them, using this media as free publicity, they spend millions bottling up their possessions for possible future profits.
This is sadly hurting them in the long run because it:
-Prevents exposure of the younger generation to these films
-By the same token, it lowers their sales of the products (in favor of more recent productions)
-Creates an adversarial relationship with the public (think of the spectacularly insane lawsuits that the RIAA has conducted against older people, teachers, kids, etc... in the States.
-Given enough time, if the newer public is not exposed to these vintage classics, there will be a very small demand for these except for the older generations that grew up with them.
I fully agree with your idea though especially since there are many stories that have completely disappeared from circulation. An "e-library" would be a wonderful way to keep like in a museum for free access for future generations to enjoy the works of Carl Barks, Don Rosa, and the other writers/artists who contributed to the history of these Disney characters.
Without exposure, there is much less demand for these as tastes of generations change.
As a baby boomer, I grew up with Disney characters and many others such as Belgique's or France's Tintin, Spirou, Journal de Mickey,... Unfortunately, my younger children were more what is available on TV nowadays.
In any case, I fully support your idea - I would love to get my hands on all the work that was produced on the Disney characters.
By the way, the "Journal de Mickey", a large French youth-oriented weekly publication, has been in production since 1934! They have published an unbelievable number of Disney comics stories not only from Mr. Barks and Rosa but also from also from other writers from Italy, France... They are still publishing new stories. It would be so good to have these available again.
Sincerely,
Guy "Lancelot"
From: bangfish at cableone.net
To: dcml at nafsk.se
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:15:38 -0700
Subject: And More About E-Books
This subject has really got my brain in a whirl, so I hope you'll all
bear with me.
Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, not in any way, shape or form. Disclosure:
My sister is running for the Missouri state legislature. Never saw
that coming.
But to proceed?
Scenario 1: I take my printed collection of Uncle Scrooge comics to a
used book seller and the used book seller buys the comics from me and
then puts them out in the store for sale (or, these days, offers it on
the store web site) and eventually (fingers crossed) sells them. A
very ordinary chain of events, and one we're all familiar with and
have probably participated in at some point.
Scenario 2: I take my collection of Uncle Scrooge e-comics to a used e-
book seller.
The reason Scenario 2 is so brief is because, to the best of my
knowledge, there is no such thing as a used e-book seller. An e-book
can be considered used in the sense of having been owned by a previous
purchaser, but there's one very big problem with that: unlike with my
printed collection of Uncle Scrooges, I'm quite able to retain
possession of my "original" e-copies while selling e-copies--exact
duplicates of my "originals"--to the supposed used e-book seller.
We can talk about owning the bits and bytes of a digital file, and
there are very legitimate points to be made about that (I'm for the
idea myself, believe me), but let's face it: a printed book is paper,
ink, binding, covers, dimensions, weight, mass and content, while a
digital file is nothing but content. (A layman will certainly never
perceive it as anything else.) In such terms it seems to me that a
very legitimate case can be made that a digital file is a violation of
copyright by simply existing, at least as anything other than the
creator's original file (and I'm not so sure that wouldn't at least
technically violate copyright in some way). As the ownership and
protection of copyright is what's causing all the fur to fly among all
the dogs in the current cat fight over the commercial exploitation of
the e-book, these things do concern me quite a bit.
To run on a bit further?one can take a printed book and photocopy it,
sure, but it's a relatively cumbersome process which offers the
copyright owner a certain degree of inherent protection because of
that very cumbersomeness. Much the same can be said for OCR scanning,
but the end result is?a digital file, substantively no different from
any other digital file and therefore solving none of the issues of
digital files.
A final thought, i.e. a slight digression?I've gotten quite used to
reading daily comic strips online. One of the almost miraculous things
about the strips is that they are very nice, clean and legible on my
screen at a file resolution that's far too low for adequate print
reproduction. That's substantial copyright protection right there, at
least when it comes to preventing online graphic materials from being
pirated in print.
Okay, brain less whirly now. Thank you for your patience and attention.
Gary
Frank Stajano
More about e-books from Gary
Message 24 -
2010-02-26 at 12:46:23
Guy Lapointe wrote:
> -Given enough time, if the newer public is not exposed to these vintage classics, there will be a very small demand for these except for the older generations that grew up with them.
Guy, you made some really *excellent* points about how
counter-productive it can be to defend copyright too aggressively.
I am reminded of a 1990s Bill Gates quote about the Chinese pirating M$
Windows:
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours.
They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to
collect sometime in the next decade.
--
Frank Stajano http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/fms27/
> -Given enough time, if the newer public is not exposed to these vintage classics, there will be a very small demand for these except for the older generations that grew up with them.
Guy, you made some really *excellent* points about how
counter-productive it can be to defend copyright too aggressively.
I am reminded of a 1990s Bill Gates quote about the Chinese pirating M$
Windows:
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours.
They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to
collect sometime in the next decade.
--
Frank Stajano http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/fms27/
MIQUEU
Goofy family tree
Message 25 -
2010-02-27 at 09:56:45
Hi everyone!
I made some researches on INDUCKS about goofy's relatives. I found a
large bunch of chararcters that I don't have in my collection.
So I ask you, if it's possible, to check in your collection if you have
the following issues:
*Relative?s name*
*Story code*
Uncle Fiasco
B75203 / S65015
Uncle Nicolino
B760205
Uncle Grubley
B770063
Uncle Wombat
YM 127
Uncle Dizzy
D97075 / ZM 37-11-14
Uncle Pateco
S72080
Uncle Twitch
ZM 50-03-19
Uncle Firthwell
ZM 53-08-09
Uncle Tat
ZM 57-08-09
Uncle Mark T. McGoof
WDG55-03
Uncle ?
W MM 47-05
Uncle ?
W MM 58-02
Uncle Tom
S 81175
Grand-uncle Silas
D 2006-015
Grand-uncle Goofini
D 2002-127
Aunt Hattie
W MM 143-01
Ancestor Dingobert ?
F JM 012277
Great-grand uncle ?
D 2002-174
It would be very nice to send me a scan and a description of the
characters (the way how he's related to Goofy)
I also put in the same tree Clarabelle and Horace's families, so if you
find something about them, tell me! Thank you very much!
Last thing: about the Mickey family tree, I need the original (italian)
name of Mickey's grandfather in "?/Topolino, imperatore della
Calidornia/? (I TL 274-AP) by Romano Scarpa. Is it Tony Toponi? I
especially need his family name. By the way, I have entirely re-worked
my Mickey family tree, so you can have a look at it:
http://duckburg.over-blog.com/article-mickey-s-family-tree-updated-45654494.html
Thank you!
Regards
Adrien
I made some researches on INDUCKS about goofy's relatives. I found a
large bunch of chararcters that I don't have in my collection.
So I ask you, if it's possible, to check in your collection if you have
the following issues:
*Relative?s name*
*Story code*
Uncle Fiasco
B75203 / S65015
Uncle Nicolino
B760205
Uncle Grubley
B770063
Uncle Wombat
YM 127
Uncle Dizzy
D97075 / ZM 37-11-14
Uncle Pateco
S72080
Uncle Twitch
ZM 50-03-19
Uncle Firthwell
ZM 53-08-09
Uncle Tat
ZM 57-08-09
Uncle Mark T. McGoof
WDG55-03
Uncle ?
W MM 47-05
Uncle ?
W MM 58-02
Uncle Tom
S 81175
Grand-uncle Silas
D 2006-015
Grand-uncle Goofini
D 2002-127
Aunt Hattie
W MM 143-01
Ancestor Dingobert ?
F JM 012277
Great-grand uncle ?
D 2002-174
It would be very nice to send me a scan and a description of the
characters (the way how he's related to Goofy)
I also put in the same tree Clarabelle and Horace's families, so if you
find something about them, tell me! Thank you very much!
Last thing: about the Mickey family tree, I need the original (italian)
name of Mickey's grandfather in "?/Topolino, imperatore della
Calidornia/? (I TL 274-AP) by Romano Scarpa. Is it Tony Toponi? I
especially need his family name. By the way, I have entirely re-worked
my Mickey family tree, so you can have a look at it:
http://duckburg.over-blog.com/article-mickey-s-family-tree-updated-45654494.html
Thank you!
Regards
Adrien
MIQUEU
Griifding: a cousin of Goofy?
Message 26 -
2010-02-27 at 12:37:09
Hi!
I've found a story (I TL 2411-4)
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+2411-4 where appears a
character called Griffding in french, Griffpipp in Italian (I think it
would be Griffgoof in english).
He looks like goofy very much, but he is a bit different (clothes,
mind...), he seems to be a scientist.
So I wonder: could it be a cousin of Goofy? Mickey himself knows him and
call him Griffding (or Griffgoof).
Could anyone tell me his opinion about the question? I have to know if I
include him in my Goofy family tree or not.
Thank you very much!
Adrien
I've found a story (I TL 2411-4)
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+2411-4 where appears a
character called Griffding in french, Griffpipp in Italian (I think it
would be Griffgoof in english).
He looks like goofy very much, but he is a bit different (clothes,
mind...), he seems to be a scientist.
So I wonder: could it be a cousin of Goofy? Mickey himself knows him and
call him Griffding (or Griffgoof).
Could anyone tell me his opinion about the question? I have to know if I
include him in my Goofy family tree or not.
Thank you very much!
Adrien
Schulte
E-Comic-Books
Message 27 -
2010-02-27 at 14:38:12
Many thanks to Gary Leach and all the others who have explained the ins, outs, ups, and downs of copyright laws, etc.
for the future of electronic publishing! It still remains to be seen whether the companies will hold on to the post-sale status
of their products so tightly that they limit the sales of their products! Psychologically, when a person pays money for a product,
they want to feel that the company is no longer hanging around them to tell them what they can or cannot do with it.
It also remains to be seen whether e-books/e-comic books are a viable product. I would think yes, but who knows?
Whatever happens, I still think comic books, and particularly Disney Comics in the tradition of Barks and Rosa, (and others e.g. William Van Horn,
Pat Block, et al.) are an important gateway to future literacy for children. The optimistic cultural values of the Disney tradition
(e.g. diligence, faithfulness, persistence, curiosity, ambition, courage), devoid of the dark gruesomeness found in the super-hero/super-villain genre,
need to be continued.
Best Wishes!
L. Schulte
for the future of electronic publishing! It still remains to be seen whether the companies will hold on to the post-sale status
of their products so tightly that they limit the sales of their products! Psychologically, when a person pays money for a product,
they want to feel that the company is no longer hanging around them to tell them what they can or cannot do with it.
It also remains to be seen whether e-books/e-comic books are a viable product. I would think yes, but who knows?
Whatever happens, I still think comic books, and particularly Disney Comics in the tradition of Barks and Rosa, (and others e.g. William Van Horn,
Pat Block, et al.) are an important gateway to future literacy for children. The optimistic cultural values of the Disney tradition
(e.g. diligence, faithfulness, persistence, curiosity, ambition, courage), devoid of the dark gruesomeness found in the super-hero/super-villain genre,
need to be continued.
Best Wishes!
L. Schulte
Nuno J. Silva
E-Books, More About
Message 28 -
2010-02-27 at 16:45:24
Mark Baker-Wright <nicodemuslegend at gmail.com> writes:
> If someone buys my e-book, they download a PDF file. The bits and bytes of
> that PDF file are actually on their computer, and they have the ability to
> save it to a storage device and perhaps copy it to another device should
> they so choose. Even if I decided I didn't want you to have my book later,
> once you've purchased it, I have no ability to delete the file from your
> computer.
>
> My understanding with the way Amazon.com handles Kindle is rather
> different. Although the bits and bytes of a Kindle book do reside on the
> Kindle (at least while you're reading it, but I'm not 100% clear on the
> point of storage when you're not reading it), 1) you cannot save the file to
> a storage device, let alone copy it to another reader. 2) Should Amazon.com
> decide that the Kindle book you "bought" is somehow not yours anymore, THEY
> can remove the file from your Kindle without your prior knowledge, despite
> you having paid money to get the book. It is this second factor, in
> particular,that causes people to complain that they are "renting" books they
> thought that they had "purchased," and it really is a significant
> difference, the lack of physicality notwithstanding.
But Amazon itself says "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by
Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent
copy of the applicable Digital Content(...)"[1], the keyword being
*permanent*. I suppose this mean they should have not deleted the books.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200399690
(Point 3 (Digital Content), Use of Digital Content.)
Even if they are not allowed to remove the content by the terms of
service, the only way to be sure they won't do that is controlling your
copy of the book. And that doesn't happen when you must use their device
to read and keep the books.
--
Nuno J. Silva
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg
> If someone buys my e-book, they download a PDF file. The bits and bytes of
> that PDF file are actually on their computer, and they have the ability to
> save it to a storage device and perhaps copy it to another device should
> they so choose. Even if I decided I didn't want you to have my book later,
> once you've purchased it, I have no ability to delete the file from your
> computer.
>
> My understanding with the way Amazon.com handles Kindle is rather
> different. Although the bits and bytes of a Kindle book do reside on the
> Kindle (at least while you're reading it, but I'm not 100% clear on the
> point of storage when you're not reading it), 1) you cannot save the file to
> a storage device, let alone copy it to another reader. 2) Should Amazon.com
> decide that the Kindle book you "bought" is somehow not yours anymore, THEY
> can remove the file from your Kindle without your prior knowledge, despite
> you having paid money to get the book. It is this second factor, in
> particular,that causes people to complain that they are "renting" books they
> thought that they had "purchased," and it really is a significant
> difference, the lack of physicality notwithstanding.
But Amazon itself says "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by
Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent
copy of the applicable Digital Content(...)"[1], the keyword being
*permanent*. I suppose this mean they should have not deleted the books.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200399690
(Point 3 (Digital Content), Use of Digital Content.)
Even if they are not allowed to remove the content by the terms of
service, the only way to be sure they won't do that is controlling your
copy of the book. And that doesn't happen when you must use their device
to read and keep the books.
--
Nuno J. Silva
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg
MIQUEU
Mickey family tree
Message 29 -
2010-02-27 at 17:59:47
Hi!
I've made another list of characters that I don't have, for Mickey's
family now!
Again, if someone has one of these story in his collection, tell me!
Relatives Story code
Uncle Gudger YM 136 / I AT 53-A
Uncle ? D 5686
Uncle ? D7098
Uncle ? S 68131
Uncle Thaddeus D 2004-235
Uncle Jeremy I TL 2345-1
Uncle silas S 69160
MI?s uncle Dubleuf ? S 63036
Uncle ? S 84129
Uncle Fuddy W MM 123-01
Uncle ? W OS 401-03
Uncle Monty ? W OS 1039-03
Uncle Milty W OS 1143-02
Uncle Barnaby ZM 54-07-18
MI?s aunt Petunia D 2004-107
Aunt Jemima D 92491
MI?s aunt D 96252
Aunt Agatha W MM 99-06
Aunt Marissa YM 077
Aunt Minerva YM 45-07-21
Aunt ? ZM 32-07-03
Various ancestors S 87002
Mickey?s ancestor U MMW 642
Mickey?s ancestor D 2006-046
Mickey?s great-grandfather S 72423
I've made another list of characters that I don't have, for Mickey's
family now!
Again, if someone has one of these story in his collection, tell me!
Relatives Story code
Uncle Gudger YM 136 / I AT 53-A
Uncle ? D 5686
Uncle ? D7098
Uncle ? S 68131
Uncle Thaddeus D 2004-235
Uncle Jeremy I TL 2345-1
Uncle silas S 69160
MI?s uncle Dubleuf ? S 63036
Uncle ? S 84129
Uncle Fuddy W MM 123-01
Uncle ? W OS 401-03
Uncle Monty ? W OS 1039-03
Uncle Milty W OS 1143-02
Uncle Barnaby ZM 54-07-18
MI?s aunt Petunia D 2004-107
Aunt Jemima D 92491
MI?s aunt D 96252
Aunt Agatha W MM 99-06
Aunt Marissa YM 077
Aunt Minerva YM 45-07-21
Aunt ? ZM 32-07-03
Various ancestors S 87002
Mickey?s ancestor U MMW 642
Mickey?s ancestor D 2006-046
Mickey?s great-grandfather S 72423
MIQUEU
Mickey family tree
Message 30 -
2010-02-27 at 17:59:47
Hi!
I've made another list of characters that I don't have, for Mickey's
family now!
Again, if someone has one of these story in his collection, tell me!
Relatives Story code
Uncle Gudger YM 136 / I AT 53-A
Uncle ? D 5686
Uncle ? D7098
Uncle ? S 68131
Uncle Thaddeus D 2004-235
Uncle Jeremy I TL 2345-1
Uncle silas S 69160
MI?s uncle Dubleuf ? S 63036
Uncle ? S 84129
Uncle Fuddy W MM 123-01
Uncle ? W OS 401-03
Uncle Monty ? W OS 1039-03
Uncle Milty W OS 1143-02
Uncle Barnaby ZM 54-07-18
MI?s aunt Petunia D 2004-107
Aunt Jemima D 92491
MI?s aunt D 96252
Aunt Agatha W MM 99-06
Aunt Marissa YM 077
Aunt Minerva YM 45-07-21
Aunt ? ZM 32-07-03
Various ancestors S 87002
Mickey?s ancestor U MMW 642
Mickey?s ancestor D 2006-046
Mickey?s great-grandfather S 72423
I've made another list of characters that I don't have, for Mickey's
family now!
Again, if someone has one of these story in his collection, tell me!
Relatives Story code
Uncle Gudger YM 136 / I AT 53-A
Uncle ? D 5686
Uncle ? D7098
Uncle ? S 68131
Uncle Thaddeus D 2004-235
Uncle Jeremy I TL 2345-1
Uncle silas S 69160
MI?s uncle Dubleuf ? S 63036
Uncle ? S 84129
Uncle Fuddy W MM 123-01
Uncle ? W OS 401-03
Uncle Monty ? W OS 1039-03
Uncle Milty W OS 1143-02
Uncle Barnaby ZM 54-07-18
MI?s aunt Petunia D 2004-107
Aunt Jemima D 92491
MI?s aunt D 96252
Aunt Agatha W MM 99-06
Aunt Marissa YM 077
Aunt Minerva YM 45-07-21
Aunt ? ZM 32-07-03
Various ancestors S 87002
Mickey?s ancestor U MMW 642
Mickey?s ancestor D 2006-046
Mickey?s great-grandfather S 72423