PAD isn’t letting go:
Some people are claiming that Marvel and DC and other major publishers should embrace the concept of having anybody, anytime, do whatever the hell they want with the publishers’ property because the fans have decided that it’s going to be beneficial to the publishers.
You know, the “some people say” tactic was annoying when George Bush used it. It’s not less annoying when Peter David uses it. Outside of a few fanatic comment drive-bys, most of which are motivated more out of spite for PAD than anything else, I don’t see anybody actually arguing what PAD claims they’re arguing.
So, a few points.
1.) When John Byrne is on your side about anything, strongly consider the possibility that you are wrong about everything.
2.) Nobody serious is arguing that reading scans_daily was exactly analagous to flipping through comics in a comic book store from a legal standpoint. The point was introduced as metaphor, to explain that comics – rather uniquely as art forms go – work very well when you can check out an issue before you buy it, not least because of the cost associated with a comic book. (Seriously: $3.99 an issue now? I can finish most Big Two comics in less than ten minutes.)
3.) Similarly, nobody serious is suggesting that Marvel and DC just say “calloo callay, do what ye will with our property!” Even the scans_daily crowd were under the impression (incorrectly, but still) that what they were doing qualified as fair use since they were using the scans for the purpose of discussion and had set (ultimately insufficient, but still) rules to keep their use what they believed (erroneously) to be reasonable; this was not, at heart, a community founded on the belief that breaking the law and/or stealing is fun and good.
4.) That PAD chooses to engage these strawman arguments is just kind of sad. It reminds me of why I hated Bill Maher’s film Religulous so much: there are perfectly good arguments to be made against religion, but Maher didn’t engage serious religious philosophers, the ones who can knock you back on their ass with their thinking. No, he decided to debate a guy dressed up as Jesus in a religious theme park, because he felt it made him look smarter.
5.) I and the other people pointing this sort of thing out aren’t the assholes who sent PAD’s wide hate mail, so stop tarring us all with the same brush.
These fans have judged, on the publishers’ behalf, how the publishers’ property should be disseminated and distributed and marketed. And if the publishers don’t agree with it, then they are somehow uncool or evil or, at the very least, not current with the 21st Century.
I really wish PAD would stop taking personal offense when people point out that the Big Two’s business model as regards publishing is outdated and in need of recognizing the distribution power of the Internet. It’s
2008 2009; music and movie and television have all found ways to use the net to distribute more efficiently. This isn’t controversial and pointing that out isn’t mockery – at least, not until Peter David decides to act like a chump about it, because that retroactively turns it into mockery.
Top comment: When you realize that Peter David is trying to become the next Harlan Ellison, things make a helluva lot more sense.
But what do I know? Ants aren’t allowed to condescend to eagles. — Mister Terrific