Webcomic creators annoyed their content sold via apps

[borgs8472]

So one of only few webcomics I regularly read is Questionable content, it features nerds, robots and romance.

I've bought merchandise from them more than once in the past and like many are happy to support a internet based indie effort get by without them having to have day jobs.

Now at the bottom of the comic I linked to is a complaint about a smartphone app that scraps various webcomics from the web and display them on your phone. They then serve ads with the free version, or charge if you get the paid version. Blog all about it.

I was surprised to see the author complain

This isn't the first time someone's written an app or coded a website that does this sort of thing, and it probably won't be the last. But I want to state here, for the record, that I think this sort of thing is awful and will never, ever grant permission for my work to be used in this way

and

And a note to anyone considering doing this kind of thing themselves: it is stealing. It is not okay to take someone else's work and sell it without their permission. Don't do it. Everyone will hate you.

The main thing this has taught me is that I need some sort of official QC app for smartphones. I'll look into it.

Now I actually have the Dilbert mobile phone app that provides minutes of entertainment at a time, the comic format fits well on my phone. Personally I have no desire for a questionable content app as the comics are too high res and can't be full appreciated on a phone in my opinion, others may disagree.

But if I did have enough resolution, say I had a tablet device for instance, I would like an all in one application that aggregates multiple comics. Questionable content suggesting making their own version enough isn't going to so as well as a multi site application.

I consider it ethical to sell freely available data with 3rd party code and make money from it, it's called value add, it's also much of Google's search business model. Also I believe market economics would have produced a completely free version of this app if it existed, but it hasn't, so its existence is justified.

Personally I'm torn because I respect the author, the moral rights to his work and the work itself, but on the other hand I feel the creators sense of entitlement, even at this small scale could be as warped as the largest IP-defending corporation.

[Duke]

I saw this as well, and skimmed the original article (which, from what I remember, was initially titled something about theft). From the QC comment, this is what stood out:

And a note to anyone considering doing this kind of thing themselves: it is stealing. It is not okay to take someone else's work and sell it without their permission. Don't do it. Everyone will hate you.

While it may not be Ok, and while people may hate you, it obviously isn't stealing. And this highlights the main problem with the "copying is stealing" lie that's been propagated over the last few decades; it engages emotions, and makes people think it is far more serious that it really is.

QC's initial reaction seems to have been "no, this is wrong, must stop it!" At the end of his little rant he notes he needs "some sort of official QC app for smartphones." Can no one else see the obvious failure to connect the dots here? The obvious solution is simply to license it - make it official, and take a cut of any profit. And that's what you're supposed to do in copyright infringement cases (and is what does happen in commercial cases, usually). But because excessive lobbying keeps reinforcing this concept of "ownership" of ideas, people react badly to this sort of situation.

Copyright owners need to learn that someone using your stuff without permission is not evil stealing, but an opportunity to break into a new market/reach a wider audience/fill a gap in the service they're providing. Home tapes didn't kill the TV and film industry, it now accounts for a huge chunk of industry revenue, once they stopped fighting it and embraced it as an opportunity.

[aramoro]

Copyright owners need to learn that someone using your stuff without permission is not evil stealing, but an opportunity to break into a new market/reach a wider audience/fill a gap in the service they're providing.

See they're not getting their content ripped off wholesale for another persons profit, it's an 'opportunity', how could they be so stupid as to not see that. I mean yeah someone else is profiteering off their content, but this of the OPPORTUNITIES this is providing them. They should be thanking the people reselling their comic. It's like the prisoners we carted off to Australia, don't think of it as a punishment, think of it as an opportunity to star a new life, heh.

This is one or the Pirate Parties weakest stances as it something which directly harms small scale content producers. But hey clearly it's the fault of the people writing the content, they need a better business model, like a paywall or something.

[Duke]

See they're not getting their content ripped off wholesale for another persons profit, it's an 'opportunity', how could they be so stupid as to not see that. I mean yeah someone else is profiteering off their content, but this of the OPPORTUNITIES this is providing them. They should be thanking the people reselling their comic.

Yes. And I say that with all seriousness and only a few qualifications.

I was going to explain why I think that, and why I think you've fallen into the trap I mentioned above, but I already mentioned it, so either you didn't read it (so probably aren't going to read this), or avoided it deliberately (so there's no point in mentioning it again).

[aramoro]

See they're not getting their content ripped off wholesale for another persons profit, it's an 'opportunity', how could they be so stupid as to not see that. I mean yeah someone else is profiteering off their content, but this of the OPPORTUNITIES this is providing them. They should be thanking the people reselling their comic.

Yes. And I say that with all seriousness and only a few qualifications.

I was going to explain why I think that, and why I think you've fallen into the trap I mentioned above, but I already mentioned it, so either you didn't read it (so probably aren't going to read this), or avoided it deliberately (so there's no point in mentioning it again).

Why would the app creators agree to licence it when they can just take it for free? This is one topic where the party consistently fails to come up with any good answers, and it really needs to. Something beyond pushing your glasses up to the bridge of your nose and saying 'Well I think your'll find TECHNICALLY it's not stealing'.

According to your parties policies the app creators are in the right here, they're just distributing his work and it's his fault for not having a better business model. Do you not see why most rational people find this incredulous? I would be interested to know what business model you think he should adopt in a world where this kind of thing is the norm? What opportunities specially is he getting here?

Now obviously I am being bombastic here for my own amusement, it is a real question which the party does need to think of a good answer for.

[Duke]

According to your parties policies the app creators are in the right here, they're just distributing his work and it's his fault for not having a better business model.

Wrong.

Why would the app creators agree to licence it when they can just take it for free?

Because it's the right thing to do, and they open themselves up to legal action if they don't.

Something beyond pushing your glasses up to the bridge of your nose and saying 'Well I think you'll find TECHNICALLY it's not stealing'.

Completely missing the point of my post (which is probably my fault for not making it clear enough). It's not stealing technically (and everyone here knows that now), but it shouldn't be stealing morally/ethically/emotionally. Conflating copyright infringement with stealing creates this concept of ownership or control over ideas, which is counter-productive and unhelpful.

Do you not see why most rational people find this incredulous?

Implying that some rational people find it credulous? That's a good start, then.

I would be interested to know what business model you think he should adopt in a world where this kind of thing is the norm? What opportunities specially is he getting here?

As you're just trolling, here's a troll response; who said anything about business models?

Anyway... here's a final question: would what the app creator did be acceptable if he'd added a time delay of 200 years? (i.e. until it was out of copyright). If yes, what about 20 years, or 10 years, or a week - where do you draw the line?

[borgs8472]

I mean yeah someone else is profiteering off their content, but this of the OPPORTUNITIES this is providing them. They should be thanking the people reselling their comic.

This is google's search business model I'd like to remind you.

This is one or the Pirate Parties weakest stances as it something which directly harms small scale content producers.

It's not like I didn't provide the links. Questionable content is one of the most profitable web comics on the internet, please read.

[aramoro]

This is google's search business model I'd like to remind you.

The difference is Google links to content, so you go to the content providers website, so this is entirely different you would have to agree.

It's not like I didn't provide the links. Questionable content is one of the most profitable web comics on the internet, please read.

And they're still a small scale provider and this issue effects a lot more than QC. Webcomics like Order of the Stick are trying kickstarters to get their books republished because they don't have a lot of money, they have to pay their hosting fees etc, these syndication apps actively cost these comics bandwidth for no return.

Because it's the right thing to do, and they open themselves up to legal action if they don't.

That legal action would be based on the current copyright laws, are you saying it's right in this case but wrong if the IP belongs to Universal?

I think in the end you both miss the main point of my post. People can look at this and see it's wrong, that the app creator is taking advantage. And you guys roll along with 'Well technically it's not stealing...he needs to think of it as an opportunity' and you sound like dicks. I know you're not politicians but you need good answers. It reminds me of the prisoners that the US too to Guantanamo Bay, when asked if they were following the Geneva convention the US replied that 'The people were non-combatants and thus the Geneva convention did not apply to them'. Now he's technically correct but that doesn't make him sounds like any less of a dick.

[Duke]

The difference is Google links to content, so you go to the content providers website, so this is entirely different you would have to agree.

Google also copies people's content onto their own servers, and displays it, arguably making fewer people go to the creator's website due to realising that it isn't what they want. For more details on why copyright owners hate Google, just have a look at some of the stuff Murdoch Sr has said.

That legal action would be based on the current copyright laws, are you saying it's right in this case but wrong if the IP belongs to Universal?

No. And at no point in the above discussion have I even implied that, suggesting either you didn't read what I wrote and simply replied to what you wanted me to have said, or are intentionally misrepresenting my position.

I think in the end you both miss the main point of my post. People can look at this and see it's wrong, that the app creator is taking advantage. And you guys roll along with 'Well technically it's not stealing...he needs to think of it as an opportunity' and you sound like dicks.

Right, so you're problem isn't with what we said (which, as noted above, you don't appear to have read) but how we said it?