|
| ▲ | bbarnett 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can't understand why the inside covers were scanned by someone, but at crazy low res. Yes the comic is important, but even the ads are fun and a memory blast. I have a feeling this was scanned a while back, where resolution was a balance between even being able to store it digitally due to size. |
|
| ▲ | kristopolous 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I assume it's just an inflation robust store of value. If I was lucky enough to have to defend say a billion dollars from diluting over decades, a priceless comic sounds like a decent acquisition |
|
| ▲ | muzani 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My impression was the comic was worth so much because the widely available digital version loses something. |
|
| ▲ | anthk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://comicbookplus.com would have it legally as the Copyright expired long ago. |
| |
| ▲ | Podrod 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | What makes you think the copyright has expired? | | |
| ▲ | toyg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably confused 2024 with 2034, when it will actually expire. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | raverbashing 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah Until they pass away and somebody finds it then puts it for sale, and so on... |
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not everyone wants to break the law to read things from their collection. Also the physical experience of reading is much different than digital. While you could store your collectable in a vault, many people enjoy displaying their collectables. |
| |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry .. I didn’t realize that zipcomic.com was illegal .. I’d assumed the copyright had expired[0], and checking on DC Universe Infinite isn’t possible, since it’s geolocked and I’m not in a country deemed worthy of it. It’s probably available in Libby or Hoopla, legally. [0] It’s still copyrighted, although it seems that will expire in a decade or so, though. I guess I’ll read it then. | | |
| ▲ | bouncycastle 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | back in my day, we had these buildings called 'libraries' which were filled wall-to-wall with many different types of copyright material. Mainly books, but also comics, newspapers and magazines, that you could legally read and also borrow and take home for a few days, for FREE!! | | | |
| ▲ | iammattmurphy 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This might be genuinely the first time I can remember hearing someone say they don’t want to commit piracy. No offence, but who cares?
Especially for something from 1939. | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, if issue #1 it were still being sold, that would be piracy. | |
| ▲ | userbinator 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This comic is older than most (all?) HN users. | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, I care (though not for something whose creators are long since dead and whom you can't support any more). But in general, I certainly try to avoid piracy. I think it's immoral and while I don't think it makes one a bad person (I myself used to pirate a ton of stuff when I had no money to buy it), I do think it's a thing that a good person should strive to avoid. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | At the time that it was published, it would've been public domain by 1995 (so its creators might reasonably be alive at expiration). Anyone would be able to legally reprint it. Was that immoral? Or was it immoral to monopolize culture for another 1-2 generations? | | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It was a bad policy (immoral? your words) to "grandfather" everything in when the new law was passed. But I understand that wad the entire point (Disney) of that law. |
| |
| ▲ | pbhjpbhj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Back up here: >"I care (though not for something whose creators are long since dead and whom you can't support any more)." >"I think it's immoral" King Herod makes the Kill Babies Act and now you consider it immoral not to kill babies? You justified copyright by suggesting it was about supporting creators. So you at least consider the moral justification to end at the creators death? It just really interests me how copyright terms which were grown purely to support corporations so they wouldn't have to be creative (read that as would but need to employ people, or pay people for creativity) can have people figuratively clutching pearls. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | clort 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not sure the reader would be breaking the law. Copyright law is about distribution, so the site would be violating the copyright by making it available. However, reading it is not distribution so simply reading it would not be an issue. | |
| ▲ | sneak 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not-for-profit copyright infringement on this scale is generally a tort and not a criminal act. It’s a bit hyperbolic. It’s a webpage of a comic book. |
|
