argh. [metafilter.com]

You know, you spend seven years trying to turn your hobby into a profitable venture, and these folks come along and spit in your face by ripping you off and charging people for it.

I'm just really sad, is all.

yep, saw that one in Comixpedia [comixpedia.com]. Surely there must be some legal recourse?

In Response to tynic (#14923):

Nah. I'm not the litigious type, and if people really want to read the comic like that, then so be it. But karma is a boomerang.

In Response to jon (#14925):

jeffR has posted on their forum [spiny.com] ... it will be interesting to see if they respond.

In Response to tynic (#14923):

Surely there must be some legal recourse?

There is - re-packaging without permission could be deemed a breach of copyright - but it would be a civil case, and Jon would need to demonstrate damages. Not really worth it.

What may be more practical is a technological solution. I'd be surprised if it isn't possible to distinguish these connections from normal users, then refuse them at the server.

Cheers,
Graham

How is it different for someone to try and make money off of their hobby of drawing comics than it is for someone to try and make money off their hobby of writing software?

I'm not convinced that this will cause a negative impact on your bottom line.

Would you be upset if someone starting selling an RSS reader (well, really, aren't they already?)? Isn't the comic published that way?

Yes, it may reduce the number of ad-hits you get. But I seem to remember that ads aren't a big part of your income...

People using this software are still going to see your content. They're still going to see your signature on that content, and the URL at the bottom. This software may cause new people to start reading your comic who would otherwise not have found it.

In Response to zamphir (#14933):

It's a question of context.

First, this isn't the first, or only, one of these out there. Our suspicion is that they aren't particularly popular, so we haven't spent the time screening User-Agents or anything to block them yet.

Secondly, when we syndicate via RSS, we're making sure that we include the News posts as well. This keeps people updated about what's going on with the site, especially about when we release new books, new features, other merchandise, add Premium features, etc. Since that's how we pay for the site, that's the information we want to make sure people are exposed to along with the strip itself. An RSS reader includes that info since it's in our feed. This only includes the strip, which means people lose that context which encourages them to support the images they see.

This is the first one of these I've seen that's shareware instead of freeware. It doesn't mean it's the only one, just the only one I've seen. While I disagree with all these applications on principle, Making it shareware seems worse, because now he's potentially making money off of presenting our work out of the context which pays for that work.

In Response to phillip (#14934):

So, you wouldn't then have a problem with their software if their screen included the news portion, or otherwise included more context than just the bitmap of the comic strip?

You've already got an automated process for making an image Jon uploads available as the "current strip".

Adding to that process to render additional information into an expanded bitmap wouldn't be too hard - particularly if the main page is smart enough to load a different bitmap based on UA information (which you and I both know is easy enough to spoof).

Making it shareware seems worse, because now he's potentially making money off of presenting our work out of the context which pays for that work.
Again, "he's" making money off "his" hobby of writing software. One could argue about the "morality" of the software that he's writing... but I think Jon would be pissed if someone started spouting off about the morality of writing comic strips about drunks and homosexual aliens.

I'm really not trying to argue about this.. I'm just raising a different viewpoint on the situation.

In Response to jon (#14925):

But karma is a boomerang.

And love is a battlefield.

And this is a desert topping. No wait, my bad, it's a floor wax.

In Response to zamphir (#14938):

If they included all the content we offer in the RSS feed, for example, I'd have no problem with this. That would be a win-win situation for everyone.

I've actually emailed the gentleman who writes the program and suggested exactly that.

In Response to jon (#14942):

If they included all the content we offer in the RSS feed, for example, I'd have no problem with this. That would be a win-win situation for everyone.

      Why not simply suggest that the ripped image itself be a Link [goats.com] to the website it was collected from, wouldn't that be far simpler for the guy who has to re-code the software? I find, personally, that simplicity is always more attractive than complexity especially in regards to programming concerns.

In Response to Magus (#14946):

Because a link does not mean that people will read our news posts. These folks are aggregating specifically so they don't have to go to the homepage. I would suspect that the number of clickthroughs would be slim to none.

In Response to jon (#14948):

Ok, I posted before I actually gave this matter enough time to resolve into something other than an instant reaction, I apologise. However there has to be something that could be mutually profitable for both the software hobbyist and the cartoon hobbyist to be able to agree upon.

  Had this particular piece of code been my baby, I'd have approached you first with the idea as an additional feature of super-premium membership perhaps, as you would obviously know some other cartoonists who might like the aforementioned idea, who might agree to also provide this software to their members et cetera...

  Thre can be no question that it's definitely underhanded not to contact the authors first before what amounts to (in my mind, at least) pimping out the damn fine examples of artists working hard to increase readership and awareness of their art. It sickens me that this schmuck will probably get away with this relatively unscathed, save for minor flaming by folks like ourselves.

  Is civil court the only recourse to stopping this guy? There must be something about copyright infringement here, or at least he's stealing your ideas, and I'd call that corporate espionage and then I'd charge him with espionage, wilful theft of intellectual property, being a total shit, and being a threat to national security, that is if I would were George W.

In Response to Magus (#14949):

Thre(sic) can be no question that it's definitely underhanded not to contact the authors first

I don't see how there's any onus on the author of this piece of software to contact anyone about it.

Does Mozilla contact owners of websites before releasing a new piece of software?

Does Canon contact book publishers before producing a new copier?

In Response to zamphir (#14951):

Does the publisher of a book comprised entirely of articles copied from the New York Times contact them before he publishes it?

Especially if it's printed on their presses, with their paper, when they're not looking.

We syndicate via RSS for a reason, and it's not so that other methods can be used. We are talking with the guy about how to incorporate "extra" information like this into his product. Whether that would be a new RDF namespace that we include that has "extra" comic information, or just a way to indicate an chunk of HTML that he should include with each strip, or whatever.

In Response to jon (#14948):

While the program itself (when sold for money) is not a positive thing for webcomic artists, the idea certainly has merit.

If this guy proves that it's possible to make money out of it, wouldn't it be worth spending some time on proprietry comic delivery? Making the free comics maybe less frequent and more inviting (maybe throwing in a couple of cliffhangers), while giving the preemies the better service and more choice?

If your site is listed amongst the programs default comic sites, it could very-well aid in the 'spreading of the word' as well, and if you can hook those people into eventual premium membership, well...

In Response to phillip (#14952):

Thank-you Phillip! I appreciate your fine articulation of what I've been sitting here trying over, and over to accurately convey(you know, I'm really getting tired of that preview button's allure..).

Zammy, of all the Goatists here, i thought you would be first to side with the artists and programmers who labor so hard and long to build, not only some of the finest websites around, but also to foster an incredibly diverse online communities such as this one, I can see your point, clearly.

  But it's clearly much the same as somebody breaking into my house and stabbing themselves in the leg with a huge chunk of broken glass whlie attempting escape, suing me for their injuries, pain&suffering, lost wages(due to being unable to wield a crowbar properly), and meical bills.

Mabye I'm wrong, but since that's just my opinion, it matters not.

In Response to unFalln (#14953):

I'd love to see this all work out good for everyvbody involved, for once. Wouldn't that be, gasp, progress?

In Response to Magus (#14955):

Eureka!

  It's Tasty content, yet morally ambigous context [goats.com]

Wouldn't you agree?

In Response to zamphir (#14951):

I don't think it's about onus.

I think it's about being a good neighbor. What they're doing, regardless of legality or responsibility, is shitty. it's a shitty thing to do.

I'm thinking fair play in this case would be to release an application that allows people to use their application for free, and sell my app for, say, five bucks. Or we could just sell serial numbers or something. I don't think there's any substantial difference between that and what they're doing.

My humble opinion:

I think it's highly unfortunate in a few different ways. I agree with most everything that's been posted so far, but I'd like to add that as an artist and producer/producer-in-training, context is everything. Goats.com isn't just a bunch of comics, it's an entire presentation. We've seen the results of the efforts Jon and his crack-squadron of nerds/geeks/trained hampsters put into this site over the years-- and to simply rip the comics from this context is to lose a chunk (albeit a side-chunk) of Jon's work.

A director I once worked for was convinced that the program was as important to the audience as the show itself. I don't know that this is always necessarily true (as his belief made my job a living hell), but I think the idea definitely applies here. Jon (et al) have spent a good deal of time (seven years) working at building this site, amassing a body of work, and making it presentable for the general web-viewing public. I think this whole mess not only doesn't respect that, but ignores it and then runs over it with a big ol' Chevy Nova.

I'm not a fan of anyone who stands on other people's shoulders to make a buck, and let's face it, that's exactly what this is. Can we call it exploitware?

In Response to jon (#14959):

You and Phillip have both made convincing points.

If I decided to bake a dozen brownies every day, and give them away to the first twelve people I meet, and then some guy comes along and takes all twelve and then resells them... That's a shitty thing to do.

But I'm still not convinced that the software author has done anything wrong.

The way I see it is this. Here's some geek, sitting in her basement, reading lots of web comics. She does what every good geek does, and abstracts the problem - how to read all of her daily dose of comics without having to type in lots of URLs and wait for lots of websites to load. So, she writes some software that fills what she sees as a viable need. And then decides that it's good enough that she can make some money off of it - because maybe she's showed it to some friends and they thought it was cool too.

And then some people come along and tell her that she's stealing food from the mouths of their babies, and is a bad person and a bad neighbor.

That can't be a very nice experience.

And while it's all well and good to say that what Jon is trying to sell is more than just the comic, it's the whole Goats Experience...

There are any number of webcomics I've read religiously, and considered spending money on, which have communities and "news" and extra content that I have absolutely no interest in - I'm sure if I looked I could find Shaenon Garrity's most recent vacation. For some people - and probably for some of your most loyal readers - it's just about the comic.

What's the ratio of registered users to unique visitors these days?

And for new people who haven't seen your strip before, to have all of this extra "junk" come with it may end up being a turn off. Spam is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

Magus - I'm not really on anyone's side here - as again, I'm not really arguing. I'm just trying to discuss a particular viewpoint on the situation.

Yes, I agree that Jon and Phillip and all of the other people who produce the webcomics and online communities that help my day be a little brighter should be able to make money.

But all those people should also have a little bit of sympathy for other creative types looking to make some money of their blood, sweat and code, and not jump up and down about "theft" at the click of a mouse button. Even if those other creative types are working in a different medium than "web comic".

Now, if what this person had produced and was selling was a piece of software that downloaded all the comic images to a central repository and then distributed them from there - THAT would be theft.

Anyone want to argue for the RIAA?

In Response to zamphir (#14962):

I think sympathy is the last emotion I'm feeling right now. Why should I be sympathetic to someone who is exploiting my hard work to make money?

I don't care if they're having a nice experience. They included (and are now charging for) copyrighted material without asking permission.

No one has answered my question: how is what they are doing different than if I circumvented their revenue stream by selling discount serial numbers for their application without their permission?

Zamphir, if everyone started reading Goats this way, we wouldn't be able to support the site and it would cease to exist. There would be no more Goats, and nowhere for you to ramble. The app's author claims to love and support comics. How can hurting dozens of artists support them?

I hope we can work with this guy to come up with a solution that benefits everyone. I think we're going to be able to do exactly that. But the way that he's handled the situation so far has been to crap in my yard and use the excuse that his toilet is too far away.

In Response to daubergoat (#14961):

There is no 'p' in our hamsters, and we'd like to keep it that way.

In Response to mcgrue (#14967):

Speak for yourself ;-)

In Response to zamphir (#14962):

~ Now, if what this person had produced and was selling was a piece of software that downloaded all the comic images to a central repository and then distributed them from there - THAT would be theft.

  Explain how it's any different being collated on their server or the user's home pc.
 
  You can't because it's not any different at all.

  Just like stealing satellite, if I re-program satellite cards for sale, I'm stealing the profits from the satellite provider, right? Well this is no different whatsoever. This guy has simply written a piece of software to steal for him, rather than preforming the theft with his own hands.

  By your logic, if I build a 50-foot tall robot, program it to go apeshit crazy, and loose it on the city should I ever be caught I can simply shrug and say it's no fault of mine that I programmed its rampant, wilful destrucion and that would be sufficient defence? I think not, and neither would any lawyer worth a pinch of shit, I'd get crucified during cross-examinaion, don't you think?