The coolest thing for me about being a comic collector is following a character that is decades old. My favorite character is Cable and I've got just about everything he's been in, though I've only read up through 1996. (Lame.) I recently decided to read some background and finished my collection of the Inferno story arc. An advertisement caught my eye.

A Bit of Background

I had never heard of Infocomics before so I did a little investigating. As the very fine print on the ad states, Infocomics was a collaboration between some guy named Tom Snyder and a company called Infocom, a software company based out of Massachusetts. The goal was to make comic books for the computer. The idea was to make stories that would unfold on the screen that would allow the "reader" to jump from one perspective in the story to another. (I'll explain the process in a moment.) This would make the reading experience more dynamic and complete.

Three franchises were started as the flagships to this venture. Only one garnered a sequel. The gentleman in the above advertisement is Lane Mastodon, who starred in "Lane Mastodon vs. the Blubbermen." Another comic was "Gamma Force in Pit of a Thousand Screams." The last was an extension of intellectual property owned by parent company Infocom: "ZorkQuest: Assault on Egreth Castle," which was followed by the sequel "ZorkQuest II: The Crystal of Doom." This product failed to capture much attention due to its very campy storytelling, as well as the fact that comic books were way, way, way better looking.

The Concept

This was a program based on the old Dos system. (To date myself, I remember using Dos in second grade to boot up the Scarab of Ra.) Once started, the screen took on the look of a comic book and the comic gave the reader a quick prologue to the story before explaining how to navigate the program. The comic flowed on a pace dictated by the reader. The reader could fast forward or rewind, pause, and jump perspectives. This last point was the crux of Infocomics's novelty. Whenever you saw the "page" fold over you could hit a button to jump to another character's perspective of what was happening in the story to more fully understand it all.

The reader could also backtrack the story and find other jump points to explore.

Walking You Through/The Experience

I was really interested in this concept that I had never, ever heard of and so I put myself out there and let the universe guide me to copies of the first three releases. (I bought them after some research on this here internet.) Here is how the comic reads for "Gamma Force in Pit of a Thousand Screams":

The comic opens with the title and and a prologue in which we meet the main heroes. This is merely a teaser, though, as then we move into instructions on how to enjoy this new comic medium.

After some intro to controls we are hurled right back into the story. It mainly follows the dastardly deeds of Nast, a terrible bad guy who burns villages, electrocutes people he merely suspects to be disloyal, and who also does stuff like this:

The story eventually wraps up after just over 30 minutes with the good guys winning. (Uh, spoiler tag?) This is without taking advantage of any jump points. You could seriously spend over an hour or two going through every scenario getting all the backstory possible out of this comic. And with graphics like these, who wouldn't want to?

The sound in the comic is the standard effects from yesteryear. Anytime something bad happens you hear the "We are here to scare you" music. Both lasers and electricity sound like diarrhea in pots and pans being dropped down stairs. There are no voices. All the dialogue is found onscreen and the narration is below the action.

Above, Lane Mastodon explained that the comic moves. Kind of. The developers did what they could with the technology they had, and that is the equivalent of making new screenshots in succession that act as a flip-book cartoon. The movement is slow. One scene takes literally five seconds for Nast to shift his gaze from one person to another. (Seriously, there is a close up of his eyes moving for five seconds.) Also, shifting from one perspective to another (as in, from far to near) is awkward since the graphics don't really mesh all that well.

Conclusion

There you have it. For any of you who still love to read the great comics of the 80's, this is basically what Infocomics advertisements are telling you is worth $12 of your hard earned, post-1985 recession dollars. And now you know.

*Addition: I just made a concept page for Infocomics that shows the boxes for each computer program. The 80s were awesome.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice. This is merely information conveyed that is apparent from reading publicly available contracts.

I did a practice run at this topic a while back as I prepared for a paper. This is a more reader-friendly version of that content.

We have all heard the debates on physical comics versus digital comics. Some, like myself, are nostalgic and wish to keep the books to pass on to future generations. Some, like my brother, are modern and love having a good issue to read on the go and on almost any device.

Turning the page or swiping the screen?

The smell of print or the joy of built-in soundtracks?

Paper cuts or strained eyes?

We’ve heard the debates – we’ve even had them within our own brains – but now it is time to look at the issue from a different light: Legal.

I am a soon-to-graduate law student at the University of Wyoming. My interest in the law came about because I wanted to learn to protect the rights of artists, I having been a recovering bass player. As you might imagine, any university based in Wyoming is not going to have a strong intellectual property program. Why would they? Sheep don’t make art. But I was lucky enough to have a professor that was interested in IP law and he let me do an Independent Study in which I wrote on digital ownership rights. It was a long, boring paper (only unsexy lawyers find long, boring law papers sexy) but it pretty much amounted to this: Under current practice, the majority of you don’t own your digital comics.

Let me repeat that: Under current practice, the majority of you don’t own your digital comics. Like, at all. (I hope you used your best Taylor Swift voice for that last line.)

I’ll make Marvel an example. I am enjoying the newest run of Uncanny X-Force. It’s different and in a very good way. Let’s pretend I can’t make it to my local comic shop (Heroes Only in Cheyenne) and I decide that I can’t wait any longer. I jump on Marvel.com to download the last issue. Perhaps I don’t notice it, but there is a link on the bottom of the page that says “Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.” Using the site (like downloading sweet Uncanny X-Force comics) shows that I agree to the Terms and Conditions of the site automatically. Marvel.com does not have to require a signature for this type of contract; simply using the site shows my acquiescence to the rules of the site.

So what does this mean as I purchase the new Uncanny X-Force? The very first term in your objectively agreed-to contract is that Marvel.com retains all rights to the property that the consumer is accessing/downloading.

“Your use of the Web Site does not grant to you ownership of any content, code, data or materials you may access on the Web Site.” (Term 1, emphasis added.)

Then what do I get, the loyal Uncanny X-Force downloader? A “limited license.” I may use the content for my own “personal, internal use” only.

“The Web Site and the services offered on or through the Web Site, including any content and materials thereon, are only for your personal, non-commercial use.” (Term 2.)

By “purchasing” a digital comic you are actually contracting to only have a limited license to use the content. My Uncanny X-Force is only to be used by me. I can never legally sell the right to that digital issue.

This opens up many issues for debate:

• Why does the site say I’m purchasing issues? Isn’t that misleading?
• Why can they charge the same amount for a digital issue as a physical one when no limitations are placed on physical copies (as in, you own that book)?
• Does this actually help or hinder anti-piracy policies?
• What is the legality of simply giving your device’s password to a friend or relative?

The sad thing is that this is pretty standard right now across all forms of media. Music, books, games, and so on, are typically limited when bought digitally. Does this detract from your desire to “purchase” digital comics? Some say there is no price for convenience. (Actually, I just made that up.) Digital comics ownership is nothing to some because flexibility is worth any price. Some, like me, hate that my money goes to nothing more than a glorified private viewing of the comic. Give me my physical books. Give me actual ownership.

A look at other contracts for digital content will show similar things to the Marvel example, like Comixology. Very few contracts actually allow digital ownership. Check your digital contract out to see the status of ownership on what is in your digital queue.

Source: http://marvel.com/corporate/terms

The 1990s was a grand time for Fabian Nicieza. Do you know how many effing books he had his hands on? X-Men, X-Force, the New Warriors, Nomad, and a few more. Rereading some of these classic (and some incredibly not-so-classic) stories shows an odd trend: doors are dangerous.

1. In an issue of Cable, Sinsear approaches Tolliver's estate and requests Mr. Tolliver's company. The butler, just behind the door, informs Sinsear that Tolliver is dead. Sinsear kills the butler.
2. In Deadpool: the Circle Chase, Sluggo knocks on the door of Copycat's mother. He gets lassoed around the neck and pulled to the roof.
3. In an issue of X-Force, Black Tom returns to Cassidy Keep to find that the family lawyer has taken up residence. Black Tom blasts the lawyer as soon as he opens the door.

Doors are bad in this stretch of time. Don't open them if Fabian is writing your story and you are in the 90s.

This scene from Nomad #20 makes me laugh.

The first panel clearly shows Six Pack on the beach. The water is distant (despite Domino saying that she is in the water). A fire is blazing. The next panel, however, shows the tide is definitely coming in. Poor Grizzly, that fire looks nice.

So what was the artist thinking? I often think this with puzzling panel sequences. This one, however, seems pretty easy. Domino has her shirt off. I guess the artist simply got distracted by things that could make her even hotter (because a strapless bra isn't enough?). What if she were reading a martial arts book? I guess that's a start. Ooh, and how about she's tip-toeing in the water? I guess that's sexy. Sadly, putting her in the water makes Grizzly in the water, too. And the Winnebago. And the bags of McDonald's food the colorist tried to turn into the beach.

The two panels are just absurd.

Writers Gerry Duggan and Brian Posehn have stated that they are going to take Deadpool a little deeper and darker than he's gone in the recent past. The issue is supposed to be #7 but issue #4 held a poignant gem in it that may be a bit of foreshadowing. To this point, Deadpool has been his old, quirky self: quips left and right, awesome fights, and dressing in drag as hot historical celebrities. (What?) The first two issues in the newest series were fantastic but the third was a misstep. Deadpool, it seemed, was already growing stale. The authors remedied this, however, by appealing to a deeper Deadpool in the latest issue (#4).

In the first issue of the series, Abraham Lincoln shoots Deadpool in the head. (Brilliant irony!) He gets to repeat this in the fourth issue. (Sad consistency, DP!) Despite these ignominious defeats, Deadpool (the guy who can say that Ol' Honest Abe got him twice in the exact same way) keeps showing up and fighting back. It doesn't matter Lincoln's location, Deadpool doesn't shy away from the fight. This irks Lincoln and, as the men fight, he asks what is so special about Deadpool.

I quote: "You're a vapid, unfunny, pale shade of a hero. You're unintelligent, uncreative, and unremarkable in every way. You don't seem to do anything well except heal yourself, and appear everywhere! I don't understand your appeal!"

Take this out of context and consider it for a moment: Isn't this how many people truthfully feel about Deadpool? He's annoying! He's not a real hero! He's effing (Elfring) everywhere! Why in all the world would the writers put this honest sentiment of a host of people in Deadpool's own book? Lincoln continues: "I hate you. These people hate you. Tell me, what is it that you're good at? What do you do?" Deadpool gets a great, vindictive look in his eye (nice work, Tony Moore) before he shouts "I don't give up!" while chopping off Lincoln's head. (At least it stays in one piece this time.)

If I had to guess, it seems that the writers are going to try and make Deadpool more humanized. We know Dr. Strange saw something off in Deadpool. I wonder if this truth will help Deadpool see what it is he is truly made of. Perhaps we'll be given a reason why so many people do legitimately love Deadpool. Maybe one day Deadpool will have an answer for the Abraham Lincoln's of the world who want to shoot him in the head as they ask about his humanity. Regardless, Duggan and Posehn are killing this series and I can't wait to see what is next.

(I'll try and get some scans for this later.)

Can anyone else enjoy the thought of Bane using that voice of his and saying: "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine"? Seriously, in that fight scene where Batman gets owned by Bane, can't you see him saying that as he lords over his prey? I loved his voice.

Too much time off from school. I gotta start thinking like a real person again.

I love grammar. Do I always flawlessly use it? No, but I try. It drives me crazy when I see postings online with little-to-no punctuation, capitalization, or coherent thought. I am especially frustrated with the all-too-common approach of trusting auto-correct. Case in point, the Walking Dead page on Facebook asked people to submit questions for tonight's Talking Dead episode with guest stars CM Punk and Yvette Nicole Brown. Here was one response:

Sorry Sean, but the term is "aficionado." I probably shouldn't expect much from someone who watches wrestling, but I do have hope for a brighter society. I understand that people have different levels of education and blah, blah, blah, but I went to terrible public schools in east Mesa, Arizona and still came out with a modicum of intelligence regarding sentence structure and the proper usage of a dictionary.

And I think this post proves I'm getting old. I'm sitting here complaining about the youth today. What an a-hole.

I am prepping to write a law review article on the rights people have with their digital media and I figured I'd use this space to get some of my mental juices flowing. One of the appeals of art for me is in the collecting. I always enjoyed buying CDs for the album art. I still buy comic books for the aesthetic joy of paper and ink. It's the same with novels, although I will branch into free classics for my Kindle. Reading user terms for digital content, however, has given me a more practical reason for collecting physical copies: transferability.

Right now I can hand my son my copy of Jimmy Eat World's "Clarity" without any legal repercussions (unless I rip a copy). This is part of fair use. It's the same with my New Mutants #98 or illustrated copy of "The Silmarillion." I can sell each of these things for any price I choose. This is first sale doctrine. I can gift or pass each of these physical things along when I die. This is basic estate planning. I have slowly moved into the digital music sphere. It took me a while but I did finally buy an Ipod. I buy music off Amazon all the time (I get credit there for certain law searches I do). But then I read the user terms for digital content.

Stated simply, the non-exclusive part means that the digital copy is based on one copy many people will have access to. You aren't getting a unique copy, as in one in a released run. The non-transferable right means simply that: no one else is going to legally be able to claim it regardless of the actions you take. You can't gift it; you can't sell it; you can't leave it for your heirs. You are basically leasing this digital copy until you die, at which point the rights to the copy are given back to Amazon. (Granted, you could divvy your physical Ipod and online retailer passwords to your significant others, but this is probably frowned upon despite being difficult to track.)

As for digital comics? Here's what Marvel does:

Yikes, they get more specific, don't they. You don't own your Marvel-bought digital comics.

How about comiXology?

I don't blame you if you didn't read that small print. It's basically the same thing. Of note is the line that says "Digital content is licensed, not sold, to you by comiXology." You don't own your comiXology comics.

Here's the odd thing. I looked up the recent WW comic on comiXology (out of respect to Razzatazz) and was told that I could not own it. DC's digital site, however, says this about the same WW comic:

This bungled, jarbled mess actually looks a lot like rights you have with physical things. It seems like you are actually getting to own that WW issue.

So you own it downloading from DC but not comiXology. And you never own your Marvel books. I don't know why the variance exists. I don't know what independent publishers do. I do know that this finding makes my hesitancy towards digital products that much more paranoid. And would you look at that, my order of physical comics just arrived. How serendipitous, Gary Marshall!

Thanks for the blog title, Joaquin Phoenix.

For the three of you who care, I haven't dropped off the face of the Earth. Law school is hard and I've been focusing my attention there. I still get in my reading and I'm almost caught up on The Walking Dead.

Here's a problem I have: I'm overhauling the character pages but I can't edit as fast as I read. As it is, I'm in the community but I am still editing people from Woodbury. The further ahead in my reading I get then the less interested I am in editing the old people. This is a testament to Kirkman's writing. The characters in the series don't have the option to dwell much on those who have passed on. Likewise, the reader doesn't have much time to dwell on characters that are long gone. Does anyone caught up with the series even remember Dr. Stevens? A little? Well, I've moved on to the point that I don't care about the two or three issues he was in and that makes it hard for me to go back and edit his page. I have moved on. The characters move on. It's tragic, but I appreciate the form meeting function that Kirkman is able to display as the series progresses. It's sad, but also very cool.

I am so glad that my adventure in manga didn't work out. I recently began reading the Walking Dead. I know: where the crap have I been? If you follow me then you know I've been stuck in 90's X-Force comics. Regardless, this branching out has been quite the treat. Kirkman writes some compelling stuff. Adlard (and formerly Moore) has been fantastic in depicting everything. I've really learned to pay attention to the drawn details, as they help to hint at events. Here's a "for instance": Why is Thomas the only inmate that doesn't get a full-face shot when he tells what he's doing time for? Many clues and cues are given that I've had to flip back pages and go "What the what? Oh."

One exciting aspect of this new series to read is that I get to seriously overhaul the character pages. They sorely need it. I've only been focusing on the people that have died since they are easier to edit - their lives are already mapped out for me. The ongoing characters (at least for me, I'm still in the prison) have just too much potential for me to go in and edit as I won't know how one event affects another. Only editing deaths is a little morbid, but I think it goes with the territory. Sadly, some pages have one-liners for some really compelling characters. Fixing that. Some pages are fleshed out a bit more but need to meet our relatively new style guide. So, to those that have paved the way before (of note, @Matt707 and especially @Baal Zak) thanks, but I'm going to enhance your stuff.

(As an aside, I've seen some truly hilarious aliases attached to some character pages by people looking for quick, lame points. Allen had an alias of "Donna's Husband." Really? Martinez was "Martinez from Woodbury." As if the characters of the comic needed to differentiate between multiple Martinezes.)