With this kind of case it's impossible to read the comic book, and it doesn't protect it from UV light. I prefer using covers that block UV light. This both protects it and allows you to read it.
It really doesn't make sense to read a 9.0 condition key comic like this. If you really wanted to read it, you would be better off buying a second reading copy in terrible condition.
The cost of the reading copy would end up being less than the negative impact to the condition (and therefore value) of your mint copy from reading it a single time.
In that episode a bored Mr. Burns hires Homer as his „prank monkey”, paying him with loose cash to play cruel pranks on others and humiliate himself. Homer eventually regains his dignity after refusing to ruin the Thanksgiving day parade, even for a million dollars.
With a little effort and research someone could come up with a reasonable estimate that read something like, “a typical 15-year-old reading through this comic once in a typical way would have cost the family X dollars”, and X might literally be $100k. Certainly well over $10k.
And I dare say, someone spending 9 million clams on this comic book is more than likely going to have it sitting in a very UV-protected vault somewhere ..
EDIT: Sorry - I didn’t realize that zipcomic.com is infringing the copyright - adding this note to point that out, but I will maintain my original link as intended. Better to read it on DC Universe Infinite, if you have access, or maybe it’s available through Libby or Hoopla library apps.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
True, I guess if I'd spent 9 million buckaroonies on the original, I'd feel compelled to download the digital version .. from wherever .. and put the physical edition in an air-tight preservation vault, deep in some bank somewhere.
But .. I just didn't want to encourage piracy among our community, is all.
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.
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?
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.
>"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.
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.
