Comics I Don’t Understand

Moderately Monday

Cidu Bill on Mar 22nd 2010

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Jeff Stahler, Moderately Confused, comic strips, comics, humor | 56 responses so far

56 Responses to “Moderately Monday”

Elyrest Mar 22nd 2010 at 12:12 am 1

The guy was a comic book collector and sold some for a bunch of money. With a Superman and a Batman comic both selling for more than a million recently this makes sense.
Dr. Shrinker Mar 22nd 2010 at 12:27 am 2

Except the “collectors market” for comic books that made them a (seemingly) reasonable investment in the 80s has long since vanished. Except for the very rare super-desirable book, NO ONE is making money from comic books…
Winter Wallaby Mar 22nd 2010 at 12:43 am 3

Elyrest, that seems like a reasonable explanation for the conversation, but I’m still not seeing the joke.

Also, can someone explain Bill’s title?
CIDU Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 12:48 am 4

Yeah, what Winter says: It’s easy enough to know what’s going on here at face value — “what’s the joke?’ is the issue.

And Winter, nothing really obscure or clever about my title: the strip is “Moderately Confused,” today is Monday, and I liked the sound of the alliteration.
Elyrest Mar 22nd 2010 at 12:50 am 5

There never is a joke in this comic. I kept it in my rotation for several months and never found any jokes. It always seems to be just situations. I gave up on it.
chuckers Mar 22nd 2010 at 06:45 am 6

Maybe she is looking for an excuse not to approach the guy. It is one thing to go after someone who made their money the “normal” way with oil. It is another thing to go after a “nerd” that made his money from comic books.

On the other hand, nerds make better lovers.
wooloomooloo Mar 22nd 2010 at 07:43 am 7

It’s a very innovative premise for a website you have here. I often come across comics that I wish someone would explain to me. Somehow I never decided to take the reprehensible path of reaping financial benefit from other’s artwork just because I didn’t understand their joke.

How many cease and desist orders do you receive each week for having stolen artwork to repost on your ad-riddled site?

It’s one thing to question the quality of the work of others. It’s quite another thing to generate advertising income from what amounts to the blatant theft of their intellectual property. Indeed, that’s rather sick.
Father Bruno Di Frocco Mar 22nd 2010 at 07:51 am 8

Wooloomooloo, stand still for a moment while I heap invective upon you.
Stan Mar 22nd 2010 at 08:13 am 9

The joke here, I think, is probably that the woman thought he was a sophisticated, high-flying businessman in a respected (by some) business. Turns out he’s just a nerd. Oops

@ wooloomooloo - I fear you’re in for an earful. Wait for it.
Stan Mar 22nd 2010 at 08:16 am 10

@ Chuckers 6 - Sorry man…that’s what you said, isn’t it? Let me rephrase my post…

I think Chuckers has it right. Spot on. Well done.
Nicole Mar 22nd 2010 at 08:49 am 11

wooloomooloo — Actaully I believe Bill’s site is covered by fair use, and as an aside Bill also has had the artists themselves visit.

I can’t speak for everyone here, but I know that I have actaully started following comic strips that have appeared here that I would have never even heard of … so he is in fact generating income for some comic artists.

While I can’t be totally sure I suspect that Bill is not raking in the cash from this site. If he is, the least he could do is take us out to dinner every once and a while … or a least a pizza party.

There is one other thing he might do with the mountains of cash that he is drowning in … he could buy you a life.

“have fun stormin’ the castle”
mkilby Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:30 am 12

@ Wooloomooloo (7) - Bill’s conspicuous absence from this discussion makes me suspect that “please do not feed the trolls” would be the loftier strategy, but I am frankly dumbstruck by your dancing glide, starting in with a nice compliment, then gradually shifting downward to hurling insults based on insufficient knowledge of the facts (I sincerely doubt that any revenue the ads on this site may generate would even begin to cover the web hosting and traffic fees). Go have a nice cup of tea, take two aspirin, and when you wake up next morning, you will probably be rid of whatever bile that was eating into you today.

As Nicole correctly indicated, there is the fair use doctrine, and in any case most of the authors are happy to be featured here, since it amounts to free advertising for their comics. I myself have discovered several online items that I would never have known about without CIDU.
David N Mar 22nd 2010 at 10:05 am 13

Listen to chuckers honey - go for the nerd!

And someone got up on the wrong side of the comic page this morning …
Dave Mar 22nd 2010 at 11:23 am 14

Pizza party! Woohoo!

Make one for Wooloomooloo with crow on top.
Kevin A Mar 22nd 2010 at 11:49 am 15

Bill’s site has introduced me to several of my absolute favorite comic strips, some of which I pay for (DailyInk, e.g.) in order to see the high quality large versions.

Slightly on point is that the ads here (which Bill has said haven’t amounted to much if anything of an income stream) at least reflect the topic of the site.
(I have a Post-It on my monitor that says “Go through CIDU for Amazon” but I’m sad to say that I have obviously needed a bigger Post-It for quite some time. Maybe a big poster on the wall would work.)

Today, the United Features’ comics.com was trying to sell me a Toyota Highlander.

On the other hand, most all of GoComics.com ads (Heart of the City, Stone Soup) are for products that are interesting to me. And refreshing a page brings me another attractive set of ads.
And I go there daily because I learned about the strips I mentioned here at CIDU.
Kamino Neko Mar 22nd 2010 at 12:26 pm 16

It’s funny….I was waiting for Wooloomaloo’s post to suddenly have a random link to a completely unrelated site, since the first paragraph is exactly like the ubiquitous spam posts on many message boards and blogs that have some random, generic, almost-but-not-quite on-topic comment followed by their spam link.

Then it turned into a whole new part of batcrazy.
Nicole Mar 22nd 2010 at 01:24 pm 17

I think we should thank wooloomooloo for a good laugh — point at him and do a Nelson from the Simpsons laugh.

HA-ha
Molly J Mar 22nd 2010 at 01:58 pm 18

My only guess is that the guy on the right looks like he’s drawn a little more “comicky” (a new word I just made up - like it?) than the guy on the left. He has a very pointy nose, no discernible pupils, Linus hair, etc.

Now come on, Woomoo. Fess up. Did you draw this one?
paperboy Mar 22nd 2010 at 02:01 pm 19

wooloomooloo#7’s comment comes on too strong (”reprehensible”?? “sick”??) but does point out that what brings in eye-balls are the comics created by others. (And, of course, the conclusions and comments of we comic-strip fans, who are happy to do so without charge.) True, the comic creators are getting exposure here, but who knows if every creator benefits or wants their work used?
I’m assuming that wooloomooloo is a creator having a hard time making money in the internet “sharing” culture. Most of us have no chance of making a living by our creativity, so we can’t understand the frustration of trying to be a professional in such a field.
Oh, yeah; I think Stan#9 has it. Chuckers#6 gave a slightly different take.
Cidu Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 02:11 pm 20

Where is this income of which he speaks??

Paperboy, this website isn’t much of a secret. I’ve made it clear on a number of occasions that if anybody wants his comics included out, I’ll do so regardless of any “fair use” rights. It’s a matter of respect.

Fifteen years in, so far nobody’s asked.

Well… somebody from one cartoonist’s syndicate did write to me — twice over the years — asking me to cease and desist, but both times this was followed by a nice e-mail from the cartoonist himself telling me he never authorized the letter, apologizing for it (though obviously no apology was necessray) and telling me to carry on. So I don’t think this counts, but I mention it anyway in the spirit of full disclosure.
Elyrest Mar 22nd 2010 at 02:13 pm 21

mkilby, Nicole, et al - Thanks for replying to wooloomooloo better than I could have. I don’t know if I hope they are a troll or a very confused bile filled (thanks mkilby) person.

Nerds do make good lovers, but I think if you make a lot of money from something it cancels out a certain % of nerdness.
Nicole Mar 22nd 2010 at 02:48 pm 22

On final comment to wooloomooloo
The Comic Syndicates are big boys … they have lawyers and everything … I have no doubt that a simple google search of almost any comic strip posted here will yield a hit on this site. That being the case, if the syndicates or the comic artist wanted Bill to stop using their work … he is easy to find, and probably just as easy to sue. Clearly they are not nearly interested in his use of the strips as you are.

Now off with you — go and crawl back under your bridge, there are some goats waiting to kick your buttt
paperboy Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:00 pm 23

CIDU Bill#20- I came to explain him, not to agree with him. Just wanted to put out where I thought his anger came from, that it did come from an arguable position, that it came from a wish for comic creators to be paid for their work and not an out-of-nowhere hatred of you.
I don’t agree with him because your site is not simply a compilation, but relies on reader comments for it’s main attraction. (I know I didn’t make that plain in the first post)
CIDU Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:06 pm 24

I knew you weren’t being critical, paperboy. I was just using your comment as an excuse to explain the policy once again.
Heather Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:06 pm 25

@elyrest 21 - I disagree that money cancels out nerdiness. Bill Gates has long been one of the richest men in the world- still very much a nerd. George Lucas is also not hurting for money and is still a nerd. Maybe it cancels out if you make your money from something that is not nerdy- but I don’t think so. Not once people find out. Which may be the point of the comic above.
CIDU Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:09 pm 26

Kamino Neko, I had the exact same thought when I began reading it. The WordPress filter separates out a lot of those sort of spams every day, and I get to see all of them.
Elyrest Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:16 pm 27

Heather (25) - I knew someone would bring up Bill Gates and I almost mentioned him in my post. Bill Gates has lost the adorable nerdiness because of the money/power thing. Now(even though he does donate to many good causes which I am thankful for) he is just a very powerful man. George Lucas, unfortunately, is lost in a galaxy far far away.
jglor Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:18 pm 28

Maybe he is an artist, and they are discussing the medium.
“I heard he made his money in oil [painting]”
“I heard comic books [drawing]”
[Fran]cisco Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:40 pm 29

As an alternative to crawling under a bridge as apology for a remarkably uninformed rant, perhaps, wooloomooloo, you would like to join our little community as a contributing member? You did, after all, mention comics that would benefit from explanation.

I believe you would be welcome. The only condition I would request is that comments be well-considered and reasonably informed.

Regarding all that financial benefit CIDU Bill reaps, I believe he once said that it runs to about $50/year. His hosting service alone must be several times that.
Dyfsunctional Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:40 pm 30

I have to say, as someone who’s visited the site a for a while and only started posting a few weeks ago, this thread has answered some questions for me. That one misguided person probably expressed himself a little heavy-handedly, but yeah, I kind of was wondering the same thing myself. I’m aware that web banners don’t rake in any kind of measurable dough, but I always felt a little funny about the borrowing of other people’s work, even if fair use is the claim. I’m glad that it’s not as bad as all that, and that the artists and syndicates seem to be ok with it, especially considering the drubbing that some of them get in here.
Dyfsunctional Mar 22nd 2010 at 03:46 pm 31

And more on topic, the second woman’s line reminded me of this:

‘Do you herd sheep’ my grandpa said,
my granma lept in fright!
‘The grammer’s wrong’, to me she sighed,
‘have you heard sheep’ is right.

The site I C&P’d that from attributes it to Walt Kelly.
MellowCake Mar 22nd 2010 at 04:29 pm 32

@Dyfsunctional (& wooloomooloo if s/he’s not just a drive-by troll): Do you feel “funny” reading movie & book reviews, art criticism, automobile evaluations, sports commentary, etc., etc? There are lots of people and companies making lots of real money by examining other people’s work.

Regarding the cartoon, I find jglor’s insight interesting and it actually makes the cartoon funny.
Cidu Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 04:51 pm 33

Not that I’m normally inclined to argue against my own interests, but what Dysfunctional says is valid: movie and book reviews might contain exerpts, art criticism might contain photos, etc, but when we discuss a particular comic strip, the comic strip is being offered up in its entirety and the reading experience is the same as it would have been on the comic strip (or newspaper’s) own site.

What mitigates this, though, is that CIDU is not a substitute for visiting the original site. Nobody’s going to say (choosing an example randomly) “I’m not going to check out Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal today because I might be able to read it on CIDU.”

The fact that a lot of people discovered SMBC through CIDU is just a bonus for everybody concerned.

By the way… worst case of thread drift ever.
Elyrest Mar 22nd 2010 at 06:02 pm 34

“worst case of thread drift ever”

Oh, come one, we must have had worse ones. Or at least similarly bad. This group is known for their drift.
Cidu Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 06:27 pm 35

Yeah, Elyrest, you’re right. And I blame the site’s moderator.

Besides, this was less “thread drift” than “abrupt shift.”
paperboy Mar 22nd 2010 at 06:51 pm 36

I thought you were referencing The Simpsons’ (okay; The Simpsons’s) Comic-Book Guy, Cidu Bill.
Mark M Mar 22nd 2010 at 06:59 pm 37

I’m by no means an expert on all this, but I would think as an artist, if you publish something on the internet, it becomes fair game as long as credit is given where due. And that seems to always be the case here. A link to the “authorized” website would serve the same purpose, but just require extra navigation on the user’s part, which brings me to the devil’s advocate part of my post. If a website, such as comics.com, has exclusive rights to a particular strip, I could see the owners of the website possibly complaining because their advertisers, if any, are missing out.

That said, if the advertising here brings in about $50/year and doesn’t even begin to cover the web hosting cost as was previously said, why accept advertising dollars at all? Doesn’t it just gives the impression of a “for profit” entity (again, just playing devil’s advocate here).
Cidu Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 07:23 pm 38

Valid questions, Mark M.

If I link to the “authorized” website, I might not be able to link to the individual comic I want. If I link to the specific URL of the comic, then I’m making use of that site’s bandwidth for my own purposes — bypassing the ads on their own site — and that’s not kosher. It wouldn’t mean anything much to comics.com, of course — but 10,000 hits to a much smaller site could mean they get a bill from their ISP.

I really do try to make my decisions based on what seems fair to the creators.

As to why I put up ads at all… I don’t know, it’s just nice to get a few unexpected dollars once in a while. It’s like taking a pair of jeans out of the dryer and finding a fiver in the pocket. It’s not the five dollars itself, but rather the Hey, cool, look at that!

If I were redesigning the site from scratch, I’m sure I’d leave off the advertising. But as long as it’s already there, eh…

For me, the least compelling reason to remove the ads is what people might infer from them (Jan Eliot, please note the correct use of the word): people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway. And if they want to believe, against all logic, that this is a “for profit” site… well, why does that matter to me anyway?
The Bad Seed Mar 22nd 2010 at 07:26 pm 39

It’s spring up here in the northeast, and just today I noted that all kinds of slimy invertibrates with teeny little brains were crawling around under a rock I turned over. Little did I know that some of them have access to thesauruses, or maybe just word-a-day calendars.

By the way, since this one particular slimy invertibrate just finally managed to locate this site, I’m betting his Mommy and Daddy just removed Netnanny.
Carolyn Mar 22nd 2010 at 07:39 pm 40

Re: CIDU Bill 38 — As someone else mentioned, my print copy of the Boston Globe used the corret word “imply”. Did it happen in any other paper???
mitch4 Mar 22nd 2010 at 08:03 pm 41

What thread-drift? Isn’t the apparently shifted discussion still about how the guy is or isn’t making his fortune from comics?
Morris Keesan Mar 22nd 2010 at 08:58 pm 42

paperboy #19, that should be “the conclusions and comments of us comic-strip fans” not “of we”
(since complaining about grammatical usage appears to always on-topic here, along with arguing about climate change).
Rough Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:13 pm 43

The only thing i feel the need to add to this is that, I for one, come here because of the love and respect we seem to have for comics in general, let alone for the artists who produce them.
Dave Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:32 pm 44

I think the thread-drift has come full circle. Clearly to subject of the comic is none other than CIDU Bill himself, and the comics and fortune in question are directly inferring to [sorry] his ability to “generate advertising income from what amounts to the blatant theft of (their) intellectual property”.
Ian Osmond Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:42 pm 45

I’m by no means an expert on all this, but I would think as an artist, if you publish something on the internet, it becomes fair game as long as credit is given where due

Mark M #37: nope, that’s entirely false, at least, from a legal point of view. A creator retains copyright of his or her creation, until a certain amount of time has passed, or the creator deliberately relinquishes copyright.

Comics I Don’t Understand exists, in my opinion, in the legal limbo called “If Anyone Is Bothered By This, I’ll Stop, And, Until That Time, If Nobody Minds, I’ll Keep Doing It.”

Yeah, there is probably an argument to be made that this is technically illegal. However, most of us in the First World live under legal systems so complex that full enforcement of every law would make life extraordinarily difficult and annoying, and so, we basically have a societal agreement to ignore a significant pieces of the law in a significant number of cases. For the most part, the “If Somebody’s Bothered By This, I’ll Stop” protocol is good enough for this sort of situation, most of the time.

People who write fanfiction, for instance, usually include a disclaimer that says, in effect, “I got these characters/this world from $_CREATOR and I’m not making any sort of claim of ownership of them, and I’m also not making any money off of this.” Legally, this disclaimer does nothing. Copyright doesn’t distinguish between moneymaking and non-moneymaking ventures. If characters and worlds are copyrightable, and they probably are, fanfiction is pretty clearly a violation of copyright.

However, because nobody is hurt by it, creators tend to let it slide. Some creators are actually charmed by the idea that other people are so taken with their creations that they want to play, too. Some aren’t (Robin Hobb, for instance, has asked that nobody writes fanfic about her characters or worlds; Jo Walton is deeply uncomfortable with fanfic about HER stuff, but is willing to let it slide as long as nobody ever even tells her that it exists).

I think CDIU falls into a similar category. Most creators are charmed by the site’s existence, or at least accepting of it. And CDIU Bill is willing to work with the creators who aren’t. Therefore, even if it is technically illegal, in PRACTICE, those who would be harmed by it see themselves as NOT being harmed, and so ethics and honor allow it.
David N Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:48 pm 46

Or, if you just changed the words “comic books” to “comic strips” … I like it! It’s CIDU Bill! Excellent, Dave.

(I always like to give a Dave credit. )
Cidu Bill Mar 22nd 2010 at 09:58 pm 47

I think Ian’s essentially correct: I sincerely believe that everything I do here is legal — but if any comics creator believes otherwise, I’m not going to fight him over it.

Without mentioning any names, there are only two comic strip writers I’ve ever given reason to dislike this site: one of them is no longer with us and he probably figured I was going to Hell anyway; and the other, well, I guess either I’ve remained under his radar or he just doesn’t care.
paperboy Mar 22nd 2010 at 10:37 pm 48

Thanks, Morris Keesan#42- “we” DID feel wrong, but I had just seen Kenneth Branaugh’s “Henry V” and was thinking of the St. Crispin’s Day speech (”…We few, we happy few, we band of brothers…”) and I felt like giving the sentence a little touch of Harry, however ungrammatical.
Elyrest Mar 22nd 2010 at 11:35 pm 49

“there are only two comic strip writers I’ve ever given reason to dislike this site”

I’m guessing J.H. and T.B. I think J.H. thought most of us were going to hell.
Winter Wallaby Mar 23rd 2010 at 12:54 am 50

Copyright doesn’t distinguish between moneymaking and non-moneymaking ventures.

Well, one of the factors used to determine whether a use of copyrighted material is “fair use,” is whether the use is a moneymaking venture. My guess, though, is that even with the $50/yr, this site falls pretty firmly in the “fair use” category, and isn’t even technically illegal. But IANAL.

worst case of thread drift ever

So, who’s up for a good round of global warming discussion?
Powers Mar 23rd 2010 at 07:10 am 51

Wallaby — more accurately, fair use is guided by whether the use has a negative effect on the copyright holder’s ability to profit from the creative work. When that’s the case, it’s often because the infringing use is making money that would otherwise go to the copyright holder, but I believe it can still be fair use as long as the money would not otherwise be going to the copyright holder.

And in any case, it’s still correct to say that copyright doesn’t distinguish. =)
The Bad Seed Mar 23rd 2010 at 07:54 am 52

CIDU Bill (47) - And as for the one who’s still alive, at least you have rules here! A certain totally-unmoderated blog devoted entirely to his strip is definitely still alive - even though the owner is currently MIA. Maybe TB had him rubbed out.
Winter Wallaby Mar 23rd 2010 at 12:05 pm 53

Powers - One of the factors determining whether something is fair use is the uses impact on the copyright holder’s ability to profit from the creative work. Another, separate factor, is whether the use is a moneymaking venture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law

(BTW, I refer to US law, because that’s the only sort of law that matters. )
Mark in Boston Mar 23rd 2010 at 06:04 pm 54

You would think it would be fair use to buy one hymn book and make photocopies of your favorite hymns for everyone in the congregation, because it’s for religious purposes.

But it’s not fair use, because hymn book publishers need to make money to stay in business.
bAT L. Mar 24th 2010 at 07:02 am 55

Divergence of comments aside, I think the joke for this comic (if one is to be found) is self-referential. The creator of the comic is equating oil tycoons with comic creators, thereby pumping his or her own ego. Of course, in that case, the joke could be that comic creators are incredibly poor and this would just be a reversal on that obvious truth.
Dave Mar 26th 2010 at 06:21 pm 56

The men are standing very close, could it be a bit of “hands” on conversation happening?