marktrade's work in progress

[E-Day]

1 hour ago, KiwiArcader said:

American healthcare is just about the worst in the world if you can't pay or your job doesn't include it. Okay, third world countries are possibly worse, but then again some are probably better. 

Worst in the world among developed nations for sure, I would think.

[kitsunebi]

As an American who has been taken care of by another country's health care for the past 10 years, I fully agree.

To chime in with my personal opinions on the topic of "why can't we all just get along?" -- I agree that sites should be working together, and hosting each other's scans or posting links to each other's sites where people can access those scans is something I'd like to see happen.  I'd love our database to be able to link to Kiwi's site for scans he has that we don't or to archive or wherever. 

However, in these situations, I believe there are 2 things that are vital:

1) Give credit where it is due.  Our site has separate fields for scanners, editors and donators.  The general leeching public couldn't care less about who is responsible, but I feel that showing these credits nevertheless is a sign of respect and appreciation towards the people responsible for sacrificing their time and money to make these things available.  Yes, we could choose to upload everything at archive.org ourselves (giving credit to ourselves) to work around this problem, but it doesn't change the fact that Jason and others are uploading scans there without bothering to take the extra 5 seconds to credit where they got them from, which is disrespectful and goes directly against the spirit of camaraderie espoused in marktrade's comment.

2) If scans are appropriated from elsewhere, even if credit is given, the files should be left unmolested.  I think everyone knows my issues with RetroCDN shrinking and compressing our files, but it goes beyond just that.  If our mags contain a Retromags credit page at the end, that should always be included when sharing our scans.  Kiwi prefers PDF, so honestly I think his scans should be left that way when sharing (though at least in that case they could be converted between the two formats without actually altering the images.) 

I only upload files to Retromags, but I'm perfectly happy to have them shared anywhere and everywhere, so long as the two rules above are adhered to.

[KiwiArcader]

I adjust your scans but they are purely for my benefit. For example, in the case of the wonderful Tech Gian  ....

• I remove the retromags credit page as I think it detracts somewhat (That's why none of my websites scans have a page at the rear either)
• I shift the CD-Rom image to page 3 where applicable and put a reverse/buffer page in as per the actual magazine so the the following pages sit side by side correctly
• I remove your double pages as the PDF side by side view shows the original pages anyway (but I love how good you are at getting them lined up. Amazing work there!!!) 
• Convert to PDF

I think the resulting file mirrors the physical print version but I might be wrong. However I don't release them on my website in that format as I know your views on altering your files. I just personally like my own files that way.

If I could make a suggestion though, and it's only that, a suggestion, scan the CD and backing cardboard at the same resolution as the other pages and place them so that they sit in the CBR file just like the do in the physical magazine. That way page 5 is actually page 5 in the digital version. It's not like a small subscription insert which I don't bother with. It's an important aspect of the magazine so it should be exactly where it is sited in the print copy. But that's just me. As I said .... just a suggestion.

I had thought about making PDF versions of Retromags content and hosting them at my site so people had a choice of preferred file type but I'm already running 810GB of my 1TB mediafire account so I didn't have enough space and I also would want to edit the files so fold-out pages display as they do in the print copy (my PC Gamer's and Computer Games:Strategy Plus files show you what I mean) so I decided against it. Plus there's the fact I like differences/variety between sites to encourage people visiting ALL sites and not just one.

As far as my files are concerned, I have no problems with Retromags using them. Everyone else like Archive.org apparently is anyway. Feel free to convert them to .CBR format for the site. Just ensure that credit is given to the scanner, e.g, Kiwi@Kiwis.World or Jason@Kiwis.World etc or just Kiwis.World when uploading them here. As long as the quality aspect isn't interfered with I don't have a problem if people want to alter the files either (most likely related to fold-out pages as above as peoples preferences for those tend to vary)

[kitsunebi]

You are free and welcome to do whatever you want to my files for your own personal use, as I myself will do to files I particularly care about that I've downloaded from your site or archive.org, adjusting the white/black levels, brightness, etc. to suit my taste. 

2 hours ago, KiwiArcader said:

I remove your double pages as the PDF side by side view shows the original pages anyway (but I love how good you are at getting them lined up. Amazing work there!!!)

Yes, the side-by-side view is not a PDF-exclusive feature, and with any CBR reader, simple hotkey presses can switch between side-by-side two-page view, single page view, fit-to-height, fit-to-width, user designated height, and probably some others I'm forgetting.  I admit I don't take into consideration any limitations in the PDF format since our files are released as CBRs.  I release the stitched images in addition to the single page images because the single pages placed side-by-side do not create a seamlesss image - they are often misaligned and (in the case of bound magazines) are missing a small portion of the image from the gutter area which is not actually printed and so can't be scanned even when debinding the pages with a heat gun (this is where Photoshop and in particular the content-aware-fill tool is a must for recreating the missing areas).  When using a CBR reader, viewing both the seamless image and the individual pages is a snap.  And if someone doesn't want one or the other in the file, a CBR doesn't require any special software needed to convert the file to another format before the offending image(s) can be deleted.  Just open the archive and delete.

2 hours ago, KiwiArcader said:

If I could make a suggestion though, and it's only that, a suggestion, scan the CD and backing cardboard at the same resolution as the other pages and place them so that they sit in the CBR file just like the do in the physical magazine. That way page 5 is actually page 5 in the digital version. It's not like a small subscription insert which I don't bother with. It's an important aspect of the magazine so it should be exactly where it is sited in the print copy. But that's just me. As I said .... just a suggestion.

I was going to say that none of the mags has a cardboard backing, but then I remembered there was an issue of Dengeki Playstation D that did.  Nevertheless, Tech Gian and every other Japanese mag I own with a disc simply has the disc sealed in a clear plastic sleeve that has to be cut open to remove the disc.  Not anything that should be scanned.  Also, I don't have a flatbed scanner, so I just take a snapshot with my phone for the benefit of those who are curious as to what the disc looks like.   Personally, I don't care about the disc.  I don't own a PC with Win95 installed, so none of the demos are executable anyways. 

As for inserting blank pages for the purpose of keeping page numbers exact - remember, I'm not catering to PDF files, so the page numbers will be off anyway due to the stitched images being included, which I value more than accurate page numbers (the files themselves are numbered correctly).  And since the clear plastic sleeve containing the disc is meant to be cut out of the mag, I don't really see the necessity to keep it located in its starting location, interrupting the scanned magazine pages with a photograph of a disc.  Likewise, and I could be mistaken, but I don't think you include disc or disc sleeve scans with your PC Gamer scans, but even if you did, I wouldn't expect you to include them as separate files just because they were loose and separate from the mag itself in the polybag they were sold/shipped in.  Including them at the end of the scan would be perfectly acceptable to me, at least.

 

Also, while some sites (usually the ones not actually producing content) would like to be a one-stop-shop for all magazine scans, I have no problems keeping the files available here and on your site or wherever else separate.  What I would like to see is linking between the sites.  You don't have any kind of database for unscanned issues, so it doesn't really apply to your end on Kiwi's World, but I'd like to see our database list any mag that has a scan available at any site as "scanned," along with a link to the hosting site (if housed somewhere other than Retromags.)  Your content is yours and people should be encouraged to check out your site to get it.  But since we've got this wonderful database full of lots and lots of issues and covers that I personally have put a great deal of time into cultivating [cough], it's a shame not to use it as a resource to point people in the direction of whatever scans might exist, rather than just the ones found at Retromags itself.

 

[KiwiArcader]

Ahh. if it was only a plastic cover I understand now why it wasn't scanned. I thought, wrongly, that it might be enclosed in a cardboard sleeve.

Part of the reason why I stopped scanning GamePro was due to the fact Retromags members seem to be doing those along with EGM so I thought I'd simply step away from anything that has a remote chance of being scanned here. I have truckloads of UK and AUS/NZ content still to scan anyway.

Agreed re the database and displaying other sites content here if someone wants to input the information. I'm too busy keeping my site up to date to want to spend much time here doing it myself but if someone else wants to do so then go for it. The only problem I see here is that it might stop someone scanning their own copy of a magazine if they see it marked as "scanned" yet the original scan might have pages missing/damaged etc and could do with a rescan. There needs to be someway to note those sorts of issues/problems but that means someone looking at every page etc?

[kitsunebi]

On 1/4/2018 at 9:33 AM, Trinity said:

(long time lurker, first time poster{I think}, before I start I'd like to thank RetroMags, Old Game Mags/Kiwi's World, MarkTrade, Out of Print Archive, RetroPDFs, Archive.org and every person who contributed and continue to do so!)

Mark, I could not agree more with your tidings of sharing towards a common goal. I also agree with Kiwi's need for some sort of credit for being the original source. Honestly, when it comes to getting these mags in digital form, I think that sharing towards a common goal wins out. That said, and I'm not trying to get anything going with the mods, if anyone out there would like to share with me any scans of GameFan and/or Game Informer, I am more than happy to take that hit(should it ever come) and post them over at Archive.org. Granted, what I've got up so far are just what I could find online(mostly from Scott P's collection on Flickr, which I cannot describe to you how long it took to acquire page by single page and then put back together, lol), but in doing so I know that a few other sites{wink} have their own scans they aren't or simply can't share. With RetroMags and Old Game Mags/Kiwi's World doing what they can on the safer side of the tracks, and our common goal of just getting these mags out there digitally, I'm happy to contribute by posting them on the other side of the tracks should someone have anything they'd like share.

I didn't read or respond to this post at first because the OP mistakenly wrote the content inside of a quote box indicating it was all a quote from marktrade, so I assumed I had already read it.  For future reference, write your post outside of the quote box.

At any rate, please be assured that no one here is hiding a hoard of Gamefan scans from you.  When GameFan informed us that they do not want their scans shared, we respected their wishes and not only pulled the scans that had already been made, but we stopped scanning additional issues.  If you think it took a long time to copy someone's scan off of Flickr one page at a time, I assure you, it takes far longer to scan and edit a mag in the first place.  Since the mags could no longer be shared, there was no reason to devote hours and hours of wasted effort scanning and editing mags that could never be released (not to mention the fact that the magazine itself gets destroyed in the scanning process), so people devoted their time towards scanning other mags instead.  So I repeat, there are no secret unreleased scans of GameFan in the hands of Retromags members.

If you're happy to disrespect the wishes of the copyright holders to GameFan's content and post their issues elsewhere online, that's your own business, and you're free to scan, edit, and release additional issues of GameFan yourself at your leisure.  Retromags will continue to put our efforts into releasing mags that can be openly shared in a spirit of goodwill, however.

[Phillyman]

10 hours ago, KiwiArcader said:

 The only problem I see here is that it might stop someone scanning their own copy of a magazine if they see it marked as "scanned" yet the original scan might have pages missing/damaged etc and could do with a rescan. There needs to be someway to note those sorts of issues/problems but that means someone looking at every page etc?

The Magazine Database does have a status field that can have notes entered. It would be very easy for me to create a web page that just listed out any issues that were "Scanned" with "Status Notes" present.

[Trinity]

5 hours ago, kitsunebi77 said:

I didn't read or respond to this post at first because the OP mistakenly wrote the content inside of a quote box indicating it was all a quote from marktrade, so I assumed I had already read it.  For future reference, write your post outside of the quote box.

At any rate, please be assured that no one here is hiding a hoard of GameFan scans from you.  When GameFan informed us that they do not want their scans shared, we respected their wishes and not only pulled the scans that had already been made, but we stopped scanning additional issues.  If you think it took a long time to copy someone's scan off of Flickr one page at a time, I assure you, it takes far longer to scan and edit a mag in the first place.  Since the mags could no longer be shared, there was no reason to devote hours and hours of wasted effort scanning and editing mags that could never be released (not to mention the fact that the magazine itself gets destroyed in the scanning process), so people devoted their time towards scanning other mags instead.  So I repeat, there are no secret unreleased scans of GameFan in the hands of Retromags members.

If you're happy to disrespect the wishes of the copyright holders to GameFan's content and post their issues elsewhere online, that's your own business, and you're free to scan, edit, and release additional issues of GameFan yourself at your leisure.  Retromags will continue to put our efforts into releasing mags that can be openly shared in a spirit of goodwill, however.

Apologies on the quoted bit, after I had noticed what had happened I tried to edit it but there was no option to do so.

Hopefully the above will finally appease Dave?

The guy is an ass, and I have less than no problem posting GameFan content on Archive.org, same with the "free with any purchase" Game Informer that was given away at FuncoLand. There's this whole tear about ownership of scans and whatnot, and I get it, I've done a few myself, they are taxing and time consuming..but when it's something that no one wants to get caught with, what's the beef with "copying someone's scans off Flickr"? The mags were unreadable in that format, it has been years since the guy posted them, no one would take the initiative to do it, so I did it and now thanks to his efforts we now have 47 issues of GameFan available, in full, for people to view.

The whole point of my offer to the community was *IF* anyone has any GameFan or Game Informer scans they would like to see posted, I can and will do it, they just have to contact me. Not saying that RetroMags has a horde of either, not saying Out of Print Archive has them either, but *if anyone out there does*, and happens to be on the forum of, what is in my opinion, one of the two leading distributors of digital retro mag content, I was putting the offer out there. That's it, nothing heavy, and as I said at the very beginning of my last post  "I'm not trying to get anything going with the mods", I know it's a touchy subject.

In the end though, I don't mind taking the hit for copying other people's content, when said content is something they don't want to or can't be associated with. It's a common goal of all of us to get these mags out there, I'll help if you'll let me.

https://archive.org/details/@trinity_mileena

In other news, I should have all three issues of Manci Games posted over at Archive.org here in the next week or so. Issue three was never finished, but I'm asking that Jaysen send me what was produced and I'll try to put it together so that it can finally be viewed.

[kitsunebi]

2 hours ago, Trinity said:

but when it's something that no one wants to get caught with, what's the beef with "copying someone's scans off Flickr"? The mags were unreadable in that format, it has been years since the guy posted them, no one would take the initiative to do it, so I did it and now thanks to his efforts we now have 47 issues of GameFan available, in full, for people to view.

The whole point of my offer to the community was *IF* anyone has any GameFan or Game Informer scans they would like to see posted, I can and will do it, they just have to contact me. Not saying that RetroMags has a horde of either, not saying Out of Print Archive has them either, but *if anyone out there does*, and happens to be on the forum of, what is in my opinion, one of the two leading distributors of digital retro mag content, I was putting the offer out there. That's it, nothing heavy, and as I said at the very beginning of my last post  "I'm not trying to get anything going with the mods", I know it's a touchy subject.

In the end though, I don't mind taking the hit for copying other people's content, when said content is something they don't want to or can't be associated with. It's a common goal of all of us to get these mags out there, I'll help if you'll let me.

I have no beef with you copying people's Flickr posts, sorry if you thought I was criticizing you.  You had made a comment suggesting that it was an arduous, time-consuming process, and I was simply using that as a point of comparison to say that it was relatively quick and easy compared to the process of actually scanning and editing the mag in the first place, thus emphasizing the fact that no one was likely to put that much effort into a futile project like creating unreleasable scans.

As for helping...no offense, but any one of us...or anyone in the world, really, is free to upload Gamefan or anything else to archive.org with just about zero percent chance of any kind of repercussions.  If the content owner complains, archive.org may remove it, but it's unlikely to affect the uploader at all.  We could easily scan that mag and upload it to archive.org ourselves.  But with so many unscanned mags out there, why would we waste our time scanning mags that can't be used on our own site?  We wouldn't.  And as for some random forum lurker out there having lots of unreleased scans that they made and sat on for years... It would be nice, wouldn't it?  Hey, maybe someone has already scanned all the missing PC Gamers I'm looking for, too!  You hear that, internet?  If you've got unreleased scans of PC Gamer, don't be shy!  Step forward and share your bounty! 

Yeah, I get it.  It was worth a try.  But honestly, the best way you can help, if you're wanting to see those issues at archive.org, is to scan them yourself and put them there. There are pathetically few active scanners in this hobby and we desperately need more people willing to participate.  A few years ago, I really wanted to see some Japanese gaming mags, but neither Retromags nor anyone else had any.  So I bought some mags, I bought a scanner, and now there are 37 Japanese scans in our download section that I created myself.

Anyway, this has been a weird off-topic tangent in someone else's personal thread, so perhaps we should end it here.  If anyone is reading this who has scanned a bunch of magazines but never uploaded them anywhere, I encourage you to contact Trinity, who will be happy to upload them to archive.org for you if for some inexplicable reason you can't be bothered to do it yourself.

[Trinity]

Well, I definitely understand the playful jabs..but keep in mind, what you're joking about *never* happening did actually happen. Someone scanned nearly *40 issues* of a magazine, then either didn't want to or know how to put them together into a single file nor upload them to Archive(or anywhere else). That's kind of the point I'm making: If there are people out there who either don't want to deal with, don't know how to or just simply can't do anything with given scans that are banned from RetroMags or Old Game Mags, I'm willing to help them out. I'm not saying there's someone out there sitting on mountains of scans who don't know what to do with them, but maybe someone came across a rogue issue of Game Informer in some random torrent and doesn't want to deal with creating an account and uploading it anywhere. To me, just having it out there that I'm willing to help is what I wanted.

I'll leave it at that and will create a new thread once I get my hands on those Manci Games issues(I saw that you guys created a database entry for them). I do have the PDF for issue 2, currently, if you guys want it, just let me know.

[kitsunebi]

2 minutes ago, Trinity said:

I'll leave it at that and will create a new thread once I get my hands on those Manci Games issues(I saw that you guys created a database entry for them). I do have the PDF for issue 2, currently, if you guys want it, just let me know.

So long as it's an issue that you scanned and edited yourself, then sure, we'd love to have a look.

[Trinity]

It's not scanned, nor edited, it's the actual digital version before it went to print. If you want to take a look at it, I've got it posted over at Archive, and Jaysen will be sending me issue 1 and what he has of issue 3 at some point. It was a fun magazine, killed well before its time due to some poaching by an a-hole rival and then some behind the scenes drama involving a certain a-hole "Meston" .

[kitsunebi]

Well in that case, archive.org is where it belongs, and the other issues as well once you get a hold of them.  I've got nothing against digital mags and have hundreds in my personal archives, but as of now, Retromags has no plans to host digitally-released magazines.

[Trinity]

Ok, no problem. There's a guy selling the first two issues on eBay, so I guess they could always be scanned down the line..

[kitsunebi]

Just now, Trinity said:

Ok, no problem. There's a guy selling the first two issues on eBay, so I guess they could always be scanned down the line..

I'm personally of the opinion that if a good quality digital version is available, then a physical scan is unnecessary.  Sometimes digital versions are incomplete (missing ads, etc) or else the images might be low resolution, in which case a physical scan would be preferred, but if none of those problems exist, I see scanning the issue as a waste of time that could be better spent scanning something totally unavailable.  Just because we don't host digital releases here doesn't mean people can't get them elsewhere, so it's all good in the end.

[marktrade]

On 1/3/2018 at 5:53 PM, KiwiArcader said:

You make an interesting point about legitimacy yet the fact is that we, you and I, and anyone else scanning magazines are committing copyright offences under current law. Unless we receive permission from the rights holders to do so we can be held accountable under said law if they decide to prosecute. I'm guessing you know that or else you would have been happy to use your real name. Jason gets away with that as he isn't running or doesn't own Archive.org and there exists some sort of Library of Congress umbrella protection for that particular site.

Scanning for limited use is not an offense. There are vast library scanning projects happening all the time without permission from creators. Scanning and making public a searchable database has been ruled as transformative and therefore the same as original work in the eyes of American law. It is legitimate commerce.

I am unfamiliar with any specific protections for the Library of Congress, but if that is true then it is even more to your benefit to share in that protection by having an account at archive.org. Retromags and OldGameMags are effectively private libraries that can partner with other libraries and share private use. Retromags is a little more private because of limited membership, but there are pathways to legitimacy for all scanners.

This is not uplifting work. It is very lonely and unfulfilling, when you're always wondering if your hard work is going to be taken away or worse that you'll be punished for it. Working under that condition is unacceptable to me now. That it was ever acceptable to me gives me some embarrassment, but I started with desire to see certain magazines digitized and a critical level of impatience while waiting for someone else to do it.

No, a publisher does not have a right to keep me from enjoying a copy of one of its magazines that I own on a tablet and it certainly does not have a right to keep me from being able to search its entire library digitally, whether it's from my collection or someone else's. Anyone who says you can't do that, whether the magazine is GameFan or some other work the creator has asked not to be scanned, is in the wrong. One might wish to refuse to scan and make searchable GameFan out of respect to its creator, but it would not be out of respect for the law.

I haven't used my real name at first for the reasons you mention but later on as I learned more I wondered if I should. I experimented with a patreon to see if anyone would try to shut me down and they didn't. Instead I found increasing support. Not nearly enough to make it a career, but some of it was there to make me consider the possibility and if it is worth pursuing as a lifestyle. The events of 2017 convinced me that it was not for me.

[kitsunebi]

I know you've posted similar arguments many times in the past and believe what you say is true, but I'm sorry, I have to agree with Kiwi - everything we do here is an illegal violation of copyright law.  While it's true that it's unlikely to bring about legal action (to my knowledge, the only time our scans received a takedown notice from lawyers was when archive.org was forced to remove the collection of Nintendo Powers they took from our site and uploaded as their own), the simple fact that one hasn't been punished does not mean that one hasn't committed a crime.  It's true that the copyright owners of the magazines and advertisements you scanned and received money from via Patreon did not pursue legal action, but it isn't because they didn't have legal grounds to do so.  Most likely, they were completely unaware of your existence, and even if they were aware, it wouldn't have been worth their time and effort to sue, just as the RIAA isn't going to sue every small-time blog owner who uploads a few MP3s now and then.  Also, outside of a few isolated publishers and super-possessive corporations like Nintendo, most magazine publishers don't really care about what we're doing.  If they had intentions of selling back issues/PDFs or if we were charging money for our scans, then things might be different, but so long as neither of those applies, it's a case of no-harm, no-foul.

Again, I know you believe what you say is true, and debating the legality of what we do is a moot point since you've retired, but I feel it would be irresponsible to just leave such assertions unchallenged lest potential future scanners think that they're above the law and do something to bring unwanted attention to the hobby.

[E-Day]

As far as I know, the only magazines that I knew we existed but ignored us were GamePro and EGM. I communicated years with GamePro's editor at the time, Sid Shuman, and they were aware of us. He did an interview for our site as well. It's buried somewhere.

EGM was the other. Steve Harris also did an interview for this site (also buried somewhere), and also asked about using our scans for an upcoming project in the last year or two. He had full reason to tell us to take his stuff down, but he didn't. This could be for several reasons:

1. We are preserving content he had lost access to
2. We aren't making money from his stuff
3. He isn't trying to sell digitized versions himself
4. We stay out of the spotlight and won't fight with content owners about their content.

Gamefan and Game Informer are the others that I know know we exist, and we all know they do not want us doing what we do. But they are all civil people requesting their stuff be removed instead of jumping right to a lawsuit.

Does Nintendo know we exist? Or Future plc? No clue. Maybe Chris Slate, former EiC of Nintendo Power, Game Players, PSM, etc knows, but if he does he hasn't said anything to anyone letting them know. I reckon that Nintendo doesn't know otherwise they would have come knocking already.

Legally we don't really have the right to do what we do. Our scans aren't searchable in the sense that you can search for specific references, if that matters. The only magazines we may be allowed to scan are the ones that are abandoned where no person or company owns the copyright to them because the original publisher disappeared and their assets and IP were not bought by someone else.

[kitsunebi]

31 minutes ago, E-Day said:

Legally we don't really have the right to do what we do. Our scans aren't searchable in the sense that you can search for specific references, if that matters. The only magazines we may be allowed to scan are the ones that are abandoned where no person or company owns the copyright to them because the original publisher disappeared and their assets and IP were not bought by someone else.

Unfortunately due to the completely ridiculous nature of copyright law in the USA, copyrights do not lapse simply because the copyright holder goes out of business, just as it doesn't lapse upon the death of the copyright holder (not until 70 years later, anyway).  The copyright on any USA magazine in our archives will last until after anyone reading this now is dead. 

[E-Day]

I get that, but if there is no entity owning the rights to the magazine anymore, there is no one to come after us. It's like abandonware when the company is gone and no one bought the IP. It's not 100% legal, but it's in more of a grey area since there is no one to enforce the copyright. Or companies actually abandon the program. An example is Microsoft. They no longer support older versions of Windows. Tons of sites are offering Windows 98 and the like for download for free and have since support ended, and Microsoft isn't bothering with it.

[kitsunebi]

5 hours ago, E-Day said:

I get that, but if there is no entity owning the rights to the magazine anymore, there is no one to come after us. It's like abandonware when the company is gone and no one bought the IP. It's not 100% legal, but it's in more of a grey area since there is no one to enforce the copyright. Or companies actually abandon the program. An example is Microsoft. They no longer support older versions of Windows. Tons of sites are offering Windows 98 and the like for download for free and have since support ended, and Microsoft isn't bothering with it.

As I understand it, a magazine is a somewhat more complicated beast than certain other media such as a novel, since the contents are not copyrighted to a single entity.  The publisher has a copyright over the bulk of the contents to be sure, but depending on the nature of their contracts, the various authors of the articles therein may retain the copyright to their work.  Since magazines are periodicals not meant to be kept in print, sometimes the publisher may only have paid the authors for the rights to a single printing, after which the rights to certain individual articles therein would transfer to their respective authors.  Furthermore, the advertisements are copyrighted by the company or individual that created the ad.  This myriad of copyrights pertaining to the contents of a single issue is one reason that most publishers do not reprint their mags or sell 100% complete PDFs of their back issues, since they themselves often don't have the rights to do so. 

You're right that it's extremely unlikely that our work here would ever incur legal sanctions, but I wouldn't say it's a grey area.  It's pretty black and white and 100% illegal.  It just isn't worth anyone's time and money to sue over, since we aren't making money off of our copyright infringement or doing anything that would take away revenue from the copyright holders.  If we turned the site into an online store and charged money for every download, however, it's a pretty sure thing that at least one of those copyright holders would quickly put us in our place.

[KiwiArcader]

As far as I am aware the state of "Legal" scanning of mainstream titles sits something like:

• ANTIC - permission given for scanning/preservation by publisher/Editor James Capparell himself via other Atari websites as long as no financial gain occured
• ANALOG Computing/ST-Log - same from publisher Lee Pappas
• Newsfield titles - Zzap!64, Crash etc - permission received from Roger Kean however there is some disagreement doing the rounds I believe regarding another company acquiring rights to some of their works

To my knowledge that's about it although there are possibly more for esoteric systems of the early 1980's like Amstrad User magazine given Alan Sugar released the BIOS Roms into the public domain for this old range of computers and Amstrad published the title themselves.

What I do know is that Future PLC are very aware of their magazines being scanned as I believe Meppi sounded them out about legitimizing it but was told that while they turned a blind eye to it they would not give permission either. I guess once you do that you lose a certain amount of control of your IP,  even if you put conditions on such an agreement. 

marktrade made a comment about scanning for a database being transformative and therefore perfectly legal but I believe that simply means putting information from a magazine into a database. Scanning a magazine 100% and compiling back into a 100% complete digital version of the print copy wouldn't meet that criteria but hey, I'm no lawyer so happy to be proved wrong on that score. 

[MigJmz]

Is it ok to edit some of your PCG scans mark? You have so many that can be added to the site. Would love to work on some.

 

[kitsunebi]

3 hours ago, MigJmz said:

Is it ok to edit some of your PCG scans mark? You have so many that can be added to the site. Would love to work on some.

 

I'm not sure if Marktrade gets notifications of comments here (he hasn't logged in since January), but it is absolutely OK to edit any of Marktrade's unedited scans he has up at archive.org.  The whole reason he uploaded them there in the first place was to encourage people to edit them.  I edited and uploaded one of his PC Gamer scans here.  KiwiArcader has edited several of Marktrade's files as well, but since his site has a restricted membership, you're free to edit any of those files as well so that we can have a Retromags version of the file that can be shared with everyone.  (I encourage everyone to join Kiwi's World, though.  All it takes is a one-time donation, and they release scans on a nearly daily basis over there.  So not only will you get access to a whole bunch of PC Gamers, but tons of other mags, as well.)

[MigJmz]

sounds good

How to I get the full image when extracting a PDF? I keep getting small versions of the pages.