|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.fan.douglas-adams » Fit the 3rd, deleted material
| Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #37922] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 02:14 |
|
Okay, a few days ago, We were discussing here about the sequence which
was deleted from Fit the Third....The sequence in question being the
conversation that took place when our heroes were walking across the
surface of Magrathea and Marvin was playing music....
I mentioned to Kaare that I might try to edit this deleted sequence back
into the episode, so that it's exactly as it was when it was broadcast
originally on the radio.....
Well, I got bored tonight, and guess what....
I did it....
I'm pretty pleased with the results too....Sounds quite seamless to me....
I'm uploading it to my server as we speak, and I'll post a link when
it's fully uploaded in case anybody here wants to download it....
(I know....Piracy, blah blah....FAQ, yadda, yadda....If you don't
approve, ignore the link)
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #37924 ] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 02:19 |
|
Fat Sam wrote:
> Okay, a few days ago, We were discussing here about the sequence which
> was deleted from Fit the Third....The sequence in question being the
> conversation that took place when our heroes were walking across the
> surface of Magrathea and Marvin was playing music....
>
> I mentioned to Kaare that I might try to edit this deleted sequence back
> into the episode, so that it's exactly as it was when it was broadcast
> originally on the radio.....
>
> Well, I got bored tonight, and guess what....
>
> I did it....
Here it is guys....
http://www.fixaphoto.co.uk/misc/FIT-03.mp3
26.4mb.....Share and enjoy :-)
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #37926 ] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 03:08 |
|
"Fat Sam" <janetandsam [at] beeteeinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3evfn0F587grU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> (I know....Piracy, blah blah....FAQ, yadda, yadda....If you don't approve,
> ignore the link)
>
How can one pirate an original work of one's own creation, unless you
already sold the rights? (In which case, wow! and will you be my new
literary agent?) This is obviously an entirely new artwork of a derivative
nature.
Freakin' penguins!
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #38690 ] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 15:18 |
|
On 18/05/2005 01:14, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
> (I know. Piracy, blah blah. FAQ, yadda, yadda. If you don't
> approve, ignore the link.)
It's not piracy, because it's not commercially available. That's half the
point!
--
John Coxon
I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #38693 ] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 15:21 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 18/05/2005 01:14, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
>
>> (I know. Piracy, blah blah. FAQ, yadda, yadda. If you don't
>> approve, ignore the link.)
>
>
> It's not piracy, because it's not commercially available. That's half
> the point!
>
LOL, I'm going to call it a remix....Move over Fat Boy Slim...Make room
for Fat Boy Fat....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #38717 ] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 23:01 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> It's not piracy, because it's not commercially available. That's half the
> point!
Your having a larf !!! Sticking a bit extra onto something doesn't make it a
completely different work. If that were true all the pirates would have to
do is stick a header onto each file they upload. Utter bollox !
It is piracy because it is a breach of copyright.
(Whether or not something is being sold has bugger all to do with it. )
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #38720 ] |
Mi, 18 Mai 2005 23:15 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:428bac82$0$26106$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> It is piracy because it is a breach of copyright.
>
"Piracy" is fine for two reasons. First, only those productions that have
already repaid their creators in sales are worth having bootleg copies of,
and, second, those that are shared but were not commercial successes in the
first place are getting the only attention they are ever likely to receive.
The only folks really benefiting from anti-piracy campaigns are the
corporations with their stables of creative individuals.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44607 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 13:28 |
|
On 18/05/2005 22:01, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Steve Marshall spewed up:
> It is piracy because it is a breach of copyright.
>
> (Whether or not something is being sold has bugger all to do with it. )
We don't consider piracy of non-commercially available things to be a bad
thing, though.
--
John Coxon
It is said that if you line up all the cars in the world end to end, someone
would be stupid enough to try and pass them.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44627 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 15:15 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:428bac82$0$26106$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>>It is piracy because it is a breach of copyright.
>>
>
>
> "Piracy" is fine for two reasons. First, only those productions that have
> already repaid their creators in sales are worth having bootleg copies of,
Uhm... why? I would say that brand new unsold material is what is shared
the most. Heck, even music where every single penny you pay for it goes
to charity of one sort or another is heavily pirated.
> and, second, those that are shared but were not commercial successes in the
> first place are getting the only attention they are ever likely to receive.
That may make sense, but only for material not planned to be published.
> The only folks really benefiting from anti-piracy campaigns are the
> corporations with their stables of creative individuals.
I would like the world to be like that, but it isn't. If there was a
decent way for artists to actually distribute their material without
involving said corporation, and still getting the publicity they need to
make a living, well, yes, you would be right. As it isn't so, at least
not yet, you _are_ taking money from the artists too. Yes, it's _mostly_
bad for the corporations, but we are still lacking the alternative to
corporations. There may be hope that this will change soon.
As for the DNA material, I suppose his estate is pretty well off, and so
is the BBC, but if you want the BBC to continue producing material of
this sort, well, buying it is a pretty good way of showing it!
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44656 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 23:46 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:d6ncaa$n5$1 [at] domitilla.aioe.org...
>
> As for the DNA material, I suppose his estate is pretty well off, and so
> is the BBC, but if you want the BBC to continue producing material of this
> sort, well, buying it is a pretty good way of showing it!
>
The BBC is publicly funded.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44681 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 11:49 |
|
Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:d6ncaa$n5$1 [at] domitilla.aioe.org...
>
>>As for the DNA material, I suppose his estate is pretty well off, and so
>>is the BBC, but if you want the BBC to continue producing material of this
>>sort, well, buying it is a pretty good way of showing it!
>
> The BBC is publicly funded.
Of course it is. But I feel pretty confident that they also use the
money they make from the BBC shop, and that making a lot of money gives
a higher probability of them actually producing more. Anyway, if the
money were irrelevant, it would also show interest, and popularity has
always been a good bet for getting more material...
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44686 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 15:29 |
|
On 21/05/2005 22:46, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Dave Adalian spewed up:
> "Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
> news:d6ncaa$n5$1 [at] domitilla.aioe.org...
>
>>As for the DNA material, I suppose his estate is pretty well off, and so
>>is the BBC, but if you want the BBC to continue producing material of this
>>sort, well, buying it is a pretty good way of showing it!
>
> The BBC is publicly funded.
Public funding is not the biggest source of BBC funding. They get more from
the advertising they don't technically do (using Apple iBooks in programmes,
for example) and revenue from the BBC Shop, as I understand.
Plus, Last Chance to See is never going to be released if there's not a
profit in DNA material, and I'd really like a commercial release for that.
--
John Coxon
It is said that if you line up all the cars in the world end to end, someone
would be stupid enough to try and pass them.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44784 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 15:45 |
|
On 18/05/2005 01:14, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
> Okay, a few days ago, We were discussing here about the sequence which
> was deleted from Fit the Third. The sequence in question being the
> conversation that took place when our heroes were walking across the
> surface of Magrathea and Marvin was playing music.
>
> I mentioned to Kaare that I might try to edit this deleted sequence back
> into the episode, so that it's exactly as it was when it was broadcast
> originally on the radio.
I listened to it just now - the transition is definitely seamless but there
seems to be a slightly tinny quality to all the sound - that's probably just
my speakers, though. Well done!
--
John Coxon
"God doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44785 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 15:51 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
> On 18/05/2005 01:14, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious
> storms of unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
>
>> Okay, a few days ago, We were discussing here about the sequence which
>> was deleted from Fit the Third. The sequence in question being the
>> conversation that took place when our heroes were walking across the
>> surface of Magrathea and Marvin was playing music.
>>
>> I mentioned to Kaare that I might try to edit this deleted sequence
>> back into the episode, so that it's exactly as it was when it was
>> broadcast originally on the radio.
>
>
> I listened to it just now - the transition is definitely seamless
Woo-Hoo...It worked :-)
> but
> there seems to be a slightly tinny quality to all the sound - that's
> probably just my speakers, though.
Okay, you worried me there, so I ran a test....It comes through with a
good range of highs and lows on my PC, MP3 player, and on audio CD's
through my HiFi....What sort of speakers are you using?....
> Well done!
Hay-thangyoo....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44787 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 17:44 |
|
On 23/05/2005 14:51, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Fat Sam spewed up:
> John Coxon wrote:
>
>> but there seems to be a slightly tinny quality to all the sound -
>> that's probably just my speakers, though.
>
> Okay, you worried me there, so I ran a test....It comes through with a
> good range of highs and lows on my PC, MP3 player, and on audio CD's
> through my HiFi....What sort of speakers are you using?....
Heavily buggered up Philips shite ones.
--
John Coxon
"God doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44896 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 03:10 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
Steve Marshall wrote:
>
> > It is piracy because it is a breach of copyright.
> >
> > (Whether or not something is being sold has bugger all to do with it. )
>
> We don't consider piracy of non-commercially available things to be a bad
> thing, though.
It seems that many people don't consider piracy of commercially available
material to be a bad thing either !
The thing is, if you are going to sure then you need to show a loss i.e an
amount of money. If you are giving some of your work away for free and
someone illegally copies it you'll have a hard time trying to protect your
work.
An example would be your HHGG game walkthrough. It is freely available and
anyone could take it and stick in on their website. I think you didn't like
that idea ?
I've tried to protect myself before from a website that had some material
which I wanted removing. I complained to the ISP who shut the website down,
(against my wishes as it happens), and the website came back with a new
address.
The right isn't so much about earning money as having the right to control
distribution - it is the right to copy. It isn't much fun have control of
your own material taken away from you. It is wrong having someone else make
use of your work. You may want to use material to support an organisation
for instance. If someone goes and nicks it then that organisation may suffer
as well.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44897 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 03:29 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta [at] comcast.net> wrote
> "Piracy" is fine for two reasons. First, only those productions that have
> already repaid their creators in sales are worth having bootleg copies of,
That is simply untrue.
I wonder what you consider the point at which the creators are repaid ???
Copyright also allows for control of distribution and hence quality.
Bootlegs are often shoddily put together and of a poor standard which
doesn't show the creator in their best light.
> and, second, those that are shared but were not commercial successes in
the
> first place are getting the only attention they are ever likely to
receive.
Again false. They are being denied of what little income they may have
received.
I know of prominant musicians who you'd expect to have got a decent income,
but they only got a wage. As soon as they stopped gigging they stopped
earning. They may get a few quid royalties from record sales. Getting
attention doesn't pay the bills.
> The only folks really benefiting from anti-piracy campaigns are the
> corporations with their stables of creative individuals.
Bingo. A hat trick of false claims.
Sure it's mostly corporations as they represent most of the business they
are trying to protect. There are still a number of free agents, small
businesses, independent firms and indeed the general populous who benefit .
Funding makes things work in this world. If something is going to be a
success then it needs funding. That is why most major films including the
recent HHGG one have some pretty big product placement in there. It all
relates back to punters that put money in their pockets to pay for various
products and services which support each other. Pirates don't support anyone
but themselves other than whatever else illegal enterprises they are
involved in.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44914 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 13:15 |
|
On 25/05/2005 02:29, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Steve Marshall spewed up:
> "Dave Adalian" <dpalta [at] comcast.net> wrote
>
>>"Piracy" is fine for two reasons. First, only those productions that have
>>already repaid their creators in sales are worth having bootleg copies of,
>
> That is simply untrue.
> I wonder what you consider the point at which the creators are repaid ???
> Copyright also allows for control of distribution and hence quality.
> Bootlegs are often shoddily put together and of a poor standard which
> doesn't show the creator in their best light.
>
>>and, second, those that are shared but were not commercial successes in
>>the first place are getting the only attention they are ever likely to
>>receive.
>
> Again false. They are being denied of what little income they may have
> received.
> I know of prominant musicians who you'd expect to have got a decent income,
> but they only got a wage. As soon as they stopped gigging they stopped
> earning. They may get a few quid royalties from record sales. Getting
> attention doesn't pay the bills.
>
>>The only folks really benefiting from anti-piracy campaigns are the
>>corporations with their stables of creative individuals.
>
> Bingo. A hat trick of false claims.
> Sure it's mostly corporations as they represent most of the business they
> are trying to protect. There are still a number of free agents, small
> businesses, independent firms and indeed the general populous who benefit .
> Funding makes things work in this world. If something is going to be a
> success then it needs funding. That is why most major films including the
> recent HHGG one have some pretty big product placement in there. It all
> relates back to punters that put money in their pockets to pay for various
> products and services which support each other. Pirates don't support anyone
> but themselves other than whatever else illegal enterprises they are
> involved in.
I completely agree. Piracy of commercially available material is wrong, and
it is not permitted here, end of story.
There are plenty of places one might go to get pirated materials, and
they're not hard to find, we're just not going to discuss them or make them
easier to find.
That has been the policy since I can remember, I think.
--
John Coxon
"God doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #44915 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 13:18 |
|
On 25/05/2005 02:10, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Steve Marshall spewed up:
> "John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>Steve Marshall wrote:
>>
>>>It is piracy because it is a breach of copyright.
>>>
>>>(Whether or not something is being sold has bugger all to do with it.)
>>
>>We don't consider piracy of non-commercially available things to be a bad
>>thing, though.
>
> It seems that many people don't consider piracy of commercially available
> material to be a bad thing either !
I know, worrying, isn't it?
> The thing is, if you are going to sure then you need to show a loss i.e an
> amount of money. If you are giving some of your work away for free and
> someone illegally copies it you'll have a hard time trying to protect your
> work.
>
> An example would be your HHGG game walkthrough. It is freely available and
> anyone could take it and stick in on their website. I think you didn't like
> that idea ?
Oh, no, I hated it. But that's because I asked people not to do it. And
because it's not rocket science to actually go to gamefaqs.com or ign.com
seeing as they're the two biggest gaming sites on the Internet.
> I've tried to protect myself before from a website that had some material
> which I wanted removing. I complained to the ISP who shut the website down,
> (against my wishes as it happens), and the website came back with a new
> address.
That would be very annoying, I sympathise.
However, with something that's been on the radio and is no longer available,
it's a subtly different story. With my walkthrough, anybody can access it
therefore I don't like people pirating it and taking it away from the places
it has been put on by me.
But since, say, Hyperland is not available anywhere, I'm ok with people
copying and spreading that around.
--
John Coxon
"God doesn't play dice." - Albert Einstein.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #45029 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 02:09 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> However, with something that's been on the radio and is no longer
available,
> it's a subtly different story. With my walkthrough, anybody can access it
> therefore I don't like people pirating it and taking it away from the
places
> it has been put on by me.
>
> But since, say, Hyperland is not available anywhere, I'm ok with people
> copying and spreading that around.
Sorry but if you control distribution rights that may also include
nondistribution. It doesn't make it OK to pirate it if it isn't readily
available. Someone may want to distribute something which may be seen as
commercially dead. For example Amstrad have hung on to Spectrum programs and
made them available to download on their emailer phones. Atari software was
pretty much seen as dead though some companies that owned the rights were
trying to sell PC versions of the old titles. The rights were sold on to
Infogrames who changed their name to Atari and have been releasing new
software since reviving the old 'dead' company.
Piracy ethos says if you haven't got something nick it. It is wrong. Whether
or not you can legitimately get hold of something doesn't matter. If you
nick it, it is wrong. I can't have the crown jewels, the Mona Lisa or my
neighbours car. Should I try and nick them because I can't get them
legitimately ?
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #45031 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 04:53 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4293d424$0$39054$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> "Dave Adalian" <dpalta [at] comcast.net> wrote
>
>> "Piracy" is fine for two reasons. First, only those productions that
>> have
>> already repaid their creators in sales are worth having bootleg copies
>> of,
>
> That is simply untrue.
> I wonder what you consider the point at which the creators are repaid ???
> Copyright also allows for control of distribution and hence quality.
> Bootlegs are often shoddily put together and of a poor standard which
> doesn't show the creator in their best light.
>
>> and, second, those that are shared but were not commercial successes in
> the
>> first place are getting the only attention they are ever likely to
> receive.
>
> Again false. They are being denied of what little income they may have
> received.
> I know of prominant musicians who you'd expect to have got a decent
> income,
> but they only got a wage. As soon as they stopped gigging they stopped
> earning. They may get a few quid royalties from record sales. Getting
> attention doesn't pay the bills.
>
>> The only folks really benefiting from anti-piracy campaigns are the
>> corporations with their stables of creative individuals.
>
> Bingo. A hat trick of false claims.
> Sure it's mostly corporations as they represent most of the business they
> are trying to protect. There are still a number of free agents, small
> businesses, independent firms and indeed the general populous who benefit
> .
> Funding makes things work in this world. If something is going to be a
> success then it needs funding. That is why most major films including the
> recent HHGG one have some pretty big product placement in there. It all
> relates back to punters that put money in their pockets to pay for various
> products and services which support each other. Pirates don't support
> anyone
> but themselves other than whatever else illegal enterprises they are
> involved in.
>
Here's my take on this, Steve, and I'm drawing here on personal experience.
Very recent experience as a matter of fact. Though this is far from the
first time something similar has happened.
About six weeks ago I wrote and sold an article on sunglasses. This is not
unusual in and of itself as it is what I do for a living, write freelance
for whoever's paying, although not, thankfully, solely on the subject of
sunglasses. Yesterday afternoon, I got an email alert that my name had
turned up in the news as a byline in the Washington Olympian on that same
story. I live in central California, roughly 900 miles south of Washington
and have never visited. I was credited in the Olympian as a reporter for
the Arizona Republic. For those keen on geography, Arizona is several
hundred miles east of here, and though I have visited it was not during this
millennium. I did not give permission to either of these esteemed media
outlets to reproduce this article.
Curious, I called the editor who had purchased the article this morning
early before she had a chance to slip out for an extended lunch. She told
me she herself had placed the story on the wire, along with others that
appear in her publication, one ultimately owned by Gannett, Inc., the folks
responsible for USA Today and its sister papers. They apparently interpret
one-time rights to mean a single iteration through their global news
service. My editor was, however, upset that her publication had not
received its due as the originator of the story. Was there a possibility of
more money I wondered aloud? "He-he, hoo... We just had a budget meeting
last week. Wow," was the non-answer. She did however agree in future to
let me know when my stories go on the wire.
Fine. Thanks.
Now, I had a choice to make. This particular editor is a very cool head
(read: hoopy frood) and has dumped about $500 a month in assignments in my
lap over the last six months, mostly stuff I'd never really want to write
about ever, ever, ever, never. Ever. But, I have a wife, two children,
yada, yada, yada. Complain and stand up for my rights, or not?
Look, one has to understand this is standard treatment of all creative
people who ply a craft for a fee. We all know this, accept it and fight
like hell against it, or at least should and most do when we can. But we
don't bite the hand that feeds us, even if it ain't giving what we should be
getting. If we're any good we'll get there one day or die in the process
and with any luck at least making some cash for our survivors.
But that's not really the point I was aiming at, which is this: They think
the story belongs to them for the moment and I would tend to disagree, but
not out loud. See, they've just given me coverage the original sale
couldn't possibly ever have gotten me. I am now writing for a national
audience (international really, since they've also posted these reprints on
the web), whether by consent or not, and I intend to capitalize. I can now
use those bylines to help me get other jobs.
This is not an isolated case, which is what makes that jerk-off from
Metallica whining about file-sharing eating into his profits so completely
hypocritical and also lets me know you don't have much handle on this issue
or any extensive first-hand experience. Metallica built their career on
letting their fans share bootleg concert tapes. Grateful Dead did the same
thing, though more to sustain themselves, and have spawned an entire genre
that makes its money performing. And despite all the yakking of the
lawyers, sales of CDs and such are still up.
Don't take this to mean I'm in support of organized criminal activity
designed to capitalize on the current popularity of a given creative
effort--in other words, genuine piracy of producing a retail product
indistinguishable from the original--but the actual subject of the moment,
file sharing, on the other hand, is just dandy as it generally benefits the
artists and boosts individual sales over the long-term. Case in point: I
recently purchased the DVD of the BBC's TV version of the Guide after
listening to bootleg MP3's of the Tertiary Phase.
Everyone knows this is a gray area, and we don't need anyone shaking their
finger at us. I certainly don't need or want someone insisting their
opinion is "true" while mine is "false", a foolish notion in and of itself.
Yours is a ridiculous simplification of an extremely complex situation
regarding which you've managed to form an opinion without having given the
realities much thought. If it makes you uncomfortable or turn red with a
foaming, passionate hatred, ignore it and get on with your life.
Share and enjoy!
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #45036 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 09:30 |
|
Piracy... thorny.
Downloading something as a sampling method to buy - I don't have a
problem with, and believe is the future of the whole shebang. I own
many albums I would otherwise not own if it weren't for others sharing
their music with me. (not just mp3s, but cassette tapes too, back in
the day)
Downloading as a means to get around buying... is poor form.
Me? I've downloaded all the tertiary phase, and I'll buy them too.
Otoh, I've also downloaded stuff that was crap - would not buy, and
have thus deleted the downloads.
This strikes me as fair, reasonable, and overall non "evil".
:)
*clink*clink*clang*
..../Nemo
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #45040 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 11:29 |
|
On 26/05/2005 03:53, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Dave Adalian spewed up:
<snip incredibly long discussion about piracy>
> Everyone knows this is a gray area, and we don't need anyone shaking their
> finger at us. I certainly don't need or want someone insisting their
> opinion is "true" while mine is "false", a foolish notion in and of itself.
> Yours is a ridiculous simplification of an extremely complex situation
> regarding which you've managed to form an opinion without having given the
> realities much thought. If it makes you uncomfortable or turn red with a
> foaming, passionate hatred, ignore it and get on with your life.
OK, while you may have several points they are either very subjective
(referring to the experience you have had that you describe above) or they
are referring to the music industry. There are obviously parallels, and
nobody here on afda is saying that people cannot pirate - it's up to them.
However, we don't like people to encourage piracy on afda. I myself have
been known to download illegally (although not regularly as I only have
dial-up and no broadband), and I've never said that that's wrong, but the
point is that it does not belong on afda unless it is not commercially
available.
Piracy does not belong on this froup.
--
John Coxon
"First things first - but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #45041 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 11:33 |
|
On 26/05/2005 01:09, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Steve Marshall spewed up:
> Sorry but if you control distribution rights that may also include
> nondistribution. It doesn't make it OK to pirate it if it isn't readily
> available. Someone may want to distribute something which may be seen as
> commercially dead. For example Amstrad have hung on to Spectrum programs and
> made them available to download on their emailer phones. Atari software was
> pretty much seen as dead though some companies that owned the rights were
> trying to sell PC versions of the old titles. The rights were sold on to
> Infogrames who changed their name to Atari and have been releasing new
> software since reviving the old 'dead' company.
OK, you may have a point, but afda policy has always been that we do not
condemn piracy of non-commercial materials, and that's how it's going to
continue for the forseeable future, as it works.
The Beeb isn't doing enough to get DNA's works out there. As DNA fans we
are liable to want to get our grubby mitts on the stuff we can't buy, and as
we can't buy it, we turn to piracy to get it.
I myself have somewhere in the region of 2.5gb of DNA stuff, and I would lay
bets that a hefty proportion of that was illegally gotten (The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Future, for example).
If these shows came out commercially I would go out and buy them, of course.
But if it's not readily available afda doesn't mind if you pirate it, in
the main. That's how it's been for over two years now, as far as I can see.
--
John Coxon
"First things first - but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #45042 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 11:34 |
|
On 26/05/2005 08:30, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and earthnative [at] gmail.com spewed up:
> Piracy... thorny.
>
> Downloading something as a sampling method to buy - I don't have a
> problem with, and believe is the future of the whole shebang. I own
> many albums I would otherwise not own if it weren't for others sharing
> their music with me. (not just mp3s, but cassette tapes too, back in
> the day)
>
> Downloading as a means to get around buying... is poor form.
>
> Me? I've downloaded all the tertiary phase, and I'll buy them too.
>
> Otoh, I've also downloaded stuff that was crap - would not buy, and
> have thus deleted the downloads.
>
> This strikes me as fair, reasonable, and overall non "evil".
Nobody could ever accuse you of being evil, nemo.
--
John Coxon
"First things first - but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48941 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 20:07 |
|
John Coxon wrote:
<snip>
> Nobody could ever accuse you of being evil, nemo.
Sure they could! Look:
"You are evil, Nemo"
See, I accused him. Right there!
Oh, you mean it wouldn't be fair to accuse him? Ah. Well, no argument
there :-)
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48942 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 20:12 |
|
"Kaare Fiedler Christiansen" <news [at] kaarefc.dk> wrote in message
news:42961062$0$728$edfadb0f [at] dread16.news.tele.dk...
> John Coxon wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Nobody could ever accuse you of being evil, nemo.
>
> Sure they could! Look:
>
> "You are evil, Nemo"
>
> See, I accused him. Right there!
>
> Oh, you mean it wouldn't be fair to accuse him? Ah. Well, no argument
> there :-)
>
> Best
> Kåre
Well, call me a taxi!
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48975 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:09 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fljbfF83domU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> OK, you may have a point, but afda policy has always been that we do not
> condemn piracy of non-commercial materials, and that's how it's going to
> continue for the forseeable future, as it works.
>
Are you appointing yourself as sole member of the unilateral rules committee
or do the rest of us get some occasional input?
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48976 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:09 |
|
"Neil Gerace" <geracen [at] iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:42961267$0$19512$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Well, call me a taxi!
You're a taxi!
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48979 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:17 |
|
On 26/05/2005 19:12, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Neil Gerace spewed up:
> Well, call me a taxi!
You, sir, are a taxi!
--
John Coxon
"First things first - but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48990 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:30 |
|
On 26/05/2005 21:09, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Dave Adalian spewed up:
> "John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fljbfF83domU1 [at] individual.net...
>
>>OK, you may have a point, but afda policy has always been that we do not
>>condemn piracy of non-commercial materials, and that's how it's going to
>>continue for the forseeable future, as it works.
>
> Are you appointing yourself as sole member of the unilateral rules committee
> or do the rest of us get some occasional input?
I'm telling you the rules as they have been for the last two years.
Deal with it.
--
John Coxon
"First things first - but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48995 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:49 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fmpq4F8jemvU12 [at] individual.net...
>>
>>>OK, you may have a point, but afda policy has always been that we do not
>>>condemn piracy of non-commercial materials, and that's how it's going to
>>>continue for the forseeable future, as it works.
>>
>> Are you appointing yourself as sole member of the unilateral rules
>> committee or do the rest of us get some occasional input?
>
> I'm telling you the rules as they have been for the last two years.
>
> Deal with it.
>
Actually, if you'll reread what you've written, you are in fact stating as
absolute the future opinion of the froup. At least I assume that's what you
meant by "...and that's how it's going to continue for the foreseeable
future. ..." Perhaps I'm allowing too broad an interpretation or you've got
a different dictionary from the ones I've been using.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #48998 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 22:56 |
|
On 26/05/2005 21:49, five wild Event Maelstroms swirled in vicious storms of
unreason and Dave Adalian spewed up:
> "John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3fmpq4F8jemvU12 [at] individual.net...
>
>>>>OK, you may have a point, but afda policy has always been that we do not
>>>>condemn piracy of non-commercial materials, and that's how it's going to
>>>>continue for the forseeable future, as it works.
>>>
>>>Are you appointing yourself as sole member of the unilateral rules
>>>committee or do the rest of us get some occasional input?
>>
>>I'm telling you the rules as they have been for the last two years.
>>
>>Deal with it.
>
> Actually, if you'll reread what you've written, you are in fact stating as
> absolute the future opinion of the froup. At least I assume that's what you
> meant by "...and that's how it's going to continue for the foreseeable
> future. ..." Perhaps I'm allowing too broad an interpretation or you've got
> a different dictionary from the ones I've been using.
It is going to continue for the forseeable future because the same people
are here as were here two years ago. Some new people have come in, but the
prevailing opinion is still anti-piracy.
So stop bringing it up. We've made the case clear.
You want to pirate? Go somewhere else and do it, please. Don't use afda to
do it.
--
John Coxon
"First things first - but not necessarily in that order." - Doctor Who.
Email: john[dot]coxon[at]gmail[dot]com
Website: http://alphacentauri.8k.com
Missing footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemowiki.pl?ISFN
ZZ9 - the official HHGG appreciation society: http://www.zz9.org/
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49002 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 01:32 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fmraoF8l97hU3 [at] individual.net...>>
>> Actually, if you'll reread what you've written, you are in fact stating
>> as absolute the future opinion of the froup. At least I assume that's
>> what you meant by "...and that's how it's going to continue for the
>> foreseeable future. ..." Perhaps I'm allowing too broad an
>> interpretation or you've got a different dictionary from the ones I've
>> been using.
>
> It is going to continue for the forseeable future because the same people
> are here as were here two years ago. Some new people have come in, but
> the prevailing opinion is still anti-piracy.
>
That's simply an assumption based on personal preference.
> So stop bringing it up. We've made the case clear.
I didn't bring it up. You did. And who exactly is "we"?
> You want to pirate? Go somewhere else and do it, please. Don't use afda
> to do it.
You just asked for MP3s of something or other and justified it because it
wasn't commercially available. You're pirating, not me, and you're doing it
on afda. To wit:
"I myself have somewhere in the region of 2.5gb of DNA stuff, and I would
lay
bets that a hefty proportion of that was illegally gotten (The Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Future, for example)."
Either way I don't have a big problem with this behavior; you apparently do.
But, this is just a distraction from my original point, which is that you
keep stating categorically this or that particular opinion is somehow a rule
for discussion and posting on an unmoderated newsgroup. This is
particularly insulting when you demand others do what you feel free to
practice yourself, such as pirating or discussing God and religion. When I
point this out, your responses run along the lines of "deal with it" or
"stop bringing it up". At least this time you said please.
What I completely fail to understand is what possible difference it could
make to you personally.
Chiggy.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49006 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 01:55 |
|
Neil.
It has come to my attention that you are an automobile for hire for
short journeys at high price. You move people for money.
In short, you are a taxi.
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49007 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 02:10 |
|
<earthnative [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Downloading something as a sampling method to buy - I don't have a
> problem with, and believe is the future of the whole shebang.
Downloading stuff is often fine under existing copyright due to fair useage
rules.
> Downloading as a means to get around buying... is poor form.
>
> Me? I've downloaded all the tertiary phase, and I'll buy them too.
I think most people indulge in a bit of this sort of thing. I taped them. I
do have copied CDs and that kind of thing, which leads on to my buying
proper CDs of stuff by that artist.
> Otoh, I've also downloaded stuff that was crap - would not buy, and
> have thus deleted the downloads.
>
> This strikes me as fair, reasonable, and overall non "evil".
I'm not saying it is evil, (breaking copyright not downloading - downloading
as I've said may be perfectly OK) I'm saying that it is illegal and people
should recognise the fact instead of trying to invent reasons to make their
actions seem OK or even virtuous.
It's a bit like speeding. Just because everyone does it ... ... ...
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49011 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 02:45 |
|
"John Coxon" <rogue_nine_1988 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> OK, you may have a point, but afda policy has always been that we do not
> condemn piracy of non-commercial materials, and that's how it's going to
> continue for the forseeable future, as it works.
Firstly I'm not condemning piracy. I'm challenging people's views that say
it is OK to break copyright because ....<insert lame excuse> ..... If you
are going to indulge in illegal activity, do it in the full knowledge that
it is.
Secondly I challenge your comment and suggest that "afda policy" if there is
such a thing, is to favour and support the legitimate releases. People don't
like to condemn piracy because it generally cause arguments and bad vibes in
teh group which most people would liek to avoid, thank you very much. That
doesn't mean we have a group policy of noncondemning priacy.
And ... we are not talking about non-commercial material in this case. We
are talking about a commercially available product with a bit stuck back in,
which was what my point was a while back there somewhere. Then I went on to
point out that whether or not it is commercial has bugger all to do with it.
> The Beeb isn't doing enough to get DNA's works out there.
Oh bugger off. I think at this time there is more DNA material available
from the BBC than at any time previously. They are reshowing the TV program
as well doing the new radio programs and making those available on CD - with
extra material.
> As DNA fans we
> are liable to want to get our grubby mitts on the stuff we can't buy, and
as
> we can't buy it, we turn to piracy to get it.
The reason you can't buy it was because the BBC got caught breaking
copyright by using Pink Floyd material they hadn't got proper permission to
use.
Most people have and do obtain illegal copies. I taped the original radio
series (though I did buy it later) and I've more recently got a DVD of the
South Bank Show thanks to a chap I bumped into here. Most people have this
sort of stuff - but it is matreial for which you can be nicked and fined or
even slung in jail for. If you stuck Pink Floyd on all your contraband you
are still as liable !
> If these shows came out commercially I would go out and buy them, of
course.
> But if it's not readily available afda doesn't mind if you pirate it, in
> the main. That's how it's been for over two years now, as far as I can
see.
It isn't up to afda . As far as I can see afda is not something that can or
can't mind. I am part of afda and I've been here longer than 2 years.
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49012 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 03:16 |
|
"Dave Adalian" <dpalta [at] comcast.net> wrote
> About six weeks ago I wrote and sold an article on sunglasses. This is
not
> unusual in and of itself as it is what I do for a living, write freelance
> for whoever's paying, although not, thankfully, solely on the subject of
> sunglasses. Yesterday afternoon, I got an email alert that my name had
> turned up in the news as a byline in the Washington Olympian on that same
> story. I live in central California, roughly 900 miles south of
Washington
> and have never visited. I was credited in the Olympian as a reporter for
> the Arizona Republic. For those keen on geography, Arizona is several
> hundred miles east of here, and though I have visited it was not during
this
> millennium. I did not give permission to either of these esteemed media
> outlets to reproduce this article.
Contracts are the key. Did you sell her the copyright or just grant
permission to print. Is she allowed to send it out to other publications ?
ect etc.
Original authors don't always have the copyright as you'll know. that's how
Michael Jackson has the rights to the Beatles. The performing rights keep a
control of things like music a bit better than newspaper/ magazine articles
because people accept that the work will be reused and replayed so often.
Radio shows have to keep track of everyting they play so that royalties can
get paid.
Once articles are printed they can appear all over the web and get copied
and sent around in now time. There isnt' a system (that I'm aware of) to
keep track of when and where things turn up which makes it important to use
the recognised copyright message on all your work if you want to stand any
chance of claiming or protecting your work.
>
> Curious, I called the editor who had purchased the article this morning
> early before she had a chance to slip out for an extended lunch. She told
> me she herself had placed the story on the wire, along with others that
> appear in her publication, one ultimately owned by Gannett, Inc., the
folks
> responsible for USA Today and its sister papers. They apparently
interpret
> one-time rights to mean a single iteration through their global news
> service.
You get that sort of thing with papers. In this area we have several local
papers which are mostly produced by the same company. An article may appear
in any number of their papers adn on the website version. I expect the
authors get paid once not every time it is printed.
What some folk do is keep the copyright of all their work and ask publishers
to pay for each using the work like they may for photos. Some photos are
bought and can then be used freely by the network but models for instance
may own all their own photos.
> Now, I had a choice to make. This particular editor is a very cool head
> (read: hoopy frood) and has dumped about $500 a month in assignments in
my
> lap over the last six months, mostly stuff I'd never really want to write
> about ever, ever, ever, never. Ever. But, I have a wife, two children,
> yada, yada, yada. Complain and stand up for my rights, or not?
>
> Look, one has to understand this is standard treatment of all creative
> people who ply a craft for a fee. We all know this, accept it and fight
> like hell against it, or at least should and most do when we can. But we
> don't bite the hand that feeds us, even if it ain't giving what we should
be
> getting. If we're any good we'll get there one day or die in the process
> and with any luck at least making some cash for our survivors.
It is the case with Mp3s and shareware. People are perfectly happy to have
the public distribute their material for free if it then allows them to
start making money. Once they are making money however they don't want
people freely distributing their work which they want paying for.
I expect many people are using AVG antivirus on their computer, largely
because it is freely available. They do so in order to expose themselves to
as many potential customers as possible and quite a number do buy the full
version.
> But that's not really the point I was aiming at, which is this: They
think
> the story belongs to them for the moment and I would tend to disagree, but
> not out loud.
Depends on the contract !
Your after money at the end of the day. If they could get hold of your work
and distribute it without paying you, how happy would you be then ?
Steve M
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49013 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 03:51 |
|
"Steve Marshall" <sdm [at] atmosBlockA.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42966cfb$0$39088$ed2e19e4 [at] ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>> But if it's not readily available afda doesn't mind if you pirate it,
>> in
>> the main. That's how it's been for over two years now, as far as I can
> see.
>
> It isn't up to afda . As far as I can see afda is not something that can
> or
> can't mind. I am part of afda and I've been here longer than 2 years.
>
Bingo!
|
|
|
| Re: Fit the 3rd, deleted material [message #49018 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 08:47 |
|
Reason not withstanding the universe continued unabated and
earthnative [at] gmail.com spoke forth:
>Neil.
>
>It has come to my attention that you are an automobile for hire for
>short journeys at high price. You move people for money.
>
>In short, you are a taxi.
You could chnage your name to Joe and cute French people may sing to
you...
--
D.
"The Sphynx of the Caverns is the deadliest of all.
It possesses the head of a snake,
the body of a snake
and the feet of a snake."
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:09:43 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,40836 Sekunden |
