The movie is done! someone in this verse must have a copy! by serenityfan2004

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

even though its not a personal issue I think its kind of funny and ironic..that we all love a show where the main charactors are theives..

yet the actors, writers, designers and countless others who make the show a reality are not. reality.. you do know what that is? I can assure you stealing the data you have on the internet is quite illegal, not just because I say so, but because the congressmen who make our LAWS say so. I sincerely hope you find that out the hard way some day.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 11:45 AM

SUCCATASH

"Don't steal the show about thieves!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
Art is very much a democrisy. The more people like, and are willing to pay for things of type x, the more x they will get.
However, art being a democrisy is somewhat scary, I'll admit. But I don't think there's an alternative.

actually.. no... it isn't. should I post the definition of democracy?

I wonder if you do any art yourself, I would assume no, because of your attitude, but I have been wrong in the past, though certainly not now.

I would not dream of asking someone or some committee to tell me how to create what I create.. and with only minor exception, neither did Joss and crew on firefly/serenity.

You see Joss is not making this movie, and giving it to the public for free and hoping they send money to him. he is creating a product which will be marketed and sold to a (hopefully) vast array of consumers. Like... a car... or food. Thusly, stealing it... is no different (electronically or not) than stealing a car, etc.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 1:11 PM

WHISPERING

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
exactly as long as its on the net and you can get it for free...then by all means get it for free. thats my motto and I'm sticking to it!!

I'm curious I wonder if anyone in this thread who's saying its wrong to take from the net without paying has downloaded music for free..because its the same thing!!

So everybody working in the music and movie industry should do it for free? How do they pay their rent and buy food then?

...and yes i buy my CD's, thanks for asking :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 1:39 PM

GLICO

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
Art is very much a democracy. The more people like, and are willing to pay for things of type x, the more x they will get.
However, art being a democrisy is somewhat scary, I'll admit. But I don't think there's an alternative.

actually.. no... it isn't. should I post the definition of democracy?

I wonder if you do any art yourself, I would assume no, because of your attitude, but I have been wrong in the past, though certainly not now.

I would not dream of asking someone or some committee to tell me how to create what I create.. and with only minor exception, neither did Joss and crew on firefly/serenity.

You see Joss is not making this movie, and giving it to the public for free and hoping they send money to him. he is creating a product which will be marketed and sold to a (hopefully) vast array of consumers. Like... a car... or food. Thusly, stealing it... is no different (electronically or not) than stealing a car, etc.

de·moc·ra·cy

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

The definitions are all closely related, but I'll go with number three, because we are not speaking of government. It takes money to make a movie. 'Versal is paying for production. Their investment can only be returned by the common people paying money for it. Therefore, commercial art that requires a significant investment is definitely democratic.
In response to your assertion, I'm afraid you can count one more time you were wrong. I do photography, and computer programming(which is very much an art, although appreciated by very few). Neither of these interests are commercial, so I do not have a public to answer to. If I were to attempt to support myself by selling photographs or computer software though, I would have to create something that the public wants, not what I want.
I've been through what is and is not stealing before, and I'm not going to do it again. You assert that you can steal an idea, which is fundamentally rediculous.

The world we live in is one in which things will be copied, and working against this is swimming upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 1:42 PM

ZOID

tribes wrote, in part:

Quote:
...3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard...

So, there you have it. Stealing is great, as long as it doesn't happen to you. It's even venerated in our National Pastime.

Of course, it does beg the question: "If you steal your favorite movies and games and music, how will your favorite artists make more for you to steal?"

It's called 'killing the goose that laid the golden eggs'. Google that, if you were never introduced to morals...

Disheartened,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 209 days, 5 hours, 27 minutes, and 47 seconds left until The BDM! (Or less than that, if you can lay hands on a leaked screener...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 1:53 PM

TRIBES

piratejenny wrote

exactly as long as its on the net and you can get it for free...then by all means get it for free. thats my motto and I'm sticking to it!!

Well, let's see here....If I can get your personal information,
credit cards, banking info, social security number off the
net than I get to use your financial identity for my benefit at your cost.
And I can do this all for free because I can get it off the net!
You are not going to be a hypocrite and tell me that my choosing to take your financial identity from the net would be stealing from you now are you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 1:57 PM

I rarely see movies in a theatre. In the last four years, I've seen only three movies in a theatre--the three Lord of the Rings movies. Most movies I see for the first time on DVD or cable TV. But I'm going to be sure to see Serenity in a theatre and probably more than once.

roj

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 2:03 PM

Quote:
exactly as long as its on the net and you can get it for free...then by all means get it for free. thats my motto and I'm sticking to it!!

I'm curious I wonder if anyone in this thread who's saying its wrong to take from the net without paying has downloaded music for free..because its the same thing!!

Downloading copyrighted material and using it without paying for it is wrong and it is stealing.

I buy all of my music. The artists that I admire should get paid and everyone that supports them, down to the guy who mops the studio floor, should get paid for their efforts.

roj

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 2:13 PM

Quote:
exactly as long as its on the net and you can get it for free...then by all means get it for free. thats my motto and I'm sticking to it!!

You are only stealing from the web because it is easy. This is the rationale that looters use in the wake of disaster. You wouldn't normally walk into a store and carry out a TV without paying for it. But if a hurricane broke out the store front windows, a power failure disabled the burglar alarm, and the owner of the store had fled to a distant city, you would follow the rest of the looters in and get yourself a new TV. You would steal if it were easy. That's your motto and you're sticking to it.

roj

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
You assert that you can steal an idea, which is fundamentally rediculous.

where did I say that? I have been saying over and over, these aren't ideas, these are products. Let me, however, assert once again, that a commercial artist needn't create a work with the sole interest of pleasing others, much to your disagreement.. There is always risk involved in art, you create using your head, heart, and skill, but there is always the possibility it will fail. I like to think Joss created serenity for himself... yes, he hoped people would like firefly, and hoped her could market it, but in truth (with only a few exceptions) he made the series (and the movie) his own way, and he is taking a risk that people will like/pay for this product. he did not engineer a product specifically designed to make money. You don't believe me? Look at pop music.. boy bands.. reality tv.. these are things made specifically for money and reek of soulessness.. it isn't art. what joss is doing is art, made with the hope of success and profit, but engineered because of more selfish purposes... he has said it already.. these stories weren't done. thus, we have serenity.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 3:27 PM

BAMADAVE

I am left wondering where all of these people were when the unaired episodes first leaked onto the net. People were posting links to torrents, or even hosting the episodes on their own servers. There were even copies of homebrewed DVD's flying around the country. Yet, during all of these obvious violations of ME/Fox copyrights, there was never the moral outrage I am seeing here. Is stealing the movie somehow worse than stealing the episodes? It seems like the same thing to me.

There is a valid argument to be made that the stealing of those episodes was one of the keys to building the firefly fandom. Clearly, based on the ratingshttp://home.insightbb.com/~wahoskem/firefly1.html">ratings>, not everyone here was watching when the original episodes aired. Somehow though, miraculously, the fanbase grew between the end of the series and the release of the DVD. I tend to think it was because people were sharing their ill gotten booty with likeminded folk. You may see it differently. And there is the possibility that something similar could happen with the movie.

It also brings to mind the leaked trailer from the Con. Clearly, if Joss and company wanted everyone to see that, they have a websitehttp://serenitymovie.com/">website> of their own where they could have provided a legitimate copy for everyone to view. Lord knows that thing could use some content. That is a particularly fitting example in this debate as it is a half assed odd angle shot on cam copy, like the first bootleg Serenity copies most likely will be.

Or, how about the leaked pictures from the set. Again, there is an official site for those things. Has someone deemed that stealing the intellectual property of ME/Universal in the form of photos is not as bad as stealing their intellectual property in the form of video?

Fan websites? Chock full of all kinds of copyrighted logos and photos that no one has the photographers or studios permission to use. Is that the ok kind of stealing too?

I also find it interesting that so many people know all of the cast and crew of the movie so well that they can feel free to convey their outrage as well.

The point is, there are grey areas in everything, even downloading.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:03 PM

Quote:
The point is, there are grey areas in everything, even downloading.

You need to adjust the contrast control on whatever it is that you are using to view the world. Stealing is wrong. It's black, not grey. If something good comes of doing something wrong, that doesn't make it right. It's still wrong. If I used your reasoning I could justify all kinds of heinous crimes. Those people who send young kids out to do their suicide bombing use similar reasoning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 4:23 PM

SLOWSMURF

When the show was being downloaded, for me primarily prior to it being canceled as the timeslot and my reception sucked(I forgot on more than one occassion, and preemption screwed up my taping on others)

The point is, when downloading the show, there was no other way to aquire it. We got fans, I can say without a doubt I personally got at least two sets purchased and more than that fans made(I got at least 5 people to watch the entire series, and I know of at least two others they got to watch the entire series.(and purchase in many cases)

Is it wrong to share the TV show prior to the DVD release when I bought the DVD the second it came out?(preordered even) There was no profit lost to anyone by my actions, I watched it on TV as much as I could, and fox wasn't exactly showing reruns.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:09 PM

SHEPPARD

Quote:
Originally posted by Alternity:
Quote:
Those people who send young kids out to do their suicide bombing use similar reasoning.

Yes, yes, now I see the comparison. Downloading music and movies off the internet is equivalent to child suicide bombings. It all makes sense now.

Has anyone here ever read any of the Firefly shooting scripts that are available on this and many other sites? "Stolen." For anyone who doesn't have an actual script in hand, here's what it says on the very first page, in all capital letters:

"All rights reserved. Copyright (c)2002 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. No portion of this script may be performed, published, reproduced, sold, or distributed by any means or quoted or published in any medium, including any web site, without prior written consent of Twentieth Century Fox Television. Disposal of this script copy does not alter any of the restirctions set forth above."

And that is in black and white. Yet, I've read no exaggerated cries of outrage against this theft....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 24, 2004 6:41 PM

GLICO

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:

where did I say that? I have been saying over and over, these aren't ideas, these are products.

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear(or maybe, heavens no, I'm wising up), but my argument is related to the ability to copy something easily & cheaply. This makes them fluid, and in natural law, free. Things that are easily copy-able are going to be copied if people want to copy them. We live in an age where everyone has the ability to publish music, or books. The publishers no longer have a monopoly on production. This lowers the entry costs dramatically, and is good for art creation. It is also good for art creation, because it allows access to more information/art then ever before possible. It is a fundamental fact, that people will share a media that they wish to share. My plan for Art in a capitalist system is a surrender to that fact.

Quote:

Let me, however, assert once again, that a commercial artist needn't create a work with the sole interest of pleasing others, much to your disagreement..

Ok, so there is some grey area here. Joss & the crew definitely did not create FIrefly out of greed. But, 'Versal/FOX definitely did. Even a self-publishing artist must have a means of support. There is a certain amount of money required for essential things, like shelter, food, water and the tools of their trade. Serenity would not be Coming soon to a Theater near you... if it weren't for all the people who bough Firefly DVDs, showing their support, and more important willingness to pay money for Firefly. There are exceptions to this rule, an artist may have another means of support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
We live in an age where everyone has the ability to publish music, or books. The publishers no longer have a monopoly on production. This lowers the entry costs dramatically, and is good for art creation. It is also good for art creation, because it allows access to more information/art then ever before possible. My plan for Art in a capitalist system is a surrender to that fact.

I see what you are saying here, but I fundamentally resist it. You may consider it futile, but I consider it absolutely necessary. Just because everyone and their sister is now able to "publish" their work on the internet, etc., doesn't mean they should. This practice leads to the decline in Quality. There needs to be a desire to succeed beyond the ability to FTP to some webspace once a week. Passion is what makes creation valuable. If all "Easily downloadable media" were free for consumption, or dependant on the kindness of it's consumers, this world would lose many of it's artists. The music industry, for example, would truly collapse into ruin. Then, because all music would be available for download without restriction, the labels would disappear, no artist would have the means to continue to record (which I can attest is one of the most expensive processes you'd ever have to go through as an independent), so music itself would be in danger of a possible extinction. (not the concept of music mind you, but the music industry, the ability to buy cds, or see artists perform live, these things would all change radically, or cease to exist all together)

And this is only one example.. The same would happen to all forms of downloadable content. That system just doesn't work.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:20 AM

Quote:
Yes, yes, now I see the comparison. Downloading music and movies off the internet is equivalent to child suicide bombings. It all makes sense now.

I assume that was sarcastic. You were not paying attention. I didn't say that the crimes were the same. I said that the reasoning used to defend both the crimes was the same. The rationale is obviously fallacious for the heinous crime making it easy to understand that it is also fallacious for the lesser crime. This is how decisions are made simple, safe, and correct if you start with some fundamental principles. The problem with relativists is that they don't have any absolute fundamental principles. You start with some absolutes and make your way to a solution using reason. This is what is supposed to separate us from the animals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:28 AM

Quote:

"All rights reserved. Copyright (c)2002 Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. No portion of this script may be performed, published, reproduced, sold, or distributed by any means or quoted or published in any medium, including any web site, without prior written consent of Twentieth Century Fox Television. Disposal of this script copy does not alter any of the restirctions set forth above."

And that is in black and white. Yet, I've read no exaggerated cries of outrage against this theft...

So what is your point? Agreed, it is black and white, and posting it on the web is wrong unless prior written consent has been obtained.

(That is my "cry of exaggerated outrage".)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:40 AM

Quote:
The point is, there are grey areas in everything...

There are often grey areas, but not in everything.

If you want to talk grey areas and you want to talk Firefly, consider this:

Mal is always criticizing Inara for her occupation. Yet Mal is a thief. Who thinks that he is justified? I don't. I side with Inara. Her arrangements are always by mutual consent. Her clients get something and Inara gets something. Both sides gain. However, Mal steals from people without their consent. He gains and they lose. That ain't right. But maybe I've turned something that is grey to Mal into black and white.

roj

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:53 AM

ZOID

bamadave, et al, of the rationalization set:

You wrote:

Quote:
I am left wondering where all of these people were when the unaired episodes first leaked onto the net. People were posting links to torrents, or even hosting the episodes on their own servers. There were even copies of homebrewed DVD's flying around the country. Yet, during all of these obvious violations of ME/Fox copyrights, there was never the moral outrage I am seeing here. Is stealing the movie somehow worse than stealing the episodes? It seems like the same thing to me.

There is a fundamental distinction that even someone with uncorrected myopia like you (except for the rose-colored glasses) should be able to see.

There is a category of software known as "abandonware". This software has been 'abandoned' by its manufacturer. Others may find some continuing benefit in it, and appropriate the code for their own uses. In many cases, such abandonware is still under copyright, and possession, reverse engineering, recompilation, et cetera are prohibited by law. Even though the original producer -- or whichever software company has subsequently purchased and holds rights to it -- has expressly stated that no further development, support or distribution will occur. (Think 'Windows 3.x')

I strongly support amendment of copyright laws in order to 'free' such code. I also do not accuse persons of 'liberating' such abandonware of stealing, in the same way I do not accuse the guy picking up discarded coke cans alonside the road of misappropriating the property of the original purchaser.

There's a difference between 'stealing' and 'reutilizing', though doubtless there are many high-falutin' corporate attorneys who'd vehemently disagree.

F*x had clearly abandoned Firefly. I downloaded copies of all the episodes (but never redistributed). I daresay JW would have tacitly agreed with this practice since -- as you say -- it kept interest in his 'child' alive. When the DVD set became available for purchase, I destroyed my download set and purchased a retail copy of my own. I have since purchased 2 more as gifts for others; I did not 'rip' my set and copy to DVD-R. When I convert people to Browncoats, I do not loan my copy; I watch it with them (which may be illegal, depending on how many people are in the room), and force them to buy their own to see the series in its entirety. I tell them, "Great art deserves support and monetary applause."

The only thing I still possess from download is the uncut blooper reel, which was 'abandoned' by F*x. For admitting to that, I may be liable to legal action for 'stealing', though I'd neither fear reasonable Justice, nor count upon its existence.

So the distinction, to me, is 'abandoned' versus 'viable'.

Patiently,

zoid

P.S.
I still recommend a word search on 'morality'. If you put a T.V. out by your dumpster and I whisk it away to refurbish it and use in my home, is that the same as walking into your living room and taking your big-screen while you're at work? According to the law, it may be the same thing; but there is a moral distinction, which is clearly discernible by any child of 5 who's been taught right from wrong.

Y'all don't seem to be doing any real thinking. Your argument was the most facile tripe I've read in ages.

zed
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

Only 208 days, 11 hours, 23 minutes, and 50 seconds left until The BDM! (Or less than that, if you can get your hands on a leaked screener...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 10:08 AM

GLICO

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
We live in an age where everyone has the ability to publish music, or books. The publishers no longer have a monopoly on production. This lowers the entry costs dramatically, and is good for art creation. It is also good for art creation, because it allows access to more information/art then ever before possible. My plan for Art in a capitalist system is a surrender to that fact.

I see what you are saying here, but I fundamentally resist it. You may consider it futile, but I consider it absolutely necessary. Just because everyone and their sister is now able to "publish" their work on the internet, etc., doesn't mean they should. This practice leads to the decline in Quality. There needs to be a desire to succeed beyond the ability to FTP to some webspace once a week. Passion is what makes creation valuable. If all "Easily downloadable media" were free for consumption, or dependant on the kindness of it's consumers, this world would lose many of it's artists. The music industry, for example, would truly collapse into ruin. Then, because all music would be available for download without restriction, the labels would disappear, no artist would have the means to continue to record (which I can attest is one of the most expensive processes you'd ever have to go through as an independent), so music itself would be in danger of a possible extinction. (not the concept of music mind you, but the music industry, the ability to buy cds, or see artists perform live, these things would all change radically, or cease to exist all together)

And this is only one example.. The same would happen to all forms of downloadable content. That system just doesn't work.

Allright, I see that we fundamentally disagree. I have more trust in humanity than you. I doubt I'll be able to convince you, so I'll stop trying. Thanks for giving me some debate practice though.

Bye.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:09 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

Sometimes, you just need to ask yourself:

"What would Jayne do?"

Don't do that, or else we'll all be in our bunks instead of watching the movie

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:13 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by glico:
Fine, but -- ideas are fundamentally different from things. One cannot "steal" an idea, stealing requires removing something from someone else's possesion. In a society where everyone was ethically perfect, people would download the movie, then based on that decide whether to give money, and if so how much. I think this is a model worth working towards. I'll leave it at that for now.

Your understanding of copyright is a little flawed and therefore whether you can steal an idea or not.

You cannot copyright or own an idea, so that cannot be stolen - the expression of an idea is copyrightable, has an ownership value, can be and is stolen.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 27, 2004 1:11 PM

MADDMATT

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
I see what you are saying here, but I fundamentally resist it. You may consider it futile, but I consider it absolutely necessary. Just because everyone and their sister is now able to "publish" their work on the internet, etc., doesn't mean they should. This practice leads to the decline in Quality. There needs to be a desire to succeed beyond the ability to FTP to some webspace once a week. Passion is what makes creation valuable. If all "Easily downloadable media" were free for consumption, or dependant on the kindness of it's consumers, this world would lose many of it's artists.

Removing profit from art WILL decrease the amount of artists, but those who remain will be those who are in it for the love of creation rather than those trying to make a quick buck. This will lead to an increase in quality, rather than the decrease you predict.

Quote:
The music industry, for example, would truly collapse into ruin.

Good. The music industry currently stifles quality rather than encouraging it.

Quote:
Then, because all music would be available for download without restriction, the labels would disappear, no artist would have the means to continue to record (which I can attest is one of the most expensive processes you'd ever have to go through as an independent), so music itself would be in danger of a possible extinction. (not the concept of music mind you, but the music industry, the ability to buy cds, or see artists perform live, these things would all change radically, or cease to exist all together)

Bull. The labels may disappear, but music itself is in no danger. Artists will still perform for live audiences as they have since the beginning of civilization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 27, 2004 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by serenityfan2004:
You Can't take the sky from me...

No, but apparently you're willing to take the sky from everyone else.

I think it's pretty uncouth, when so many of us plan to bust our butts to make sure this movie soars at the box office, for you to come on here and suggest that we should start searching for and disseminating a pirated copy of this movie.

That is stealing, pure and simple, and some of the worst kind of stealing.

Shame on you. Badly done!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:00 AM

WREN

Quote:
Originally posted by TerrifyingSpaceMonkey:
No, but apparently you're willing to take the sky from everyone else.

I think it's pretty uncouth, when so many of us plan to bust our butts to make sure this movie soars at the box office, for you to come on here and suggest that we should start searching for and disseminating a pirated copy of this movie.

That is stealing, pure and simple, and some of the worst kind of stealing.

Shame on you. Badly done!

I strongly urge people to read a thread all the way through before posting on it. If you don't have time to read it through then don't post.

Terrifyingspacemonkey I am assuming you did not read this thread all the way through.
Serenityfan2004 has already apologised for making this suggestion. He (she?) is new to the site and was a little over eager. The situation was explained and he now understands. There was no need for your comment. If you did read it all the way through and still felt the need to make that post then shame on you. If someone has seen the error of their ways and apologised that should be an end to the matter.

Whilst I am here I might as well put in my views. I wouldn't want to download Serenity because I want to see it on the big screen. I have downloaded music etc because I like to see/hear something before spending my hard earned (and very little) cash. If I like the film/music then I buy it. If I don't then I delete it. The film/music industry has earnt more money from me due to downloads.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:05 AM

Wren,

I'm sorry to have rubbed you the wrong way. I understand where you are coming from, however I'm afraid I have to disagree. I posted what I did quite intentionally, because I will not be swayed by a quick apology. I realize that the person is new, however what he/she was proposing was horribly wrong and offends me deeply. Perhaps I am not so mature as you and the others because I'm not able to shrug this off.

That was a little like someone saying, "Hey! Let's break into your grandmother's place, steal some stuff, then make it look like a burglary," and then when you vehemently oppose the person says, "Oh... gosh, I'm sorry. That's wrong... don't know what I was thinking..."

I don't think it can be taken back or forgiven quite that easily. My blood boils at the very thought of a "fan" encouraging other fans to STEAL this movie from the people who have been so unbelievably gracious and kind to us. I will not feel ashamed or apologize for being angry.

As I once learned on the board myself, a new person should never jump headlong into the middle of things and automatically assume that they understand what is going on. Any new person who does this is just asking to step on toes, and probably deserves to be put in their place. Just my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 6:26 AM

WREN

TerrifyingSpaceMonkey,

You didn't 'rub me the wrong way' and I hope I didn't 'rub you the wrong way'. I just felt your comments were unnecessary and felt strongly enough to tell you my opinion. I think sometimes it's important to take a step back and try to understand where the other person is coming from, though that doesn't mean you have to agree with them. Anger is never a good emotion on which to base a reaction.

I see Serenityfan2004's first post as a fan who desperately wants to see the movie and just didn't think through the consequences of their comments, rather than someone encouraging people to steal from Joss. We all make mistakes and feel bad about them afterwards. I know I have made a few in my time, including on this board. Thankfully my apologies have been accepted and I have continued to be friends with the people involved. I believe in treating others how I hope to be treated. If you had just messed up how would you want to be treated?

At the end of the day Serenity is just a movie (granted it will be the greatest of all time) but Serenityfan2004 is a real person. I don't see the point in continuing to make someone feel bad. Life is generally crappy enough as it is. I guess this is something on which we will have to agree to disagree. (Though I do agree with your point that it is a good idea for new people to lurk a while and check out how a board works)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:00 AM

BROWNCOATFAN1

chill. just wait. dont go to something illeagal and get this whole site in trouble now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by maddmatt:
Bull. The labels may disappear, but music itself is in no danger. Artists will still perform for live audiences as they have since the beginning of civilization.

yep, same songs too, passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth because the ability to profitably record will be destroyed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 4:39 PM

Wren,

Oh gosh no! You didn't rub me the wrong way either... I completely understand where you are coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:45 AM

FIREFLEW

Hey guys, perhaps this is enough? I think SerenityFan2004 certainly knows our views on the matter and has probably been admonished by now.

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:06 AM

Yeah, actually, I think if you re-read the last several comments (except BROWNCOATFAN1's) you will find that this concern has already been raised and acknowledged, and that further admonishment has ceased.

Continuing to bring it up will only perpetuate the matter.

Thanks, though!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:41 PM

yeah uh.. i dunno if you noticed, but we were actually discussing alot of other things here too. so.. buggar off.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 3:31 PM

MADDMATT

Quote:
Originally posted by Winterfell:
Quote:
Originally posted by maddmatt:
Bull. The labels may disappear, but music itself is in no danger. Artists will still perform for live audiences as they have since the beginning of civilization.

yep, same songs too, passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth because the ability to profitably record will be destroyed.

Untrue. There will ALWAYS be a segment of the population that would prefer to buy a factory produced CD then to download and burn one themselves. They may do so because it's easier or they don't have the knowledge to do it, they may do it because their time locating the songs is worth more than the price of the CD. They may even do it just because they like the artist and want to support them or own the factory liner notes. No matter what, sales will still be made.

Also, artists will continue to record and distribute because they want to get well known enough to be able to make money performing live.

As for recording being expensive, home equipment is getting better and better. It won't be long before a guy with 1000 bucks and a home computer can turn a spare bedroom into a sound studio and get near-professional quality.

The only losers in the music downloading game are the labels. Who the hell cares about them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by maddmatt:
It won't be long before a guy with 1000 bucks and a home computer can turn a spare bedroom into a sound studio and get near-professional quality.

The only losers in the music downloading game are the labels. Who the hell cares about them?

I can only hope that turns out to be true.. But so far, I haven't seen it. I hate the fact that I have to look for some label to get my music out there, but for now, I see no other alternative. Marketing your product independently is insanely expensive and a big risk financially if you’re new to the game.

~~Robb of Winterfell~~
~ http://winterfell.org ~
High Fantasy Heavy Metal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:32 AM

FIREFLEW

Quote:
Originally posted by TerrifyingSpaceMonkey:
Yeah, actually, I think if you re-read the last several comments (except BROWNCOATFAN1's) you will find that this concern has already been raised and acknowledged, and that further admonishment has ceased.

Continuing to bring it up will only perpetuate the matter.

Thanks, though!

You know... I was having a wee glance up the page... some of your posts were a bit... well, seemed to be written with the intent of condemnation

.

Point taken, though.

Quote:
Originally posted by WinterFell:
yeah uh.. i dunno if you noticed, but we were actually discussing alot of other things here too. so.. buggar off.

Don't go visiting my intentions. Not ever.

Also, it's "bugger"

. You'll be a jerk to me and I'll be a pedant to you

.

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:53 PM

>>You know... I was having a wee glance up the page... some of your posts were a bit... well, seemed to be written with the intent of condemnation<<

Yes, my posts *were* written with the intent of condemnation, and I don't believe I ever denied that.

To you I was just saying that the admonishers were admonished for admonishing the offender, and further admonishment of the admonishers who have long since stopped admonishing is completely unnecessary.

Although, you did say "point taken", so hopefully that's the point you took.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 8:55 AM

FIREFLEW

Quote:
Originally posted by TerrifyingSpaceMonkey:
>>You know... I was having a wee glance up the page... some of your posts were a bit... well, seemed to be written with the intent of condemnation<<

Yes, my posts *were* written with the intent of condemnation, and I don't believe I ever denied that.

To you I was just saying that the admonishers were admonished for admonishing the offender, and further admonishment of the admonishers who have long since stopped admonishing is completely unnecessary.

Although, you did say "point taken", so hopefully that's the point you took.

Yep, that's the one.

Also, well done - that's the most time I've seen variations of, "admonish" in one sentance.

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 1, 2004 10:32 AM