JWFan's new bootleg discussion policy

[Jay 46,244]

Read it here

http://jwfan.com/forums/index.php?act=anno...p;f=1&id=21

Dear JWFanners,

For a long time, the discussion of bootlegs or other leaked material has been tolerated on JWFan.net.

Unfortunately, it has lately grown to such a phenomenon that leaks of much sought-after material is announced as if it were news (which, let's face it, it sort of is, but it's still illegal). This includes leaks of bootleg scores as well as artwork for upcoming releases.

As a result, JWFan.net is turning into something of a pirate cove lately and it is not a direction the moderating team wishes to go in. JWFan.net wishes to support the official release of motion picture soundtracks both by major record labels and niche market labels such as Varèse, LaLaLand, Intrada, FSM, etc. The open discussion of leaked materials does not help that.

Therefore, effective immediately, the discussion of leaked bootlegs, recording sessions etc. is prohibited on the JWFan.net message boards.

Now, because we have a thing called The Custom Covers Thread where unofficial artwork is regularly posted, there is a a slight amendment to that as well: for anything other than alternate artwork (being alternate covers for an existing official release), please remove the complete tracklisting from the back cover.

Old postings will remain intact, but new posts will be watched with a closer eye.

This does not affect threads like the Star Wars Prequel Music Resours, which involve JWFanners' own personal projects without use of leaked recording sessions.

I hope you can understand and will observe this new rule.

Thank you,

- Marc

Discuss.

(Yes, this appears to be why my Goonies thread was completely deleted)

[ChuckM 1]

Can't say I like it, but considering the recent take-down of The Pirate Bay, I can understand why you have to do it.

[MSM 194]

I agree. Btw, I already lost my interest in bootlegs some time ago. I most of the time hate the audio quality and bad dvd rip offs on them and find myself looking for the original OST's anyway in the end.

[Jay 46,244]

It's pretty silly to think that my thread about The Goonies score has anything to do with an upcoming official release by any label. The exact same boot my post was about was mentioned on these boards as far back as 2006 (click) and 2007 (click)

[Mr. Breathmask 624]

Good point about it being mentioned before (although it was never in a way as obvious as this latest thread), but this isn't just about the Goonies thread. We had to be pretty strict around the time of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with people mentioning they got stuff ahead of time, and again when the Soundtracks Collection came out.

It's been spiralling into a frequent occurence lately and I think it's time to put an end to it.

This decision is final, by the way.

Don't take it personal.

[Trent B 354]

It's his call, you got to live with it. You may not like it but hey it was something that probably had to be done. I have no problems with it and I can see where he was going with this. It's just a lot of you guys need to have a bit better discretion on your part when getting things...or finding things.

[Jay 46,244]

Can't say I like it, but considering the recent take-down of The Pirate Bay, I can understand why you have to do it.

Apples and oranges. They were taken down because they were linking to downloads of commercial materials, not for simply talking about it. NOBODY is suggesting we start providing leaks to commercial or pirated material on this board in any way.

And we can all agree we shouldn't spoil a label's upcoming release if the artwork leaks out, etc.

But talking about how many cues from the Goonies recording sessions have leaked out and how long they are? Who is that hurting?

[Quintus 6,496]

I think it is a perfectly reasonable and understandable new set of rules. I won't have problem abiding by them, seeing as I usually manage to negotiate my way through all of the other rules already in place here.

However, I do think this new rule will create problems for users in the long run. One way or another, conversations about complete scores will suffer as a result of the new policy. It is likely to get a bit silly.

In all honesty though, the policing of this place is a bit of a joke. This message board has by far the strictest rule set of any forum I've ever been a member of, indeed sometimes I wonder if the place is hosted in China.

[Richard P 5,303]

Are you freaking kidding Marc?

As a result, JWFan.net is turning into something of a pirate cove lately and it is not a direction the moderating team wishes to go in. JWFan.net wishes to support the official release of motion picture soundtracks both by major record labels and niche market labels such as Varèse, LaLaLand, Intrada, FSM, etc. The open discussion of leaked materials does not help that.

You might've noticed that most people here use limited releases as an opportunity to ditch boots - in fact the possession of boots should increase sales of these as people know what they're buying.

Discuss.

A complete overreaction that's only going to stifle our discussions.

I see nothing wrong with say, posting the artwork from a promo. It's not directing to any music, it's just saying it exists, and that's hardly top secret knowledge is it? I echo Jason's question of who this is hurting.

Unless there has actually been any tangible legal action launched against the board at any point in the past, I'd say you're bowing to the scare tactics that the entertainment industry is trying to use.

[Wojo 2,458]

You could always spam all the users in the PM circuit with the link, or at least a heads up, or at least, the major players who are interested in such tracks.

It would definitely force an analysis of complete scores into the wink wink, nudge nudge realm.

Let's talk about the soundtrack to Star Trek XI. Oh, by the way, my copy has these five tracks that yours doesn't. I...don't know how they got there. Call me?

[Richard P 5,303]

Not so much a message board then, as a glorified chain e-mail.

[Quintus 6,496]

Ironically, it is the very nature of film music that a message board devoted to it would be swamped in talk of unreleased and bootlegged music. How funny.

[Diego 21]

Ironic, considering this site started as a place to get and discuss unreleased Episode 1 music.

[Hlao-roo 390]

Ironic, considering this site started as a place to get and discuss unreleased Episode 1 music.

Things change. Given its beginnings, it took a long time to build up the site's credibility. The new rules are intended to preserve it.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Interesting. I guess we better not discuss corruption, banned films, or various other crimes here, either. I understand no requests, but you shouldn't be able to outlaw discussion of such a crucial piece of film music.

[Jay 46,244]

I see three complete separate issues brought up in this new policy.

1> Discussion of online-availability of commercial releases before they have officially been released to stores. IE, when we started discussing the contents of the Indiana Jones 4 OST before its Tuesday release because some of us had mp3s of it. I don't personally see how this would annoy the labels because we all still bought the OST anyway, and NEVER posted where to get it..... but I have no problem agreeing to this rule.

2> Discussion of a independent label's future release before they have announced it themselves, because the artwork accidentally leaked out. IE, the fact that the artwork for the next two FSM releases are currently on their webserver. I don't see any way how this hurts the label, personally, because if we were going to buy it, we were going to buy it regardless or how early or late we found out.... but I have no problem agreeing to this rule.

3> Discussion of recording session leaks. I don't understand this policy. We don't provide links, and we are discussing the works of a composer that we like in a positive way. And we aren't hurting sales, because we are discussing music that cannot legally be bought anyway. I don't understand how banishing discussion of this hurts any one. So what, we can say things like "I loved that french horn solo I heard the last time I watched the film" but we can't say "I loved that french horn solo on track 3 of the bootleg"?

The first 2 points I have no problem agreeing to. The third point I don't understand.

[Wojo 2,458]

That was over ten years ago! That's almost a lifetime in terms of technology. Napster was still legal, so it had not inspired as many similar online sharing systems. Home download and upload speeds were still relatively pathetic, so most major downloads were done at universities and businesses. Hard drives were small, CD-Rs were expensive, DVD burners and flash drives were unheard of, and -- most importantly -- the recording industry didn't notice the underground. Things have changed.

[Quintus 6,496]

Ironic, considering this site started as a place to get and discuss unreleased Episode 1 music.

Things change. Given its beginnings, it took a long time to build up the site's credibility. The new rules are intended to preserve it.

What like a fossil is preserved, creating an ancient relic of times gone by?

[Diego 21]

So, if a bootleg emerges, say for example of Episode 3, and it has the music for Yoda leaving the Wookiee planet, could a thread be started to discuss that cue if no mention of the bootleg is made?? Or would it be better not to discuss unreleased music all together??

[Quintus 6,496]

This new rule couldn't have come along at a better time really. What with the lack of anything new from Williams to bitch about, this thread should fill the void. At least until Tintin gets leaked.

[Wojo 2,458]

This new rule couldn't have come along at a better time really. What with the lack of anything new from Williams to bitch about, this thread should fill the void. At least until Tintin gets leaked.

That'd be well and good, except the vast majority won't be able to know that Tintin gets leaked, because mention of it will spell certain doom, which will promulgate the void.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I see nothing wrong with say, posting the artwork from a promo.

Marc would have to clarify this, but I imagine that would be okay as promo's are still officially released, even if they're not officially for sale. Again, don't quote me on that.

[Quintus 6,496]

I imagine that would be okay as promo's are still officially released, even if they're not officially for sale.

[MrScratch 296]

Gee, I love censorship. It's always so effective. Stop talking about something and it will just go away.

[Hlao-roo 390]

Gee, I love censorship. It's always so effective. Stop talking about something and it will just go away.

Out of site, out of mind.

Ha ha ha....OK.

[Quintus 6,496]

Hey that was quite good.

[Richard P 5,303]

I see nothing wrong with say, posting the artwork from a promo.

Marc would have to clarify this, but I imagine that would be okay as promo's are still officially released, even if they're not officially for sale. Again, don't quote me on that.

How do we know whether something is a boot or a promo? What happens if a composer leaks a score themselves? How is that classified?

My point is that it's difficult to enforce something like this. Either you do it completely (banning everything, including perfectly legal promos) or you don't do it at all. The first option is going to seriously limit discussion, along with many reasons to visit a place like this.

[Williamsfan301 12]

Ironic, considering this site started as a place to get and discuss unreleased Episode 1 music.

Things change. Given its beginnings, it took a long time to build up the site's credibility. The new rules are intended to preserve it.

What like a fossil is preserved, creating an ancient relic of times gone by?

Dr. Satler: "So, what do you think?"

Dr. Grant: "I think we're out of job"

Dr. Malcolm: "Don't you mean extinct?"

[Henry B 51]

Ugh.

[Richard P 5,303]

It's been spiralling into a frequent occurence lately and I think it's time to put an end to it.

This decision is final, by the way.

Don't take it personal.

Frequent occurrence doesn't mean a problem. What actual, practical problem does it really represent Marc?

I don't think any of us are taking it personally. It's just a stupid rule.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

I understand the motivation, and I have no problem with minimising discussions about boots and preventing threads about them. But I don't think it's possible (without lots of tedious work by Marc) to completely prevent any small discussion and mention of boots on the entire board. It's fine to not advertise them, and to try and keep the references relatively obscure, but I'm pretty sure that, even with the best intentions, I would at some point mention the existence or sound quality etc. of a boot, without really thinking about it. And I think that shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's the exception and not the rule - I do hope (and assume) that the reasoning is to keep this board from rubbing the wrong way with those releasing the music and those marching around and dragging everyone they can to court, and I think it's the overall impression and state of the board that's relevant for that.

[Ollie 1,375]

It's not a a stupid rule. Almost all the other message boards, to include ones not associated with film music, have very strict policies regarding bootleg discussions.

Back in 1999 it was somewhat acceptable to discuss these as well as buy them from several of the major online retailers. However as more licensing opportunities became available, it became apparent that these discussions would hurt the labels chances of getting the material to people legally. I'm sure certain studios probably dropped subtle hints to several of these labels that have message boards that it might be in the best interest to put a hush to all the bootleg talk.

This site has grown and is probably the most active message board amongst sites devoted to one composer. JGOnline does not allow bootleg discussions or even the trading of them, I know Koray mentioned the Zimmer forum is the same way.

I have to laugh at those who think this message board is too strict. Marc does a great job but there are other sites where even questioning the moderator gets one banned.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I certainly think it's fair enough for the most, but I think some people are misinterpreting what Marc has said. The idea of not being able to discuss unreleased music itself is silly, as that takes up a lot of score fans' time. I somehow don't think you're going to get banned by talking about how great 0:52:12-0:58:34 of whatever score is and that you wish it could be released.

And this place is certainly not strict, compared to some places I've been to in the past.

[Wojo 2,458]

It's just as well. I only came to this site in the first place to get unreleased Episode I, Last Crusade, and Hook music. Then I signed up to post for a while, left for a long time, and only came back when the indie labels started releasing gems, and to ask people for bootleg scores. Ok, I have enjoyed some of your company.

[Red 75]

It's fine by me, but I have to agree with Marian that with the nature of this message board that it's a bit futile. Bootlegs are going to enter into discussions, they've been apart of it since the beginning.

[John Crichton 4]

I have to laugh at those who think this message board is too strict. Marc does a great job but there are other sites where even questioning the moderator gets one banned.

Absolutely, I've seen other boards that are actually run like a totalitarian state.

This has been a long time coming with some strong hints dropped by Marc, Neil, and Ricard, so I don't think anyone should be surprised. I certainly understand the motivation. We've turned this board into possibly the premier film music discussion site on the internet, certianly the best dedicated to a single composer, and we should all work to make sure it stays that way. The recent leaking of future FSM releases was simply reprehensible.

My only concern is the possible stifling of discussions of complete scores, but that's an easy workaround. You don't have to have some sort of boot to hear the whole score if it's not released. After all, you can hear the score if you watch the movie.

[Richard P 5,303]

The recent leaking of future FSM releases was simply reprehensible.

Yep, it was. But Marc easily cleared that thread. No harm done.

I don't see how bootleg discussion hurts the specialist soundtrack labels.

My only concern is the possible stifling of discussions of complete scores, but that's an easy workaround. You don't have to have some sort of boot to hear the whole score if it's not released. After all, you can hear the score if you watch the movie.

Umm, I'm a film score fan to listen to music, not to be told to go and watch the movie to hear unreleased music.

I wouldn't say it's a long time coming. Sure, direct links to music have been banned, but that's perfectly understandable.

And I do think it's justified to think that this rule is over-strict. I occasionally moderate a magic forum, and while divulging secrets is banned on the main section, there is a 'restricted area' where they can be divulged if it helps discussion. That's an equally grey area both ethically and financially, and yet that policy has not once been questioned.

Put it this way: I am very critical of rules that are either based on outdated ideas (such as copyright and distribution) or have been made as a reactive afterthought to a sudden huge event, where the initial threat was minimal and the implications haven't been thought through. I deal with this enough at work.

[John Crichton 4]

My only concern is the possible stifling of discussions of complete scores, but that's an easy workaround. You don't have to have some sort of boot to hear the whole score if it's not released. After all, you can hear the score if you watch the movie.

Umm, I'm a film score fan to listen to music, not to be told to go and watch the movie to hear unreleased music.

That wasn't my point.

[QMM 4]

I have to laugh at those who think this message board is too strict. Marc does a great job but there are other sites where even questioning the moderator gets one banned.

Absolutely, I've seen other boards that are actually run like a totalitarian state.

Same here. This site's actually pretty laid back compared to some of the ones I used to go to.

New rule's fine with me.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Just to get it out there, I have no problem with this rule.

However, if the site is going to try and limit discussion of bootlegs and illegal copyright infringement, then you either go all the way or don't put any limitations at all. Take down the whole Trading Lists and Trading Board sub-forums.

[Jacob 1]

You gotta do what you gotta do Marc. Thanks for your efforts.

[King Mark 3,975]

This is a terrible rule .

This is a JOHN WILLIAMS site .Some of you who started threads about NON JW bootlegs (BTTF,Goonies) should have been more careful not to have this stupid rule brought upon us ,it was obvious you were pushing your luck. Now if some Prequel ,Harry Potter or Indy music leaks we won't be able to talk about it.

We'll see,it's just a matter of months before the Prequel Ressouce thread is deleted too (if that happens I leave the MB).

While I agree about the non JW stuff , now with this rule the MB is almost ruined because it affects JW unreleased music . Discussing unreleased JW music is a BIG part of this forum

[John Crichton 4]

Well again, this doesn't have to mean the end of discussion of unreleased music. On CD is certainly the best way to hear it, but it's not the only way.

[King Mark 3,975]

It means that every few months there is a new rule encroaching of things we could previously talk about . I feel like it's getting hard to "breathe" here

[Ollie 1,375]

I can breathe just fine, you're just having another one of you hissy fits.

[Trent B 354]

I can breathe just fine, you're just having another one of you hissy fits.

Indeed.

[King Mark 3,975]

No ,we need some leeway .

For example if someone had recorded a previously unheard JW piece (like Celebration Fanfare) and technically it's a bootleg recording ,we absolutely need to be able to talk about that .

[Koray Savas 2,260]

I think KM is addicted to JWFan.

[Ollie 1,375]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows you can't record a concert and post it on the web, especially when they tell you at the concert no recording devices are allowed.

You can go to a concert and watch it and then come back and talk about it.

You can also talk about unreleased music, just not the bootlegs that feature it. A smart man/woman would know how to get around that.

[Jay 46,244]

This is a terrible rule .

This is a JOHN WILLIAMS site .Some of you who started threads about NON JW bootlegs (BTTF,Goonies) should have been more careful not to have this stupid rule brought upon us ,it was obvious you were pushing your luck. Now if some Prequel ,Harry Potter or Indy music leaks we won't be able to talk about it.

We'll see,it's just a matter of months before the Prequel Ressouce thread is deleted too (if that happens I leave the MB).

While I agree about the non JW stuff , now with this rule the MB is almost ruined because it affects JW unreleased music . Discussing unreleased JW music is a BIG part of this forum

The truth is that if an administrator had relayed some kind of warning about the BTTF thread, I never would have made a thread for The Goonies. But no one did, so I made one, and now we had a sudden, completely set of rules with no prior warning.

I again say that the new rules about discussing releases before they are announced and discussing big releases before they are in stores are fine, but not be able to post track lists of recording session leaks just makes no sense.

This site has always thrived on discussing unreleased music. Look at the speed at which Mr. Takis and I posted our Indiana Jones 4 complete cue lists (and his Revenge of the Sith and Attack of the Clones cue lists and my Harry Potter 3 and The Terminal cue lists before that). Ricard put those on the front page! You know what else Ricard put on the main page? The Empire Strikes Back cue titles, which came from STOLEN SHEET MUSIC.

When Ricard and I collaborated on www.indianajonesmusic.com, I specifically asked him if I should avoid mentioning which cues were available on bootlegs and which weren't, and he encouraged me to include that information.

Discussing the track listings of leaked recording sessions doesn't hurt anyone. If anything it HELPS get the scores released, because it lets the labels know what scores their potential buyers have interest in. We've never posted WHERE to get these bootlegs, and we are not even allowed to mention the names of torrent sites that COULD have them, which is a policy that we can all agree is acceptable.

But banning all discussion? Why not a new policy where we have to be more subtle about it, IE no more big threads directly about a score leak, but instead just discuss the tracks quietly on the trading board. Why all of a sudden a COMPLETE banishment?

Another good idea might be to make the Tradings boards "hidden" boards, so that only logged in, registered members (perhaps those with at least 50 posts or something) are allowed to see them. So average Joe Blow browsing the site won't even know about them.

Some sort of middle-ground would be nice instead of flipping a switch one day from allowing all discussion to banishing all discussion.