JWFan's new bootleg discussion policy

[Ollie 1,375]

It doesn't help in getting scores released, it may end up hurting more than it does help.

Frankly Marc and Ricard should do what what other sites do and make the trading section only for the trading and purchasing of actual legal CDs. No file sharing or anything of that nature.

[King Mark 3,975]

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?

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

exacty .

I think it's not a matter of avoiding legal problems for the site anymore. I think the moderators are taking a pro active "label supporting" approach , hence banning discussion of any music you can't get on c.d.

[Ollie 1,375]

And they should be taking that approach.

[Wojo 2,458]

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.

Most interesting idea I've read here since the genius who decided to make the a table of contents thread sticky. The trick is that a lot of people that use the trading boards don't post in the conversation rooms, and some people who do post a lot but don't trade much/at all (like me) don't go into the trading rooms.

I do know it's become hard to make a new account here out of the blue using a free email account, so it's not like the gov't is going to use a hotmail account to hack into the trading room.

The flip side of the coin is that if you put a lock on something, then people are gonna start asking what's in there. So if you have a trading board room that's hidden from the public eye, it's now more of a bull's eye than a trading board that's wide open. Just a sliver more, but more.

The more we support the labels, the more they'll work to turn our bootleg material into legit material. If it exists as a boot and sounds 70% ok/complete, they can probably take it to 85% or better. It's just tough to wait a couple years/decades/clone-yourself-to-wait-longer for your favorite soundtracks to surface as legit albums, but I'll just keep looking under the table to see what appears if I don't like what's being served.

[King Mark 3,975]

And they should be taking that approach.

well, that's your opinion. I think the opposite

[Wojo 2,458]

Doesn't one of our moderators work for the labels? I'm not playing scapegoat here because I don't think there's any blame to be placed yet, hence the polite warning and rule change. But if you're looking for someone with an inside scoop on how the soundtrack industry feels about bootlegging and filesharing, even of material you can't buy in a store, but someday could...well, I could see that playing a part in this.

Maybe it got to the point where we got so big, so loud, and so public that the industry nudged that person, who is now nudging us. The RIAA doesn't nudge people. They jump straight for the throat with a knife.

[King Mark 3,975]

I don't think anyone would care unless were actually posting links . I also hope you realize how insignificant how "jwfans" are in the music world

[John Crichton 4]

Doesn't one of our moderators work for the labels?

I think he's a kind of freelance agent.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to support the indy soundtrack labels as much as they've done for us the last few years.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

I'm with Ollie (). If you're trying to make this a more legal/legit forum, toss out the trading sections.

[Jill Sandwich 11,166]

Better keep your kids away from all that unreleased music. They're the online equivalent of drugs and automatic weapons.

[King Mark 3,975]

yeah ,but if the rest of the Last Crusade music leaks I sure want to know where to find it ,because it doesn't look like

Concord is ever going to release it

I'm with Ollie (). If you're trying to make this a more legal/legit forum, toss out the trading sections.

Seriously, I think you should just be quiet

[Jay 46,244]

The RIAA doesn't nudge people. They jump straight for the throat with a knife.

The RIAA also doesn't go after websites that post links to other websites that might contain copyrighted material. They go after the web sites HOSTING the copyrighted material. But we're getting off topic.

[Ollie 1,375]

I also hope you realize how insignificant how "jwfans" are in the music world

Yet you think we should be the ones to break all the rules when it comes to bootlegging.

[Jay 46,244]

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.

Most interesting idea I've read here since the genius who decided to make the a table of contents thread sticky. [...]

The flip side of the coin is that if you put a lock on something, then people are gonna start asking what's in there. So if you have a trading board room that's hidden from the public eye, it's now more of a bull's eye than a trading board that's wide open. Just a sliver more, but more.

I'm not suggesting that the forum shows up in the list but it has some kind of lock on it... I'm suggesting that if you're not logged in, it doesn't even show up in the list of available forums. But if you have access, then it shows up in the list.

The more we support the labels, the more they'll work to turn our bootleg material into legit material. If it exists as a boot and sounds 70% ok/complete, they can probably take it to 85% or better. It's just tough to wait a couple years/decades/clone-yourself-to-wait-longer for your favorite soundtracks to surface as legit albums, but I'll just keep looking under the table to see what appears if I don't like what's being served.

But we obviously all DO support the labels. We're not asking to be allowed to discuss where you can download music instead of buying it from a label. We're trying to make it so that saying something like "How many tracks should the complete Air Force One score be?" doesn't get you warned/banned.

[Ollie 1,375]

I think a little common sense would tell you you could speculate about addiotional material being added on to a legal release.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Better keep your kids away from all that unreleased music. They're the online equivalent of drugs and automatic weapons.

Seriously, I think you should just be quiet

You're acting like we're all being oppressed. This is hardly a democracy, our freedom of speech was limited from Day One.

[ymenard 68]

Bootlegs are a carrot on a stick. Labels know about that and tend to play the game too.

Bootlegs create hype, which create sales.

From the first bootleg done on Bob Dylan, the industry understood completely that 1) these leaks do happen and 2) that there is money to be done out of that hype. The Indiana Jones boxset would have never happened without the word of mouth and hype that happenes since a decade from the bootlegs.

[Jill Sandwich 11,166]

Not according to the Men in Blue.

[King Mark 3,975]

This new rule still profoundly affects discussion about a lot of John Williams topics. At least for the real completists on this MB.

[Jill Sandwich 11,166]

This new rule still profoundly affects discussion about a lot of John Williams topics. At least for the real completists on this MB.

You're in Zimmer land now, buddy.

[King Mark 3,975]

I think a little common sense would tell you you could speculate about addiotional material being added on to a legal release.

not really .I don't feel like making grammatical gymnastics or beat around the bush to say something in a way that may or may not get me somekind of warning. It was becoming hard enough in the past year or so .

There's no way to really discuss complete scores /unreleased music without referring to bootlegs/leaked/recorded/ripped material in one way or another. Also this set us apart from other MB's directly on label's sites and why cooler people post here than at FSM. We've basically become like a JW sub-forum of FSM ,applying FSM's no bootleg talk policy

I think a lot of people will just plain leave the MB because of this rule.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

I don't think anyone would care unless were actually posting links.

yeah ,but if the rest of the Last Crusade music leaks I sure want to know where to find it ,because it doesn't look like

Concord is ever going to release it

Plus do you really think the moderators are worried because of the discussion of non-JW boots? Everything would be find if we stuck to discussing JW boots? Is there any kind of reasoning behind this?

I think a lot of people will just plain leave the MB because of this rule.

Better than having our admins and moderators dragged to court someday.

The RIAA also doesn't go after websites that post links to other websites that might contain copyrighted material. They go after the web sites HOSTING the copyrighted material. But we're getting off topic.

I don't know if the RIAA was in any way involved in the recent Piratebay court case (it's non-American, but I wouldn't be surprised if they added to the pressure at least), but do you really think they'd act differently?

[Ollie 1,375]

I think a little common sense would tell you you could speculate about addiotional material being added on to a legal release.

not really .I don't feel like making grammatical gymnastics or beat around the bush to say something in a way that may or may not get me somekind of warning. It was becoming hard enough in the past year or so .

There's no way to really discuss complete scores /unreleased music without referring to bootlegs/leaked/recorded/ripped material in one way or another. Also this set us apart from other MB's directly on label's sites and why cooler people post here than at FSM. We've basically become like a JW sub-forum of FSM ,applying FSM's no bootleg talk policy

I think a lot of people will just plain leave the MB because of this rule.

Well don't let the door hit their *ss on the way out then. Every other message board has managed to survive bans on bootlegs. And I hate to tell you this but FSM has many cooler people posting. My definition of a cool person is someone who works in the industry, who knows stuff.

I can't believe I'm typing this but if you hear unreleased music in the film, you can talk about it.

Seriously.

[King Mark 3,975]

I don't know if the RIAA was in any way involved in the recent Piratebay court case (it's non-American, but I wouldn't be surprised if they added to the pressure at least), but do you really think they'd act differently?

That's a site called The Pirate Bay that posts links to millions of music and movie files . Not MB members merely discussing the "existence" of bootlegged material and posting no links to it.

With these topics banned ,we can just keep filling those FSM/Intrada/Varese speculation threads you love so much Mark O , for the next 2 years until we get the next JW album..if JW's not dead yet. Because were probably not getting Hook ,Harry Potter ,the Prequels and the rest of the Indy music unless it leaks out

I really think that some people post here because in the back of their heads , if one day a rare composition or recordings sessions of one of the remaining unreleased John Williams scores leaks , they'll know about it here . I think this is a very foundation of this site.

[fommes 165]

I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the moderators - as they know - and obviously we should equally respect their (final) rules, as visitors of their site.

Nevertheless, it still warrants discussion that this new rule is very uneven, as Jason already pointed out or as Marian's earlier post implied. Unlike the previous rule, which was clear and very correct, this one is inconsistent and inherently problematic (in both contents and discourse). It turns into a direction that will be nearly impossible to sustain.

By the way, it also downsizes one of the strengths of this site (which is, after all, still an unofficial fan forum (though it's the best in that), not tied to any official instances), which is how it deals maturely and progressively with film music and all the fandom that goes with it. (And legality or illegality have very little to do with either this MB's discussions or with the rule, and are largely besides the point here.)

[King Mark 3,975]

I'll just continue posting as I always have , and if a discussion requires me to mention a track from the Schindler's List recording sessions to illustrate a point ,I will still do so.

And If I get banned I may not come back .

[Ollie 1,375]

With these topics banned ,we can just keep filling those FSM/Intrada/Varese speculation threads you love so much Mark O , for the next 2 years until we get the next JW album..if JW's not dead yet. Because were probably not getting Hook ,Harry Potter ,the Prequels and the rest of the Indy music unless it leaks out

Well at least I'm trying to give people a broader spectrum instead of constantly whining about complete releases of HP, The Prequels or IJ. Or these ridiculous Goldsmith conspiracies anytime something that doesn't have JW's name on it.

I mean that's all that matters to you, we got a 2 disc set from Intrada that features 2 of Williams earlier works and they even found some of the actual film tracks that were considered lost and you still complain.

[Quintus 6,496]

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.

Indeed, Marc is a very good moderator actually. I was personally referring to the daft swear filter and the stupid no politics and religion discussion rule, since it is an utterly pointless and suspicious dictum to have in a world of so-called "free speech". But I don't want to get into all that again, so my response to you closes the matter, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ollie 1,375]

Well most forums ban religion and politics so it's no big deal to me.

[King Mark 3,975]

I think this site is moderated with concerns to pre-teens in mind

the no politics, no religion and swear filter is the other part of the problem . Now this "you can't talk about bootleg " deal that is not really a legal decision ,but just to lick the boots of the record producers from the label's sites

[John Crichton 4]

I can't believe I'm typing this but if you hear unreleased music in the film, you can talk about it.

Seriously.

I'm glad we're on the same page here at least. I guess Texas people are just plain smarter.

[Ollie 1,375]

Like I said, a little common sense is all it takes.

[King Mark 3,975]

It requires you to write something ,then re-write it in a way that won't get you a warning or banned .That's what pisses me off .And that REALLY rare one of a kind stuff will pass by us unnoticed (example: The pre-Concord Raiders leak )

also that were moving away from the true spirit of an "unofficial JW fan forum"

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I find it interesting that it's apparently fine that we can't talk about real matters in the real world, but suddenly it's internet armageddon because we're not allowed to discuss what is generally illegal material. That seems a bit strange to me, especially when we all have private messages and email and MSN and what have you to communicate.

I'm happy with the politics/religion rule. I talk enough about politics at home and work, and my views on religion are best kept to themselves. And we can swear now, apparently. At the end of the day, I come here to talk about film and music and geeky stuff, which I don't generally get to talk about in the real world, as it were. And on an earlier point, I did originally come here after reading about the fabled ftp, and to see if I could maybe get in on that, but after discovering that it was a good place to talk about stuff, it never crossed my mind again.

I also echo the compliments for Marc, who does an excellent job.

[Ollie 1,375]

Oh good lord Mark you're making this harder than neccessary.

You can talk about all the unreleased music you want, just don't mention where it came from.

If I wan't to talk about music that was left off the Varese Air Force One I can because the music is in the film, if you want to talk about micro edits in Williams' music you can because you heard it in the film.

Is that really so hard to understand?

[MrScratch 296]

Oh good lord Mark you're making this harder than neccessary.

You can talk about all the unreleased music you want, just don't mention where it came from.

If I wan't to talk about music that was left off the Varese Air Force One I can because the music is in the film, if you want to talk about micro edits in Williams' music you can because you heard it in the film.

Is that really so hard to understand?

...and down the slippery slope we go.

[King Mark 3,975]

Exactly ,the rule was fine as it was.

Maybe you can add to it that you can't post an OBVIOUS topic TITLE just to announce some recording sessions have leaked (al la Goonies, BTTF). That would make some good sense .

I'm more worried about individual posts being censored left and right.

[Marian Schedenig 11,695]

So if I understand correctly, these new rules were introduced to lick the boots of the evil record company consortium which is conspiring against us and John Williams by releasing Jerry Goldsmith soundtracks? Why? A bribe to get Neil more jobs on those releases?

[MrScratch 296]

What about a release that appears on Ebay? Ebay is a perfectly legit marketplace to purchase music and they don't allow the sale of bootlegs. So, if something is on ebay it can be assumed to be legit until ebay takes it down.

[Ollie 1,375]

Like I said, a little common sense is all it takes.

We all know what's been legally released.

[MrScratch 296]

Fact: shopping at ebay and is not illegal. As for "common sense", out of 100 years worth of film scores, I don't know the status of each and every film score or whether it has been properly released or not.

[Richard P 5,303]

I'm ok with the rule as long as Marc approaches it with a little common sense, and bears in mind the purpose behind the rule.

I maintain though that the idea that stopping bootleg discussion will somehow protect the interests of the specialty labels is a misguided one.

[Ollie 1,375]

Fact: shopping at ebay and is not illegal. As for "common sense", out of 100 years worth of film scores, I don't know the status of each and every film score or whether it has been properly released or not.

There are plenty of resources available, such as soundtrack collector website.

And if you are unsure just ask someone.

[Jill Sandwich 11,166]

I'm waiting now for the rule that censors all criticism towards Zimmer, MV, RC and co. Bring it to the board... BRING IT!

[MrScratch 296]

Fact: shopping at ebay and is not illegal. As for "common sense", out of 100 years worth of film scores, I don't know the status of each and every film score or whether it has been properly released or not.

There are plenty of resources available, such as soundtrack collector website.

And if you are unsure just ask someone.

That is not my responsibility nor my concern, so long as the seller accurately describes the item.

[Ollie 1,375]

Well if you pay $50.00 for a CD-R I guess you can't say you didn't have the resources available to determine whether or not it was real.

[MrScratch 296]

Well if you pay $50.00 for a CD-R I guess you can't say you didn't have the resources available to determine whether or not it was real.

How much I am willing to pay for something is irrelevant, I'm talking about discussing ebay auctions which are perfectly legal to view and bid on until ebay revokes them.

[Ollie 1,375]

Well let me put it this way.

I'm going to do my research before I bid on something that is obviously too good to be true. As a film score fan I'm going to make sure I know what the hell is going on instead of making excuses that just because eBay lists it it must be legal.

[MrScratch 296]

I'm going to do my research before I bid on something that is obviously too good to be true. As a film score fan I'm going to make sure I know what the hell is going on instead of making excuses that just because eBay lists it it must be legal.

So am I, but I'm talking about the legalities of browsing and shopping on ebay and then discussing it, particularly as it relates to something that could be a bootleg. This is why censorship is dumb and, sorry folks, defending censorship is even dumber.

And I never said that "just because eBay lists it it must be legal". But from a buyer's standpoint, ebay is legal to view and legal to place bids.

[Ollie 1,375]

Again common sense, common sense.

But that appears to be lacking on this message board.

But one of the great things about the world is that if you don't like the rules you can go make your own message board and discuss whatever you wish.