 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The spelling isn't too good here either!
(Although originally not from me) Fixed!
*same guy that bought my Rosza Box, just bought my LASSIE COMES HOME Set, NORTHWEST PASSAGE: CLASSIC WESTERN SCORES FROM MGM VOL. 2 set, Elmer Bernstein's Film Music Collection (1975-1979) set and the DAVID RAKSIN AT M-G-M set. All were used and I got less than what I paid for them, so go ahead and call me a speculator. Also, just cancelled my order for IT'S ALIVE and STAR TREK VI.
And are you happy now?
Not really, I have a 117+ singles and a few more box sets to go then I will be happy. I will not sell them here on the FSM Trading Post, they will end up on Amazon and eBay. A few people have sent e-mails to me asking if I have certain titles, please check your e-mails, I have replied with what titles are still available, with prices below the original price, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please add "deliberately obtuse" to the list...
Hmm, sorry, but I don't see where I've been that, either.
This started civil.
But, I take it that by resorting to personal insults you've got no more of a case to argue in favour of this nothing that you want to happen about this great injustice that has been done to you?
I'm up for returning to a civil plain if you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 10, 2012 - 8:47 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
John Smith
(Member)
|
Please add "deliberately obtuse" to the list...
Hmm, sorry, but I don't see where I've been that, either.
This started civil.
But, I take it that by resorting to personal insults you've got no more of a case to argue in favour of this nothing that you want to happen about this great injustice that has been done to you?
I'm up for returning to a civil plain if you are.
I'm sorry, Mr Woolston, but if you genuinely cannot appreciate just how condescending your tone is, then there is no real point in continuing. Just read what you have written in this post alone: "this nothing that you want to happen.... this great injustice that has been done to you."
Do you think this type of language is conducive to civil discourse? I thought you of all people would eschew the sardonic haughtiness endemic to most message boards.
In addition, you have deliberately misrepresented in your previous posts almost everything I have written. The motivation is all too transparent.
I asked you very straightforward questions to which the answer is either "yes" or "no". For example:
Am I right in assuming that, in your opinion, every soundtrack producer has the right to press as many copies of limited releases as his fancy takes him - as long as he feels the market can take it? If Bruce wants to press five thousand copies of his CDs he can do so with impunity - he doesn't even have to tell us that there are more than the "legal" 1000 copies (or so) in existence?
And you turn this into:
"Do I think Lukas should be able to re-press CDs? Yes, as long as it's legal."
I don't have to tell you that this is not the question I asked you.
You know full well that I never suggested that Lukas should not be allowed to repress CDs. Quite the contrary. I even congralutated him on repressing The Omega Man. As I said, you refuse to address the real issues I raise, and create straw man arguments which are easily shot down by you, thus creating a totally false impression of my position. You have done this with many of your responses to my posts.
And what about this post:
"It never ceases to amaze me how people bitch and moan because film score labels decide to make scores available instead of keeping them unavailable.
Hey, I've got an idea. Should we also burn all masters tapes of this, and Inchon, and Capricorn One, etc, just to make sure no one can ever release this material again?
And God forbid that Lukas and co might actually be thinking about making money. After all it's such an altruistic society we live in, isn't it speculators?"
Woul you describe this as a "civil" tone?
As you are well aware, nobody in this thread has suggested that scores be kept unavailable. Least of all me. Yet you choose to inveigh vituperatively against this totally imaginary stance.
To what end?
And how am I supposed to respond to your suggestion to "burn all master tapes"? You create another straw man and then you shoot him down.
And what exactly is the tone of the last paragraph quoted above? It's clearly addressed to anyone who disagrees with your position. And what's the biggest insult you can muster? That I, and all posters representing my point-of-view, must be speculators, because only a speculator could find fault in what Lukas has done.
The patronising sarcasm drips off the page.
No doubt you will say that some of these comments were not addressed to me personally. However, we both know that know in which direction you were pointing your wit and wisdom.
Mr Woolston, I hear the tenor of your posts just as you intend me to; any disclaimer from you would not only be disingenuous but positively mendacious. (Of course, I have ignored the possibility that you genuinely believe that I am too intellectually challenged to appreciate such rhetorical subtleties...)
Tell me that I have totally misread and misjudged everything quoted in this post and I will know it's time to raise the white flag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 10, 2012 - 12:22 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
John Smith
(Member)
|
It has been mentioned that there are only six people, who oppose the re-release.
But reading though the thread, there are actually only FOUR posters who keep repeating the same imaginary ethical arguments (or keep referring to the same non-relevant UK law).
Three of the four are bemoaning a loss the have suffered, and this loss is of course hardly ethical, but must be rather very material. They reveal themselves as speculators (which is legal), who gambled on Ben Hur (which is legal) and who now fell flat on their noses and lost (which is part of the risk they took). I offer my sympathy to them - I’m sure it’s tough to lie in the dirt.
Yet instead of showing some dignity, they keep on whining in increasingly longer and increasingly more aggressive posts about being losers. Sorry, no sympathy for this behavior.
The fourth poster behaves like a genuine idiot (or a four years old who learned to read and write).
It is clear, the vast majority here applauds Lukas for keeping Ben Hur available.
By a process of elimination, I can deduce that I am the idiot/literate four-year-old: I’m not a speculator, and I don’t possess the FSM Ben-Hur set (actually, I haven’t even ordered it yet). In addition, I am most definitely not a loser as the repressing will allow me to acquire a copy of said FSM set. (Not surprisingly, therefore, I also 'applaud Lukas for keeping Ben-Hur available'.)
You don’t actually say why I’m an idiot, though I assume it’s by virtue of the opinions I’ve expressed in this thread.
If that’s the case, then I’m in good company, because Doug Fake clearly shares my opinions.
His opinion of speculators:
“We're not huge fans of people buying and instantly re-selling our CDs at inflated prices even before we begin shipping the discs out but we understand the nature of business and say 'more power to them' if folks want to invest in their futures by chancing their cash on soundtracks.”
The need to label repressings accurately:
“Investments help keep our free enterprise system chugging along. So we're literally branding any "second editions" and whatnot accordingly. I myself collect "first editions", so this lets me continue doing so. If your EXPLORERS has the original 3000 number on it, yep, it's a "first edition". Just like the world of books and whatever.[...] Now, we know we can't have our cake and eat it, too. But maybe we can do something to help keep the lunatics from running the asylum. So... look for branding that distinguishes first editions from second editions and whatever.”
The dependability of labels vis-a-vis press-runs (extracted from Doug’s Corner Archive when he was considering repressing Inchon):
“All of this stuff is aimed at you people. You're the market. The powers that be know this. The suits at 20th Century Fox and Universal and Sony and Disney and MGM and the musician's union and everyone else. They know you make up a very small audience. They know it's expensive to produce this music and if there isn't some air of loyalty and dependability that can be counted on the results won't justify the costs. Some of you may think they don't otherwise care about all this stuff but I think they do. The people I negotiate with seem to care.”
All these comments mirror what I have said in this thread.
Idiots of the world unite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Smith,
Okay, I confess I regret that our interchange has gone sour. Let's just say I am stupefied by the reactions to what I consider to be a good and fan-friendly decision.
You said:
As I said, you refuse to address the real issues I raise
OK, so let's back track.
Let's re-cap: what are the real issues you raise?
I thought I'd got them but maybe I didn't.
You said:
I asked you very straightforward questions to which the answer is either "yes" or "no". For example:
Am I right in assuming that, in your opinion, every soundtrack producer has the right to press as many copies of limited releases as his fancy takes him - as long as he feels the market can take it? If Bruce wants to press five thousand copies of his CDs he can do so with impunity - he doesn't even have to tell us that there are more than the "legal" 1000 copies (or so) in existence?
And you turn this into:
"Do I think Lukas should be able to re-press CDs? Yes, as long as it's legal."
I don't have to tell you that this is not the question I asked you.
The reason I didn't answer the question as you put it is it was a leading and loaded question. The last sentence, a loaded rider which introduces presupposed criminal activity, is designed to make it impossible for me to say 'yes'.
If I take the first part alone: "Am I right in assuming that, in your opinion, every soundtrack producer has the right to press as many copies of limited releases as his fancy takes him - as long as he feels the market can take it?"
The answer is an absolute, emphatic YES. Why not? Don't you?
I don't give a stuff for the preciousness of limitedness. It's the music and it's availability to those who want to enjoy it I champion.
But the leading and loaded part, the: "doesn't even have to tell us that there are more than the "legal" 1000 copies (or so) in existence?"
I didn't say I supported unlicensed re-pressings. And I won't be 'led' into saying that either. When Lukas over-ran the agreed print runs in the past, I was disappointed. However, I felt he made amends and set things right.
You raised the spectre of legality here. You also previously raised the UK Sales Of Goods Act before, and talked about this act upsetting "enforcers of consumer protection legislation."
Let's just be clear. Do you think Lukas is acting illegally here?
I know in an earlier post you protested that Lukas can't be trusted; that you suspected he knew all along he would be re-pressing and the initial limit was just to dupe people into buying. Well, if you believe that's true, I can understand your protest about that. Personally, I don't believe that and I think he took a fan-friendly decision by extending the run. I do not think he is morally wrong to do it for further financial gain either.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
