Happy Face

Eckhart is brilliant as well as Dent/Two Face. Aye agreed I was meant to put him. Wonder who the next villain is going to be (iirc Bale signed for a 3rd film) Riddler possibly, a few of the Batman villains are too far fetched for Nolan (e.g. Man-bat). I hope it's not Riddler or Penguin. I know it might be far fetched but we don't definitely know if Ra's al Ghul died in Batman Begins. I wouldn't mind seeing the likes of Man-Bat, Clayface or Killer Croc in there somewhere.

Actually I wonder if your selling of your DvD technically breaches their "law"? No, it doesn't. Are you sure? I'm fairly sure they wouldn't go after you, but after the other cases that have been upheld, if your turnover was high enough (in fact didn't they go after demo sales recently?). Why don't you buy some and we'll see what happens.

Actually I wonder if your selling of your DvD technically breaches their "law"? No, it doesn't.

And even if that is the case (which is it patently not) that justifies violating the rights of the rest of society does it? 5 pages you've been fly fishing with rights violation argument and you still haven't had a single bite. I think it's time to pack up the bait box and go home for a nip of whisky in front of the fire.

Do you complain about the differences in the price of big macs too? I don't know - if the burger sellers all get together and impose pricing models on geographical areas based on what they can get away with and against anti-cartel laws which governments completely bottle out of taking them to task over like the bastards in the music industry do then yes I would object. You make the burgers, I'll supply the spoons for people to eat them with. Kerching!

Nothing. I invite all musicians to do exactly that.

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other? It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery. We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation. This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue. That moral/legal issue hasn't changed in the decades from the cassette tape through minidisc and on to digital downloads. Of course stealing from the artists wasn't an issue back in the day because the record companies always had the next superior sounding format to push. Now they can see the gravy train slowing they're all worried about the welfare of their artists? Bullshit. Who has been lobbying for the changes apart from the BPI? British Music Rights and their artist Chief Executive. What persuaded me this was a fair issue? My professional musician friends. Both the companies and the artists are losing out. They want to count their blessings they work in an industry where they continue to get a cut of what they create. If I design a new spoon that Ikea buy those fuckers pay a flat fee for my inspiration and they rake in all future profits.

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other? It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery. We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation. This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue. That moral/legal issue hasn't changed in the decades from the cassette tape through minidisc and on to digital downloads. Of course stealing from the artists wasn't an issue back in the day because the record companies always had the next superior sounding format to push. Now they can see the gravy train slowing they're all worried about the welfare of their artists? Bullshit.

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity. You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output. The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other? It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery.

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics. In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time. Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that. To one person, then it will be available for free to all. It has been the case for years, yet millions of CDs and downloads are paid for every week. Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist. I'm sure there are many. But there's also many who want the same right to try before they buy as you get with a chair or a greggs donut.

But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation. I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable. Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one. Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though. I dont understand why the marketing process matters. Its just like pirate copies of DVDs being on the market. Or fake jeans, designer bags, fake cigarettes. Its the same as re-printing a book without permission. Or copying it into digital format and distributing it online. Its like taking research from a journal and copying it and putting it online for free. There are countless more examples. Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics. In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time. Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that. To one person, then it will be available for free to all. It has been the case for years, yet millions of CDs and downloads are paid for every week.

But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation. I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable. Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one. Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though.

But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy. Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation. I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable.

Your assumption seems to be that no-one wants to pay anything for any of their music. But that's not the case. Exactly. Anyone sitting through a CAM Version is clearly besotted and will be seeing it at the cinema 14 times, buying the Blueray and getting themself a Joker mask to boot. So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man! But they don't. That would be crazy. That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy.

Your assumption seems to be that no-one wants to pay anything for any of their music. But that's not the case. Exactly. Anyone sitting through a CAM Version is clearly besotted and will be seeing it at the cinema 14 times, buying the Blueray and getting themself a Joker mask to boot. I paid £3 for the radiohead which I thought was a fair price. I paid nowt Just because their site was horribly slow though.

Your assumption seems to be that no-one wants to pay anything for any of their music. But that's not the case. Exactly. Anyone sitting through a CAM Version is clearly besotted and will be seeing it at the cinema 14 times, buying the Blueray and getting themself a Joker mask to boot.

But you assured me elsewhere she's gone. Oh, she is. Doesn't stop her trying though.

You say that like it's a bad thing. TDK had the highest grossing opening night of any film in history. Seems to me the model is sustainable despite people downloading.

I pay for the music when I pay for a ticket to see it performed. Funny someone should mention Bob Dylan. A man who's barely had a break in touring for 50 years. He's a professional musician who makes a living playing to audiences. I think CD sales should be incidental to the artists compulsion to create and have their 'product' heard. There's different categories though. Stars like Lars Ulrich who do a 20 night tour every 4 years and whine that their multi-million pound lifestyle isn't enough and they want the genuine working man to cough up £12 for an item that costs pennies to produce so he can get his £1 cut from each of the millions of sales it racks up on the back of a multi-million pound blanket advertising campaign that quashes diversity in music. Then there's up and comers who probably deserve a bit more recognition than they're getting. To them I'd say that Time Warner are their biggest enemy, exactly because of the type of promotion described above. Don't you think on a level playing field the most talented performers will make a living? Rather than A&R men deciding what X-factor Barbie doll should be pushed and what shouldn't? Theatrical independent cinema is already as good as dead over here given that the people at City Screen provide every independent cinema in the country with THEIR choices of which films will get limited distribution (more specifically, the final say rests with a single person, programming director Clare Binns). Do you think any film that hasn't had a cinematic run at the whim of this one person has a chance of getting a DVD release? Most 'Independent' film that does get shown is backed by a house within a conglomerate studio such as Warner Village or even Miramax (Disney owned). At least the internet allows any film maker to get anything out there. By the way, I've bought over 500 CD's (over about 15 years that averages more than one a fortnight I think) and had as many DVD's (which I'm gladly starting to replace with high definition versions so they can rake it in again off me).

Nah, I'm not really fussed. If they feel they don't earn enough from touring (which I spend a great deal on over the course of a year) they can get a proper job as far as I'm concerned. What about people like Burial? You cant tour music that is designed for dancefloors that easily. Should all films be free too then? A film isnt a performance, its packaged onto a media format and re-produced, in exactly the same way a CD is. Same principle, even if the analogy needs a little extra work. I'm not really fussed about him either. I've never said CDs should be free so I'm not sure where the analogy begins, never mind where it's working to. But then a film isn't packaged in the same way as a cd either, because most films are performed 'live' (as in for a paying audience) for a good length of time before getting a release on a high quality format people would be willing to pay for.

Nah, I'm not really fussed. If they feel they don't earn enough from touring (which I spend a great deal on over the course of a year) they can get a proper job as far as I'm concerned.

Even if it wasn't a superhero film as a stand alone film it would be superb in its own right, an absolute classic. Yes I said it. Is it just me that's confused? How could a batman film not be a superhero film? Just a bloke that likes bats like the Goodie off Springwatch? That wouldn't be good. Shut up man, you know what I meant. I should have said if it wasn't a film about a characters we are all so familiar with and if it was just something completely new to us all. I stand correct said the man in the orthopaedic shoes. I might go and see it once I've been to see Wall*E.

Even if it wasn't a superhero film as a stand alone film it would be superb in its own right, an absolute classic. Yes I said it. Is it just me that's confused? How could a batman film not be a superhero film? Just a bloke that likes bats like the Goodie off Springwatch? That wouldn't be good.

Down with this sort of thing.