Red Dwarf Soundtrack

Discussion in 'RED DWARF UNIVERSE' started by Hollo_Marx, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    But where have you actually disagreed and countered my views (as in what I actually wrote)? You seem to be making up your own arguments based on prima facie associations and assumptions.

    Please explain to me how you think my downloading the latest Doctor Who episode via torrent-based technology, and everything else I wrote about paying for legal DW downloads is not taking into account the artist. How does that lead to the artists loosing out financially?

    look, I'm not denying that some illegal downloads have had some kind of an effect on certain artists and general elements of the entertainment industry. But nor do I think it has the kind of effects you seem to believe it does. And on another level, nor do I believe it's ever going to change. Hence the need for change/adaptation/evolution.

    Just to add to what I said about the BBC, so long the current profit-based system is in place I would actually be quite happy to see the rules changed to the point where people like me have to pay to view the likes of Doctor Who on bbciplayer. And if that surprises you then then I would suggest that you've not been paying attention. Rather, you appear to be more fixated on this false perception you have of me.

    You also appear to be overlooking what I said about feeling/recognising that the system has to change/adapt if artists are to be 'set free' so to speak. Because rather than ask me to verify exactly what I mean when I use such language as "free", you simply assume, project, mock, sterotype and proceed with your isolated little dismissals. All you seem to hear in your head is 'hippie dippie anti-capitalist nonsense', which is getting pretty boring now by the way. And I'm sorry but there's just no reasoning with that kind of truncated 'in-the-box thinking'.

    If you expect me to take you seriously then give examples, as opposed to politicised rhetoric, niave standardised pigeonholing and baseless ad hominems.
     
  2. Seb

    Seb Captain Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,797
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    JMC HQ
    I'm not going to get into the general debate about copyright/piracy/the licence fee etc., as I simply don't have the energy, but as it relates to the original topic/query I have a very important point to make:

    There IS an official release of the Red Dwarf music - it's on the DVD extras. Therefore, if anyone on this forum were to share direct links to copies of it, they would be illegally reproducing copyrighted material from the DVDs.

    You can debate until the cows come home whether you think that's morally right or wrong, or if it can even be considered "illegal", but whatever you might think of it, it is completely and absolutely forbidden to share such links, or even to discuss how to get them, on this forum. And that's the end of the debate, at least in so far as it concerns this place.
     
  3. kry102001

    kry102001 Catering Officer

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Seb, I wasn't aware of the music being available on the dvd's, I was only trying to help, I apologise for sparking up a debate, but, it ends now and I will not condone nor support any more illegal downloading.
     
  4. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    Well, yeah, and I certainly appreciate the isolated audio tracks being included. It's a shame that there's no official CD or Audio download release though, isn't it? But yeah, I hear you.

    Fair enough. And in respect to that I apologise for my part. When it comes to anything Red Dwarf specific I wont discuss the issue again on this forum.

    Sorry, bye, sorry, bye. :-)
     
  5. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    Exactly. Thank you. This is one of the very basic points I've been making here, albeit from a slightly different angel. But yeah, the point remains the same: It's not a black and white issue. There are many, many grey areas!

    Anyway, I don't have the time or patience to reply to the rest of your post right now, But I'll try to do so at some point.
     
  6. simulant37

    simulant37 Science Officer

    Messages:
    11,946
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Yes but seb has asked us to stop talking about this & we are going widely off topic if you please.
     
  7. Hollo_Marx

    Hollo_Marx Catering Officer

    Messages:
    359
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    My apologies for opening up such a can of worms, I really was just interested in seeing if there had ever been a CD compilation released of all of Howard Goodall's Red Dwarf music.

    Does anyone know if it's also available on the xtras for the US format DVDs? I don't know how different the US region box set is from what was released in the UK. It says on Amazon that it contains "isolated music cues", pardon my stupidity, but is this the same thing?

    Price for the US box set is up to over $90 now, smeg. :-(
     
  8. Strat-tastic

    Strat-tastic Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    7,754
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Location:
    Scandalous Grace
    Yes, isolated music cues is the same thing :-)

    Keep an eye on the price; in my experience of items online, they can fluctuate quite widely over the course of time. Be patient 8)
     
  9. Seb

    Seb Captain Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,797
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    JMC HQ
    No, you're right. I'm not stifling that particular debate at all, I just said I didn't want to get involved in it (although I have fairly strong and in some places contradictory opinions on it). You're welcome to talk about it, whether theoretically or relating to things that aren't Red Dwarf, all you want.

    All I was laying down was that you can't talk about the sharing of Red Dwarf material that has been commercially released.
     
  10. Ant E

    Ant E Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    7,092
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    To conclude the above - STEALING is wrong. Copying licensed music is STEALING! :x
     
  11. simulant37

    simulant37 Science Officer

    Messages:
    11,946
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    You heard it here first! Illegally downloading is ok for anything other than RD if you please! :roll:
     
  12. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    It's an interesting analogy, but there are of course some fundamental differences between sneaking into a gig and listening to an unofficial copy of music. "Pirates" cannot replicate the experience of watching a live gig. When we attend gigs we're paying for a unique experience. A holistic experience which includes physically taking advantage of the venue's facilities whilst having the opportunity to see the band give an exclusive live performance. Also, for each individual gig there are additional costs involved for the band.

    Playing gigs is how the majority of financially successful bands make enough to make a living from their chosen art form. There is very little to be made by making music and releasing albums in this day and age. Many bands, such as The Levellers have fully accepted this. Although that's not necessarily to say they're especially pleased about it. But luckily for them they have always enjoyed touring and are willing to work hard in that respect. Playing live shows is their job. The music they make is what makes that job financially viable.

    Although that's not to say that doing more touring is a holistic solution, especially in respect to new artists. Because the increased necessity to tour, brings about an increased level of competition, as in more bands are now on the road at the same time.

    Now, in the kind of resource-based system I often speak this wouldn't be a problem. In fact it would be a wonderful thing to have such diversity. And competition in and of itself can be a wonderful thing. It can, in the right settings, bring about much diversity.

    However, even though this is rare, I do accept that in some cases friendly/constructive competition does exist in the current system, and can be made to work within the economic rules. For example, from what I understand when two writers are hired to work on separate drafts of a script, they both get paid, regardless of who contributed the most when it comes to the final draft. Therefore in this case there could potentially be some healthy competition involved, in addition to collaboration between the two writers. That's a beautiful thing.

    But when competition leads to winners and losers...that's when problems emerge. Which is why I'm against competition for resources and personal survival, *not* against competition in and of itself.

    So, why are artists finding it difficult to make a living purely from selling albums? Is "piracy" in and of itself responsible for that? No, of courser not. It's not just illegal downloads that have shaken up the music industry. The digital 'revolution' was always going to have this effect on an industry struggling to survive in a profit-for income-based economy. People can blame "pirates", people's "selfish human nature", technological progression or any of the other scape goats one may choose to believe are fully responsible, but at the end of the day the reason we're seeing so many problems naturally emerge is due to our failure to adapt and evolve.

    Now, you would be forgiven for genuinely feeling that I go out of my way to link everything back to the system, but I can assure you that this really isn't the case. If anything the exact opposite is true. I try so hard not to do that, especially when replying to you. But upon objectively analysing all this information and all these unnecessary problems, recognising the interconnecting causalities always lead me back to the same basic conclusions, whether I like it or not.

    The transition I spoke of years ago is now. It's happening all around us. But the economic and social values system hasn't yet even begun to adapt. We're still pushing the blame onto one another. We're speeding head first towards the future whilst stubbornly clinging to the past.

    Regardless of what some people may think about me, I sincerely care about the artists who are genuinely losing out. But just because some are losing out to one degree or another, that doesn't excuse the false claim that all unofficial downloads hurt the artist. In some cases illegal downloads actually bring more custom to the artists. However, on the other side of the coin, as you quite rightly pointed out yourself, just because some unofficial downloads don't hurt the artist shouldn't necessarily mean it's open season on copyright.


    Well that's very noble of you. And I respect that, really I do. But we don't live in a world of jmc's. And if you think people will follow your lead in this system then I think you're only kidding yourself. If I lend you a DVD you could technically make a simply copy on your laptop and keep it forever. Which, realistically speaking is what many people do. I'm neither condoning or condemning here but you know very well that a large portion of people would laugh at your suggestion to buy a copy of something you already have access to.

    So when we look at the truth of how the system and society actually functions, as opposed to the idealistic market theory [that has never been and never will be], we recognise that your subjective, reductionist example means very little in the broader scheme of things.

    And if that comes across as insulting then bare in mind that I'm also well aware that my own example of watching COSMOS torrents and subsequently buying the DVD was equally as subjective and reductionist. Because you and I both know that not everyone or even most people do either of those things. The flood gates are open. And I see no way of turning back at this point. People have and will always share stuff, whether technically legal or otherwise.

    However, in regards to my example, various studies, including a very recent one published in the Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics - have been done that show that people who download illegal torrents are generally more likely to pay for films than music. And other studies, such as the one published by the Columbia University found that people who download illegal torrents generally spend more money (around 30% more) on media than those who purchase everything legally.

    This shouldn't really be a great surprise as "pirates" generally consume more media over all. Without those kind of people our current "economy" would suffer.

    Here's how most "Pirates" can be best described: One who pays a lot of money into the economy by purchasing a lot of legal media...but also gets some of it for free, in an unofficial, technically illegal sense.

    Here's how most "pirates" can't be honestly described [but usually are in the media and by naive politicians]: Nasty people in criminal gangs who don't give a smeg about anyone but themselves, have no respect for law and order and are single handedly destroying the entertainment industry. Lazy, thoughtless scroungers caught up in the "something-for-nothing-culture!".

    What the above studies suggest is that in many cases this all comes down to basic logic and convenience. Sometimes content isn't available online, only in DVD format, or only in particular countries. How best to solve this? By self-righteously preaching at people, shouting "ALL ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS ARE THEFT!" and repeating the "something-for-nothing scroungers" rhetoric? Or to get real, grow up and deal with the root cause itself by working to charge the systematic rules, so to allow the stuff to be available for all, online at an affordable cost. If this doesn't happen then I'm afraid we're just gonna have to suck it up and stop moaning about it. But wishing, dreaming and fantasising about a world in which everyone just all of a sudden stops downloading illegal content is pointless.

    Other reasons people "pirate" is because they feel ripped off. And in some cases they're quite right to feel that way. Call me a "pirate" or whatever but a while back I downloaded some of the extras content from the Blackadder boxset. Why? Because I paid around £50 for my boxset, only to find that a few years later they re-released it with extra content. No, I wont pay twice. And I don't care what anyone thinks of me for that. So it's pointless people calling me a thief because rightly or wrongly I honestly don't care what people like that think of me. I also downloaded the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean movie after being sold a DVD copy on false pretences. I was told that my copy included the DVD commentary. It didn't, and since *they wouldn't let me return it I went looking for a torrent that did.

    *Although to be fair in the latter case that was more the fault of Sainburys (who had an exclusive deal with Disney for the special edition release) as opposed to the creators/producers/distributors. But again, it's very rarely a black and white situation.

    The "pirate" industry is not mostly made up of violent criminal gangs. Those day are long gone, for the most part. But even back when this was the case it was massively exaggerated (like most things i this system). And to some extent I think that was probably very intentional...although I'm admittedly speculating to a certain degree here (in regards to how intentional the lies/exaggerations were).

    Value. Worth. It's all very subjective. And rightly or wrongly if people don't think your products is worth what you're asking for it, some of them will access it free of charge if possible. Then some of them may pay for it if they feel it was worth the asking price. Try before you buy and all that.

    On another level, I have friends and family members who have never done illegal downloads, but also never buy DVDs any more. They simply borrow them from friends. We live in an ever emerging society which harnesses and shares goods like a kind of unofficial library. Now, admittedly I personally have somewhat conflicting views about this, for reasons I'm sure you're well aware of by now. And I also recognise that you have different reasons for feeling the way you do about certain things.

    We both clearly care about the best interests of the creators, but we also have certain 'agendas' (for want of a better word) in regards to the kind of socio-economic system we genuinely feel to be for the greater good in the prolonged sense. You feel it best to fight against the social trends whilst attempting to preserve the current system as much as we can, whereas I feel we'd all be better off if some updates and fundamental changes were made to the economic structure itself, so to realign the trends with technological progression and the ever changing vales in regards to price tags and general sharing.

    But staying within the realms of the current system, if you were to make your living from your music, I would buy your CD, whereas those afore mentioned friends and family members would simply borrow it. They're contributing nothing. Is that wrong of them? Not legally, it ain't.

    Here's another scenario, albeit a hypothetical one, so don't shoot me down for this, okay? ;-) Lets assume that your main income is based on writing fictional novels for children. I happen to come across your one of your books via a torrent-based website. I download it. I like it, and I think my niece would love it. So I go out and buy it. Therefore, like it or not, whoever illegally uploaded your book to a torrent-based site had indirectly brought some custom your way. How do you feel about that?

    Values. Social values. Can we change/influence them?

    Let's be honest with ourselves here, an illegal download doesn't equal one lost viewer or sale. And to believe that illegal downloads in and of themselves are directly harmful is just outright wrong. However, that's not to say that they can't or don't cause some harm to some people within the industry. Again it's not as black and white as many people believe.

    But even if all illegal downloads did hurt the artists, so long as the content is available some people are going to take advantage of it.

    Well this is where our understandings/beliefs/perceptions appear to differ quite dramatically. For me, given what appear to be the systematic causalities of most crimes I personally see no reason to assume or believe that most if not all crimes can't be dealt with and possibly even eliminated all together over time. I don't think that's possible from within the current system however (which is a bold statement, I know. And I'm more than willing to elaborate if asked).

    Whereas I don't necessarily think that sharing stuff should be eliminated altogether. In fact in the foreseeable future I'd like to see more of it - Open source FTW and all that - but only if and when we wake up and accept that certain fundamental changes first have to occur.

    It's not the sharing in and of itself that's the problem, it's the socio-economic consequences that can, in some cases stem from sharing digital content a specific way. I can't help but perceive it as an almost metaphysical problem, as opposed to a physical/static problem. It's only due to the ancient rules we cling to that that we learn to see sharing digital content as theft, because in a system based on self-interest and financial gain it can lead to people loosing out. But technically speaking this need not be the case. And most certainly hasn't always been the case. Feel free to ask me to elaborate on that last statement if you please...."if you please"? Oh Gawd, now Sim's got me at it!

    Whereas the majority of genuinely dangerous and social unhealthy crimes such as rape, murder, muggings, armed robbery, burglary would all still have negative effects regardless of the "economic" rules we decided to play by.

    In a system in which ones rights to life are not based on how much money they make, I imagine that you would personally be all for sharing film and music content (so long as the creators are given credit where it's due and all that). Because there would

    be no reason for you to be against it. Whereas I doubt you would ever change you mind about rape, murder, muggings, etc. There's no proposed system in which those things could be justified. Although they sure do seem to be generated and perpetuated rather a lot in the current system, regardless of laws.

    It's true that for a limited time period someone is getting paid a small amount for the DVD's we buy. Not always necessarily the creators though. For example if you went out to buy Russell Brand's Messiah Complex DVD, not one penny will go to him. He's already been paid. Which is part of the reason he posted a link on twitter to Pirate Bay so that people who can't afford the DVD could have access to his show.

    Now one could argue that this makes him a kind chap for wanting everyone to have equal access to his show. Then again perhaps he's just an ego-driven so and so who wants to be seen and heard by all. And one could also argue that his sharing of the link makes him selfish for taking the money and running, seemingly not caring about the consequences it has on those who helped fund and release the content to begin with, ie the production and DVD companies.


    Okay, again I honestly don't mean to come across as insulting here, but lets stick to the reality of things, not the economic theories. In an idealistic, fanciful market system in which corporations play by the rules, regulations and laws, what you're saying there makes some kind of sense. As would be so if I were to point out that it's Pirate Bay's job to do the same. But in practice is it actually happening for the most part? Do you honestly believe that a certain creator of a certain one-off sci-fi comedy series is getting paid for the adds included in the illegal copies of his show on youtube?

    I apologise in advance if anything in the following two paragraphs is pushing to hard against the boundaries of the rules of this site, but given the important point I'm trying to make I feel this example to be necessary.

    What do you think Seb (or whoever happened to be Admin at the time) would say were I to embed or post a link right here (or in the music thread) to one of the many "Red Dwarf music cues" videos on youtube? We both know the answer to that. And the answer is so because they're technically illegal uploads of which GNP receive no compensation for whatsoever, otherwise Seb/GNP would have no problem with me doing so. All those RD music cues on youtube are technically illegal. If they weren't then they would be on the official RD youtube channel, in which case we would be allowed - encouraged even - to share them here.

    The majority of embedded music on the song thread of this very forum are technically illegal. This is a fact. The only reason we don't get told off for posting them is because they're not the "intellectual property" of GNP, nd therefore don't effect them (not that they necessarily would even if they were RD music tracks). So there is some subjectivity involved here. But since this site/forum is owned and paid for by GNP, said subjectivity is understandable in that very basic sense. But legally there is no difference whatsoever between RD music and the majority of music and film content being posted on this forum. And in respect to the illegal RD uploads on youtube, regardless of how we try to cut it, this is no different whatsoever to the illegal uploads on other file sharing sites such as Pirate Bay.

    It concerns me that people assume that everything is always above board when large, well known corporations such as google/youtube are involved. I take it you're aware of youtube's "content ID Copyright Claim" regime? In many cases the copyright owners are furious about what they're doing. There are many production companies and creators out there who are more than happy to allow game or film reviewers on youtube to use small sections of their material. And yet, youtube/google are actually taking the content down, filing claims - often purely on behalf of themselves, *not* the content owners - and in some cases are making money from it. In other cases they allow the content to stay and make money via the adds, without letting the content owners know about it.

    So not only do youtube/Google appear to be openly allowing illegal content to be shared on their site, they're actually making money from other people's work! Even Pirate Bay don't do that.

    Speaking of which there are indeed various torrent-based sites that do exactly what youtube are supposed to do. They hold official/legal torrents and the content creators get some compensation. There are also torrents that you have to pay for in order to download.

    Even in the case of Pirate Bay (the most "controversial" example of them all) a recent survey found that around 80% of their torrents are legal. Personally I have way more respect for Pirate Bay than I do for google/youtube. My favourite thing about Pirate Bay [now sensibly renamed "Proxy Bay" as their original name was just taking the smeg] is that one can freely and legally download
    3D printer plans for duplicating physical objects



    No matter how we cut it, youtube is a file sharing site on which a large portion of the material is technically illegal. And in a large number of cases not one penny goes to the copy-right holders. Sure it's technically, theoretically possible to generate a small amount of money via adds on youtube, but in those cases it's peanuts compared to what youtube/Google make from other people's work.

    Also, if you have a youtube channel and you don't want adds included on the videos you upload, you can simply pay youtube/google (not the copyright owners of material you may use) and they will stop the adds appearing. Morally, legally or otherwise this is exactly what is happening.They will only remove the content if the owners make an official complaint.

    So why don't they take more direct responsibility? Well, call me a sceptical pessimist but I can't help but feel it's because we live in a selfish, profit-based system, and hence it's in their best interest to leave the content where it is, regardless of whether it be technically legal or not.

    So if you want to stop what you call "piracy" then I would suggest we start at a top down approach. Starting with youtube, who are, in a sense, the biggest and most successful "piracy" company ever created.

    Some people are less sceptical and more forgiving than me however, and genuinely believe that youtube are trying to stop piracy from occurring on their site. But even those people recognise that youtube is, intentionally or otherwise, technically a much greater threat to the music and movie industry than the likes of Pirate Bay.

    Google Refuses to Take Down Pirate Movies on Youtube Sites

    And how do you suggest going about trying to make that a reality? Try to convince a large portion of the public to follow your lead? Or tackle it from the top down as suggested above?

    I would suggest that the only way youtube and Pirate Bay can be sustainable in this system if if they take responsibility in regards to governing their content efficiently. And again I think the production companies themselves have a role to play too.

    But if we want to attempt to change peoples values then surely we need to think outside of the box (in regards to the way the current system works, and the possible alternatives). We are currently governed by and conditioned upon and within an inherently dog-eat-dog system. Which is unfortunate, because in the broader scheme of things, social values only tend to change if the environment inspires and supports such value shifts.
     
  13. Freeborn

    Freeborn Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    8,313
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    The Land of Freebornia
    That's not a bad idea. Although I may not have as much time to respond in full any time soon (Module site now open and my text books arrived today), but will try to get around to it at some point. I think it's an interesting discussion. :-)

    By the way, I realise now that I took your sneaking into gigs analogy the wrong way. Sorry about that. Genuine mistake on my part. It makes much more sense to me now, lol. :-)

    Also, I wasn't implying that you are personally interested in demonising people. Bare in mind that when I post about such issues here (or anywhere else) I'm ever-conscious of the (possible) broader audience, so to speak.

    Oh and I wasn't actually making a for or against argument in regards to Brand. In a sense I was expanding on the part of your quote I outlined in bold, whilst comparing different theoretical/morel positions and arguments. I actually think Mr. Brand can be somewhat of an unintentional hypocrit at times, albeit it one with somewhat understandable conflictions yet good intentions. But then I see that in most people participating in this system of coercive trade - so that'll be pretty much everyone then. :eek:

    Oh and one more thing, while I'm not of the belief that piracy in and of itself is the reason that little money can be made from albums nowadays, I don't personally tend to download illegal music torrents. But I do use Spotify as a try-before-you-buy platform, or just because it's easier than looking for my CD's or USB sticks containing (legal) downloads. And obviously I post music from youtube on facebook and this forum's song thread, some of which is technically illegal, even though I own legal copies of most of the tracks I post.

    Oh and one last thing... only joking. ;-)
     
  14. Ant E

    Ant E Flight Co-Ordinator

    Messages:
    7,092
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    JUST STOP STEALING!!!!!!!!!
     

Share This Page