The Corroseum forum (new design under construction)

chat- thanks for the info. I was offered one, but the deal smelled too fishy. I think he asked me for $150, which was a LOT of money for me in 2002-early 2003, and I had never even heard the single; all I knew about it was Malc's glowing review in his book. Once I heard the single a year or two later, well, let's just say I've never considered buying a copy since

daniel- well I never said such change would be easy I agree that the system is a mess, but that's b/c we've let ignorant, greedy morons run the system without any real oversight for far too long. Perfect example: we bitch about Congress constantly, but every election we put 99% of them right back in office for another term.
Politicians respond to two things: money and large, organized numbers of voters actively working for their removal from office. The first is something most folks don't have, but the second is something people can generate. But it requires time and work, which are hard to come by in our lazy, ADD-riddled society.
"If you have stupid, selfish voters, you're going to get stupid, selfish politicians" --George Carlin

^that comes with the poster, not a bad price at all.

MAIDEN - Bring your Daughter to the Slaughter - Testpress

http://www.benl.ebay.be/itm/Bolt-Throwe ... 0701151297

How many years since Earache sold their deadstock for 15 a piece? Two years max?

nightsblood wrote:Avenger- sorry but no, the copyright holder can do whatever they want to with the material, including not making it available, and that in no way invalidates their ownership claim. So you cannot claim it is their own fault. This is especially true given that many bootlegs are made of things that are still in print.
As a fan you have the right to legally purchase a band's recordings, you do not have the right to acquire recordings by whatever means you so desire.

Again, this depends on how you look at things. I don't support filling the pockets of greedy copyright holder cunts that will only put the music out there if there is enough demand to make a profit. I'm not referring to bootlegs of material that is still in print. I stated the opposite opinion in this matter. I'm talking about those that sit on the rights to material without any intention of ever making it available again unless they can make a buck off of it. As a fan of the material it's not in my best interest or my responsibility to be a pussy and say "too bad" when it comes to acquiring a tangible copy of a piece of music that is put out when there is no other reasonable means of purchasing a copy "legally".

There have been many times in the past when I have purchased a bootleg of something that was never available on a certain media previously and I was happy to finally have a hard copy. When a legitimate re-issue was later released, I had no problem purchasing the content again and getting rid of said bootleg.

(emphasis below added by me)

Avenger wrote: I don't support filling the pockets of greedy copyright holder cunts that will only put the music out there if there is enough demand to make a profit....I'm talking about those that sit on the rights to material without any intention of ever making it available again unless they can make a buck off of it.

Dude, ALMOST NO PRODUCT ON EARTH is ever released unless the owner thinks there is enough demand to make a profit! Do you think someone is going to go to all the trouble & expense of producing something if they know they'll LOSE money on the project? That has nothing to do with being an asshole, that's called common business sense.
I repeat: copyright holders have no obligation whatsoever to keep something in print just on the off chance that a few people might want a copy of it some day.

As a fan of the material it's not in my best interest or my responsibility to be a pussy and say "too bad" when it comes to acquiring a tangible copy of a piece of music that is put out when there is no other reasonable means of purchasing a copy "legally".

And here's the crux of the argument. You think that being a "fan of the material" entitles you to acquire the material by illegal means if necessary. Indeed, you state that it is actually your "responsibility" to do so, as if NOT owning the material means that you are doing something wrong! I've said it before and I'll say it again: as a fan of the material you have absolutely ZERO rights except to buy a legally-released copy of the material when and if it is made available for sale.

There is no question of "responsibility" here, this is a simple matter of the human Id: you want something, and you want it NOW. You do not want to wait a few years for a legit reissue. You do not want to wait until a used copy is offered for sale. You do not want to wait until you can afford a used copy of a relatively expensive, out-of-print item. You are going to acquire the thing you want as fast as possible to satisfy your desire, and if that means acquiring it illegally, so be it.

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, but I don't like it when people try to portray themselves as victimized by "greedy copyright holders" or "rich kid collectors running up ebay prices" who are depriving them of a chance to own something, and thus claim that getting illegal copies is a perfectly justifiable way of Righting some cosmic Wrong. If you want to acquire something illegally that is your choice, but don't offer some half-assed rationale claiming that it's ok for you to break the law b/c someone won't make an item readily available for you to purchase at a price you are willing to pay.

nightsblood wrote:(emphasis below added by me)

Avenger wrote: I don't support filling the pockets of greedy copyright holder cunts that will only put the music out there if there is enough demand to make a profit....I'm talking about those that sit on the rights to material without any intention of ever making it available again unless they can make a buck off of it.

Dude, ALMOST NO PRODUCT ON EARTH is ever released unless the owner thinks there is enough demand to make a profit! Do you think someone is going to go to all the trouble & expense of producing something if they know they'll LOSE money on the project? That has nothing to do with being an asshole, that's called common business sense.
I repeat: copyright holders have no obligation whatsoever to keep something in print just on the off chance that a few people might want a copy of it some day.

As a fan of the material it's not in my best interest or my responsibility to be a pussy and say "too bad" when it comes to acquiring a tangible copy of a piece of music that is put out when there is no other reasonable means of purchasing a copy "legally".

And here's the crux of the argument. You think that being a "fan of the material" entitles you to acquire the material by illegal means if necessary. Indeed, you state that it is actually your "responsibility" to do so, as if NOT owning the material means that you are doing something wrong! I've said it before and I'll say it again: as a fan of the material you have absolutely ZERO rights except to buy a legally-released copy of the material when and if it is made available for sale.

There is no question of "responsibility" here, this is a simple matter of the human Id: you want something, and you want it NOW. You do not want to wait a few years for a legit reissue. You do not want to wait until a used copy is offered for sale. You do not want to wait until you can afford a used copy of a relatively expensive, out-of-print item. You are going to acquire the thing you want as fast as possible to satisfy your desire, and if that means acquiring it illegally, so be it.

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, but I don't like it when people try to portray themselves as victimized by "greedy copyright holders" or "rich kid collectors running up ebay prices" who are depriving them of a chance to own something, and thus claim that getting illegal copies is a perfectly justifiable way of Righting some cosmic Wrong. If you want to acquire something illegally that is your choice, but don't offer some half-assed rationale claiming that it's ok for you to break the law b/c someone won't make an item readily available for you to purchase at a price you are willing to pay.

Both Stormspell and Shadow Kingdom have both stated in the past that their releases either break even or make very little and that they do it for the love as a fan of the music. Again, you are missing my point here. I don't care how or why some people put out releases or if they make money or not. I don't give a shit about the business end of the "industry". Sure, I would like to see a copyright holder or record label make a few bucks if they do a good job but that should not be the first priority in putting out a release.

I also do not believe that I am entitled to anything or that as a fan of the material that I deserve a release of a recording. However, if the copyright holder makes no effort to ever release something or will only do so under the terms that they make a large profit, they shouldn't be crying home when a bootleg of the material pops up. It has nothing to do with feeling that the copyright holder is obligated to release the material for me, right now, when I want it or because I feel victimized because there either isn’t an existing copy or one available. There is never a guarantee that a re-issue will ever be put out and it's unrealistic to think that every recording that I would like to have a legitimate hard copy of on a specific format will happen. That said, if a bootleg transpires and there is no previous legal copy on that format previously or readily available, I will purchase said bootleg without feeling guilty about it. It happens all of the time; I’m not the only one that does it and the only one to blame are those that sit on the rights without ever doing something with them.

I’m really sick of people that bitch about things without ever offering an actual SOLUTION to the problem. It’s quite simple. Bootlegs are created to relieve the demand for an item that is otherwise not available. Solution: make it available. It's not rocket science and there is no band-aid.

Dirty Rocker wrote:http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Marquis-Sade- ... 4d00c71ec3

charges £26.00 for shipping...what an asshole

ION BRITTON wrote:

Dirty Rocker wrote:http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Marquis-Sade- ... 4d00c71ec3

charges £26.00 for shipping...what an asshole

Does really matter to people willing to pay +500 GBP for the record itself?

He surely will make a lot money from the 7'' alone, but he's a greedy bastard and wants to make another 20 miserable pounds from shipping... fuck 'im.

Herkus Monte wrote:

ION BRITTON wrote:

Dirty Rocker wrote:http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Marquis-Sade- ... 4d00c71ec3

charges £26.00 for shipping...what an asshole

Does really matter to people willing to pay +500 GBP for the record itself?

It's a matter of principle.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 971wt_1185

100GBP for shipping a 7" single

apollo.ra wrote:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 971wt_1185

100GBP for shipping a 7" single

I HAVE SET THE OVERSEAS POSTAGE AT £100,THIS WILL OBVIOUSLY BE AMENDED ONCE THE FINAL VALUE IS DETERMINED