FEgate

I blame Mafro

Zellery wrote:I don't think that's possible.

This made me laugh:

Mind Crime wrote:Are people purposefully not saying the obvious?

HoC and Eighthours don't care about most piracy on here.

HoC doesn't like seeing magazine articles being pirated because he is into that area of business himself and obviously sees it as if you're pirating him and his journalist buddies.

Eighthours and HoC lick each others' bums on a regular basis; Eighthours is the only one out of the two with moderator powers and as such sided with his chum and deleted the posts.

The bottom line is that Steve doesn't care about piracy on here. It's his website and as such he sets the rules.

edit: But they're both mods. Or Bluehats or something.

I've got the single!

I missed all this, was away last week. I thankfully never got that pm

PsychoPriest wrote:I've got the single!

I'll see you in Kingston, snitch.

PsychoPriest wrote:I've got the single!

Wrong thread.

$ilva $hadow wrote:

Zellery wrote:I don't think that's possible.

This made me laugh:

Mind Crime wrote:Are people purposefully not saying the obvious?

HoC and Eighthours don't care about most piracy on here.

HoC doesn't like seeing magazine articles being pirated because he is into that area of business himself and obviously sees it as if you're pirating him and his journalist buddies.

Eighthours and HoC lick each others' bums on a regular basis; Eighthours is the only one out of the two with moderator powers and as such sided with his chum and deleted the posts.

The bottom line is that Steve doesn't care about piracy on here. It's his website and as such he sets the rules.

edit: But they're both mods. Or Bluehats or something.

I'm not a mod. I'm a bluehat, but I don't have any powers, except the ability to advise on any decisions in the staff room.

As far as I'm aware, there aren't any links to film downloads on here, which I'd put in the same bracket as publicly posting mag scans. I did admit I had a vested interest in mag scans being posted - it's not as if I'm denying that. Ultimately, if Steve and the rest of the mods decide it's allowed, then there's not much I can do about it. I just voiced my concerns in that one thread, is all. I don't think I'm being entirely unreasonable just saying that I don't think it's a good idea. I mean, we do have full-time Future staffers periodically coming on here - if we keep posting scans of their work, then they'll likely get a bit miffed and leave. Again, that might not be a concern others share, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Not that this has anything to do with this thread. Just wanted to clarify a few things. As you were.

Full time future staffers like who?

If they're miffed that I don't pay for their magazine, then tough. I'd never buy the magazine anyway, they aren't losing out on anything at all. In fact they're gaining a larger target audience for free instead. I could just waltz into a shop and stand there reading the mag and they'd not make a penny.

They weren't going to get my money anyway.

$ilva $hadow wrote:Full time future staffers like who?

If they're miffed that I don't pay for their magazine, then tough. I'd never buy the magazine anyway, they aren't losing out on anything at all.

Not from you. But others might have been planning to buy the mag, and the scans might mean they don't bother.

In fact they're gaining a larger target audience for free instead.

I think they'd rather the mag sold more, thus earning Future more money and increasing the chance of a better budget for the mag/their wages.

I could just waltz into a shop and stand there reading the mag and they'd not make a penny.

Course you could, and that's always going to be the case. Assuming WHSmith were happy with you ripping the bag open, anyway. But it doesn't mean that all mags should be fair game for people to essentially rip-off.

$ilva+HoC, you're missing the point somewhat; it's not that magazine scans are justifiable in and of in themselves, it's that similar posts are made all the time and go unpunished. The inconsistency was what caused the problems.

Not from you.

What not from me?

But others

Who?

might have been planning

plan what?

to buy the mag

Mag isn't out yet.

, and the scans might mean

they don't bother.

I think they'd rather the mag

sold more, thus earning

Future more money and increasing the ch

ance of a better budget for the mag/their wages.

Course you could,

and that's always going to be the case. Assuming WHSmith were happy with you ripping the bag open, anyway. But it doesn't mean that all mags should be fair game for people to essentially rip-off.

I hope it's easy for you to read.

Karlprof wrote:$ilva+HoC, you're missing the point somewhat; it's not that magazine scans are justifiable in and of in themselves, it's that similar posts are made all the time and go unpunished. The inconsistency was what caused the problems.

Nah I get that point. The inconsistency is the main issue. But I just also wanted to point out that if a reviewer is up his own arse to think that people buy a magazine on the basis of one review in a whole magazine, then they must be up their own arse. A fiver or so to pay for one review? Really? If anyone was going to buy a magazine it wouldn't be for the one review.

If so much as split my post up KP, I'm going to rape you.


Edit: wow, so many errors.

There's only one way we can settle this...


A game of soggy biscuits.

I think $ilva $hadow is on drugs.

There's no photoshopping thread to be on drugs for

I do mean lolcohol.

KKLEIN wrote:I think $ilva $hadow is on drugs.

That or he hasn't had his warm milk yet.

Karlprof wrote:$ilva+HoC, you're missing the point somewhat; it's not that magazine scans are justifiable in and of in themselves, it's that similar posts are made all the time and go unpunished. The inconsistency was what caused the problems.

The inconsistency was a courtesy to those posting here from Future. But the concept of courtesy is seen by many on here as incompatible with consistency when the two clash. Maybe they're right. But I find it hard to see how the principle of courtesy here can't at least be understood by those who are annoyed with the inconsistency, even if they disagree with it.

As an analogy, one wonders how certain forumites would treat an Israeli visitor to their dinner party. Would they argue about the Isreal/Palestine situation regardless of the presence of their guest, or as a courtesy, would they leave the subject well alone? But wait: you should be "allowed" to talk about whatever you want, surely? Yes, of course... but those who understand the concept of courtesy probably wouldn't, in order to avoid making their guest feel uncomfortable.

That's why the attitude towards the mag scans confuses me. Yes, ideally, you'd love mag scans, but since people who write for the magazines are on here, you don't post scans of them. Isn't that courtesy? Isn't that being nice to those Future bods? Isn't that just generally showing some social responsibility? Is that actually, genuinely, a "ludicrous" explanation, as one forumite described it?

I don't think so. Nonetheless, it looks like the policy will be changed. I understand the argument of the opposing side completely, and I can't argue with the cold logic of it. But my heart (for want of a better word) doesn't agree with changing it. Not posting Future scans is an honourable exception to our general laxness that, in my view, takes into account the jobs and feelings of some forumites who post here.

(Winckle was, of course, just trying to settle an argument in the thread by posting his scans. I'm only talking about the general principle of the exception here...)

I thought this was the Goatse thread?

The scan-gate is that-a-way...

It's just as I thought. This crime is unsolvable.