The Strange Case of Alice Cooper, fixed it!

[A_MichaelUK]

>No, but if I did it it would, in AC terms at least, make those sites completely redundant

Only for a short time, though!

[kevinuk81]

How i see this then, if there is a link to a video on the internet, posted on this site, Si, being the owner could be sued, and that could mean the end of this site, as well as other monetary issues and court proceedings?

Simple solution is don't post a link and if you do, expect it to be removed.

[A_MichaelUK]

>How i see this then, if there is a link to a video on the internet, posted on this site, Si, being the owner could be sued, and that could mean the end of this site, as well as other monetary issues and court proceedings

Exactly. As unlikely as it is to happen, it is still a possibility and there's no reason for that risk to be incurred.

[Si]

>No, but if I did it it would, in AC terms at least, make those sites completely redundant

Only for a short time, though!

I meant if it was suddenly legal to do so haha

[pitkin88]

Amuk was targeting TB as he usual does and couldn't wait to report him. Why was nothing said about the King Of The Silver Screen link? Why is that still there?

[kevinuk81]

Amuk was targeting TB as he usual does and couldn't wait to report him. Why was nothing said about the King Of The Silver Screen link? Why is that still there?

Ask the owner or a moderator, who are the only people that can delete a link.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Amuk was targeting TB as he usual does

That is false.

>and couldn't wait to report him.

That is false.

> Why was nothing said about the King Of The Silver Screen link? Why is that still there?

My answer is in that thread.

[pitkin88]

What a cop out. You are all over TB and if he had posted it you'd have had your knickers in a ruffle.

[A_MichaelUK]

>What a cop out. You are all over TB and if he had posted it you'd have had your knickers in a ruffle.

No, that's your paranoia. Do you and he each have your own paranoia or do you share it? Have you actually read the rule under discussion? If you have, tell the owner of the site how the 1977 footage breaks it. I am beginning to wonder if you have understood what this is about. Have you actually read the post from Si where he addresses this?

[killer wolf]

jesus wept. this place gets more like a troll convention/kindergarten every day it seems. this whole episode could have been sorted in about 8 posts but all the snipey bitchy p155y last-word spats have wasted 3 pages.

[Toronto Bob]

Couldn't agree more

I agree also
So, do we have a consensus?
Or, does anyone have a last word?
Hello????
(I do suspect it's not over)

Consensus on what?

The subject of my original post has barely been discussed. There was plenty to discuss there, even if the youtube link to Serious (which was posted just to give an example of what I was talking about) was removed. Instead amuk and like minded members decide to derail the thread with strawman arguements about what rights I don't have to the music. Of course I don't have any legal rights to sell or distribute anyone's music but I doubt this site has legal rights to display, distribute much of the images and words to all those AC albums. The album/dvd cover images, the lyrics even many of the photographs - all copyrighted and owned and not by this site's owner. In addition to that, I would imagine Si generates some revenue to offset his costs of operating this site. So earning money while using copyrighted images is actually breaking the spirit of copyright laws, wheras my posting of the youtube li9nk may literally break copyright law, it does not break the spirit of the law. No income was earned, no income was diverted and there was never any intention to do so. If amuk or someone else wants to start a thread about copyright issues, then fine let them start a thread about it and let the arguements and debates ensue.

This thread was specifically about improving the soundtrack to an officially released product. Lots of issues to debate in that topic alone. The posted link was a transgression of the board rules? Fine remove it but the topic is still a valid one so make your comments in relation to the original thread. Have a problem with copyright abuses? Good - make your own thread and let people pile on.

How about a consensus of staying on point in a thread?

[A_MichaelUK]

>The subject of my original post has barely been discussed. There was plenty to discuss there,

You seem to have forgotten that you (in your post of 12 September) are the one who deviated from the point. You are the one who complained that the link was removed (although you had the right to ask why) and when it was explained to you, you are the one who brought up the subject of copyright which led to that discussion and moved the discussion away from the thread.

>Instead amuk and like minded members decide to derail the thread with strawman arguements about what rights I don't have to the music.

Another example that you still don't understand. It actually wasn't about "the music". It was about the footage.

>I doubt this site has legal rights to display, distribute much of the images and words to all those AC albums

Although Si can explain this better than me, I'll just say for the billionth time that you still don't seem to understand what that rule said. None of the images are available for sale. The rule referred "to officially released material." I don't think that applies to any images here but I could be wrong. The same with the lyrics - they are not available to buy.

>The album/dvd cover images, the lyrics even many of the photographs - all copyrighted and owned and not by this site's owner.

All of that is true but (and Si can correct me here), there is little or no comparison between scans of those images and the actual item depicted in the image and again those images aren't available for sale (unless you buy the album and he isn't providing links to copies of any of the albums).

> In addition to that, I would imagine Si generates some revenue to offset his costs of operating this site. So earning money while using copyrighted images is actually breaking the spirit of copyright laws,

Actually, no. It is the other way round. I actually think he is going against the letter, not the spirit of that law. I don't know how many more ways there are to say this: it is HIS site. It is up to HIM if, how and where he chooses to transgress any laws. All he is asking is that YOU don't do it on HIS site. To say he is doing it so therefore you can too, isn't your decision to make. Go and create your own site and transgress as many laws as you like.

>wheras my posting of the youtube li9nk may literally break copyright law, it does not break the spirit of the law.

I think yours was different because you made a high quality copy of something that is available for sale whereas any images here are relatively of low resolution and those images are not available for sale. Does that make it right? No, but again, it's not your decision to make. Again, Si doesn't have to justify his rules to you, me or anyone else - if you don't like it, start your own site.

>No income was earned, no income was diverted and there was never any intention to do so.

We know that but again, you can only make that judgement on your own site. As it is Si's site, he can do what he wants. You don't have to like it and I don't have to like it but it isn't your, or my, site.

>If amuk or someone else wants to start a thread about copyright issues, then fine let them start a thread about it and let the arguements and debates ensue.

It wasn't me, Loomis, Si, Lucious Mothem, kevinuk81 or SickThings that started or perpetuated the debate.

>This thread was specifically about improving the soundtrack to an officially released product. Lots of issues to debate in that topic alone.

I agree. I, along with Lucius Mothem and RemarkablyInsincere commented or asked a question about this but again, YOU are the one who moved away from that and started trying to discuss copyright. You could easily have not done that and stuck to the point - which is what you're now accusing everyone else of not doing.

>The posted link was a transgression of the board rules? Fine remove it

It was and you became so indignant that you started going on about copyright! Do you really have that short of a memory or something?

>but the topic is still a valid one so make your comments in relation to the original thread.

Why did you not perpetuate "the original thread", then? It is obvious that what is also bothering you is that not enough people wanted to discuss the nature of your gesture or get into a discussion about audio quality which means that you're not getting the attention and validation you think you deserve. Maybe not enough people here are interested in discussing that subject. Who knows?

>How about a consensus of staying on point in a thread?

Try taking your own advice.

[Lucius Morthem]

I Would have complained.


Going back to the original thread. I Don't think the Strange Case needs a "better" audio. I'm glad the recording exist, and I love it.

TB There you've got an answer!

[pitkin88]

I Would have complained.


Going back to the original thread. I Don't think the Strange Case needs a "better" audio. I'm glad the recording exist, and I love it.

TB There you've got an answer!

Thanks for that. Could you please scour the rest of the forum for forbidden links?
Do you prefer VHS to DVD by any chance?

[A_MichaelUK]

>If Amuk hadn't have complained I doubt Si would have bothered removing the link.

As I said before, you are paranoid.

>But as usual he acts like the police and an interesting thread is derailed.

It was indeed "derailed" - ironically by the person who created it. Also, YOU are hypocrite, just like your friend is. You have had plenty of opportunities to discuss the point of the thread. You could have chosenn to ignore the subsequent discussion but you did not. YOU contributed to and perpetuated the copyright discusssion just like he did.

Look, it's obvious that since 1988 or whenever it was you left Britain, you quietly, secretly and unbeknownst to me, have developed some kind of issue where I am concerned. I don't know why that is and for all I know, you might have a good reason but to appear from nowhere as you did in 2010 or so after approximately twenty - five years of no contact and start posting in the manner that you have since then are obviously signs that all isn't as it probably should be. As I asked you previously, it there is an issue, you should discuss it with me privately. The majority of your posts consist of knee - jerk reactions to perceived threats or sleights, obtuseness, an inability or unwillingness to understand how the world works beyond what appears to beyond your very limited sphere of experience, an inability or unwillingness to even consider the possibility that people who may know more about a subject than you do might possibly know what they're talking about and an inherent cynicism which really should be replaced by healthy scepticism. So on that basis, either contact me privately, or ensure all your posts are about the subject of this site. If there is anything you don't like about this site, discuss it with the owner.

>Amuk how can we discuss his audio without being able to hear it?

HAVE YOU NOT READ ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN POSTED?! It isn't about the audio - it is about the footage. The audio was never commercially released, so the rule (by the way it is specifically worded) doesn't apply to that. Read ALL the posts in a thread before you post.

> As you point out it is Si's site but you can't wait to stir up the hornets nest and make him paranoid about nothing.

You really are endearing yoursefl to him by referring to him that way. You need to remember you're a guest here, just like we all are. As proof of your paranoia, I can only tell you that he added that rule YEARS BEFORE I EVEN JOINED.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Could you please scour the rest of the forum for forbidden links?

If you've been paying attention, you will know that others have been taken down previously, not just the one that Toronto Bob supplied.

[Lucius Morthem]

I Prefer the dvd's audio. Now, let's continue with the original thread

In my opinion It doesn't need a fix!

[pitkin88]

I Prefer the dvd's audio. Now, let's continue with the original thread

In my opinion It doesn't need a fix!

Have you heard TB's audio and what do you prefer about the original? I am hoping to weigh in on this in the next few weeks when I can compare.

[Toronto Bob]

Ah, The Energizer Bunny thread, it just keeps going and going around in circles while barely resembling anything remotely Alice Cooper just touching base with the original idea once in awhile. Wow 5 pages now! As I stated 2 pages ago I found no issues with TSCOAC but I do have ears that have been subjected to extreme high volume over the years. Nobody wore earplugs - maybe little cotton balls if the pain was too much."And I Like It!"

If you don't have the Studio Jam or the KBFH show to compare, then the original sountrack, while not stellar, is listenable in a mushey mono sort of way - better than nothing. But listen to the radio show and you have a nice stereo seperation (even if Hunter is a tad low in the mix), the drums sound crisp - makes viewing the show much more enjoyable.

[Lucius Morthem]

I've got the Bing biscuit Flower who knows what and...
What do you think ?

I Prefer the dvd

It's admirable that you change the audio although

Clever!