Forum » In the News

*vomits in the nearest shoe*

 
    • eekpigeon ha detto...
    • Abbonato
    • Nov 28 2004, 18:26

    *vomits in the nearest shoe*

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1360837,00.html

    i think hicks said it best in this case, "People suck and that's my contention. I can prove it on scratch paper and a pen, give me a fuckin' etch-a-sketch, I'll do it in three minutes, the proof, the fact, the factorum, I'll show my work, case closed....I'm tired of this back-slappin', aren't-humanity-neat bullshit, we're a virus with shoes, ok? That's all we are."

    are you Seedy? |
    "It's quite interesting, you know, the number of biscuits that are named after revolutionaries..."
    ~the young ones
    |
    scrobblewedded to AnIndexofMetals
  • ah another story in the news about how humans are overly greedy. and like eek expressed, it never ceases to make me sick.

    Is this the right room for an argument?
  • ridiculous.
    surely being part of one of the best music videos in history should be enough, or so you would have thought.

  • That's funny. Which sold more? The Wall or Dark Side. At a guess I'd say Dark side.
    By far the better album anyway. Ooooowww.

    Song of the post: 'The Trial' Pink Floyd

    * God, you can describe the whole affair through Pink Floyd song titles...
    It started as 'The Happiest Days of our Lives'. We had 'High Hopes' for our future.
    We asked EMI "Wot's...uh the deal" when we received no money.
    EMI's manager said to us 'What do you want from me"?
    It ended up in "More blues". "One of these days" we'll get our money.
    "Roll another one".

    "Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
    won out over it." - Elwood P. Dowd. Harvey, 1950.
    • ThePKH ha detto...
    • Utente
    • Dic 15 2004, 9:45
    Pathetic. Some people just use any possible way they can figure out to make a few extra bucks.

    I am the terror that flaps in the night!
  • I fail to see how this is so horrible. They were involved in the making of a hit record as children and now they want a piece of the pie. They may or may not have a case; the courts should be able to decide that. But the fact they want some money for their contributions doesn't make them horrible people and doesn't imply anything terribly bad about humanity in general, except that we like to get paid for work we do. If this surprises or disgusts you, you are going to have a really difficult time in life.

    Frankly, I think EMI and Pink Floyd can spare a few bucks. Without knowing any of the details, I'm provisionally rooting for the plantiffs.

    "I am firstly a great charlatan, though con brio; secondly, a great charmeur; thirdly, I have any amount of cheek; fourthly, I am a man with a great quantity of logic, but with very few principles; fifthly, I think I have no real gifts." Serge Diaghilev
  • Remember why we're using mp3's in the first place.

    I'm with ratnerstar. This doesnt prove we're a virus with shoes, if anything this is humanity proving they're simple animals trying to reach over the fence and eat from greener pastures.

    Take your corporate-plutocratic Panopticon wet dream and shove it.
    • eekpigeon ha detto...
    • Abbonato
    • Dic 15 2004, 13:16
    if you read the article - they never asked for money to begin with. they were paid 1000 quid anyway, which went toward school equipment. i call that contract work. you can't just go back decades later and decide that you deserve much more money because of the success of the song! that's unethical. and yes, i do have a very hard time in life, primarily because people lack ethics and pull this kind of crap too often.

    are you Seedy? |
    "It's quite interesting, you know, the number of biscuits that are named after revolutionaries..."
    ~the young ones
    |
    scrobblewedded to AnIndexofMetals
  • Re:

    Quoth eekpigeon:
    if you read the article - they never asked for money to begin with.


    I didn't see that anywhere in the article. It says that there were discussions about the possibility of royalties. Who participated in those discussions and what their conclusions were is not stated.


    they were paid 1000 quid anyway, which went toward school equipment. i call that contract work.


    Yes, the school was paid. The school, however, did not sing; a group of individuals did, and they have received nothing.

    you can't just go back decades later and decide that you deserve much more money because of the success of the song! that's unethical.

    Why is that unethical? First off, the participants were children at the time and thus possibly unable to adequately represent their own interests. The record company recruited some kids, made a hit record with their help, and didn't pay them a red dime. I think fairness, if not contract law, demands they get a little money from their efforts.

    You're making me play the devil's advocate here; without knowing the particulars of the case, I can't make an informed decision about whether the case is legitimate. Based on the few facts we have from the article, however, I'd say the plaintiffs have a point. Further information that might be useful: was a contract ever made up? How old were the children at the time? Did the childrens' parents take an active role in any negotiations about royalties? Did they have a lawyer look over any contract that may or may not have been drawn up?

    The particular facts of the case will determine the outcome, of course. But even if it turns out the plaintiffs aren't entitled to recompense, I don't fault them for trying. They helped EMI make a buttload of money and they'd like some of it for themselves. Is that so horrible? EMI doesn't release records out of the goodness of its heart, you know; it's trying to make money too.

    "I am firstly a great charlatan, though con brio; secondly, a great charmeur; thirdly, I have any amount of cheek; fourthly, I am a man with a great quantity of logic, but with very few principles; fifthly, I think I have no real gifts." Serge Diaghilev
    • eekpigeon ha detto...
    • Abbonato
    • Dic 15 2004, 14:08
    i certainly hope you intend to be a trial lawyer - because you have the gig down rather well. listen, fact is - this was the '70s, not the '00s. it was a different social and political climate, and people didn't have the high blood pressure over the constant threat of lawsuit that we do now, so it's unethical to impose a present-day standard on the past.
    next. these kids weren't exactly the vienna boys choir for god sakes. have you heard the song? it's just a load of playgroundesque shouting. if those kids HAD demanded individual, lawyer-attended-to contracts, the recording company and pink floyd would have told them to shove it (quite rightly) and gone to find just any other kids. this is not being paid for a talent as there was no talent exercised in the recording. they didn't write what they were going to say, it wasn't sung but rather spoken, and i think the 1000 pound gesture at the time was appreciated. why can't these now success-envious adults just settle for the fact that they were quite randomly selected to be part of a hit record?!

    are you Seedy? |
    "It's quite interesting, you know, the number of biscuits that are named after revolutionaries..."
    ~the young ones
    |
    scrobblewedded to AnIndexofMetals
  • Re:

    Quoth eekpigeon:
    i certainly hope you intend to be a trial lawyer - because you have the gig down rather well.


    Some people might take that to be an insult! But I did intend, at one point in my life, to become a lawyer. So, thank you.


    listen, fact is - this was the '70s, not the '00s. it was a different social and political climate, and people didn't have the high blood pressure over the constant threat of lawsuit that we do now, so it's unethical to impose a present-day standard on the past.
    next. these kids weren't exactly the vienna boys choir for god sakes. have you heard the song? it's just a load of playgroundesque shouting. if those kids HAD demanded individual, lawyer-attended-to contracts, the recording company and pink floyd would have told them to shove it (quite rightly) and gone to find just any other kids. this is not being paid for a talent as there was no talent exercised in the recording. they didn't write what they were going to say, it wasn't sung but rather spoken, and i think the 1000 pound gesture at the time was appreciated. why can't these now success-envious adults just settle for the fact that they were quite randomly selected to be part of a hit record?!


    If they were randomly chosen, it was a prescient selection: half of them now have careers in music. It sounds like these were some musically oriented kids. And whether or not they were extremely skilled, EMI (or Pink Floyd, or whoever) still needed some children to create the record they wanted. Those children made a large and definite contribution to the song and I'm not prepared to say they aren't entitled to any of the royalties just because the atmosphere of the 70s was more relaxed than today. Incidentally, I think "more relaxed" here is a synonym for "a more favorable judicial climate for large businesses."

    It would have been nice for a little indie rock band to commit 1000 pounds to the school for this kind of project. For a giant recording label and an extremely successful band to do so seems stingy. I'm not sure it's just the plaintiffs who are greedy.

    "I am firstly a great charlatan, though con brio; secondly, a great charmeur; thirdly, I have any amount of cheek; fourthly, I am a man with a great quantity of logic, but with very few principles; fifthly, I think I have no real gifts." Serge Diaghilev
Gli utenti anonimi non possono inviare messaggi. Per inserire messaggi nei forum, accedi o crea il tuo account.