From: daniel_x@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Higgins)
Subject: Re: Elle Calender rip off pigs!  Should be shot...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.013842.5829@ncsu.edu>, jccompto@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES C COMPTON) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct15.185724.7271@athena.mit.edu>, daniel_x@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Higgins) writes:
|> |> In article <1992Oct14.234029.21956@cam.compserv.utas.edu.au>, rhoge1@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au ([Robert James Hoge]) writes:

|>   {lots of stuff deleted}

|> |> |> fat ugly perverted unsofisticated son-of-a-bitch pig fuck, then you're
|> |> |> a complete selfish moran asshole who diserves never to be looked at twice.
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> I'm finished, for now!

|> |> Are you sophisticated ?  you don't seem very sophisticated. Perhaps I just
|> |> havn't been exposed to the right people.
|> |> All this aside - If you dont need your armour next weekend could I borrow it.
|> |> I really want to impress this girl that I've spoken to face to face.
|> |> Are you familiar with the term wanker?
|> |> You will give my regards to Elle, won't you. 
|> 
|> I don't understand why you included this part. 

Only as a non-constructive attack. 
It is a useless response to the insulting remarks which he leveled at the people he 
attacked. I wanted to point out that perhaps he is not in a position to accuse anyone
of being unsophisticated.
And I think Robert is a wanker.
 
 
|>  
|> |> So Elle gets screwed - everybody gets screwed - Do you put on your armour
|> |> for them all?
|> 
|> This doesn't fit in with your "It is a pity that there is bootlegging..."

In a black and white world maybe it doesn't but it is not really so simple.
People who have bootleg copies of, calenders for example, are not monsters and do not 
deserve be attacked by Robert in such a vicious & uncouth manner.
from his second posting on this subject:

|>Eat Elle matt,  I was talking about distributing the bloody poster to
|>other people who are TOO CHEAP to buy it.  I don't care less if you or
|>anyone else uses Elle as a background on their computer, they just
|>probably don't have girlfriends or wives, and just enjoy sitting at
|>the computer with a hard on.

Yes - I admit to having double standards. If she was a friend of mine I'm quite sure 
I would be upset but if that was the case then I really wouldn't loose any sleep if say,
Cindy Crawford was having the same problem. "Cindy gets screwed everybody gets screwed " 
- "If I now cry for Cindy who will cry for Elle?" - I am not emotionally capable of 
feeling compassion for every injustice in the world. I pick my sympathies - 
or rather they pick me - and I dont have anything left for anything else. 

I would like it if Elle recieved all her royalities - but I'm not going to go home and
destroy my bootleg copy of the album "This is the Sea" by the Waterboys. I dont believe
in people producing pirate copies of artist's work where the artist looses and the
pirate producer gains but If you want it I will send you a copy of "This is the Sea" 
(the quality may not be up to scratch - all I have is a copy). I'm self contradicting - 
a hypocrite - but if the die is to be cast let it be cast evenly.


  
|> |> As to honoring copyrights. It is a pity that there is bootlegging
|> |> going on - but it is also a pity that everybody does not have enough
|> |> money to buy what they want. Perhaps , blinded by your own fortune,
|>                                           ---------------------------
|> |> you take $20 for granted. Many can't.
|> 
|> Your financial status is irrelevant.  This statement is a good example of
|> "class envy"; the "I don't have enough so I deserve... They already have 
|> theirs anyway! So it is OK if I..."
{{deleted}}
|>If you don't have $20 in your budget that can be used for an Elle calendar don't buy it.

I'm not poor nor do I want Elle's calender in any format. I dont envy anyone's class
nor feel I deserve anything special. 


|> don't understand why you think someone would be entitled to one.

I m sorry  for seeming self contradictorary but I dont think anyone is entitled to one.
But marketing is real and it is manipulative, It works as well on people who can't
afford Elle's calender as it does on those who can. There are people who will eat less
than usual in one week so they can buy the calender and as you said these calenders
are not neccessary.
 

 
|>  IMO you shouldn't have an option that gets you a claendar but doesn't give Elle 
|>and the others their money. 

In the best of all possible worlds I would agree with you - but that's not here.




 

|> |> Ive occasionally read artist's responses to the question 
|> |> of pirate copying and its refreshing to find so many who feel ( or at
|> |> least pretend to feel ) that they are happy if their work reaches a 
|> |> wider audience.
|> 
|> "reaches a wider audience" An artist who whould respond this way would, IMHO,
|> be one that hasn't had a lot of exposure.  At this point the piracy would be
|> free advertisement for them.  Elle, for example, is already known worldwide.
|> All pirating of her stuff at this point is basically taking $ from her.
|>  

An artist who responds in this way is not a moneygrabber. Any writer who has ever gone
hungry so he could write is one of these , E. Hemmingway -- Charles Bukowski .
Painters dont get a steady wage. Most theater actors are more than capable
of earning more money than than they normally do. It is impossible to consider artists
at all without finding - very often - money is not a driving force for most. Your's
is the most cynical remark I've ever heard about artists.





|> |> Perhaps some of the people who see the bootleg calender will go and 
|> |> buy it afterwards - a copy for their wife's office perhaps - or as a gift 
|> |> for their husband. They are certainly more likely to buy the next calender
|> |> if they saw and liked the current one.
|> 
|> Bootleg material is sold for a price lower than the real thing; if it wasn't
|> there would be no incentive to buy it. If they didn't get a legal first copy... 
|> (I realize that I've ignored some technicalities, but you see what I mean) 

I do believe that people will see computer images and will then buy the calender.
I never saw a picture of Elle (knowing it was Elle) until I first loged into one
of these machines a month ago.  

 
|> |> Again, I must say that I am disappointed to hear someone crying for poor little
|> |> Elle because she is being gibbed out of some percentage - everone suffers
|> |> even if they are not famous and beautiful.
|> 
|> This relates to my class envy comment. 

It's not that simple. There are hungry people close to home. I really don't believe 
that Elle deserves the sympathy of this network in that context and I dont think we
should be asked to think about poor Elle and her percentage. 

Maybe this belongs in the alt.bleedinghearts  but I hope not. 


  

|>If you think that we still have something to discuss, I would like to hear from
|>you.  But if we continue, it probably belongs in email.  Roberts comments related
|>to supermodels, but we are drifting away from that topic into others.

Considering the number of GIFS that pass through here I dont think a discussion
like this belongs anywhere else.


Thanks for your remarks James . I agree with what you said but only in a simple
world. If you write me off as an embittered indivual who blames the "rich" for 
all my problems then everything I have written has been a waste of time and I'm a
really slow typist.

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels