Would anybody like us to stick the Pear Tree Productions show back online? It's probably the only way you're gonna get to hear it this side of Coogan's eventual cocaine overdose.

>Would anybody like us to stick the Pear Tree Productions show back online? It's probably the only way you're gonna get to hear it this side of Coogan's eventual cocaine overdose.

yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. etc

>yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. yes please. etc
>

What he said.

For the sake of our sanities, please do it Joe

what's this 'Pear Tree Productions' thing then?

>what's this 'Pear Tree Productions' thing then?
>

Read the why I'm Alan Partridge was rubbish piece - fly on the wall documentary about Partridge's production company. Which I'd like to hear, please, etc...

"Let's lick this bitch..."

http://www.angelfire.com/super/sotcaabits/kkmky.ram

"You want an apologise?"

Magic.

real player doesnt work on my computer, dammit

I could only get it working at http://www.angelfire.com/super/sotcaabits/kkmky.rm

Don't know why.

hmm. Anyone know how i can save it on to my computer - for educational purposes naturally.

>hmm. Anyone know how i can save it on to my computer - for educational purposes naturally.

Just access the .rm version instead of the .ram file:

http://www.angelfire.com/super/sotcaabits/kkmky.rm

Streaming audio is poo. Why did you set it up like that, Joe?

So people can have a taste before they buy the cake? Or something. It was only a temporary measure anyway. It would have been an MP3 but Angelfire don't seem to like them for some reason. I assumed most of you would know the download options anyway.

Maybe Cookd & Bombd could host a proper MP3 version at some point - There's one prepared.

"I assumed most of you would know the download options anyway."

Yes, and they are also generous enough to help us thickies out.

>It would have been an MP3 but Angelfire don't seem to like them for some reason. I assumed most of you would know the download options anyway.

Joe, have you tried adding a false extension onto the file/chaging the extension?
e.g. renaming the file kkmky.mp3.ra or kkmky.mpx
It might get through that way

thanks for the files anyway

Anybody sharing an mp3 of this on Audiogalaxy? I can't get the *.rm file to download. I'm looking for it on Audiogalaxy now but it's doing one of its go-slows. If you are/can share this, what's it called? You're all lovely

A quick test:

http://www.angelfire.com/super/sotcaabits/organ.html

(Right-click on the title, save the file to the hard-drive, then change it from 'ra' to 'mp3')

>A quick test:

[...]

Excellent :-)
A download manager-type program is recommended though, since Angelfire's servers are really unreliable.

Have you got the full Organ Gang end-theme? I seem to recall they only played it a couple of times, then used a cut version.

Why isn't this advertised on the new site? Is it an oversight, or just bad manners?

>Why isn't this advertised on the new site? Is it an oversight, or just bad manners?

Why isn't what advertised?

I'm sorry for being such a thicko... Can someone please clarify exactly how to save the Pear Tree thing to my pc (step-by-step kind of thing)?

>I'm sorry for being such a thicko... Can someone please clarify exactly how to save the Pear Tree thing to my pc (step-by-step kind of thing)?

1) Right click on the following link (or, if you're using one of those Macintosh things, click and hold down until a menu appears):

http://www.angelfire.com/super/sotcaabits/kkmky.rm

2) Select "Save Target As..." from the menu.

3) Choose where on your computer you want to put it.

4) Click "Save".

5) Wait a while...

6) Et voila!

The Partridge stuff that you've put a link to here. Why didn't you direct people to it through the site URL? As far as I can make out, this forum no longer has anything to do with SOTCAA. Rob is no longer obliged to take any responsibility for what is on SOTCAA, but you've created the only link to it here. If you can't see how that's rather rude and inconsiderate, then I won't ever be able to explain to your satisfaction. You didn't even think to ask Rob if it was ok.

>The Partridge stuff that you've put a link to here. Why didn't you direct people to it through the site URL?

Ah, more forum politics. Splendid. I'm so glad you people prefer to air your grievances in public...

You haven't heard the worst of it, my love. Neither would you want to. However, I thought Joe4SOTCAA putting NOTBBC in possible legal trouble while keeping the corpses site free from all that was worth commenting on. I don't object to what's there, but the tactics used to direct people to it aren't used by accident, I'm sorry to say.

Nice of you to start shooting your mouth off when comments made on here put cooked and bombed in a dodgy legal position, wasn't it?

ribbit is correct here. From now on, anyone posting links to copyright material will have their account removed - I know I've done it in the past, but it's not on for others to risk this site - just post it elsewhere... (as for cookd and bombd, not sure exactly what your referring to, but if they had mailed me asking for something that puts them in a dubious legal position to be removed I would of done so).

>From now on, anyone posting links to copyright material will have their account removed

How far are you taking this? Will this extend to, for example, the midi files on Squidy's site, some of the images contained on Paintbox, or the magazine articles featured on Glebe's Thrift Funnel? Or indeed any inoffensive site that someone might link to to helpfully illustrate a point, as happens on here practically ever day? NB I am asking this question unprovocatively. If you are going to impose conditions like this, we all need to know where we stand.

>(as for cookd and bombd, not sure exactly what your referring to, but if they had mailed me asking for something that puts them in a dubious legal position to be removed I would of done so).

Sorry, but even though I don't like doing this in public, I have to take issue with this. In the run-up to the broadcast of the BES, two emails that I sent to you requesting the deletion of posts to this forum - one relating to CaB, and one (made by 'ribbit' themself) relating directly to me and which I considered to be genuinely defamatory - were completely ignored.

>As far as I can make out, this forum no longer has anything to do with SOTCAA.

A couple of weeks ago you got all sneery about sotcaa not explaining on here why they'd moved the site somewhere else without mentioning it first. Either you think they still have a link to this forum or you dont. Make your mind up.

>ribbit is correct here. From now on, anyone posting links to copyright material will have their account removed - I know I've done it in the past, but it's not on for others to risk this site

Has it ever been properly established in the UK that a link to copyrighted material is illegal, even when it's being hosted on a completely different server?

If so, how far could this go? What about a link to a page with links to the material? And so on.

Not having a go here Rob, I'm guessing that you don't particularly wat to be the test case that decides the issue.

The point I was trying to make (which some have ignored) is that the ONLY link to this material is on this forum. It is not on the new Corpses site, and I was wondering aloud on the reasons for this. It is not fair for Joe4SOTCAA to put NOTBBC at risk and to not advertise the link on his own site. As for the remarks about there being no links to the Corpses-just type in the old address and you will find a link. The new location (or locations) were advertised extensively on here anyway. And if you hadn't noticed, Rob has resigned from administering SOTCAA. If he does or doesn't want to put a link to the Corpses from NOTBBC, that's up to him.

Rob has been able to make the decision about links that have been on here before-he was not consulted on this one. Web sites aren't a problem, as it's clear who is putting the material up. If Joe had directed people to this through the SOTCAA URL, then there would have been no problem.

Just because people want this material, there's no need to snipe. It's in all our interests to keep this forum open.

'Kay? Kay.

>Just because people want this material, there's no need to snipe. It's in all our interests to keep this forum open.

I wasn't sniping. I was asking a genuine question. Personally, I'd quite like to know exactly how much risk I would run of being banned if I were to link to a relevant point on, say, my own site or TV Cream.

Apologies to all concerned if my post put anyone at risk of anything.

I think tim_e raises an interesting point: does a mere link to copyrighted (or otherwise illegal) material represent a breach of any law, if it is a link to a site maintained and hosted by persons unrelated to the site with the link?

Probably best to play it safe, if in doubt.

> does a mere link to copyrighted (or otherwise illegal) material represent a breach of any law, if it is a link to a site maintained and hosted by persons unrelated to the site with the link?

I still honestly don't see how that's any different from pointing out a picture in a magazine to the person next to you. Any copyright violations within the magazine are surely not relevant.

But I'm sure some corporate hack lawyer will successfully argue a case for fining websites for linking to other, unrelated sites - if that hasn't happened already. Fuck's sake - there won't be an Internet in ten years' time. There'll be a fucking DiscreteNet where you have to log on with a fresh password to every different fucking page. And pay for every line you want to fucking read. Then no-one will be able to afford to use the fucking thing, and it will all go tits up. Then we'll all be winners, right?

I'm sorry, I'm clearly overstating the case. It's late, and I'm tired. In my slightly drunken state all copyright lawyers are starting to resemble Mr Burns (TM)... but in reality there's nothing to worry about. It's fine. Really. Everything's great.

-------------------------------------------
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-201-6545588-0.html

"Librarians have got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types," who want to share all content for free, said Judith Platt, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers.
-------------------------------------------

let's firebomb oxfam

Mogwai - http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,47195,00.html

How about "NotBBC does not accept any responsibility for the content of external internet sites".

It works for your counterparts (and let's not forget that little copyright infringement at the top of the page)

Not a bad idea. As people have said, links can prove legally troubling, and it can be unclear who is responsible for putting stuff up. Copyright can be an interesting issue, unless Jim Yoakum's around.

> Mogwai - http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,47195,00.html

Jesus.

"One day before the attacks, all systems were go on the souped-up revision to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- a bill that proposed to outlaw any digital electronic device or PC that did not have copy protection hardwired into it."

Scary business isn't it? They're trying to get CRPM built into every hard disk drive so that you can't copy from one HDD to another. Now in my case, I'd be (to put it politely) screwed. I'm a tech. and frequently pop someones malfunctioning drive into my PC as a slave to try and determine the problem, occasionally I will copy .DLLs or drivers and such to the poorly drive to restore it's functionality. It won't be possible. CDs are now being produced that can't even be played in a PC or Mac, let alone be ripped in one. Now what happens if you don't own a sound system, just a flashy all in one device like the Takami, which combines a PC with a TV , a DVCR and a hi-fi? (baaad idea) Then you're stuffed. There's a way around everything of course, but why should anyone have to justify copying files to a new PC or laptop?

The DMCA is a fucking farce.

>The DMCA is a fucking farce.

Not one of their best songs admittedly. I prefer 'In The Navy'.