The audiophilia madness thread received 20 k views. So apparently a lot of persons were interested. Not you or other, I can understand.
However nobody dictated you to click on that thread. So your desire to end it is puerile.
1 Like
I thought the case was closed. Unfortunately not.
As it’s Christmas time I’m quite sure Richard has better things to be doing then constantly monitoring the forum for breaches of forum rules, why not give him (and everyone else) a break for a few days.
3 Likes
Nobody says the contrary. As I said I know why the thread disappeared and don’t ask its opening. The reinforced rules cannot allow it , as the thread on hifi videos.
Some here are glad on its ending, but many will miss it. If not there would not have been 20 k views and several k likes.
Now, if a new interesting audiophile switch, rack, cable , powerblock…will appear , it will be not possible to post a picture on it.
On any thread. So the naim forum will be more autocentric, which is his commercial goal.
Maybe Naim should reinforce also his proper rules, and don’t allow broken components to leave its factory. Just a suggestion.
That is absolutely not the case. It’s all about copyright and it’s perfectly possible to post pictures and discuss other products. It’s just about thinking a bit. The forum rules have not changed and if people didn’t post with a reckless disregard for them, Richard would not have to waste his time with repeated clarifications. There is actually a huge freedom on here and if people are sensible it will continue. If they continue to push the boundaries and bang on about how unfair everything is then Naim will undoubtedly take a harder line. The Forum needs to be for the many, not the few. To coin a phrase.
3 Likes
A couple of Facts that will be the only thing I will say on this matter.
1 I brought up the issue of copyright but did NOT report anything to RD.
2 The case is closed because FR admitted he didn’t get permission from several sources to post certain images.
Sometimes people are too enthusiastic about the hobby we all love - let’s gets back to the enjoying the music.
1 Like
Too many naimcentric as you probably…
It’s not as clear as you think. Thinking a bit is not enough.
In general, if someone else has taken a picture or made a video, whether or not they have published it online, the copyright is theirs and unless you KNOW that the person concerned has given permission for it to be copied and used elsewhere (e.g. in this forum), then only safe assumption is that it is copyright. Some websites expressly allow free use, though even those may have limitations re publishing elsewhere,
Other than album sleeves, my inclination if copying images or videos would be to suggest naming the site and also post the copyright-free statement (or their response in the uncommon event that permission had been requested directly).
I am one who finds the posted videos showing equipment completely uninteresting, and uTube “reviews” completely pointless. Still images have a place when describing a product, but image after image of other systems without even the context of knowing the person or without being a direct part of a discussion I just skip.
I’d just like to make it clear that I have no preference in this debate and I can see it from both sides of the argument.
One thing I don’t understand is that if there is a link on the forum to a video on Youtube and someone clicks on the link and watches the video then the original owner/producer will get some monetary benefit/compensation for that each time someone watches the video. So why would they not wan’t there video shared and watched.
And if a company has a product they are selling why would they mind if that product if shown in a forum for people to look at it.
What are the rules on showing images and reports from HiFi shows? Whether they are produced and submitted by a forum member or copied from another website or from Youtube?
1 Like
Again one thread which got an ugly turn. There is an easy fix to this problem – ban all pictures and videos… Text only site.
… and perhaps the paste function too so that text cannot be copied either.
You very probably didn’t understood the goal of the audiophilia thread, which is certainly not a succession of images after images.
The thread had lasted 4 months and had many views . There were videos, pictures, comments, videos on audio shows, all having the goal to show different aspects of the audiophilia world: the madness of some crazy expensive systems, the curious style of some components, the latest components produced, the different interesting tweaks or also snake oils, the set up of systems which can mix different brands, the reviews on some audiophile recordings, the process of making a cartridge, modifications of a room, …
So writing that the thread was just a succession of copy and pastes without nothing more is a bit disrespectful.
I canceled my last post, but be careful in the words you are choosing please.
It’s not your interest, but no reason to disqualify it, and the person behind it.
1 Like
Perhaps we should not allow the posting of the same cover albums like dire straits, Pink Floyd or Beatles, indefinitely. It’s a nightmare !
I would be interested personally.
Thank you for deleting your last post.
Please be clear I have not done anything to decry this thread, nor the disappeared photos thread. In my post earlier this evening I tried to be helpful be giving some guidance on copyright. I did in that post express my own disinterest in some of the postings, and dislike of uTube reviews, but that was not knocking this thread - my response to it, or when people post dozens of images lifted off the internet that aren’t specifically illustrating something is simply to skip past them.
No, those albums are just irritants, if you want a nightmare, it has to be The Smiths.
3 Likes
That is an interesting and possibly very valid point: if the post links to uTube, than I guess it won’t be infringing copyright. However from a negative angle it may lead to other unintended videos, potentially inappropriate in some way, which is one reason why some corporate bodies do not allow posting of uTube videos on their websites. I don’t know if Naim has a view on that so this is inviting @Richard.Dane to pronounce.
1 Like
So I repeat myself : the pictures chosen had a meaning, they were not posted without intention. They were commented most times and the impressions were shared.
Some were more interesting than other. Just that.
I was going to reply earlier frenchrooster but deleted.
I was wondering about posting cover art which is clearly copyrighted but many threads would be worse off without it.
I suspect you felt strong ownership of a thread that had had so many views over a few months. I have no idea if the moderation team may have just been able to remove offending posts, but for now it’s gone.
Don’t take it personally, move on and continue to contribute - I suspect we all have things deleted/edited from time to time, again I appreciate this may have involved a lot of personal effort but moderation here is very fair and the rules are not for us to determine.
However passionately you feel about this continued discussion probably won’t change much.
Joyeux Noël 
1 Like
Alley Cat, I don’t really discuss the decision, but give my opinion on the rules here. The thread lasted 4 months and suddenly closes on the pretext of copyright rules. I suspect other reasons, and certainly some nasty persons behind it.
As for offending posts on the audiophila thread, they were in minority and removed a long time ago.
For the reason of my reactions here, I just don’t like some comments, so reply.
However I have of course also my responsibility in the closing thread. I was breaking some rules, but without the intention to break them.
The problem is that is not always easy to know which video or picture will break the rules. The appreciation may differ.