I won't say who, so as to not rob Slash Film of ad revenue, since bobinator would surely frown upon that (right?)...

https://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-cameo/

So, a few things, yours was the first one... so it's the one I picked. But also his isn't the whole book, he said it's an excerpt. But yes, he also should have linked to the source article/material that the excerpt came from. And for trailers, that seems up to YouTube to police copyright issues on its own site. All we can do on here is link to YouTube.

But the 'what-abouts' are beside the point. It is the same as a bootlegged movie. Someone paid to have access to it, then copied it, and then is giving it away for free on the internet to anyone.

And it doesn't 'upset' me, I'm not calling my congressman or anything, I just don't think it's good form. Of course, one single instance and certainly this one, isn't a big deal, but it's a drum I beat pretty regularly on here on the boards I frequent because it's something more people should think about. A huge issue with journalism, and the reason there aren't more quality outlets, is that everyone wants their news for free.

So is the fourth estate dying because people can read Empire's preview of a Star Wars movie? No, of course not, but if you want to read something from somewhere and they don't make it available for free themselves, then pay for it.

What if the news is bad? Is there a return policy?

I'll be here all week

bobinator said:

---

But yes, he also should have linked to the source article/material that the excerpt came from.

---

I think that you should get a life


Bob, please doublecheck those links and make sure I did it all right. I realize none of those words belong to me. Going to have to take a few months off work and backlink my other 11,000 posts to make sure I don't offend anyone.

TCTTS said:

---

bobinator said:

---

Isn't this basically stealing? If people want to read the Empire article and it's not available online, they need to buy the magazine.

---

First of all, let me get this straight... out of the two, massive, copied-from-another-source posts above you, you chose mine to call out? The one that will most likely be online officially in a matter of days, over what Muck posted, which is an excerpt from a book that will never be online? Yes, Muck's excerpt is from the official site, but why not gripe at him for not just posting the link? Is he not robbing starwars.com of clicks and even potential book sales, seeing as they provide a link to purchase the book at the top of their post? (Btw, Muck, I could not care less that you posted that, just using it as an example.)

While you're at it, I assume you're working your way through all the various trailers posted on the board over the years that weren't from official YouTube studio sources and calling out the posters who robbed the studios of clicks, and thus potential ad revenue? Or what about all the breaking news posted over the years that didn't link directly back to the original source, thus robbing those outlets of clicks and potential ad revenue as well?

Point is, at least be objective in your finger-waving.

That said... sure, yes, it's stealing. But comparing a bootlegged movie to a copied-and-pasted magazine article is a little much. It's not the "exact" same thing. I wouldn't call it a "big deal," either. Wrong? I'll cop to that. But it's a freaking magazine article from a European outlet. I seriously doubt my post kept anyone here from running out and purchasing the magazine itself.

If this is something that truly upsets you... maybe the internet isn't for you?

---

no problem brother, calling out of not referencing my source material on a message board is bottom 10 stupidest thing ive ever heard outside of the Zoo on here. honestly, I'm surprised your response isn't about 15 times longer.

Wait, this just in Empire magazine has folded.

You would think moderators on a site that makes money by selling subscriptions to read exclusive articles would care more about it.

But I mean we can move on, I said my piece about it. If you don't care you don't care, we don't have to keep arguing about it.

I don't get why you're coming after me, I even said yours is different because it's an excerpt. In a perfect world yes, you also would have included a link, but that's why I wasn't posting about yours.

Posting part of an article, or a book, or something, is obviously very different than posting the entire thing.

bobinator said:

---

I don't get why you're coming after me, I even said yours is different because it's an excerpt. In a perfect world yes, you also would have included a link, but that's why I wasn't posting about yours.

Posting part of an article, or a book, or something, is obviously very different than posting the entire thing.

---

Quote:

---

"we don't have to keep arguing about it." --bobinator

---

if only

Because I think it's really funny. Pretty much the reason for 75% of my posts on TexAgs.

MuckRaker96 said:

---

Because I think it's really funny. Pretty much the reason for 75% of my posts on TexAgs.

---

user name checks out

So what's the deal with Porgs?

bobinator said:

---

So what's the deal with Porgs?

---

"taste like chicken"
-- Chewbacca

MuckRaker96 said:

---

bobinator said:

---

So what's the deal with Porgs?

---

I don't like Porgs. They're coarse and rough and they get everywhere.

---

bobinator said:

---

You would think moderators on a site that makes money by selling subscriptions to read exclusive articles would care more about it.

But I mean we can move on, I said my piece about it. If you don't care you don't care, we don't have to keep arguing about it.

---

Well, it IS against TexAgs' user agreement. Just flag it. They probably haven't seen it.

Note: I'm not flagging it, because I don't really care.

bobinator said:

---

So, a few things, yours was the first one... so it's the one I picked. But also his isn't the whole book, he said it's an excerpt. But yes, he also should have linked to the source article/material that the excerpt came from. And for trailers, that seems up to YouTube to police copyright issues on its own site. All we can do on here is link to YouTube.

But the 'what-abouts' are beside the point. It is the same as a bootlegged movie. Someone paid to have access to it, then copied it, and then is giving it away for free on the internet to anyone.

And it doesn't 'upset' me, I'm not calling my congressman or anything, I just don't think it's good form. Of course, one single instance and certainly this one, isn't a big deal, but it's a drum I beat pretty regularly on here on the boards I frequent because it's something more people should think about. A huge issue with journalism, and the reason there aren't more quality outlets, is that everyone wants their news for free.

So is the fourth estate dying because people can read Empire's preview of a Star Wars movie? No, of course not, but if you want to read something from somewhere and they don't make it available for free themselves, then pay for it.

---

This is all about that time you tried to be a basketball reporter, isn't it?

This whole time I've been concentrating on the Monday Night Football angle of the new trailer and totally forgot to consider what it might be attached to theatrically. I just realized that Disney has TWO movies out October 18 - Maleficent: Mistress of Evil and Jo Jo Rabbit (via Fox Searchlight). While I still think this Monday and then with Gemini Man next Friday is in play, a Monday, October 14th MNF debut and then in theaters that weekend with Maleficent and Jo Jo makes the most sense to me at this point.

How pissed would you be if they made it a theater exclusive with Maleficent 2 for an entire weekend?

I know I would be.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

How pissed would you be if they made it a theater exclusive with Maleficent 2 for an entire weekend?

I know I would be.

---

went and saw the first one with my wife on a date night in 2014. Faked a coughing fit and went out in the lobby and watched sports for about 20 minutes.

Still was one of the longest-feeling movies I've ever sat through.

It's not plagiarizing, it's bootlegging. Get it together people these kind of details are going to matter when we're breaking down this trailer at some point.

Since we're doing theories on when the trailer is going to come out, do we have any theories on what's going to be in it?

Do you think, after seeing it, we're going to have a basic idea of the plot mechanics of this movie, or still be mostly in the dark?

Based on how they've handled the prior trailers, this one should have some meat to it. I think we at least get some story crumbs in this one.

edit: That was the most Geoff Ketchum thing I've ever written.

bobinator said:

---

Since we're doing theories on when the trailer is going to come out, do we have any theories on what's going to be in it?

Do you think, after seeing it, we're going to have a basic idea of the plot mechanics of this movie, or still be mostly in the dark?

---

Think very dark. Nothing but general shots that are very unrevealing.

Seeing how Disney is keeping nearly all of the toys/merchandise tied to TROS off the shelves until after the movie airs, means they are taking spoilers VERY seriously. It's not like Disney to keep marketable product off the shelf during the busiest shopping of the year.

It's also one reason that The Mandalorian and Fallen Order stuff is being pushed heavily for Force Friday.

I don't know what the rules for trailers are, but if it were me, I would maybe give context to one thing we've seen in the teasers.

Like the fleet of empire ships, or resistance burning man. Like don't give much away overall, but give quite a bit away about one particular thing.

Cool looking new alien...