Every good pub used to have a knock-off Nigel. Unfortunately for the advertisers, and the motion picture industry, Nigel was a very popular guy because he saved us from having to go to the awful local cinema. And if Nigel included porn in his library then he was practically a demi-god.
How is this supposed to make us feel Nigel's a bad guy? There he is trying to have a quiet drink in the pub with his girlfriend when suddenly he gets abused by a load of smug twats for buying a few pirates.
There's a Scottish band with a song called "Kicked Savagely To Death By A Vigilante Mob For Being A Knockoff Nigel." I personally find that hilarious.
There is a different version, but at 0:12 - 0:14 , the guy says "He downloads knock-off films!" and there are lyrics on the screen. Search for "Knock off Nigel website" and you'll find it. Hit "Watch the TV AD" hit "watch the pub ad", and there it is!
Ironically enough, "Knock Off Nigel" seems to be much less of a threat to a society than the madman with the guitar. Buying knock-off DVDs seems far less annoying than bothering people while they're eating and humiliating them with a gimmicky song.
@ConfusedProud to be fair his girlfriend was content with the watch, so the guitar guy is kinda the one who hurts the girlfriend inside, by shedding light on where the watch was found, he is the real criminal
I want to meet the man who came up with this advert and laugh in his face because he was stupid enough to think this was work. I respect the people who don't pay the disgusting prices companies charge daylight robbery, the reason why there is so much piracy, it's because they ain't willing to pay your stupid robbing prices anymore.
It's funny to come back to this advert every now and then, each time it just seems more and more ridiculous how cynically psychological the wording is.
To associate mugging the elderly with downloading a film that may well not even be out on DVD is a bit desperate. You have to wonder whether they planned any more of them with a similar spurious claim. "he downloads mp3's and loves farmyard scat. He likes to blow goats what a scummy little twat""
I believe if a movie sucked ie tanked in the theares we should be allowed to download it,since it sucked and thats the only way to get ppl to watch it. Sides why spend $4 to rent of $20 to own a movie that was effing boring
The film industry is the only one who is allowed to lie to us to get sales and we can't get our money back. Trailers make crap movies look good and like something they are not, like Jarhead, it looked like an awesome action movie but instead it was about boredom in war and was CRAP (IMO)
Wot a load of rubbish. When will the industry adapt its business model?? Quit changing lobbing governments, harrasing people with fines and spreading propoganda??... Take a look at the uk's digital economy bill, suing file-sharers, misleading authorities with bogus piracy reports & STATS. RIAA & MPAA are using those same staTs, convincing us 2 transform the Internet into there copyright police state.
@WhiteKnight402 good point, but remember the cast, crew, props, sets, cinema rights and making millions of copies of the DVD's all adds up and they are not criminals because we don't have to buy it and we enjoy it
poor Nigel, no one deserves that kind of abuse. These ads always make me wonder what went wrong in Nigel's life that he is reduced to these things just to get a present for his girlfriend or watch a summer movie.
People that are not smart enough to use torrents I would think. Believe it or not there are those that cant do it. I know and you know its a piece of piss to dl then burn onto a blank dvd. But for some...its just too much.
emm the term khock of nigel is really old saying god sake was being used far back ww1 so get over it they used something that was alrredy in use fuck sack i was calling m8 that got pirate tapes konck of nigel
If the song was flattering sure, but this song misrepresents Nigels everywhere. Nigels are fucking takers of names and kickers of asses. They fucked with the wrong name god dammit.
I used to be against everything you just said, but guess what, MY NAME IS NIGEL! THEY FUCKED WITH THE WRONG NAME! FUCK THOSE GUYS! PIRATE EVERYTHING. See, Nigel isn't even a common name where I live, so it's even worse!
At least knock offed DVDs do NOT have this shit on it. One more reason not to buy real ones. What is the point of having this shit on real DVDs and they don't even allow you to skip forward. Piece of crap.
wow what a pathetic attempt to stop people from buying 'knock off' dvds. like your girls gonna leave you over it. exagerated unrealistic crap, girls more likely to encourage to buy knock off dvds lol save money straight no long
These anti-piracy ads have gone really soft of late. I remember that they used to try (and fail) to hit hard by trying to build a link between piracy, eastern european gansters and child pornography. The suits just seen to have no idea how to get down with the kids these days, and on this ocassion on trying to make something uncool look as cool as the fonz in an icebox.
Now, does anyone know where I can get a cheap copy of the new Clint Eastwood movie? Heard it's really good.
ok the people that gang up on him are right arse holes sorry 4 that 1 but its not fair so i say keep down loading dvd's why go movies when u can just stay at home with ur gf or bf and do what ever i say im a knock of nigle and im showing my true colers so shout all u wish but id sooner stay home and watch a dvd and save money than waste money on stail pop corn and flat drinks ill make my own thank you very much is u agree with me plz relpy if u do and if u don thats ur choice so cya have a good1
There's only one good thing about this advert, imho... It finally tells people how to spell the name Nigel. However, the anti-piracy message is lost in amongst the "Everyone who buys pirated stuff is called Nigel" message. Yes, I am called Nigel but I'm not buying dodgy stuff on the cheap. Thanks to this advert I put up with people calling me "Knock-off" for at least a month. Also, the only reason piracy is reducing profits is because most films are so expensive. But I just save up.
Nobody is advocating legalization of selling "knock-off DVDs", as far as I know. Even the Pirate Party (in Sweden) is in favour of retaining the parts of copyright law that concern commercial use (but for a shorter period than the current 95 years, obviously). So WTF are they trying to argue here?
This video makes me want to commit piracy more. why pay £14.99 for a DVD or £9.99 for a CD when I can get it for free? mabe if it was like 50p (which is what the wholesale price is) i would consider paying. Anyway i would rather take a few quid off the companies $19092718646898 profit, then get suckered like everyone else who buys films/cds from shops
Why do I have to pay £14.99 for a film, when it's made in China for about 70 pence? These companies cream the profit off us - who have to suffer paying way over-the-top prices.
Guess what, my name is Nigel, and I have been anti-piracy until now. From now on the fucking gloves are off. I am going to fucking pirate everything, i'm going to sell pirate DVDs i'm going to hijack their shipping from my pirate ship and when the navy seals come ot get rid of me, I'll pay them off with pirated DVDS!
I was kind of discussing important things, such as poverty, I don't even know anymore why I would be talking about this on a "Knock of Nigel" video, but...
the people who made this must think we all have the psychology of a 4 yr old , it is the most annoying thing i've ever seen on tv , all us average joes are gonna always look for whats cheapest and how to screw the man so fuck em , who's with me
I am with you. My reaction to this, as well as all other crap adverts, is to do the exact opposite of what the advertisers want me to do, so it wil be more downloading of pirated dvds.
Make art available to everyone, regardless of income, art in whatever form is the greatest way of expressing yourself, why should the people have to pay ridiculous prices for that!? Perhaps it shouldn't be free, but at least have reasonable price, everyone needs to make a living. If corporations didn't put so much cash into marketing their products, everything could be so much easier, and also less generic.
if artists used good business ethics and have other forms of finance ie part-time jobs, then they should be fine. do you think big corporations.. i mean bands like metallica have all their costs in records or gigs? look at the ridiculous prices they have for concerts and unnecessary merchandise, it's a joke, around £70 for a metallica ticket? check out bands like Fugazi, at the most £10 a ticket - always, no merchandise whatsoever, they're a real musical group, not some fucking business!
Personally sir, it is my belief that being on a stage to simply "entertain" others is not very artistic. An artist is someone who expresses themselves or channels their feelings to form an aesthetic result, that of which they may feel to share with others. There are so many artists out there, most of the population in fact, you don't have to be in the public domain. I would consider those who do what you have described "artistic" in the most minuscule sense of the word.
"Personally sir, it is my belief that being on a stage to simply "entertain" others is not very artistic. "
So that's your opinion, so what? News flash—you don't get to define what is and is not artistic for everyone. If you don't like someone's art or if you don't think they're artistic, then do not consume their product and they will get no money from you. If you do want to consume it, then be willing to pay what they decide their labor is worth. That's how it works with everything else.
Why did you quote me and then say nothing about the quote?
Anyway, at least you gave a decent reply. I understand what you're saying, but even if I do like someones art I shouldn't have to pay for it, some artists I like believe that this is right, others believe that it is wrong. What you're saying is the problem, "do not consume their product" it's meant to be "art" not a "product", that's where people get it wrong. When it's no longer about understanding and about money, it's no longer art.
I don't think you get what I'm really saying here. I would happily donate money to a DIY band with good business ethics and I'll pay money to see their shows (where such bands raise most of their finance). But I'll never fund some fucking mock-business major label assholes, they generally don't deserve it, their art tends to be very generic and selfish in nature, believe me. If bands wanna be rich, fuck 'em, by paying for their "art" we allow corps to shovel us down so much shit, it kills me.
firstly, it's "you" not "yuh", I realise you are apparently from Romania, yet your english seems rather good otherwise, but i just thought i'd point that out for you.
Secondly "they worked hard to get there so they deserve the money"? Are you fucking kidding me!? Do you know how ignorant you are being? Most people work half their goddam lives just trying to keep bread and milk on the table, many have terrible jobs and terrible wages to go with it!
i chose not to argue with yuh because its a waste of time but fine, this is the last reply i will send yuh
1. i know its "you" not "yuh" but i prefer yuh, is that a crime?
2. artists should never have a part time job, they need time to focus on art not wash cars or whatever
3. it was their personal decision to get where they are. if someone does not want to waste his life trying to get milk and bread on the table they'd better do something about it, they got most because they were too lazy
This whole thing is a waste of time.. I'll agree with you there
1. It's not a crime, but it's just pointless, why would you write/type "yuh", you may well pronounce "you" that way, but it's just illogical to write it as such. Do you feel you're being rebelious against grammatical norms or something? If so, why would you want to?
2. Artists don't have to have temp jobs, it just depends on their income.
3. They'd better do something about it, what? Like try and find get lucky for an easier life?
Think of children, working 16hrs/day (or more!) in "developing countries" (as us western bastards call them, they're really "countries with resources, exploited by the west") why don't those kids get the most luxurious lifestyle in the world, they go through a hell of a lot more than anyone else!
"To get "THERE"" you say, what is there? Why can't an honest worker get there? Because it takes an asshole to get there, that's why.
1. People shouldn't have to work a part time job to support themselves, because others are too cheap-ass to pay whatever the going rate is. Let the market decide. If someone's singing, art, writing is priced too high, people won't buy and then they'll lower the price or go out of business.
2. It is NOT UP TO YOU to decide what is and is not creative or artistic, and therefore worth more money.
3. If you don't want to fund some mock-business, then don't. Don't listen.
I find it strange how you can deduce that I am a moron from what i say concerning one topic..
Nonetheless, wth does this mean;
"because others are too cheap-ass to pay whatever the going rate is"?
Everyone has to work to survive in this world.
Let the market decide? What about the people? People are quite frequently fooled into purchasing non-necessities by the market in case you havn't noticed.
"I find it strange how you can deduce that I am a moron from what i say concerning one topic.."
You call someone else "ignorant" and "obtuse" but somehow it's not okay that I say "moron"? Interesting . . .
"Let the market decide? What about the people? People are quite frequently fooled into purchasing non-necessities by the market in case you havn't noticed."
So you're going to decide *for them* what they should pay, instead of them making the decision? Who appointed you an authority?
Wow, I missed the point at which I was being a dictator..
Hmm, well, I did say that guy was "being" ignorant and obtuse, but you seemed to overlook this basic grammar point and come to the conclusion that I am a hypocratic dictator. Interesting...
I'm not deciding for people, and I wouldn't want to, that would makes me as bad as the corporations. I am underlining the basic fact these labels are morally inept, both in their contribution to the global economy and their social responsibilities
You're the one who started with "Free distribution of art!!!!"
I realize that you know that you can't *force* people to adhere to your idea of right, but you clearly believe that art should be free, right?
Well, what if an artist doesn't want to give away their art for free? What if they want to just keep it in their garage? What is your OPINION about that? Do they have that right, or in your perfect world, should they have to give it away or sell it for a price that *you* consider fair?
I believe the world would be a better place if money wasn't so higly valued, but I understand that to survive nowadays, money is essential sadly.
People don't have to give away their art for free, of course not. Although I think it would be ideal if everyone had the same access to art regardless of income.
Why would I be annoyed if they wanted to keep it for themselves?
You're jumping the gun an awful lot here.
If they're gonna sell it, they should sell at price *everyone* considers fair.
"Why would I be annoyed if they wanted to keep it for themselves?"
Well, you said "Free distribution of art!" What if someone makes something really gorgeous and profound, but they want to keep it to themselves? Wouldn't you consider that "selfish" of them, since art should be freely distributed?
"If they're gonna sell it, they should sell at price *everyone* considers fair."
lol. Some people never want to pay anything for art. So they'd consider "free" to be the *only* "fair" price.
When I talk about "distribution", I'm talking about on a major level, If some company is distributing something for an artist, it should be distributed fairly, at a decent price, or freely depending on the availability of the art (ie music). Why the hell should they not keep it to themselves if they want to? You seem to think I would love to start some sort of art dictatorship..
Regardless of what I've previously said, I believe the artist should get to decide ultimately, it's too complicated..
"If some company is distributing something for an artist, it should be distributed fairly, at a decent price, or freely depending on the availability of the art (ie music)."
What is "fairly" and what is a "decent price"? If someone thinks they can sell a painting for a million dollars, then why not? If they want to hold a concert in which tickets cost $1000 per head, or CDs for $100 each, then why not? Odds are that they won't sell for that price, but why can't they try if they want to?
Jesus Christ, "what is a "decent price"?" It depends! Can you not comprehend that? $1000 a ticket would not be fair quite obviously, if there was a concert in some big stadium, seating say 10,000 people, they wouldn't even need to put tickets at $70, if their costs were purely spent on playing the show, not on unnecessary merchandise or other extrinsic factors, they would make enough profit from tickets.
And did I say anyone "can't do what they want"? You're jumping to conclusions once again...
Yeah, and a "decent price" depends on WHO YOU ASK. Can *you* not comprehend that! You said you wanted "fair prices" for everyone, but a lot of people don't want to pay for anything, and will complain bitterly if they have to. And they'll take everything they can get without paying for it, and consider that "fair." And they'll consider anything an artist does as "not real work" (or not "working hard enough") and so not worth paying for.
(continued) And after all, *you* are the one who introduced the idea of artists having part time jobs so they could support themselves, while not charging a lot for their work (or perhaps not charging anything?). And *you* are the one who has said that not all artists "work hard" and that some performances are not "artistic." Who the heck made you the art god that you can decide all of this? And you may try to back pedal now about the part time jobs thing, but YOU SAID it and you meant it.
"you may try to back pedal now about the part time jobs thing," er, no..
ahh look, the main point I was trying to make, is that superiority is pointless, can people not be contented with equality rather than earning more than others? And of course that money should not be so associated with art or business.
But I guess you're right.. I'm a hypocrite, a wanna-be dictator and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
And there is no alternative to this system... right?
"Hmm, well, I did say that guy was "being" ignorant and obtuse, but you seemed to overlook this basic grammar point and come to the conclusion that I am a hypocratic dictator. "
Does it make you feel better if I amend that to "your opinion on this is moronic"? ;-)
WHO SAYS? You? Who appointed you the Art God, that you can decide what is and is not creative, and whether or not art should be associated with money?
If you don't want to pay for something or if you think it costs too much, then DO NOT CONSUME IT. It is that simple. You don't get to decide what someone else's labor is worth. You don't have a God-given right to other people's creativity.
That's my moral belief, I'm not trying to enforce it on anyone. But we have been given this amazing ability to put our thoughts, dreams and feelings onto paper. What do you think it should be about fooling people into a sense of understanding just to make money? Or should it be about releasing your feelings and letting others witness it because you have a collective interest in all things love and life?
Money has nothing to do with the value of life or thoughts.
"What you're saying is the problem, "do not consume their product" it's meant to be "art" not a "product"
It is a *product* of their labor, and you are NOT automatically entitled to it, just because you want it. It would not exist had they not made it. The person who is doing the work has some say-so over what amount of money they'll accept. Somehow you're saying that this does not apply to works of art? Who made you the authority on the value of other people's work (creative or otherwise)?
"You don't get to decide what someone else's labor is worth. You don't have a God-given right to other people's creativity."
Yet the record companies do? Wow, there's something quite wrong with that isn't there. That's my point, these major labels come in and tell bands what they want, how they want, and then they decide how to sell it. When people buy an album, the money goes to the record company, a minimal amount is given to their whores, I mean bands.
"That's my point, these major labels come in and tell bands what they want, how they want, and then they decide how to sell it."
But they don't have to go to the labels at all. We see this more and more. Someone can perform on YouTube and reach out and share their work that way, with no label involvement at all. They can sell directly to iTunes via services like TuneCore.
"Should creations not be shared by all?"
Sure, and the creators these days have many options. Record labels being just one
Exactly, this supports the idea that no one should have too much money. Then bands really work for and earn their money. The DIY ethic does succeed, artists should be not required to be on major contracts to be considered radio-worthy, this is occuring more frequently nowadays, but there are still obvious problems, just like with everything else in the world, change is too slow.
Artists that actually "work" for money, can stay at a human level.
"Exactly, this supports the idea that no one should have too much money. Then bands really work for and earn their money."
What amount is "too much" money? Please give me an exact amount in dollars or pounds. I'd like to know.
And what is "really work for their money"? How do you know how much other people work for the money they earn? What makes you think you're able to decide what is "really work" and what isn't? I'm curious how you think you can know this.
No, people having too much money is the reason why there are class divisions, people thinking they are better than others due to their enormous wealth, or the poor feeling inferior because of some fatcat bastard. Sure, society lets people become rich, but that isn't right, people should be more of a collective. Is it fair that anyone should do much more stressful work than someone else, yet get payed much less? But this delves into a different argument
LOL! So there is no consideration to their circumstances? What if they have 12 handicapped kids they are caring for? Or 12 foster children, as well as several impoverished relatives that they are supporting? Or what if they give away 50% of their income to worthy charities? How do you KNOW that a certain amount of money is "too much" without knowing the individual's living circumstances? And is £99,000 magically not "too much"? Or £98,000?
You were asking for an exact amount, so I thought that was rather funny and decided to make a joke, hence my "No," on the next line, but obviously you got too excited at the first line and found it pointless to read on. The idea of "too much money" is based on class division and lifestyle, not just income, in case you still don't understand.
I like music would only be heard because it was carried by a major label. (Esa Pekka Salonen conducting the LA Philharmonic.) Does that mean that I am a fool or a sucker because I like this music anyway? Did Esa Pekka Salonen not really work for the money he earned because he signed with a major label? Is he earning too much money? Is his work empty and is he in it only for the money? I'd love to hear your opinion on this. ;-)
Okay, you've certainly got me there, obviously not everyone on a major label is morally corrupt and has a tv dinner for a heart. You're not a fool or a sucker for liking anyone's music, whatever floats your boat. Although there is usually a slightly different ethic behind someone writing a song for a rock band and someone writing a score for a symphony orchestra.
are you overusing "yuh" on purpose or is that just me
"yes yuh do have to do what yuh do because yuh want it and because yuh feel it but yuh need money to live" ----- What?
Right, first of all, the "top of the range" equipment which most popular artists use is completely unnecessary and a total waste of resources and money, this kind of shit can make the general public feel artistically inferior unless they have the same gear as their idols.
"But I'll never fund some fucking mock-business major label assholes, they generally don't deserve it, their art tends to be very generic and selfish in nature, believe me."
I don't understand your reasoning here. If it's generic and "selfish in nature" (whatever that means) then you wouldn't want to be anywhere near or or listen to it at all, right? So what do you care what these bands charge? You are not interested in them.
"selfish in nature" meaning that they're in it for themselves, they don't really care about making music, they just care about making money, there's no real problem with that, everyone has to make a living somehow. Although their wages compared to their minimal level of work is a bit of a joke, I won't even mention the wages of their fatcat labels.
I may not be interested in the bands as such, but I do have an interest in humanity and ethics.
"If they are selfish and in it for the money.... So why care what they do?"
Because it's wrong, people can worship such bands, fooled by exciting marketing and "cool" heavily-edited music videos.
One man's overwhelming wealth is anothers poverty.
People can say nice things, but their intentions can be entirely different. Just like these bands can create nice music, but do they really care about people, is another question. And yes, it is their choice.
"Because it's wrong, people can worship such bands, fooled by exciting marketing and "cool" heavily-edited music videos."
heavily edited music videos are not my style (actually, my favorite type of music is Classical), but just because you don't like that style of music, how is it "wrong" for everyone? I don't like all types of popular or rock music, but I'm not saying that it's "wrong" for anyone else to enjoy them. If other people enjoy it, it's none of my business. And it's not yours either.
I am not saying the music is wrong, that would be foolish, people should listen to whatever music they want. But the companies are wrong in what they do, they try to make the music fashionable regardless of whether it has substance or not. People can feel coaxed into liking it. I feel this just takes away from the very essense of music. It turns many artists into money-making fads rather than artistically talented people who create to share their feelings with others.
But you're immune from that, right? (And so am I, I guess.) So we're too "smart" to be "coaxed" into liking some of this "fashionable" music?
How do you KNOW that everyone who likes this kind of music is "coaxed" into liking it. How do you KNOW that they don't like it based on its merits, or that they're aware of how it came to be but enjoy it anyway? You seem to think you understand the inner workings (and failings) of everyone else's minds.
Look at the state of the world we live, it's estimated that if you go to sleep in a warm bed and a satisfied stomach that you are better off than 75% of the world, what a great system we have eh? Isn't capitalism just wonderful? Thing is, most people just let their power drunk leaders develop this system. Does it seem like everyone's happy with it?
Is it therefore always okay when people just go with what they're told is most accessible?
I'm not sure you have any idea what you're getting at either. *scratches head*
"Is it therefore always okay when people just go with what they're told is most accessible?"
I have no idea what this has to do with people liking what they hear on the radio or what they see on the TV. You seem to think that they're "coaxed" into it, but of course enlightened souls like you know better. What makes you think that you know what others are "coaxed" into liking or not liking?
TV itself is a perfect example, do you know how inactive your brain is whilst watching television (I've also been a victim)? Think of how many people just sit there each night (and day maybe) just staring at a box, sure some people may watch interesting factual programs, but the majority are proven to just sit and watch soaps or some other mind numbing crap. This is the kind of thing which keeps people from thinking clearly. Enjoyable or not...
I'LL ASK AGAIN: "What makes you think that you know what others are "coaxed" into liking or not liking?"
Sure, I know that some people stare at the TV like a zombie, etc. But what makes *you* think that always know when this is the case? What makes *you* think that you're so enlightened to differentiate when this happens in others, but that any other given person isn't? That the majority of the public are just a bunch of lemmings, but *you* see things clearly? Give me a break.
Wonder if this advert will cause kids to take the mickey out of their mates called Nigel, even if they don't pirate. You know how kids pick stuff up and run with it. If we could prove this advert was causing this to happen, we could complain to the advertising standard authority and have it taken of the air.
What sickens me to the point of giving me actual physical symptoms insomnia,lethargy,nausea,anxiety and early morning diarrhea, is the way I know that pirating arseholes will no doubt copy Victoria Beckhams latest designer dress range. Her dresses selling at VERY reasonable prices ranging from approx £600-£2000 will be no deterrent! WE MUST SUPPORT VICTORIA AND BUY HER LEGIT STUFF! IT'S OUR DUTY!
Possibly one of the worst adverts ever made.
Useless2112 1 week ago
I wonder, did one single person watch this and think to themselves "Oh no, I'm never pirating again"? Doubt it somehow
ragingbill 1 month ago
he's the type of man that does things on the cheap
he just doesn't want pay cash for disposable shit
wtfanac 2 months ago
Lovin Knock Off Nigel
What A LEGEND
:o)
ciderman26 3 months ago
Every good pub used to have a knock-off Nigel. Unfortunately for the advertisers, and the motion picture industry, Nigel was a very popular guy because he saved us from having to go to the awful local cinema. And if Nigel included porn in his library then he was practically a demi-god.
hamgreen 3 months ago 4
If they ever make a film worth buying I'll pay for it, there hasn't been one for years.
eateroftheflame 3 months ago
i wonder how many of the people in this video actually download films from the piratebay or similar sites
troymellor 4 months ago
the black guy: i payed 15 quid watching this with my gf and he has it for free for this im going to nick the disk and sing at hi.
now then whos the scrub him for whanting to save 15 quid or the guy for nicking his disk you tell me
darkkrenify 5 months ago
"he's the type of man that does things on the cheap"
Nothing wrong with that, i mean we gotta save our cash in these tough economic times.
"Gave his girlfriend a watch that he found in the street"
What a nice guy. He could have sold it, but instead gave it to his girlfriend. Ungrateful bitch.
"
He buys knock off dvd's he'll rob his own gran".
So anyone that has ever bought a knock off dvd in there lives would also rob their own gran?..... fail
maxpayne2424 5 months ago
ooohhh better not buy knock offs or that guy will sing at me in the pub, what an amazing deterant ill never buy a knock off again............
jled321 5 months ago
How is this supposed to make us feel Nigel's a bad guy? There he is trying to have a quiet drink in the pub with his girlfriend when suddenly he gets abused by a load of smug twats for buying a few pirates.
Starman117 5 months ago 4
Wait I've bought pirate DVDs but I don't give women street watches and scrounge drinks. This video is making vast generalisations :P
Haxincorp 5 months ago
Whatever. Everyone has secrets. I guarantee the dick with the guitar has some too.
yoshinibble123 5 months ago 3
now i suddenly want to pirate dvds
fairyheli2 5 months ago
Ah! What did I do? Now I feel bad for being named Nigel. I wasn't even born in the UK!
pogogo51 6 months ago
There's a Scottish band with a song called "Kicked Savagely To Death By A Vigilante Mob For Being A Knockoff Nigel." I personally find that hilarious.
Szaam 6 months ago
There is a different version, but at 0:12 - 0:14 , the guy says "He downloads knock-off films!" and there are lyrics on the screen. Search for "Knock off Nigel website" and you'll find it. Hit "Watch the TV AD" hit "watch the pub ad", and there it is!
Manafichu 7 months ago
Ironically enough, "Knock Off Nigel" seems to be much less of a threat to a society than the madman with the guitar. Buying knock-off DVDs seems far less annoying than bothering people while they're eating and humiliating them with a gimmicky song.
n0oneimportant 8 months ago 5
Giving your girlfirend a watch that you found isn't actually a bad thing to do you, know.
ConfusedProud 9 months ago
@ConfusedProud <- oi knock off nigel, hows it goin
bbbbbobbzPS3 8 months ago
@bbbbbobbzPS3 I meant its not hurting anyone. It makes him a cheapskate, but isn't bad enough to have him humiliated.
ConfusedProud 8 months ago
@ConfusedProud to be fair his girlfriend was content with the watch, so the guitar guy is kinda the one who hurts the girlfriend inside, by shedding light on where the watch was found, he is the real criminal
bbbbbobbzPS3 8 months ago 2
I want to meet the man who came up with this advert and laugh in his face because he was stupid enough to think this was work. I respect the people who don't pay the disgusting prices companies charge daylight robbery, the reason why there is so much piracy, it's because they ain't willing to pay your stupid robbing prices anymore.
DarkenedPsycho 10 months ago
He's not so smart for buying knock off DVD's !
When he could download them for free...
Silly Nigel
ScratchGuy 11 months ago 9
everyone knows a knock off nigel loooooooool
MCTRIPIDON1991 11 months ago
Bare jokes!!
mike235110 1 year ago
Nigel is an average good man, avoiding the criminals who rip him off
crazy456eyes 1 year ago
If at first you don't succeed, mildly insult your enemies...
StrangeStickMovies 1 year ago 5
So... he's a bad guy because he's poor? Jolly good then!
GratuitousGorgonzola 1 year ago 12
It's funny to come back to this advert every now and then, each time it just seems more and more ridiculous how cynically psychological the wording is.
To associate mugging the elderly with downloading a film that may well not even be out on DVD is a bit desperate. You have to wonder whether they planned any more of them with a similar spurious claim. "he downloads mp3's and loves farmyard scat. He likes to blow goats what a scummy little twat""
dan205 1 year ago 2
Only fools buy pirated DVDs, cheaper to do it yourself
eateroftheflame 1 year ago
This is the first I've seen this and it's funny.
scottieman2 1 year ago
Haha, I think of this every time I hear the name Nigel.
8RandomGuy8 1 year ago
NIGEL = PALACE FAN
mfctom300 1 year ago
Nigel! what a gay name hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha NIGEL?!
grainvillebambam 1 year ago
Forgotten how funny this advert was.
GLEESON777 1 year ago 4
good god please who in their right mind thought this would ever put someone off buying pirated films? What a waste of money.
Periculis08 1 year ago 2
Ah, stick it to the fans...that'll work!
milpatel83 1 year ago
I believe if a movie sucked ie tanked in the theares we should be allowed to download it,since it sucked and thats the only way to get ppl to watch it. Sides why spend $4 to rent of $20 to own a movie that was effing boring
hkfan1980 1 year ago
"he downloaded eskimo nazi dwarf porn and likes to wear lacy knickers oh hi ho it's Nigel " make it funny ffs XD
hkfan1980 1 year ago
The film industry is the only one who is allowed to lie to us to get sales and we can't get our money back. Trailers make crap movies look good and like something they are not, like Jarhead, it looked like an awesome action movie but instead it was about boredom in war and was CRAP (IMO)
StaticID 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ENJOY MUSIC LEAGALLY...WTF???
Wot a load of rubbish. When will the industry adapt its business model?? Quit changing lobbing governments, harrasing people with fines and spreading propoganda??... Take a look at the uk's digital economy bill, suing file-sharers, misleading authorities with bogus piracy reports & STATS. RIAA & MPAA are using those same staTs, convincing us 2 transform the Internet into there copyright police state.
animus999 1 year ago
Knock off Nigel's my mate, he brings a guitar player, and gets the whole pub singing, at least one of those people is gonna buy him a pint.
longdongriver 1 year ago
This video just made me sympathetic to Nigel. Why would everyone in the bar take such relish in humiliating him, they can't all know him.
WillAndersony 1 year ago 2
He's the type of man that bad mouthed in a bar
Took surgeons six hours to remove that guitar.....
97channel 2 years ago 11
1st time i've ever laughed at a youtube comment
antifascotland 1 year ago
The best!
lowestoftbus 2 years ago
ROFL funniest ad ever
lemonsters08 2 years ago
oh noes, my girlfriend has left me and everyone in the pub hates me...the social stigma of buying a pirate DVD, it's too much to bear!!!
...or is it?
Mass produced DVD: 50p at most
DVD case: 20-30p
Paper insert: 10-20p?
Large corporate retail "RRP": £15-20
...who's the real criminal?
WhiteKnight402 2 years ago 85
But of course if you really care about film or tv or whatever the hell your watching on dvd you'll buy the genuine article.
Plus anyone with any sense buys online where prices are much cheaper, i havn't bought a dvd from a real shop for years.
kwisnothere 2 years ago
i care deeply about the poor music, tv, and film industries, they must struggle to buy there 2nd small island covered in gold this year.
longdongriver 1 year ago 3
@WhiteKnight402 good point, but remember the cast, crew, props, sets, cinema rights and making millions of copies of the DVD's all adds up and they are not criminals because we don't have to buy it and we enjoy it
leoster2 1 year ago
Don't forget the more often than not shitty film on the disc, created simply to cash-in.
ButterJunge 1 year ago
@WhiteKnight402 People who work to make the films, (the people you don't see) would be out of a job.
clockendboy 1 year ago
@clockendboy they might get a real job then, instead of being an overly pampered selfish prat.
DarkenedPsycho 10 months ago
@WhiteKnight402 what about the cost of making the film?
JCA1712 7 months ago
Pint glass continuity fail.
Keep a close eye on his pint of beer during the first 7 or 8 seconds.
97channel 2 years ago
knock off nigel is my hero!
collins2k1 2 years ago 5
It's funny but i feel really sorry for him lol.
72Adam27 2 years ago
Think the newer 1 is better, but I think this is funny
BeccaAlisonVideos 2 years ago
my name is nigel and this advert pissers me of.
its allways nigel this nigel that in adverts.
scaleop4 2 years ago
xD LOL its ok buddy.
Mazza4Azza 2 years ago
poor Nigel, no one deserves that kind of abuse. These ads always make me wonder what went wrong in Nigel's life that he is reduced to these things just to get a present for his girlfriend or watch a summer movie.
Stantzs 2 years ago 7
sounds like watchmen intro to me
flimda 2 years ago
lol actually does
curtisstyle 2 years ago 4
ye I hear that to. Oh the Times they are A changin
lucafon18 2 years ago
I hate this advert!
My names Nigel and now all my mates call me knock-off Nigel.
BigboyDownStairs 2 years ago 7
You're a Knooock-off Nigel, You're a knock of Ni-Gel. Knoooock off Nigel, Buys knock-off Dvds
Shame
RequiemLestat 2 years ago
Nigel made a judgement call
£14.99 in the shops
OR
£5 down the pub ...that leaves £9.99 to buy the beers!!!!
more like smart bastard nigel
deadbydayinblack 2 years ago 96
@deadbydayinblack
or free online, leaving £15 for beer.
who buys bootleg stuff now that you can get it for free nowadays?
alphamone 1 year ago
People that are not smart enough to use torrents I would think. Believe it or not there are those that cant do it. I know and you know its a piece of piss to dl then burn onto a blank dvd. But for some...its just too much.
deadbydayinblack 1 year ago
Fucking MPAA fantasy world.
gtiih 2 years ago 2
emm the term khock of nigel is really old saying god sake was being used far back ww1 so get over it they used something that was alrredy in use fuck sack i was calling m8 that got pirate tapes konck of nigel
rastoper 2 years ago
Who *buys* 'knock-off dvds'?
solipsist8 2 years ago 3
If the song was flattering sure, but this song misrepresents Nigels everywhere. Nigels are fucking takers of names and kickers of asses. They fucked with the wrong name god dammit.
thecyberpunk 2 years ago
I used to be against everything you just said, but guess what, MY NAME IS NIGEL! THEY FUCKED WITH THE WRONG NAME! FUCK THOSE GUYS! PIRATE EVERYTHING. See, Nigel isn't even a common name where I live, so it's even worse!
thecyberpunk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People who buy an download illegal movies and music are cheap idiots.
PlaygirlBunny4life 2 years ago
At least knock offed DVDs do NOT have this shit on it. One more reason not to buy real ones. What is the point of having this shit on real DVDs and they don't even allow you to skip forward. Piece of crap.
alvinlwh 2 years ago 8
lawl, yes indeed your life will be considerably worse if you dont buy real dvds and stop will smith getting a 10th private jet and 58th mansion.
qwertyuiopdan1 2 years ago 5
wow what a pathetic attempt to stop people from buying 'knock off' dvds. like your girls gonna leave you over it. exagerated unrealistic crap, girls more likely to encourage to buy knock off dvds lol save money straight no long
mrmarble3 2 years ago 3
It's racism against people called Nigel lmao. I love it :D
CrazyGraham 2 years ago 3
your not rong my name is is nigel and i hate them adverts .
scaleop4 2 years ago
lol love this xD
knowthetruth2 2 years ago
Lol, buying knock off DVD's, what a penis
UzumakiMitch 2 years ago
These anti-piracy ads have gone really soft of late. I remember that they used to try (and fail) to hit hard by trying to build a link between piracy, eastern european gansters and child pornography. The suits just seen to have no idea how to get down with the kids these days, and on this ocassion on trying to make something uncool look as cool as the fonz in an icebox.
Now, does anyone know where I can get a cheap copy of the new Clint Eastwood movie? Heard it's really good.
billiepipersteeth 2 years ago
I encourage everybody to buy the knockoffs.
Why give the money to the monsters in HELLywood?
dbehsman 2 years ago 2
ok the people that gang up on him are right arse holes sorry 4 that 1 but its not fair so i say keep down loading dvd's why go movies when u can just stay at home with ur gf or bf and do what ever i say im a knock of nigle and im showing my true colers so shout all u wish but id sooner stay home and watch a dvd and save money than waste money on stail pop corn and flat drinks ill make my own thank you very much is u agree with me plz relpy if u do and if u don thats ur choice so cya have a good1
darkrenify 2 years ago
yh ur rite
ehthesham8462 2 years ago
Im a music knock- off nigel and proud of it.
atheistlord666 2 years ago
What the poor guy needs is an AK47 to silence all those mofos... and get his DVDs back.
corsair773 2 years ago 10
Wait.. whats wrong with the watch I found in the street. It works doesn't it? Ungrateful bitch!
0v3rd0seh 2 years ago 5
There's only one good thing about this advert, imho... It finally tells people how to spell the name Nigel. However, the anti-piracy message is lost in amongst the "Everyone who buys pirated stuff is called Nigel" message. Yes, I am called Nigel but I'm not buying dodgy stuff on the cheap. Thanks to this advert I put up with people calling me "Knock-off" for at least a month. Also, the only reason piracy is reducing profits is because most films are so expensive. But I just save up.
wonebutuoynomi 2 years ago 2
Nobody is advocating legalization of selling "knock-off DVDs", as far as I know. Even the Pirate Party (in Sweden) is in favour of retaining the parts of copyright law that concern commercial use (but for a shorter period than the current 95 years, obviously). So WTF are they trying to argue here?
tky011 2 years ago
i think the pirate party has a balanced attitude towards this issue - nigel does not.
heroicsteve 2 years ago
This video makes me want to commit piracy more. why pay £14.99 for a DVD or £9.99 for a CD when I can get it for free? mabe if it was like 50p (which is what the wholesale price is) i would consider paying. Anyway i would rather take a few quid off the companies $19092718646898 profit, then get suckered like everyone else who buys films/cds from shops
lukeyboyyyy 2 years ago
Why do I have to pay £14.99 for a film, when it's made in China for about 70 pence? These companies cream the profit off us - who have to suffer paying way over-the-top prices.
Georgiahulse 2 years ago 4
Guess what, my name is Nigel, and I have been anti-piracy until now. From now on the fucking gloves are off. I am going to fucking pirate everything, i'm going to sell pirate DVDs i'm going to hijack their shipping from my pirate ship and when the navy seals come ot get rid of me, I'll pay them off with pirated DVDS!
IT IS ON NOW FUCKERS!
thecyberpunk 2 years ago 7
LMFAO
dolphinslovecheese 2 years ago
Whilst Intelligent Ian uses streaming sites too watch them for free ♫
TheMarlonC 2 years ago 8
I was kind of discussing important things, such as poverty, I don't even know anymore why I would be talking about this on a "Knock of Nigel" video, but...
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
Wow, intelligent...
But I do believe you are correct, no one gives a "fucking damn", that's what's wrong with the world I guess..
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
Music and Movies should go into public domain after 5 years.
Instead, the recording and film industries make money off of movies and music created by artists who are dead or doing nothing.
Up until recently, Sylvester Stallone wasn't doing much of anything. Why should someone charge me for a copy of Rocky? It's a 33 year old movie!
MosquitoValentine 2 years ago
lmao these commerical crack me up wen is that ever gonna happen! XD
Ghostofterran 2 years ago
i concur
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
this is crap
gothicsabrinafan4eva 2 years ago
"Im a knock off nigle WITH A KNIFE! Gimme all ur moneys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Stevoman1995 2 years ago
3 for £5 cant say no to that
gannon44 2 years ago 6
see that darky swipe the dvd... I bet you he is selling it in his corner shop as we speak £2.99 stupid baboon arsed monkey
daveygravey123456 2 years ago 2
I'm a knock-off Nigel - do one.
Galforg 3 years ago 12
the people who made this must think we all have the psychology of a 4 yr old , it is the most annoying thing i've ever seen on tv , all us average joes are gonna always look for whats cheapest and how to screw the man so fuck em , who's with me
kevsenior 3 years ago 23
I am with you. My reaction to this, as well as all other crap adverts, is to do the exact opposite of what the advertisers want me to do, so it wil be more downloading of pirated dvds.
Power100 3 years ago 6
Free distribution of art!!!!
Make art available to everyone, regardless of income, art in whatever form is the greatest way of expressing yourself, why should the people have to pay ridiculous prices for that!? Perhaps it shouldn't be free, but at least have reasonable price, everyone needs to make a living. If corporations didn't put so much cash into marketing their products, everything could be so much easier, and also less generic.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
dude artists need money to survive yuh know
Ticcaso 2 years ago
if artists used good business ethics and have other forms of finance ie part-time jobs, then they should be fine. do you think big corporations.. i mean bands like metallica have all their costs in records or gigs? look at the ridiculous prices they have for concerts and unnecessary merchandise, it's a joke, around £70 for a metallica ticket? check out bands like Fugazi, at the most £10 a ticket - always, no merchandise whatsoever, they're a real musical group, not some fucking business!
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
artists shouldnt have a part time job they should make a living out of what hey do and that is entertain yuh
Ticcaso 2 years ago
Personally sir, it is my belief that being on a stage to simply "entertain" others is not very artistic. An artist is someone who expresses themselves or channels their feelings to form an aesthetic result, that of which they may feel to share with others. There are so many artists out there, most of the population in fact, you don't have to be in the public domain. I would consider those who do what you have described "artistic" in the most minuscule sense of the word.
Art is not about money.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"Personally sir, it is my belief that being on a stage to simply "entertain" others is not very artistic. "
So that's your opinion, so what? News flash—you don't get to define what is and is not artistic for everyone. If you don't like someone's art or if you don't think they're artistic, then do not consume their product and they will get no money from you. If you do want to consume it, then be willing to pay what they decide their labor is worth. That's how it works with everything else.
albionsocean 2 years ago
Why did you quote me and then say nothing about the quote?
Anyway, at least you gave a decent reply. I understand what you're saying, but even if I do like someones art I shouldn't have to pay for it, some artists I like believe that this is right, others believe that it is wrong. What you're saying is the problem, "do not consume their product" it's meant to be "art" not a "product", that's where people get it wrong. When it's no longer about understanding and about money, it's no longer art.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
Comment removed
albionsocean 2 years ago
I don't think you get what I'm really saying here. I would happily donate money to a DIY band with good business ethics and I'll pay money to see their shows (where such bands raise most of their finance). But I'll never fund some fucking mock-business major label assholes, they generally don't deserve it, their art tends to be very generic and selfish in nature, believe me. If bands wanna be rich, fuck 'em, by paying for their "art" we allow corps to shovel us down so much shit, it kills me.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
yuh don't get what i'm saying
they worked hard to get there so they deserve the money
Ticcaso 2 years ago
firstly, it's "you" not "yuh", I realise you are apparently from Romania, yet your english seems rather good otherwise, but i just thought i'd point that out for you.
Secondly "they worked hard to get there so they deserve the money"? Are you fucking kidding me!? Do you know how ignorant you are being? Most people work half their goddam lives just trying to keep bread and milk on the table, many have terrible jobs and terrible wages to go with it!
OPEN YOUR EYES!
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
i chose not to argue with yuh because its a waste of time but fine, this is the last reply i will send yuh
1. i know its "you" not "yuh" but i prefer yuh, is that a crime?
2. artists should never have a part time job, they need time to focus on art not wash cars or whatever
3. it was their personal decision to get where they are. if someone does not want to waste his life trying to get milk and bread on the table they'd better do something about it, they got most because they were too lazy
Ticcaso 2 years ago
This whole thing is a waste of time.. I'll agree with you there
1. It's not a crime, but it's just pointless, why would you write/type "yuh", you may well pronounce "you" that way, but it's just illogical to write it as such. Do you feel you're being rebelious against grammatical norms or something? If so, why would you want to?
2. Artists don't have to have temp jobs, it just depends on their income.
3. They'd better do something about it, what? Like try and find get lucky for an easier life?
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
Think of children, working 16hrs/day (or more!) in "developing countries" (as us western bastards call them, they're really "countries with resources, exploited by the west") why don't those kids get the most luxurious lifestyle in the world, they go through a hell of a lot more than anyone else!
"To get "THERE"" you say, what is there? Why can't an honest worker get there? Because it takes an asshole to get there, that's why.
How can you be so obtuse?
Art should not be so associated with money.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
Dude, you're a moron.
1. People shouldn't have to work a part time job to support themselves, because others are too cheap-ass to pay whatever the going rate is. Let the market decide. If someone's singing, art, writing is priced too high, people won't buy and then they'll lower the price or go out of business.
2. It is NOT UP TO YOU to decide what is and is not creative or artistic, and therefore worth more money.
3. If you don't want to fund some mock-business, then don't. Don't listen.
albionsocean 2 years ago
I find it strange how you can deduce that I am a moron from what i say concerning one topic..
Nonetheless, wth does this mean;
"because others are too cheap-ass to pay whatever the going rate is"?
Everyone has to work to survive in this world.
Let the market decide? What about the people? People are quite frequently fooled into purchasing non-necessities by the market in case you havn't noticed.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"I find it strange how you can deduce that I am a moron from what i say concerning one topic.."
You call someone else "ignorant" and "obtuse" but somehow it's not okay that I say "moron"? Interesting . . .
"Let the market decide? What about the people? People are quite frequently fooled into purchasing non-necessities by the market in case you havn't noticed."
So you're going to decide *for them* what they should pay, instead of them making the decision? Who appointed you an authority?
albionsocean 2 years ago
Wow, I missed the point at which I was being a dictator..
Hmm, well, I did say that guy was "being" ignorant and obtuse, but you seemed to overlook this basic grammar point and come to the conclusion that I am a hypocratic dictator. Interesting...
I'm not deciding for people, and I wouldn't want to, that would makes me as bad as the corporations. I am underlining the basic fact these labels are morally inept, both in their contribution to the global economy and their social responsibilities
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
You're the one who started with "Free distribution of art!!!!"
I realize that you know that you can't *force* people to adhere to your idea of right, but you clearly believe that art should be free, right?
Well, what if an artist doesn't want to give away their art for free? What if they want to just keep it in their garage? What is your OPINION about that? Do they have that right, or in your perfect world, should they have to give it away or sell it for a price that *you* consider fair?
albionsocean 2 years ago
I believe the world would be a better place if money wasn't so higly valued, but I understand that to survive nowadays, money is essential sadly.
People don't have to give away their art for free, of course not. Although I think it would be ideal if everyone had the same access to art regardless of income.
Why would I be annoyed if they wanted to keep it for themselves?
You're jumping the gun an awful lot here.
If they're gonna sell it, they should sell at price *everyone* considers fair.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"Why would I be annoyed if they wanted to keep it for themselves?"
Well, you said "Free distribution of art!" What if someone makes something really gorgeous and profound, but they want to keep it to themselves? Wouldn't you consider that "selfish" of them, since art should be freely distributed?
"If they're gonna sell it, they should sell at price *everyone* considers fair."
lol. Some people never want to pay anything for art. So they'd consider "free" to be the *only* "fair" price.
albionsocean 2 years ago
When I talk about "distribution", I'm talking about on a major level, If some company is distributing something for an artist, it should be distributed fairly, at a decent price, or freely depending on the availability of the art (ie music). Why the hell should they not keep it to themselves if they want to? You seem to think I would love to start some sort of art dictatorship..
Regardless of what I've previously said, I believe the artist should get to decide ultimately, it's too complicated..
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"If some company is distributing something for an artist, it should be distributed fairly, at a decent price, or freely depending on the availability of the art (ie music)."
What is "fairly" and what is a "decent price"? If someone thinks they can sell a painting for a million dollars, then why not? If they want to hold a concert in which tickets cost $1000 per head, or CDs for $100 each, then why not? Odds are that they won't sell for that price, but why can't they try if they want to?
albionsocean 2 years ago
Jesus Christ, "what is a "decent price"?" It depends! Can you not comprehend that? $1000 a ticket would not be fair quite obviously, if there was a concert in some big stadium, seating say 10,000 people, they wouldn't even need to put tickets at $70, if their costs were purely spent on playing the show, not on unnecessary merchandise or other extrinsic factors, they would make enough profit from tickets.
And did I say anyone "can't do what they want"? You're jumping to conclusions once again...
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
Yeah, and a "decent price" depends on WHO YOU ASK. Can *you* not comprehend that! You said you wanted "fair prices" for everyone, but a lot of people don't want to pay for anything, and will complain bitterly if they have to. And they'll take everything they can get without paying for it, and consider that "fair." And they'll consider anything an artist does as "not real work" (or not "working hard enough") and so not worth paying for.
albionsocean 2 years ago
(continued) And after all, *you* are the one who introduced the idea of artists having part time jobs so they could support themselves, while not charging a lot for their work (or perhaps not charging anything?). And *you* are the one who has said that not all artists "work hard" and that some performances are not "artistic." Who the heck made you the art god that you can decide all of this? And you may try to back pedal now about the part time jobs thing, but YOU SAID it and you meant it.
albionsocean 2 years ago
"you may try to back pedal now about the part time jobs thing," er, no..
ahh look, the main point I was trying to make, is that superiority is pointless, can people not be contented with equality rather than earning more than others? And of course that money should not be so associated with art or business.
But I guess you're right.. I'm a hypocrite, a wanna-be dictator and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
And there is no alternative to this system... right?
I'm done.
Nice caps btw.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"Hmm, well, I did say that guy was "being" ignorant and obtuse, but you seemed to overlook this basic grammar point and come to the conclusion that I am a hypocratic dictator. "
Does it make you feel better if I amend that to "your opinion on this is moronic"? ;-)
albionsocean 2 years ago
I guess so..
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
(Continued--my last post got lost in the ether).
"Art should not be so associated with money."
WHO SAYS? You? Who appointed you the Art God, that you can decide what is and is not creative, and whether or not art should be associated with money?
If you don't want to pay for something or if you think it costs too much, then DO NOT CONSUME IT. It is that simple. You don't get to decide what someone else's labor is worth. You don't have a God-given right to other people's creativity.
albionsocean 2 years ago
That's my moral belief, I'm not trying to enforce it on anyone. But we have been given this amazing ability to put our thoughts, dreams and feelings onto paper. What do you think it should be about fooling people into a sense of understanding just to make money? Or should it be about releasing your feelings and letting others witness it because you have a collective interest in all things love and life?
Money has nothing to do with the value of life or thoughts.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"What you're saying is the problem, "do not consume their product" it's meant to be "art" not a "product"
It is a *product* of their labor, and you are NOT automatically entitled to it, just because you want it. It would not exist had they not made it. The person who is doing the work has some say-so over what amount of money they'll accept. Somehow you're saying that this does not apply to works of art? Who made you the authority on the value of other people's work (creative or otherwise)?
albionsocean 2 years ago
"You don't get to decide what someone else's labor is worth. You don't have a God-given right to other people's creativity."
Yet the record companies do? Wow, there's something quite wrong with that isn't there. That's my point, these major labels come in and tell bands what they want, how they want, and then they decide how to sell it. When people buy an album, the money goes to the record company, a minimal amount is given to their whores, I mean bands.
Should creations not be shared by all?
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"That's my point, these major labels come in and tell bands what they want, how they want, and then they decide how to sell it."
But they don't have to go to the labels at all. We see this more and more. Someone can perform on YouTube and reach out and share their work that way, with no label involvement at all. They can sell directly to iTunes via services like TuneCore.
"Should creations not be shared by all?"
Sure, and the creators these days have many options. Record labels being just one
albionsocean 2 years ago
"But they don't have to go to the labels at all"
Exactly, this supports the idea that no one should have too much money. Then bands really work for and earn their money. The DIY ethic does succeed, artists should be not required to be on major contracts to be considered radio-worthy, this is occuring more frequently nowadays, but there are still obvious problems, just like with everything else in the world, change is too slow.
Artists that actually "work" for money, can stay at a human level.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"Exactly, this supports the idea that no one should have too much money. Then bands really work for and earn their money."
What amount is "too much" money? Please give me an exact amount in dollars or pounds. I'd like to know.
And what is "really work for their money"? How do you know how much other people work for the money they earn? What makes you think you're able to decide what is "really work" and what isn't? I'm curious how you think you can know this.
albionsocean 2 years ago
Too much money is around £100,000 per year
No, people having too much money is the reason why there are class divisions, people thinking they are better than others due to their enormous wealth, or the poor feeling inferior because of some fatcat bastard. Sure, society lets people become rich, but that isn't right, people should be more of a collective. Is it fair that anyone should do much more stressful work than someone else, yet get payed much less? But this delves into a different argument
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"Too much money is around £100,000 per year"
LOL! So there is no consideration to their circumstances? What if they have 12 handicapped kids they are caring for? Or 12 foster children, as well as several impoverished relatives that they are supporting? Or what if they give away 50% of their income to worthy charities? How do you KNOW that a certain amount of money is "too much" without knowing the individual's living circumstances? And is £99,000 magically not "too much"? Or £98,000?
albionsocean 2 years ago
Wow, obviously you took my joke seriously.
You were asking for an exact amount, so I thought that was rather funny and decided to make a joke, hence my "No," on the next line, but obviously you got too excited at the first line and found it pointless to read on. The idea of "too much money" is based on class division and lifestyle, not just income, in case you still don't understand.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
LOL, well, given some of the lame-brained ideas you have expressed, I confess to not immediately getting that it was a joke!
albionsocean 2 years ago
Indeed...
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
I like music would only be heard because it was carried by a major label. (Esa Pekka Salonen conducting the LA Philharmonic.) Does that mean that I am a fool or a sucker because I like this music anyway? Did Esa Pekka Salonen not really work for the money he earned because he signed with a major label? Is he earning too much money? Is his work empty and is he in it only for the money? I'd love to hear your opinion on this. ;-)
albionsocean 2 years ago
Okay, you've certainly got me there, obviously not everyone on a major label is morally corrupt and has a tv dinner for a heart. You're not a fool or a sucker for liking anyone's music, whatever floats your boat. Although there is usually a slightly different ethic behind someone writing a song for a rock band and someone writing a score for a symphony orchestra.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
of course art is connected to money
yes yuh do have to do what yuh do because yuh want it and because yuh feel it but yuh need money to live
if guitars / amps / studio hours / food / everything was free then i guess yuh could judge artists for overcharging yuh for a cd or whatever
Ticcaso 2 years ago
are you overusing "yuh" on purpose or is that just me
"yes yuh do have to do what yuh do because yuh want it and because yuh feel it but yuh need money to live" ----- What?
Right, first of all, the "top of the range" equipment which most popular artists use is completely unnecessary and a total waste of resources and money, this kind of shit can make the general public feel artistically inferior unless they have the same gear as their idols.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"But I'll never fund some fucking mock-business major label assholes, they generally don't deserve it, their art tends to be very generic and selfish in nature, believe me."
I don't understand your reasoning here. If it's generic and "selfish in nature" (whatever that means) then you wouldn't want to be anywhere near or or listen to it at all, right? So what do you care what these bands charge? You are not interested in them.
albionsocean 2 years ago
"selfish in nature" meaning that they're in it for themselves, they don't really care about making music, they just care about making money, there's no real problem with that, everyone has to make a living somehow. Although their wages compared to their minimal level of work is a bit of a joke, I won't even mention the wages of their fatcat labels.
I may not be interested in the bands as such, but I do have an interest in humanity and ethics.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
""selfish in nature" meaning that they're in it for themselves, they don't really care about making music, they just care about making money"
If they are selfish and in it for the money, then you will not want to listen to it anyway. So why care what they do?
"I may not be interested in the bands as such, but I do have an interest in humanity and ethics."
None of your business. People are choosing to sell their work via a label, or not. Why are you against them having a choice in the matter?
albionsocean 2 years ago
"If they are selfish and in it for the money.... So why care what they do?"
Because it's wrong, people can worship such bands, fooled by exciting marketing and "cool" heavily-edited music videos.
One man's overwhelming wealth is anothers poverty.
People can say nice things, but their intentions can be entirely different. Just like these bands can create nice music, but do they really care about people, is another question. And yes, it is their choice.
And what exactly is "none of my business"?
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"Because it's wrong, people can worship such bands, fooled by exciting marketing and "cool" heavily-edited music videos."
heavily edited music videos are not my style (actually, my favorite type of music is Classical), but just because you don't like that style of music, how is it "wrong" for everyone? I don't like all types of popular or rock music, but I'm not saying that it's "wrong" for anyone else to enjoy them. If other people enjoy it, it's none of my business. And it's not yours either.
albionsocean 2 years ago
I am not saying the music is wrong, that would be foolish, people should listen to whatever music they want. But the companies are wrong in what they do, they try to make the music fashionable regardless of whether it has substance or not. People can feel coaxed into liking it. I feel this just takes away from the very essense of music. It turns many artists into money-making fads rather than artistically talented people who create to share their feelings with others.
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
"People can feel coaxed into liking it"
But you're immune from that, right? (And so am I, I guess.) So we're too "smart" to be "coaxed" into liking some of this "fashionable" music?
How do you KNOW that everyone who likes this kind of music is "coaxed" into liking it. How do you KNOW that they don't like it based on its merits, or that they're aware of how it came to be but enjoy it anyway? You seem to think you understand the inner workings (and failings) of everyone else's minds.
albionsocean 2 years ago
I'm not too sure what you're getting at here..
Look at the state of the world we live, it's estimated that if you go to sleep in a warm bed and a satisfied stomach that you are better off than 75% of the world, what a great system we have eh? Isn't capitalism just wonderful? Thing is, most people just let their power drunk leaders develop this system. Does it seem like everyone's happy with it?
Is it therefore always okay when people just go with what they're told is most accessible?
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago 2
I'm not sure you have any idea what you're getting at either. *scratches head*
"Is it therefore always okay when people just go with what they're told is most accessible?"
I have no idea what this has to do with people liking what they hear on the radio or what they see on the TV. You seem to think that they're "coaxed" into it, but of course enlightened souls like you know better. What makes you think that you know what others are "coaxed" into liking or not liking?
albionsocean 2 years ago
It's pretty easy to see it if you open your eyes.
TV itself is a perfect example, do you know how inactive your brain is whilst watching television (I've also been a victim)? Think of how many people just sit there each night (and day maybe) just staring at a box, sure some people may watch interesting factual programs, but the majority are proven to just sit and watch soaps or some other mind numbing crap. This is the kind of thing which keeps people from thinking clearly. Enjoyable or not...
nolifetilleather83 2 years ago
I'LL ASK AGAIN: "What makes you think that you know what others are "coaxed" into liking or not liking?"
Sure, I know that some people stare at the TV like a zombie, etc. But what makes *you* think that always know when this is the case? What makes *you* think that you're so enlightened to differentiate when this happens in others, but that any other given person isn't? That the majority of the public are just a bunch of lemmings, but *you* see things clearly? Give me a break.
albionsocean 2 years ago
Wonder if this advert will cause kids to take the mickey out of their mates called Nigel, even if they don't pirate. You know how kids pick stuff up and run with it. If we could prove this advert was causing this to happen, we could complain to the advertising standard authority and have it taken of the air.
rickricey 3 years ago
as my name is NIGEL i do not like this
(any one want some good films or CDs Email me lol)
nigelxxx 3 years ago 7
what films you got? lol ;p
DjGizzo 3 years ago 2
Didnt u understand the ad?
BellaProductionsUK 3 years ago
What sickens me to the point of giving me actual physical symptoms insomnia,lethargy,nausea,anxiety and early morning diarrhea, is the way I know that pirating arseholes will no doubt copy Victoria Beckhams latest designer dress range. Her dresses selling at VERY reasonable prices ranging from approx £600-£2000 will be no deterrent! WE MUST SUPPORT VICTORIA AND BUY HER LEGIT STUFF! IT'S OUR DUTY!
1LUVBECKS 3 years ago