THE BLOGGER'S RETURN...

 

 

Well, it's been quiet on the ol' Blogging front around here for
the last few weeks, beyond what I'd intended.  Reason is because
I've been busy clearing up the mess after some work in my house -
and because I'd locked my internet hub in a filing cabinet and then
mislaid the key.  I've given myself some extra work by breaking
into the cabinet to retreive the hub and get online again, as
I'll now have to find time to repair it.

 

Unfortunately, posts are still going to be a bit sparse because

all my comics are still packed away and I've got some decorating

to do before everything is back to normal.  However, hopefully I'll

be able to ease myself back into the routine of regular Blogging

before too long.  So tell me - is there anybody still out there?

 

In the meantime, here's JACQUELINE BISSET

in our  Babe of the Day feature to tide you over.

(BOND) BABE OF THE DAY - OUR GIRL SHIRL...

Having a fly puff between takes, here's golden

girl SHIRLEY EATON in either her swimming

cozzie or her underwear - take your pick.

CAN SO-CALLED COMICS 'PIRACY' EVER BE A GOOD THING?

Here's a 'Babe of the Day' at no extra cost - PENELOPE CRUZ

The subject of 'piracy' seems to get some people hot under the
collar, going from a recent discussion on a certain comics forum.
(That's the one I resigned from and was then 'banned', after the fact,
"for leaving", by an over-zealous, biased moderator - even 'though the
site owner invited me to rejoin.  Running true to form, a disingenuous
detractor of mine continues to maliciously misrepresent the facts of
the situation over on his blog in an attempt to malign me.)

But that's by-the-by;  more pertinent is how one defines 'piracy'
in relation to comics.  Some people sell discs of comic collections on
eBay, comics that the copyright holders (if they can actually be identi-
fied) don't seem particularly interested in exploiting for financial gain.
It seems to me that some so-called 'piracy' can have positive benefits
which, in certain circumstances, mostly outweigh any negatives.

To give you an analogous example:  I'm a JIM REEVES
fan (don't shoot), and on occasion I've made compilation discs
for my own use which I've occasionally duplicated to give to friends.
No money is involved, except for what I spend in buying the originals
(not for the purpose of copying, merely for my own enjoyment) and
then on the blank tapes or discs when it occurs to me that someone
I know might enjoy listening to a sample.  I don't even let them
cover the cost of the blank disc, should they offer.

I know from experience not to lend originals because they
won't be returned in the condition lent, regardless of how well the
borrower may think they've looked after them.  So in the case of my
own music collection, being able to occasionally burn a disc for some-
one to see if they might like it is a handy thing.  As I said, I don't charge,
and in some cases, the other person has become a fan and then bought
other recordings by the same artist, thereby increasing sales.  So who
loses in that situation?  Certainly not the record company, who lose
no money by me giving a compilation copy to someone who
wouldn't have bought an original disc in the first place.

With back issue comics it's a similar scenario, although
collectors prefer to own the originals, and in most cases only
resort to facsimiles or disc collections as a stop-gap, until such time
as they manage to track down an acceptable-condition original at an
affordable price.  In my case (and I'm sure it's true with most folks), if
I really want a particular series and it's released in an authorised print
edition, I'll buy it - even if I already have it in digital form.  If I don't
buy it, it's because I'm really not that fussed about it, although I
may have it in digital form merely because it was available.

In that instance, as it's something I wouldn't have bought
anyway, me having acquired it in digital form from the internet
doesn't deprive the publishers of income.  I'm sure most of us own
something that we don't mind having because it was free, but would
never have purchased otherwise.  Obviously, I'm not talking about new
material (whether it be comics, music or movies) bought by one person
for the purpose of copying for friends (or selling to strangers) in order
to spare them having to buy an item they'd willingly pay full price for
if there was no other way of acquiring it  - I only mean out-of-print
comics, books or old records that aren't currently available
and don't look like being at any time in the future.

 In the case of facsimiles of old back issues, no surviving
contributors are deprived of any royalties as they were paid for
their work outright.  Nor are the publishers losing out if they don't
have any intention of reprinting the stuff as it first appeared.  And, if
the publishers ever do decide to reprint their back catalogue in some
form or other, the vast majority of avid collectors would readily buy it,
because they'd want the 'official' package with its superior printing on
quality paper, along with the informative introductions, prefaces and
appendices - regardless of however many digital discs or 'pirate'
facsimiles they already possess.  Those that wouldn't clearly
don't want it enough to spend money on it anyway.

In short, what I'm saying is that whether or not I buy an
official collected edition is determined only by how much I like
the material - not by whether I already own it in digital form.
That isn't a factor.  I bet it's the same for most of you.

I note with interest that one of the more vocal opponents
of so-called 'piracy' has no objections to people scanning their
own collections and making digital copies available to friends - so
long as no money changes hands.  What real difference does it make?
The contributors would never see a penny in royalties anyway - even
if it was an authorised publication, and those chasing their nostalgia
fix could well be dead before the current copyright holder (if even
known) extracts the digit and decides to make the material
available to an ageing and ever-diminishing audience.

What must be remembered is that the current crop of new
'Best of' Annuals now on sale are aimed at a readership whose
interest has been kept alive by internet comics blogs;  and digital discs
and amateur facsimiles have fed the appetite for vintage material in the
absence of proper print-editions - until some publishers took note and
realised that there was still a market for it.  A limited one, admittedly,
and ever-decreasing, but one that would probably have long since
perished had it not been for a dedicated group of enthusiasts
stoking the fires and keeping the spluttering flame alive.

So ignore those po-faced, self-righteous critics who are
lucky enough to be able to afford those scarce back issues for
themselves, but loudly decry anyone whose only option is to obtain
the much-missed, long-sought reminders of their childhood by the
only means open to them until something better comes along.

I don't know about you, but I've always considered the
"I'm all right, Jack" attitude of the 'haves' towards the 'have
nots' to be a particularly ugly one - whether it be with regard
to money, security, status, or even just comics.

     What say the rest of you?      

PART EIGHT OF GERRY ANDERSON'S TV CENTURY 21 COVER GALLERY...

I'm unable to scan anything at the moment, but fortunately I

have quite a bit of stuff in my computer's comics files and folders to

dip into for material.  Therefore, what better way to utilise it than to

present you with the next instalment of our TV CENTURY 21 cover

gallery?  This time around, we have numbers 71 to 80, and I intend

to reproduce the covers of at least the first 104 issues - the first two

years' worth - when the comic was at its height..

Any memories of these particular issues?  Why not share them

with your fellow Criv-ites in the comments section?  Go on, we're

all waiting - and you'll feel much better for it .  (Honest!) 

KID'S CLASSIC COVERS - TV COMIC HOLIDAY SPECIAL 1967...

For no other reason than it's a little glimpse into yesteryear, here's

the cover to the TV COMIC Holiday Special from 1967.  ADAM

ADAMANT seems a bit on the large side compared to the DALEKS

below and in front of him, but it's a nice little scene all the same.

FARRAH 'NUFF - AN UPDATE ON THE BLOGGING SITUATION...

Babe Of The Day Extra - FARRAH FAWCETT

Just to keep all you cavortin' Criv-ites up to date, the reason

regular blogging has been sparse for a while is because my house

requires some emergency work which entails the carpets and floor-

boards having to be lifted in every room.  This meant that I had to pack

all my comics and collectables away in boxes (close to a couple of hundred

by now - boxes, that is) and store them in the attic, which I've just completed

after several weeks.  The work commences this coming Monday, but as my

scanner, comics and books are all packed away, I'm kind of limited in what

I can actually post until I can get them all unpacked again.  That could

take a while, because my rooms will first need some decorating and

carpet laying when the work is completed before I can finally

restore everything to its accustomed place.

In the meantime, posts will be occasional and probably

lightweight until everything is as it was on the home front -

but I'll do my best to come up with something.

BABE OF THE DAY - SAMANTHA FOX...

Back in the mid '80s, the stunning SAM FOX

was the pin-up girl of the moment.  I'm sure you

can spot at least two good reasons why.

THE CHERILEA CAPED CRUSADER - TAKE TWO...

Here's my CHERILEA BATMAN figure after a

little light restoration, which you can compare to the

seller's eBay photo below.  Truth to tell, I'd already

slightly retouched the lower picture to enhance the item

for use in an earlier post, so it looks better painted than

it actually was.  However, it gives a close enough

indication of 'before' and 'after.'

These small figures were originally available in

WOOLWORTH'S in the mid-to-late '60s and are

highly sought after these days.  Once I've restored

the ROBIN figure winging its way to me, I'll post

a photo of the two of them together.

THE FIRST ROBIN OF WINTER?

Look what I just won on eBay - a CHERILEA

ROBIN figure to complement the BATMAN one I

acquired several weeks back.  Aren't I lucky?!

BABE OF THE DAY - MADONNA...

Today's 'Babe of the Day' is MADONNA.  C'mon,

who are you kidding?  You know you would.

IT WAS A VERY GOOD YEAR...

Here's ol' blue eyes himself, FRANK

SINATRA, in a reminiscing mood.  Enjoy.

KID KLASSICS: CHARITY BEGINS...WHERE, EXACTLY...?

Have you ever encountered such startling levels of stupidity as to

make you want to wring your hands in sheer frustration and despair -

or even the necks of po-faced, petty perpetrators of moronic madness

on a massively-monumental scale?  (Yes, I know "massively" is redun-

dant in that sentence, but I'm waxing lyrical.)  Here is such a tale.

So, I'm walking past a charity shop in the main shopping centre

of my town when I see a teddy bear through the glass frontage and

decide to buy it for someone I know.  I ask inside and am told it's not

for sale - it's a display item only.  At the back of the shop are various

other teddies of diverse shapes and sizes sitting on a low shelf, which

are for sale. "Can't you sell me the teddy I want and replace it

with one of the others?" I enquire.  In short, "No!"

"Why not?" I ask politely.  "Because it's for display only, not
for sale!" comes the reply.  The shop's most expensive teddy is only
£3, so I offer them a tenner for the one I want.  "It's not for sale!"
I'm told again.  "But can't you use one of the other bears for dis-
play?" I again venture.  "No!" I'm told.

I'll give you the abridged version of events, otherwise we'll be here
all week.  In short, over the course of several days, I speak to assistant
managers, managers, supervisors at head office, blah, blah, blah, and ask
why it's so bloody difficult to purchase a teddy from them and swell their
coffers by a tenner - more than three times the amount they're asking
for one of Ted's even bigger-sized pals.  This is what I'm told:

1)  "Our staff aren't trained to rearrange the displays."  (Can you
believe this cr*p?  Not trained to take one ted from a shelf at the back
of the shop and swap it for one near the front?  Gimme a break.)

2)  "We want our displays to look their very best to entice people
into the shop."  (Fine, but what's the point of enticing them in if you're
then going to refuse to sell them the very item that caught their atten-
tion and which they want to buy?  Isn't the raison d'etre of the
charity to raise money?)

3)  "Our staff are too busy to accommodate individual customer re-
quests."  (I pass this shop practically every day.  It's in a remote corner
of the shopping centre and as quiet as the tomb.  I don't think I've ever
seen more than two customers in the place since it opened last year,
and the staff sit around looking bored for most of the time.)

4)  "It's our policy.  If we make an exception for you, we'd have
to do it for everyone."  (Well, then it wouldn't be an exception, would
it?  But we'll let that loopy lapse in logic pass.)  I thought it was their pol-
icy to raise money for charity, by selling items that people donate for that
very purpose - not to try and win the 'window display of the year' award
and deter folks from spending cash by refusing to take it from them
in exchange for that which they wish to purchase.)

I'm on my soapbox now, but consider the absurdity of the situ-
ation.  They're turning money away, instead of grabbing it and
saying:  "Thanks very much, do call again!"  Their mission should be to
sell everything they've got as quickly as possible, and then replenish their
displays from fresh donations - not say "I can't sell you the item you want
because it'll mess up our display and we'll have to start again."  No, we
can't have them inconvenienced, can we?  That would never do.
Not even when some cold, hard cash is at stake.

Charities are run (so I've
always thought) to benefit
the recipients of said
charities, not the organisers,
and the best way to facilitate
that is to (in the words of the
song) "keep the customer sat-
isfied", not alienate them by
implementing and enforcing
ludicrous dictats.  They're
there to make money for the
less fortunate, not refuse it
on the grounds that moving
one soft toy into the position
of another is "against policy'"
or is beyond the abilities (or
inclination) of the staff.

In the end, I got Ted, who now sits proudly in the living room of the
person for whom he was purchased.  I also bought the other one (which
likewise went to a good home), thereby adding £13 to the charity's funds.
Cash I had to practically force on them by kicking up a fuss and reminding
them that such places exist to help others less fortunate, not to fulfill the
ambitions of those who want to rule over their own private fiefdoms in
a self-indulgent attempt to satisfy their feelings of self-importance.

Rant over.

******

(Incidentally, I should perhaps add that I had previously seen items in
the window with 'sold' signs on them, and I subsequently discovered that
display items could be sold, but had to remain in the window display until
it was changed, which was usually every fortnight.  The shop still operates
this way today, so why I was never told that I could pay for Ted and
collect him later at the end of his service remains a mystery.)