Peter

I think Lee stated something to the effect that B&O contacted him and asked him 'to have a look' at the photo. Wasn't this prior to its removal? Lee seemed to suggest that it was.

My mistake - but we were not asked to remove it.

But you were asked to 'have a look' at it? Would you not agree that this could be interpreted as B&O requesting, in as many words, for the site to at least consider taking it down? Certainly the literal interpretation is hard to accept - i.e. that they wanted you to look/view/see the photo for nothing more than the sake of it. Just because they didn't specifically request for it to be taken down, it doesn't mean that the intent wasn't there. And to be honest, there's not much in terms of semantics to hide behind...

You're right, John;
We are not independent of Bang & Olufsen. Not at all, actually.
If it wasn't for B&O, we wouldn't be here at all!
And if they disappear, we will too sooner or later.

Besides, I believe Lee already had the photo removed by the time B&O told us about it.

Martin

I really don't know where exactly I stand on this "issue", tbh. And I'm not writing this (long winded) post to take "sides" or defend anyone.

First off, I'm new here (STILL haven't got around to make my bwf-recordings for TWG, for which I apologize).

Secondly, I haven't given my real data, because I prefer it that way. I'm a journalist, and since I'm not here in a professional capacity, but privately as a geek, I like to keep my "personas" separate. It's my real email-addy, though. Perhaps in time, when I feel "safe" here I'll change the info to all the real info.

I can't help but think that B&O wouldn't be trying the "take a look at the picture and decide for yourself"-rhetorics and thus lean on the media in this fashion had they bought an advert in, say, Børsen, Berlingske Tidende or a spot on TV2 or yet another danish media. The prize draws are great for you guys (both beoworld and the members participating),

One of the reasons B&O would never try to "suggest" taking "a look" with those media is because they have "watertight" doors between the advertizing department and the editorial ditto. The problem here, of course, is that this is a poor (monetarily, that is) website, so those watertight doors will naturally be nonexistent.

I came here to get help and un-biased help at that. With "unbiased", I mean "out of the control of a PR department of the company". So far so good.

This editing, or rather the approach by B&O and your reaction to said approach raises red flags for me. B&O shouldn't even try "suggesting" anything. If they have a legal problem they should send you an email (or a phone call), telling you there are legal problems with xx, and that you will have to remove it. They can do that without trying to control what is akin to editorial stuff in old school media and without being pissed off at you guys.

Also, I believe in principles. We have a term in danish journalism called "luderture", which translates (well sort of)  directly into "whore tours". This is when a company pays for, say, dinner, air plane tickets, hotels and so on - of course without demanding anything outright.

But the thing is, just because it's not "demanded" that doesn't mean it doesn't work to "sway" the opinions of the journalists. There's a reason companies continue to do this sort of thing: It works.

All this, of course, pertains to Beoworld as a "media".  But it's much more than this. It's an enthuast-site, and most of us want B&O to survive. B&O is really not fit financially, and we all know that the "next product" of any kind can make or break the company. I'm a dane, so besides liking their products for what they are (and are not), I am also proud that little Denmark can have such an internationally recognized manufacturer. B&O is a danish icon, and as such I'm proud of it.

I do think that you guys should be wary of getting too much into bed with them, as in the long run, neither them nor you guys (and thus the end-users) will benefit in the long run if you lie too long with your limbs intertwined too much in that bed. Even if it does feel cosy, warm and beneficial for both parties under the duvets.

With all that said, I do believe, as an enthusiast (for want of a better word), that we have to give B&O some leeway. They're finding their feet, and I can only think that the PR-department is finding their feet too. It's only natural, given the situation the entire company is in.

I didn't mean this post to be offensive to anyone, nor defensive of anyone. I just felt like typing my thoughts out to make this less about who Peter "really are", and more about the principles and questions raised, which are always valid questions to ask, no matter who asks them.

Any good journalist asks himself these questions all the time. The questions themselves aren't interesting, nor who asks them. The answers, however, are.

Sincerely,

Electrified

This thread was started by a troll, one we know only too well here and who have been trying
his "luck" countless times (without much success) but of course some people like to feed
those trolls and believe in them more than anyone else on the forum.

Funny to think that on any other forum I know and/or visit, a thread like this
would have been deleted right away, no explanation given, doors shut and all secrets kept.
Would that be a lesson for Beoworld to learn ?

Martin

Dillen:

This thread was started by a troll, one we know only too well here and who have been trying
his "luck" countless times (without much success) but of course some people like to feed
those trolls and believe in them more than anyone else on the forum.

Just to make it clear: I, for one, don't "believe" any party. To me it's not about "believing" any party or not. It's the answers to the questions that matters.

Funny to think that on any other forum I know and/or visit, a thread like this
would have been deleted right away, no explanation given, doors shut and all secrets kept.
Would that be a lesson for Beoworld to learn ?

We obviously frequent very different forums. None of the forums I frequent do that anywhere close to the way you suggest.

Hopefully, though, Beoworld will indeed learn from this. I just hope that they won't "learn" that it is a good idea to shut things down without an explanation to the members. That would be rather short sighted.

We clearly started editing the first post at the same time! Your point is quite fair and is something we have discussed at length. We are not really in bed with B&O - however we do try to have a good relationship with them. Our previous incarnation was roundly ignored by B&O due to unfortunate associations which I am pleased to say no longer exist. We do want Beoworld members welcomed at their dealers and at Struer so we do talk to B&O about contentious issues as they arise. We do not accept any money and B&O are at pains to state that we are unofficial and are not sponsored in any way. The BV8 was part of the marketing of this product by B&O UK and came with no strings attached. I believe this actually caused considerable hand wringing as I am not completely convinced that they didn't wish they had never made the offer!! However I am not involved in the financial running of the site, apart from being a donor, and am not privy to all negotiations.

I have personally never accepted anything from B&O except a bottle opener from Ronny, a few catalogues and a copy of Icon to Legend which I sent as a gift to a new member who was a student. I have been to Struer twice and paid my way both times. (Last time was to see Frede really!) B&O if anything owe me big time as I will have invested a huge amount of time into this site and several thousands of pounds. I have however done this for my own gratification and my love of the brand.

My only interest is keeping this site going and making sure all new members have their questions answered as quickly and accurately as possible. I want B&O to stay afloat and to keep producing products that appeal to me and amuse me. I see signs that they are starting to regain their touch - the BeoTime is silly but inspired and the BeoVision 10 really does seem to be the real thing.

I must confess that if this picture had come to me, I might have posted it simply because it was so bad that it showed nothing! - I could have photoshopped something far better! However I think it may have been put on site to make relations trickeir and on that basis, I completely support its removal. We have scooped things before with fuzzy pictures - and I think that these can add to a launch in the right circumstances. We have seen pictures and drawings of all sorts of products in recent times - some of which are even proved to be accurate!

Hehe, Peter. Yeah,  I saw the font-mess and I figured I'd have to do something about it instantly. Loads of copy/pasting was involved, lol :)

I'm really happy with your answer. It IS important to keep good relations, but it's equally important to keep as independant as possible, and you seem to consider these things, trying to find a balance. I know that's a difficult balance, but I'm really happy to hear that those considerations are ongoing (well, I seem to be pick that up from your post, anyway).

As I said, it's not the questions that are important, nor who asks them, but the answers are. On that note, I have to say I'm fully satisfied by your answer. I know from experience that these things aren't simple and easy, and that one cannot come up with simple answers or simple "solutions" to these things. By the very nature it has to be an ongoing effort to keep the banner high, yet being able to survive.

In any case, thanks for your answer.

Sincerely,

Electrified

For me it is a question of honesty. 

If the site is taking a new direction - where things are discussed with B&O - then fine, you've highlighted the advantages. But let's no say the site is then totally independent. There is now a notion of dependency. I am not saying that it is bad, maybe it is for the best, but that is the question that this thread is asking.

If it is one person/troll that is the problem, then let's say that he is banned and whatever he posts will be removed - fine as well.

For me it is a bit strong to say that someone who posts the picture that everybody has been asking for weeks (see the number of posts begging for a BV10 photo) does it to arm Beoworld.

If the picture had not been removed, this thread would not have started. And if "Sven peter" had not started this thread, I am pretty sure someone would have done so, as every time something gets deleted.

If posting pictures of unreleased product is not allowed, then fine, put it in the site's rules and we know what is possible to do or not on this site.

That said, trying to maintain good relationships with B&O has advantages, but also have some downside. I agree it is hard to decide where to place the bar. 

I suppose it depends on your definition of independent. We have no financial backing from B&O. They regard as us independent and can ask for but cannot demand any editorial decision. However as Martin has said above, we are compleletly dependent on B&O for our very existence so we will always take their views seriously and, to be honest, will always try to do nothing to harm their interests.

We do not always do what B&O want - our publishing of service manuals probably causes an odd twinge, but they seem to accept this as part of our being an enthusiast site.

We are of course also dependent on our sponsors and this too has been subject of considerable debate on site. The fact that such debates are not suppressed is a healthy sign in my view.

PhilLondon:

For me it is a question of honesty. 

If the site is taking a new direction - where things are discussed with B&O - then fine, you've highlighted the advantages. But let's no say the site is then totally independent. There is now a notion of dependency. I am not saying that it is bad, maybe it is for the best, but that is the question that this thread is asking.

Quite right Phil - and whenever direct questions are asked, as I have done, regarding the process that lead up to the photo being removed, they are not directly answered by those in charge. Those questions were trying to address what you have set out above - namely the nature of the relationship that now clearly exists between the site and B&O. Let us not forget that we, as a membership, did not get a vote on whether or not this should be pursued (if anyone from the mod team responds, can I point out that a thread stating that Lee was considering going in this direction is not, and never will be, a direct form of democracy). You may well be right that closer relations are actually a good thing, and if that is the case then so be it. What irks me is the extent to which we have witnessed wriggling and indirect responses to straight questions. Why will no one answer the question 'is B&O asking Lee to take a look at a photo one and the same thing as asking him to remove it'? I think it is, and it is absolutely clear as day.

Peter :

The fact that such debates are not suppressed is a healthy sign in my view.

Indeed. And this is the sole reason for my response to Dillen: A closed-up media (no matter which) will not survive. If for nothing else, then because their credibility (or trustworthiness, if you will) will suffer greatly.

j0hnbarker:

 What irks me is the extent to which we have witnessed wriggling and indirect responses to straight questions. Why will no one answer the question 'is B&O asking Lee to take a look at a photo one and the same thing as asking him to remove it'? I think it is, and it is absolutely clear as day.

Don't you find Peter's response to the point?

Of course, it's not a clear-cut answer as you request, but it's certainly an answer. Ethical questions can seldomly be answered simply. On the other hand, there was quite a bit of staggering about at first on this issue, that's true. However, in all honesty, I think they were somewhat blinded by who the person was asking the questions, so they didn't think too hard about the answers. Could that be possible?

The thing is, I doubt you'll get a response like "We remove any non-unveiled, unofficiel pictures" or the reverse. The thing is, even the laws surrounding copyright aren't clear, so even if they were only concerned about copyright, mistakes would be made, and even if no mistakes were made in the particular instance, it still would end up being an ethical question, because copyright laws give way to ethics at times, depending on the situation.

Sigh, rereading this post makes it sound like I'm defending beoworld ad nauseum. I'm not. I might even think that it was ridiculous to remove the picture (well, I haven't seen it, so there), but I'm really not too concerned, given that it seems like they're continually consider these things.

I think it's dangerous ethically speaking to deduct "tendencies" based on this (alone), but it's perfectly fine to ask the questions about whether or not this picture should have been deleted. I'm one of the people who thinks that B&O could have handled themselves better, and in the aftermath that Beoworld could have handled their "pr" better as well.

Electrified:

j0hnbarker:

 What irks me is the extent to which we have witnessed wriggling and indirect responses to straight questions. Why will no one answer the question 'is B&O asking Lee to take a look at a photo one and the same thing as asking him to remove it'? I think it is, and it is absolutely clear as day.

Don't you find Peter's response to the point?

No. I do not.

Forgive me Electrified if I am wrong here and you have gone under a different user name before, but my questions are framed within the context of a wider debate we have been having on this forum for a few years now about the extent that it is independent. As a 1000 plus poster I have asked questions before and had responses, some satisfactory and some not. Fair play if you're satisfied straight away, but I am not, and still await a straight response to my straight (and non-ethical) question.

I hesitate to extend this debate as the issues concerning copyright are quite clear despite the convoluted arguments and complications raised in this discussion. However, consider this: just about every B&O manual and catalogue and official photograph scanned and uploaded to this site are still in copyright and the rights are owned by B&O. Presumably B&O are happy with this situation, but suppose Beoworld really upset them. They would be within their rights to demand the removal of all B&O official archive pictures and all the manuals. Where would that leave Beoworld? Beoworld cannot escape from direct and indirect dependence on B&O.

Lee has made the right decision. He doesn't need to consult the rest of us.

Graham

Does anyone else think this whole episode is getting out of hand!

It's not a matter of national security, it's a picture posted, on a AV manufacturers fansite, by someone suspected of doing so purely out of devilment and to provoke some response (I bet he can't believe his luck with the way this thread has developed).

The real deal, with full glossy catalogue is imminent, if you really are desperate to see it in advance then see your local dealer and wave your card in the air.

If ever they edit any complaint or opinion of a new or current product then I too will object strongly (incidently, I think the new Beocom 5 is awful, it looks like a mid '80's mobile that Del boy Trotter would use) -

I do feel we should all "take a tablet" and get over it - it's a complete non-event!

Puncher:

Does anyone else think this whole episode is getting out of hand?

vikinger:

Puncher:

Does anyone else think this whole episode is getting out of hand?

Yes

Lee, you have my full support, the more we talk about this subject, the more Mr Troll wins points.

Again, all the moderating team is behind you.

Guy

cooldude:

I suggest to delete the whole thread as everything has been already said and otherwise it just will keep going back and forth.

I suggest to keep it. This situation WILL come up again, and then it will be nice to point to some conclusion that has been (hopefully) reached before.

I would also like to see clear guidelines as to what can be posted on the forum and what cannot. I hope those guidelines will not read like "pictures posted by known trolls will be deleted", since I, as a normal user, have no way of knowing which of the new or old users are "known trolls". I haven't been here from the start and never were on the "old forum". I don't know what the apparent troubles concerning the "old forum", its transformation to the "new forum", and any background events after that were, and I honestly wouldn't want to know them either - but if those events are being vaguely referred to all the time, like in this thread, I suppose us newbies deserve a rundown on them as well. I also hope that any new users will not be classified as "known trolls" by some circumstancial evidence just because they happen to start their posting career controversially.

This isn't simply an issue about a bad advance picture of a BV10, which IMHO was deservedly deleted, and never was worth this ruckus anyway.

What a farce of a thread.

Still amazes me that so called die hard beoworlders will fight the last stand for total independance call themselves fans or loyal to the site.. what you are doing is far more damaging than the posting of a blurred picture that probably does the 10 more harm than good.

As a "member" I see no distinction between one who is bronze or gold or one who has posted once or a thousand, totally irrelevant and dare I say childish.  Had it not been for Lee or Peter aswell as the rest of the moderating team, this site would not be where it is today, simple as.  The site in its former capacity was dull and going nowhere except being confined to a death in cyberspace.  We are now recognised and welcomed in more ways than one.  I recall going into a dealer and mentioning Beoworld and being told that they did not recognise the forum and would prefer not to comment... we now have dealers posting on the forum aswell as hosting events for members and for the public aswell as having a "relationship" with the brand we are all essentially here for today.

We have a draw which is self financed, where members are rewarded with prizes that are unheard of for a site so small and a reconised network of experienced professionals that are in some cases more knowledgable than thier local dealer..  I wonder how many dealers have actually posted on here looking for an answer? Other niche or enthusiast forums probably do not have the same exposure as BW yet we have members criticising against those who are trying to protect the site? and a couple of ex members who have nothing else better to do but to cause trouble by posting on here because they cannot stand the fact the BW is stronger and better than it ever has been? As a member of another site which is similar in its makeup, they too had to go through the same form of moderation with the imminant release of a product which was key to the direction of that company, think Simon can comment on this? There was no where near as much of a fuss as on here other than a few grumblings.

The site has evolved and in my opinion has not sold out and I think it is very very sad that grown men are doing nothing more than throwing thier rattles around.

Peter/Lee - delete the thread if you can, its ridiculous at best and tragic.  Another thumbs up from me.

Actually I wouldn't want to delete it (though I do have the power ) as responses like mobeyone's and the others before it remind me why I spend a lot of time on this site. I am forever in the debt of Lee transforming this site and much appreciate being a small part now of a superb team. We endeavour to make the site friendly and informative and seriously try to make it a pleasant place to come. We do try to be as open and honest as possible and I am sorry if our efforts are not thought to be sufficient. We will attempt to do better.

j0hnbarker:

No. I do not.

Forgive me Electrified if I am wrong here and you have gone under a different user name before, but my questions are framed within the context of a wider debate we have been having on this forum for a few years now about the extent that it is independent.

What's with the paranoid insinuations? No, I have not been here before under another user name. Seriously, no wonder you think there is something "withheld" if those insinuations are the knee-jerk reaction you come up with.

As a 1000 plus poster I have asked questions before and had responses, some satisfactory and some not. Fair play if you're satisfied straight away, but I am not, and still await a straight response to my straight (and non-ethical) question.

I really couldn't care less how many posts you have. That just means you're posting a lot.

It's okay that you don't find his answer satisfactory, but I mentioned before, that this IS an ethical question, and no amount of demanding a oneliner-answer will be satsfactory to work with, as this is STILL an ethical question, no matter how much you claim it is not. If there were clear-cut answers to these things, we wouldn't have to teach ethics in journalism.

I mentioned earlier on that I think that one shouldn't deduct based on this photo alone. However, if there is trend - a real trend, not one imagined - of course that is worthy of contemplation, whether one agrees with the trend or not.

vikinger:

I hesitate to extend this debate as the issues concerning copyright are quite clear despite the convoluted arguments and complications raised in this discussion.

I don't know where you get the idea that copyright law is simple. It's not. Especially when we talk of intellectual property and the (sometimes) clashing with the laws governing the media in the various countries. Often copyright takes a backseat to "the common good", but this too depend on how much is revealed. Copyright law is a huge number of variations of grey, not black and white. And this isn't even considering that if one ignores the publication of one's copyrighted materials by someone else, one often - but not all the time (again depending), forfeits any claims to the material, seeing as one should have made a point of it to begin with.

[Deep breath]

What I'm saying is that copyright law is very difficult, especially when we consider that there are different laws in different countries, and when you couple this with the differing laws governing the media, then it's not exactly black and white as you suggest.

Anyway, the reason for this long post is that it pissed me off to be accused of being an old member under a new nick. I don't like ad hominems: It's **** poor rhetorics. Pardon my french.

Mobeyone

Each to their own, but without a range of opinions clearly and freely expressed, doesn't this site runs the risk too of becoming a little 'stale', as the old one clearly was in your opinion? Surely endless expressions of support lead in the same direction as endless hectoring of those in charge of the site - i.e. down a dead end street?

I think it's less grown men throwing their toys out of the pram and more grown men questioning what they see in front of them. You might not like that, but for goodness sake please at least respect the itegrity of some of the 'die hards' you refer to, who at least appear on here regularly whenever newbies need advice etc. That's being a good electronic citizen.

Edit

Electrified - sorry if anything was lost in translation, but I wasn't accusing you of being here before under another user name. As you had taken a particular interest in this subject I thought it worth mentioning that we have been here before several times, and that you might not have been aware of this. If this annoyed you, then that wasn't my intention....

John, Chill out man. Perhaps i could recommend a sit down whilst listening to Ian Browns new album My Way.