Stop posting articles for other GN'R fans to enjoy, it's stealing! (was Brain in Modern Drummer)

[jarmo]

Everybody understands that things get copied around once they appear online.

But maybe not everybody here knows how certain people on other sites view this site.

This site is like the Antichrist. The name should just not be mentioned.

Even if they find something posted here, there are people out there who just won't say it due to whatever personal agenda they have.


If you're that petty that you can't mention this site because you were banned here or you don't like the way it's run, then I can understand why somebody who actually do like this site, might object and fingerprint her "work" (no, not her copyright, but her transcription) just to mess with that kind of people.




/jarmo

[freedom78]

Talking of sharing: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=55996.0

How come he didn't copy and paste his own interview for us and just posted a link?

Now, I know that if you interview somebody and just started a new site, you'll probably want visitors.

But since it's all about doing it for the fans and sharing, I thought it was interesting how he handled his own interview by posting a link to promote his own site.

 



/jarmo

Because it's easier to post a link than to post an entire article/interview?  I don't know...just speculation.  But "Ron" and "GNR Syndicate" are both in bold throughout the interview, to make it easy to read...that's a pain to go back through and do again.    

Do we have any reason to believe that Punk would object to someone posting that interview here?  

Even if he did object, he'd have no power to prevent your from quoting from it.  That stuff happens all the time between different media outlets, of which I'd consider these forums to be a part in such interview capacities.  

I honestly just don't see the big deal out of watermarking. If I spend time doing something, I don't want 20 other places taking credit for it.

Again, take credit for doing what, exactly?  The scanning?  I can't imagine who would really care about the identity of the scanner.  THe problem is that the watermarking is confusing...is someone taking credit for taking a photo, or for scanning it in?  Most of the time, I think people would believe that watermarking implies some role in the creative process, not in the copying process.  When you make copies at work, do you watermark them for credit?  Are you concerned that Ellen in accounting will get all that credit for making those copies?  That doesn't seem like an issue to me.  But if someone you worked with wrote out a new business plan and typed it up, and you made copies with your name plastered all over them, don't you think that would cause confusion?  Don't you think that that person would think you're claiming creative credit?     

I am postitive that anyone with an IQ over 50 would be able to realize that Gypsy or HTGTH didn't write the article or take the photos. Hell one could even go as far as saying this promoted "Modern Drummer" magazine. I personally had never heard of it.

First, never overestimate the people on the internet.  There are 300 million people in our country, and a few billion more besides.  There are plenty of people who know nothing about this site, Gypsy, or Modern Drummer magazine (I'm included in that last group). 

I guarantee posting this article and making die hard fans aware will actually increase the sales of said magazine cause people who collect all things GNR will now go out and buy the magazine.

Good.  I hope so.  They deserve CREDIT for doing pieces on real musicians and not dressed up Barbie corporate pop crap.

I jumped into this, not because I care about watermarking, but just due to the usual hypocrisy.

a week previously, the person in mention posted and watermarked one of my photos but yet will come in here and bitch about someone else watermarking. Then that same person will try to call Jarmo out on being a hypocrite for allowing Modern Drummer scans but not GNR leaks.

Don't get me started on all the insults thrown my way just because I happen to agree with Jarmo for a change.

First, the watermarked photo was clearly a joke...an initial response to the silliness of plastering your watermark on something that isn't yours.  Second, it has more to do with the strange relationship you and Punk seem to have, which predates my membership on this site.  I don't know where it comes from, but I can freely admit that you seem to take more than your fair share of grief, perhaps just because you're a good sport with it (from what I've seen).  So, sure...it's hypocrisy.  But it is so with the purpose of highlighting the silliness of something, and not in the "credit taking" way that was the issue here.

And, as I've said...I don't see why we don't just repost it, without watermarks, and with appropriate credit to the interviewing site.

[jarmo]

Because it's easier to post a link than to post an entire article/interview?  I don't know...just speculation.  But "Ron" and "GNR Syndicate" are both in bold throughout the interview, to make it easy to read...that's a pain to go back through and do again.    

Do we have any reason to believe that Punk would object to someone posting that interview here?  

Even if he did object, he'd have no power to prevent your from quoting from it.  That stuff happens all the time between different media outlets, of which I'd consider these forums to be a part in such interview capacities.  

I'm aware that it's easier, but I'm also aware that obviously if you just started a site, you'd like some visitors.


Since these people are so about sharing and stuff, I just found it interesting how he "just" shared the link. That's all.

And, as I've said...I don't see why we don't just repost it, without watermarks, and with appropriate credit to the interviewing site.

The CREDITS were always there. Nobody ever tried to hide who wrote the article or who took the pics.

The article has since been reposted because a blog copied it in plain text.




/jarmo

[freedom78]

Because it's easier to post a link than to post an entire article/interview?  I don't know...just speculation.  But "Ron" and "GNR Syndicate" are both in bold throughout the interview, to make it easy to read...that's a pain to go back through and do again.    

Do we have any reason to believe that Punk would object to someone posting that interview here?  

Even if he did object, he'd have no power to prevent your from quoting from it.  That stuff happens all the time between different media outlets, of which I'd consider these forums to be a part in such interview capacities.  

I'm aware that it's easier, but I'm also aware that obviously if you just started a site, you'd like some visitors.


Since these people are so about sharing and stuff, I just found it interesting how he "just" shared the link. That's all.

I think it's great that he shared it!  He's a GNR fan who scored an interview with a GNR member, and then wanted other GNR fans to know about the interview.  Isn't that why all you guys do this stuff?  Because you're fans, dedicated to something you love?  Nothin' wrong with that.

And, as I've said...I don't see why we don't just repost it, without watermarks, and with appropriate credit to the interviewing site.

The CREDITS were always there. Nobody ever tried to hide who wrote the article or who took the pics.

The article has since been reposted because a blog copied it in plain text.




/jarmo

They may have been...at this point, I've honestly forgotten. 

[jarmo]

I think it's great that he shared it!  He's a GNR fan who scored an interview with a GNR member, and then wanted other GNR fans to know about the interview.  Isn't that why all you guys do this stuff?  Because you're fans, dedicated to something you love?  Nothin' wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with being proud of your work and sharing.

Just ironic that the ones who are the most vocal about championing copy and pasting between sites are the ones linking to their sites instead of copying and pasting.




/jarmo

[mallrat]

What hard work went into scanning that article?  You are scanning which any person with an IQ of 50 can do. Then you are typing up someone elses word! . And that is now considered hard work???

You have someone agruing for and against Copyright infrigment at the same time. 

Stealing is stealing!! Now there are different degrees of it . But does that change the fact that it?s still stealing.

Who care if you have to regester at his site now?? It's not like you were banned from their ! Then they wanted to talk crap on you.

[jarmo]

What hard work went into scanning that article?  You are scanning which any person with an IQ of 50 can do. Then you are typing up someone elses word! . And that is now considered hard work???

You try typing it out.


I've transcribed everything from old GN'R articles to quotes from live concerts to interviews.

Try it sometimes and then tell me if you enjoy doing it.


But until you do, don't say it doesn't require any work.




/jarmo

[mallrat]

What hard work went into scanning that article?  You are scanning which any person with an IQ of 50 can do. Then you are typing up someone elses word! . And that is now considered hard work???

You try typing it out.


I've transcribed everything from old GN'R articles to quotes from live concerts to interviews.

Try it sometimes and then tell me if you enjoy doing it.


But until you do, don't say it doesn't require any work.




/jarmo

I didn't say it wasn't work.  But I did ask how it was considered hard work.  It might not be the most fun you are going to have.  But it certianly isn't hard work.


 

[jarmo]

I didn't say it wasn't work.  But I did ask how it was considered hard work.  It might not be the most fun you are going to have.  But it certianly isn't hard work.

It's all relative.

All I'm saying, maybe you don't see the big deal because you enjoy typing out interviews and can do it in five minutes.

Maybe to others it's hard enough that they'd want some kind of credit for taking the time out to actually do it.




/jarmo

[D]

My problem with the whole stealing vs stealing argument was

U got one person doing the same thing if not worse, condeming and shouting down someone else for doing it.

It would be like cheating on your wife and then cussing out your friend and telling them what a bastard they are for cheating on theirs.


Sure posting an article from a magazine can be seen as "Stealing" but we've always been able to post magazine stuff cause a lot of people may not have access to this magazine.

Jarmo got a rap for being anti sharing for whatever reason and I don't get it. We've always shared magazine stuff, live boots etc

Somehow he not allowing leaks transformed him into this holier than thou Anti everything person and I don't think it is fair.

As Gyspsy said, IF they truly have the interview up.......... I don't see the complaint cause they are doing the exact same thing so why come in here being the copyright police when they are breaking way more copyright laws than Jarmo?

[mallrat]

I can see getting credit for doing it.  But lets not act like it?s the equlivent to writing the next great novel.   

[D]

I just see it done on the internet all the time Mallrat. Like when the GNRevolution cats went back and compiled all of the great CD stuff into one great history thread.

Does every site that copied that give them credit? would they have a right to want credit for it even though they didn't come up with the info?

Sure they should get credit because it takes a lot of time, dedication and hard work to compile years worth of that kind of info just like it takes Jarmo or Gyspsy or whoever is nice enough loads of time to type out a magazine interview or what not that we may not have access to.

[freedom78]

As Gyspsy said, IF they truly have the interview up.......... I don't see the complaint cause they are doing the exact same thing so why come in here being the copyright police when they are breaking way more copyright laws than Jarmo?

They do have the interview up.  That was never the issue.  Would you like some crackers, with your red herring? 

The issue was the implication of ownership when you put your mark on something that was not created by you. 

I can see getting credit for doing it.  But lets not act like it?s the equlivent to writing the next great novel.   

FOr example:



This doesn't have a known author, and STILL the guy only takes credit as a translator (similar to a transcriber, though across languages).

[mallrat]

And again getting credit for doign so is fine by me. Just don't go acting like they have done the great thing ever.  Typing up something that has alrady been typed up, isn't rocket science.  Calling it hard work is like saying some who has done , one of those paint by numbers a great artist.

I just see it done on the internet all the time Mallrat. Like when the GNRevolution cats went back and compiled all of the great CD stuff into one great history thread.

Does every site that copied that give them credit? would they have a right to want credit for it even though they didn't come up with the info?

Sure they should get credit because it takes a lot of time, dedication and hard work to compile years worth of that kind of info just like it takes Jarmo or Gyspsy or whoever is nice enough loads of time to type out a magazine interview or what not that we may not have access to.

Thanks god Freedom78 got what I was talking about.

[D]

dude if you are going to jump in, at least know the entire story.

it started off as a "Watermark" issue and then he turned it into "You don't allow GNR leaks but you are ok allowing a magazine"

which turns it into a hypocrisy issue and this entire copyright vs copyright issue.  So as I said,If he kept it pointed towards the watermarking and only the watermarking, He would've had legs to stand on. As soon as he started with the copyright vs copyright shit and throwing it out that Jarmo allows this but not that etc, it turned into an entirely new discussion.

I could care less about a watermark, I just don't understand why people feel the need to bitch about something as insignifcant as that. It is clear as day "This article is from Modern Drummer Magazine!  If someone thinks cause it has a HTGTH watermark that somehow that implies HTGTH did the interview, they should spend less time on the internet and take some how to for dummy classes or maybe just stop breathing altogether.

the fact the article was copy and pasted once atari posted it makes believe it was sour grapes cause they wouldn't be able to easily copy it to that site.

[jarmo]

I can see getting credit for doing it.  But lets not act like it?s the equlivent to writing the next great novel.   

I don't think anybody claimed so.

The people opposing the watermarks just want you to believe that those watermarks were added to fool you into thinking we write all articles and take all the photos ourselves.

Doesn't require a very clever person to figure that one out.  




Since some of you object to watermarks, in other words altering copyrighted photos, maybe you can enlighten the GN'R fans about how wrong it is to make GN'R wallpapers using photos and copyrighted logos/artwork? This has been going on for years and some fans actually enjoy them, and use them on their own computers. Shouldn't you put an end to it?




/jarmo

[freedom78]

I can see getting credit for doing it.  But lets not act like it?s the equlivent to writing the next great novel.   

I don't think anybody claimed so.

The people opposing the watermarks just want you to believe that those watermarks were added to fool you into thinking we write all articles and take all the photos ourselves.

Doesn't require a very clever person to figure that one out.  




Since some of you object to watermarks, in other words altering copyrighted photos, maybe you can enlighten the GN'R fans about how wrong it is to make GN'R wallpapers using photos and copyrighted logos/artwork? This has been going on for years and some fans actually enjoy them, and use them on their own computers. Shouldn't you put an end to it?




/jarmo

You can easily argue that those are independent, creative, artistic acts.  The legality of that issue may not be clear (i.e. see the AP versus the guy who made the Obama poster), but it's difficult to argue that reading words and retyping them is art.  Now, if GypsySoul put the watermark on the pics as some statement about the corporate nature of music, and wanted to suggest that it truly belongs to the fans, then I'd be happy to listen.

GS?  Is that what you were trying to say?

[mallrat]

It?s amazing that even when you are agreeing with someone.  That they still want to find something to argue about.

And D, honey I know the whole story.

[freedom78]

dude if you are going to jump in, at least know the entire story.

it started off as a "Watermark" issue and then he turned it into "You don't allow GNR leaks but you are ok allowing a magazine"

which turns it into a hypocrisy issue and this entire copyright vs copyright issue.  So as I said,If he kept it pointed towards the watermarking and only the watermarking, He would've had legs to stand on. As soon as he started with the copyright vs copyright shit and throwing it out that Jarmo allows this but not that etc, it turned into an entirely new discussion.

I could care less about a watermark, I just don't understand why people feel the need to bitch about something as insignifcant as that. It is clear as day "This article is from Modern Drummer Magazine!  If someone thinks cause it has a HTGTH watermark that somehow that implies HTGTH did the interview, they should spend less time on the internet and take some how to for dummy classes or maybe just stop breathing altogether.

the fact the article was copy and pasted once atari posted it makes believe it was sour grapes cause they wouldn't be able to easily copy it to that site.

I don't think it's insignificant.  When painters paint, they sign it, to take credit for their work.  When photographers put their pics online, they often watermark the digital copy, so that others cannot use it without the credit going where it's due (or without paying).  Of course, the other purpose of watermarking is to make something ugly, so that you pay for proper use.  

For example:



Now, if I want to use it, I have to (1) pay for a proper, un-marked copy or (2) use the marked copy, making it impossible for me to claim that I truly own it.  

The earlier watermarking did these things...it made the article harder to read and implied ownership, so that others could use it without giving credit.  But the credit belonged to MD, not HTGTH.    

[jarmo]

You can easily argue that those are independent, creative, artistic acts.  The legality of that issue may not be clear (i.e. see the AP versus the guy who made the Obama poster), but it's difficult to argue that reading words and retyping them is art. 

The argument has been that you can't take somebody else's work and make it your own by altering it.

That's exactly what you do when you plaster a logo on a photo and call it a wallpaper. Some of them even feature the creator's name on them with no other credits.


Are you saying that if Gypsy took a scanned photo, altered some color balances, maybe re-sized it and put some additional copyrighted artwork on it, that it would be considered art and therefore ok?




/jarmo