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

[AdZ]

The whole point is that by watermarking it, you portray that the work is your own. 

The only time someone would assume that the work was portrayed as the poster's own would be if they coudn't read.

Which would beg the question as to how they got onto the internet in the first place.

[Bandita]

The whole point is that by watermarking it, you portray that the work is your own. 

The only time someone would assume that the work was portrayed as the poster's own would be if they coudn't read.

In visible watermarking, the information is visible in the picture or video. Typically, the information is text or a logo which identifies the owner of the media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking

[AdZ]

In visible watermarking, the information is visible in the picture or video. Typically, the information is text or a logo which identifies the owner of the media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking

Well, this isn't exactly typical.

[GypsySoul]

The whole point is that by watermarking it, you portray that the work is your own. 

How the fuck am I portraying it as my own work when I CLEARLY CREDITED THE MAGAZINE AND THE WRITER AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER??

The only reason youze are bitching is because youze didn't want to admit that HTGTH posted it first.

[jarmo]

For the last time I already had the article, so you can quit lying about this shit.

Did I mention your name?

You're not the center of attention.

Judging by all your watermark free photos in your slideshow, I think you'd appreciate good clean high quality scans as much as the next person. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole point is that by watermarking it, you portray that the work is your own. 

If you post a link or direct someone somewhere else to see it you are showing that you are not taking credit for it.

WHY is this so hard to understand?

First off, the whole credit thing was EXPLAINED to you in plain English. You refuse to acknowledge that fact for some unknown reason.

Instead of saying "fair enough, I misunderstood and maybe you can make it clearer that you don't own the pictures in the future", you keep going on and on like none of the issues have been addressed at all.

It's amazing how little you manage to take in of what's said and how much you keep repeating your little magic "stealing is stealing" mantra.



Where exactly are all the other GN'R sites using pictures without permission directing people?

They're not posting links anywhere. There's no mention of any credits for any of the music or photo's on your buddy's site there. If you guys are so fucking obsessed about giving credit, why not set an example for the rest of us and credit all the photos and music?


No, it's way easier to whine about others doing things wrong. That's always the easiest.

Whine, whine, whine.

Disregard any answers you get, just fucking whine.


People living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing rocks.

You can't prohibit one form of illegal behavior and then say another form is ok because you don't deem it to be quite as illegal as the other.

Why?

So you're pretty much saying it's all or nothing?

Either we don't allow any copyrighted material or we allow all? Is that correct?

You don't think it's common sense to draw the line somewhere and be a bit flexible in certain areas? That makes no sense to you whatsoever? It's all or nothing?


You think we should allow you to post full GN'R albums in mp3 format here? If we post a photo, we should be allowed to post music?

I just want to see if you're for or against stealing from the band.

It seems to me like some of you have no issues about that.

And you wonder why I have some issues with some of the so called "real fans".

YOU don't allow certain things here.  That is your decision.  But you can't expect people NOT to say something when you allow one illegal behavior and not another.

I have explained it over and over again. It just fails to register with you.


Breaking the law in order to have something new to talk about isn't the same as breaking the law just to rip off the band we support.

You fail to understand this basic English sentence for some reason. It's all the same to you.

Maybe for those of you who couldn't give a fuck about GN'R it's all the same who you steal from.




GN'R fans being against posting of articles because it breaks copyrights is a bit weird.

I always was naive enough to think that you'd be excited to read a new interview and possibly talk about it with other fans.

Now I see that you couldn't care less as long as you can bitch about shit.




So those of you who have no interest in GN'R, just fuck off and leave this section to those who do. Thank you. 

Sorry if my language is insulting and/or offending, I tried to make it easy to understand that your kind of people are not welcome in this section.



/jarmo

[Death Cube K]

How the fuck am I portraying it as my own work when I CLEARLY CREDITED THE MAGAZINE AND THE WRITER AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER??

You can't really do both. Do you also put sound bytes on MP3's you rip and upload which says "uploaded by gypsysoul, but all credit goes to the band and the writer"?

So you're pretty much saying it's all or nothing?

Legally yes. Morally no.

You disregard copyright issues where it fits you, because you feel that it's important for GNR fans to discuss new things which comes
from magazines. Nothing wrong about that, but by doing so you look away from the legal aspect and jumps into the morality of it instead.
You feel stealing from the band is a big no no, but stealing from a magazine is okay since it gives us something to discuss.

Breaking the law in order to have something new to talk about isn't the same as breaking the law just to rip off the band we support.

Yes it is.

The argument of "something new to talk about" doesn't work. The same argument could be used to support how someone wants to share
music of the band freely. "We want something new to talk about so here's a few songs".

GN'R fans being against posting of articles because it breaks copyrights is a bit weird.

You're not getting the point. No one here is against breaks of copyright rules to read article scans. What makes people react are two things;

1. You watermark them with your own website and try to get away with it by still crediting the original source. That's quite laughable. You think you would get away with that in court? 

2. You pick and choose what you want to follow in terms of copyright rules.

Oh and the title thread is misleading. No one here is saying "stop posting articles for others to enjoy".

[jarmo]

You can't really do both. Do you also put sound bytes on MP3's you rip and upload which says "uploaded by gypsysoul, but all credit goes to magazine and the writer"?

As far as I know, she hasn't uploaded mp3s.


And radio stations add their own station IDs to songs that aren't theirs. Is that also wrong?

"You're listening to WGNR..."


Are you gonna go on a crusade against them next?


How is this different? They broadcast a song, the station ID is in there to remind you where you heard the song.

Do people assume the radio station people are the ones performing all those because of that ID? I hope not, but judging by these responses, I guess it confuses the hell out of some of you.

Just like those watermarks were there to remind you were you downloaded the pics from.

You disregard copyright issues where it fits you, because you feel that it's important for GNR fans to discuss new things which comes
from magazines. Nothing wrong about that, but by doing so you look away from the legal aspect and jumps into the morality of it instead.
You feel stealing from the band is a big no no, but stealing from a magazine is okay since it gives us something to discuss.

And you have a problem with that.

I'm curious why.....

The argument of "something new to talk about" doesn't work. The same argument could be used to support how someone wants to share
music of the band freely. "We want something new to talk about so here's a few songs".

That argument is used by some already!

In case you haven't noticed...


It seems to work for everybody, except the five or so of you who keep whining about these scans.

You're not getting the point.

Oh really? How come I've addressed all your questions, but instead of even trying to understand, you keep repeating them....

You think you would get away with that in court? 

Depends if the judge is one of you "stealing is stealing" people....

2. You pick and choose what you want to follow in terms of copyright rules.

And why exactly is that a problem?

Please explain this to me ASAP!

Why can't I as a fan be more flexible knowing that as a fan I'd love to read a new interview?

Why is that so fucking horrible that some of you feel the need to ruin the interview threads with your attacks on me and this site?

Why is it such a fucking problem that I feel like supporting the band and not steal from them by uploading their albums for everybody to download for free?

Please, please, please explain this to me.



Why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why can't we have some kind of middle ground as GN'R fans?

Why does it seem to work for other band's fans but not some of the GN'R fans?

Is it just because it happens to be this site and myself so it's personal? You get some kind of weird gratification from pointing out how lame and "hypocritical" I am?




None of you copyright crusaders have managed to offer one fucking proper answer to why it's not ok to be flexible in order to benefit fellow GN'R fans while trying to not rip off the one thing we are all supposed to be fans of.

You just keep saying that it's illegal.... Which I'm aware of, by the way.




I'll admit that I was stupid enough to assume that other GN'R fans could see the reasoning behind allowing scans of articles being posted for us all to enjoy, and not allowing GN'R's music to be freely distributed. I guess I was asking for way too much!

Next time I'll know.




/jarmo

[ppbebe]

if it's an interview to whom it belongs the most? I say it's the interviewee who's quoted. unless you're more a fan of the interviewer/magazine than of the musician.

and when there's no complaint from brain/ the band or from the magazine, what's the big issue?

In the issue, why don't you buy a copy yourself? I would if it was available in my area.

Beggars can't be choosers.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

Didn't scans of a magazine get removed from here once before because the magazine requested they be taken down? Classic Rock magazine I seem to remember. Were there HTGTH watermarks on those? (Not a rhetorical question, I honestly can't remember)

[jarmo]

Didn't scans of a magazine get removed from here once before because the magazine requested they be taken down? Classic Rock magazine I seem to remember. Were there HTGTH watermarks on those? (Not a rhetorical question, I honestly can't remember)

Yeah, I've removed both photos and articles when asked to by photographers and publishers.


Rarely do we have a bunch of fans objecting like these days.



/jarmo

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Didn't scans of a magazine get removed from here once before because the magazine requested they be taken down? Classic Rock magazine I seem to remember. Were there HTGTH watermarks on those? (Not a rhetorical question, I honestly can't remember)

Yeah, I've removed both photos and articles when asked to.





/jarmo

How would Classic Rock find out?

Did someone snitch?

[jarmo]

Your guess is as good as mine.




/jarmo

[ppbebe]

I thought that was because the article included some lies by a certain Mr zoot something.

[Death Cube K]

And radio stations add their own station IDs to songs that aren't theirs. Is that also wrong?

"You're listening to WGNR..."

As far as I know, and I know it goes in my country, any media in question pays a fee for playing copyrighted songs on their shows.

And you have a problem with that.

I'm curious why.....

I don't have a problem. I am addressing your interesting sense of following copyright rules.

Depends if the judge is one of you "stealing is stealing" people....

You wouldn't get away with it.

And why exactly is that a problem?

Morality.

From not allowing discussion about leaks to putting watermarks on scanned articles for example.

Why is it such a fucking problem that I feel like supporting the band and not steal from them by uploading their albums for everybody to download for free?

So if you support something you follow the rules, but if you do not support something you do not follow the rules?

None of you copyright crusaders have managed to offer one fucking proper answer to why it's not ok to be flexible in order to benefit fellow GN'R fans while trying to not rip off the one thing we are all supposed to be fans of.

It's not ok when you rip off others in order to please a group of people.

No one would put any question marks over some scans if you just dropped the watermarks on them. As I have previously tried my best to explain to you, you can end up in deep shit by doing it. Just as deep as if you posted the entire damn CD on this forum. It doesn't matter what product it is.

[ppbebe]

The difference is that leaks are against the authors will and the interviews aren't.

watermarks may bother you when you read it but you aren't the chooser. Why you don't buy a copy?

[jarmo]

As far as I know, and I know it goes in my country, any media in question pays a fee for playing copyrighted songs on their shows.

Yeah, they pay.

But does it make you think they're the ones performing the song?

Since watermarks make you think the site owns the rights to that picture (meaning, we took the picture ourselves), does a station ID make you think the station is the performer of the song?


MTV broadcasts a music video (not really, just in theory). You record it and put it on Youtube for all your online buddies.

How many of them e-mail you asking for more tracks from this artist called MTV that has that cool song you uploaded?

I don't have a problem. I am addressing your interesting sense of following copyright rules.

But it's still interesting even though I've made it pretty clear why I have the opinion I do?

It's like you choose to completely disregard what I say.

From not allowing discussion about leaks to putting watermarks on scanned articles for example.

We respect the band and they did not want those leaks out. So therefore we did not have discussions about them.

Clear enough?

I don't know what so weird about that.

But then again, I was wrong earlier about how much I should assume people actually want to understand and how much simple hate can fuel some.

So if you support something you follow the rules, but if you do not support something you do not follow the rules?

Do you shit where you eat?



Do you live by your own way of thinking?

There doesn't seem to be any flexibility with some of you..... If you stole a Twix bar as a kid, you might as well rob a bank next. Stealing is stealing.

Having a glass of wine or twenty. Same thing, you're under the influence of alcohol in both cases.


Even the law sees differences between cases as theft or killing a person.


I could go on with more examples if you wish.

No one would put any question marks over some scans if you just dropped the watermarks on them.

Funny how the photos I removed a few years ago had no watermarks whatsoever.... The photographer still objected.




You just prove the point that you all love to get free shit to use as you wish.

If somebody makes it a bit difficult for you to use that free shit, it's very illegal all of a sudden and you object.



So let's say you have a site where you host a bunch of photos you didn't take with no credits or watermarks.

I could make the claim that I was under the impression that everything you have on your own site was made by you.

You're not making it clear enough for everybody that the pictures, sounds etc. aren't yours and that you have not permission to use them legally.

Maybe you can put up a huge disclaimer that takes up 75% of your page saying so. Maybe then there'd be no confusion.


You know, this whole "I thought it means you own the picture" thing can work in all kinds of ways. If you want it to.

As I have previously tried my best to explain to you, you can end up in deep shit by doing it.

Thanks for your concern.

Imagine if some of you managed to be more civil about it.

Digital Watermarking can be used for a wide range of applications such as:

    * Copyright protection
   * Fingerprinting (Different recipients get differently watermarked content)
    * Broadcast Monitoring (Television news often contains watermarked video from international agencies)
    * Covert Communication (steganography)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_watermarking

Even Wikipedia lists the sole reason why those scans were watermarked.

watermarks may bother you when you read it but you aren't the chooser. Why you don't buy a copy?

Exactly.

If you want your own high quality scans, buy the magazine and support them.






/jarmo

[Bandita]

The whole point is that by watermarking it, you portray that the work is your own. 

How the fuck am I portraying it as my own work when I CLEARLY CREDITED THE MAGAZINE AND THE WRITER AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER??

The only reason youze are bitching is because youze didn't want to admit that HTGTH posted it first.

Frankly, I didn't even read it.  I just think your watermarking is retarded.

Had it not been watermarked I probably would have read it but whenever you post something like that it just gives me a headache.

Also, can I interest you in a remedial English lesson?

This thread is hilarious, by the way.

[D]

Had Gypsy not posted the article, would any of us known Brain was in a magazine called Modern Drummer?


I don't think it will hurt magazine sales cause no body would've known anyway and I'd say it will increase their sales cause die hards hear will now go buy it.


I could care less about watermarking. I didn't see it and think "WOW Gypsy or Jarmo conducted this interview"

If I typed a 5 page something or the other out, I wouldn't want some other person taking it and claiming it like they found it.

This has to be the longest thread about nothing in HTGTH history that hasn't involved an old vs new or Axl vs Slash

[jarmo]

This thread is hilarious, by the way.

I bet.

Especially for people who have nothing better to do thn to visit a GN'R site to whine about how it's run. Then go back to their own little secret lair to pat themselves on their collective back for a job well done.



It's probably funny when you don't understand or even try to understand 75% of what's posted.



You're the second one of those who objected who admits that you didn't care enough to read the article.

It wasn't even posted for you, yet you object. Nice...


In the future, just keep out of the GN'R section in case there are other violations of your own personal guidelines (which we don't follow here in case you assumed so).


Cheer up!



/jarmo

[chineseblues]

I can't believe how ridiculous you people are complaining about this. Do you really have nothing better to do than come on here and bitch about some stupid watermark? Is your lives really that miserable?


Hundreds of people probably read those scans and were grateful that Gypsy took the time to upload them for us and then a hand full of winos had to come along and ruin it. You should have kept them there Gypsy, to hell with those crybabies.