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

[TAP]

Why won't you explain why the article was taken down?

I didn't take it down.

But it's your site, you have the ultimate say I would guess. I'm still not managing to process why the article has been taken down because of a few people who allegedly hate GNR fans. If this was my site, I'd ignore the few haters and leave it up for the many lovers..........just sayin'

#1: I didn't transcribe the article.
#2: I didn't post the article.
#3: I didn't remove the article.


I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that I can't force people to post scans that they've uploaded themselves.

This discussion would be a lot more productive if you stopped misrepresenting my position.

I'm asking about the taking down of the article and you're replying about the putting up of the article. You still haven't explained why the article was taken down because of the opinions of a few whiners whose opinion you don't see to care about anyway. Now I will concede that the decision to take it down may not have been yours, though I was under the perhaps misguided belief that you exert some editorial control over things posted here.....


.....but if it is case that the decision was not yours then this whole debacle seems to have been created by the person who started the thread by saying

rant  DID YOU TAKE THOSE PICS N' WRITE THAT ARTICLE??  rant
 crying WHY DOES IT HAVE THAT ANNOYING WATERMARK ALL OVER??  crying

with the seeming purpose of forcing this whole thread to unfold the way it has, and then taking it down in a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way. In other circumstances one might hypothetically label such behaviour as drama queening or attention whoring.

[jarmo]

I'm asking about the taking down of the article and you're replying about the putting up of the article. You still haven't explained why the article was taken down

I don't know why, but it seems like you don't want to understand that I didn't either UPLOAD or REMOVE the scans.

I merely explained how posting articles work here.

No matter what you might think and/or have heard, I don't make all the posts here nor do I edit all posts.



So for me to answer why somebody else did either of those two things, I would have to either ask, guess and/or assume.

.....but if it is case that the decision was not yours

I thought I made that clear in my other reply already and yet here you are asking the same thing.....

then this whole debacle seems to have been created by the person who started the thread by saying

rant  DID YOU TAKE THOSE PICS N' WRITE THAT ARTICLE??  rant
 crying WHY DOES IT HAVE THAT ANNOYING WATERMARK ALL OVER??  crying

with the seeming purpose of forcing this whole thread to unfold the way it has, and then taking it down in a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way. In other circumstances one might hypothetically label such behaviour as drama queening or attention whoring.

She was making fun of a little group of individuals who couldn't care less about the content of the article but are more into whining and ruining threads with their nonsense.

The fact that two of you have already admitted that you didn't bother reading the article, yet you were spamming the GN'R section kinda makes it apparent.

Also, the fact that you're part of that little group of individuals who are happy to "joke" about everything in The Jungle is a funny coincidence.


So next time you want to have some "fun" by posting shit only to get attention, do so at that other site where the songs are streaming for free without permission and the posters all pat your own backs.





/jarmo

[TAP]

The fact that two of you have already admitted that you didn't bother reading the article, yet you were spamming the GN'R section kinda makes it apparent.

Wouldn't it be worse if we read the article and then whined about your copyright infringement? - that would be hypocritical. But the argument has nothing to do with the content, that's a strawman that needs to be burnt. This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

[jarmo]

This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

Because the article was not put out by Guns N' Roses.... Now if the magazine was put out by Guns N' Roses, things would be different.



Oddly enough, it's something I've explained already.

And yet it fails to cause any kind of thought process other than "it's stealing!"....






/jarmo

[TAP]

This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

Because the article was not put out by Guns N' Roses.... Now if the magazine was put out by Guns N' Roses, things would be different.

So you only respect copyright if its GNR.  Your words - quoted for truth.

[Bandita]

The fact that two of you have already admitted that you didn't bother reading the article, yet you were spamming the GN'R section kinda makes it apparent.

Wouldn't it be worse if we read the article and then whined about your copyright infringement? - that would be hypocritical. But the argument has nothing to do with the content, that's a strawman that needs to be burnt. This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

Actually, I have read it now in a more eye pleasing way somewhere else.

It was very nice....too bad it was removed from here or not posted in a more conducive way to reading it without being marked up ridiculously.

[jarmo]

So you only respect copyright if its GNR.  Your words - quoted for truth.

If I didn't respect copyright, I wouldn't remove stuff when asked now would I?


You do what most other people without answers do, avoid answering most of what's asked so you can keep "quoting for truth".

Better luck next time.



Let's just make one thing very clear here. I've made my opinion pretty clear to anybody who understands basic English. You don't agree.

So from now on, avoid the GN'R section (or this site altogether) in order to not get mixed up in anything that might confuse you, or cause yourselves any kind of anxiety due to our so called hypocrisy.


It has become quite apparent that the little shit stirring clique of yours has no real interest in what's good for this site or the fans who visit.


Now, run along to the "secret hideout", talk amongst yourselves and pat yourselves on your backs for a job well done. 



/jarmo

[faldor]

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

I know, I can't believe it's gone on this long.  I'm sure Modern Drummer magazine is going to lose tons of sales due to this whole debacle.  I'm sure many of us never knew such a magazine existed.  Now we do, not sure how that hurts the magazine exactly.  I'm still amazed at how angry people get at such trivial things.  Does it really bother you that much?  Aren't there more pressing issues in your life than who watermarks what and if they're allowed to or not?  I'm sorry, I don't want to or mean to get involved in this mess, but this is beyond ridiculous.

[Death Cube K]

Does it really bother you that much?

Amazingly enough, a lot of people are very interested in copyright laws. My wife for instance has done years of studies on it in college. I've done a few papers on it when I
was in college and always found it very interesting how people interpret it differently, make up their own laws, disregard it, disregard it when they see fit, over-protect it to the point of obsession and how people in theory don't know what they're messing with in the first place.

So excuse me when I take interest in this debacle of copyright madness. It is interesting to see just how people regard such a subject and this case are definetely one
of the "better" ones I've come across. Especially when it involves one of my fave bands, one of the biggest GNR forums and such a hilarious form of handling it.

[chineseblues]

The fact that two of you have already admitted that you didn't bother reading the article, yet you were spamming the GN'R section kinda makes it apparent.

Wouldn't it be worse if we read the article and then whined about your copyright infringement? - that would be hypocritical. But the argument has nothing to do with the content, that's a strawman that needs to be burnt. This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

Actually, I have read it now in a more eye pleasing way somewhere else.

It was very nice....too bad it was removed from here or not posted in a more conducive way to reading it without being marked up ridiculously.

I don't get it. How can so many people be able to read it just fine with the watermarks and only a VERY small percentage of people bitch and moan about it? Did you guys really need to start however many pages of bullshit over something so trivial?

[Lisa]

^you're the one keeping it going now by asking a rhetorical, stoopid question.
just sayin

[faldor]

^you're the one keeping it going now by asking a rhetorical, stoopid question.
just sayin

That is true, we should all just let this thread die already.  Nothing to see here.  Move on!

[TAP]

^you're the one keeping it going now by asking a rhetorical, stoopid question.
just sayin

[AxlsMainMan]

The fact that two of you have already admitted that you didn't bother reading the article, yet you were spamming the GN'R section kinda makes it apparent.

Wouldn't it be worse if we read the article and then whined about your copyright infringement? - that would be hypocritical. But the argument has nothing to do with the content, that's a strawman that needs to be burnt. This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

Actually, I have read it now in a more eye pleasing way somewhere else.

It was very nice....too bad it was removed from here or not posted in a more conducive way to reading it without being marked up ridiculously.

I don't get it. How can so many people be able to read it just fine with the watermarks and only a VERY small percentage of people bitch and moan about it? 

And everyone always says how they feel, don't they?

I already have to obliterate my eyes to read certain texts for school, don`t really wanna`extend that to articles about my favorite band.

[ppbebe]

but, an honest question, then why not buy a copy? Is the mag too expensive?  I wouldn't like to give a penny to kerrang or those gossip mags but to genuine articles like this one. 

[AxlsMainMan]

I probably will next time I'm in town, just got a check from the government.

[chineseblues]

The fact that two of you have already admitted that you didn't bother reading the article, yet you were spamming the GN'R section kinda makes it apparent.

Wouldn't it be worse if we read the article and then whined about your copyright infringement? - that would be hypocritical. But the argument has nothing to do with the content, that's a strawman that needs to be burnt. This site always had the integrity to respect the right of the artist to control their art (leaks, fake rumours etc) over the needs of the fans to have access to everything. But this situation is a 180 on that.

Actually, I have read it now in a more eye pleasing way somewhere else.

It was very nice....too bad it was removed from here or not posted in a more conducive way to reading it without being marked up ridiculously.

I don't get it. How can so many people be able to read it just fine with the watermarks and only a VERY small percentage of people bitch and moan about it? 

And everyone always says how they feel, don't they?

I already have to obliterate my eyes to read certain texts for school, don`t really wanna`extend that to articles about my favorite band.

The fact still remains that this is not worth all this bullshit and fighting. It was a freaking magazine article! It's not the end of the world.

[TAP]

The fact still remains that this is not worth all this bullshit and fighting.

That's an opinion not a fact. A fact would be something like: Every post in this thread makes it longer.

[TAP]

I don't get it. How can so many people be able to read it just fine with the watermarks and only a VERY small percentage of people bitch and moan about it?

There's rarely more than 20 members logged on here these days, I'd say there's a significant percentage who were bothered by it. Also I don't think the issue with watermarking was readability.

[Bandita]

It's the double standard around here that I find most funny....how some types of illegal behavior are deemed ok but not others.

There is NO argument that can win that no matter how long you make your post explaining it, twisting it, trying to deflect it by pointing out something that someone else did, or by throwing stones while you sit in your glass house.

Hurting GNR=Bad

Hurting a magazine that is probably one step from going out of business like every other periodical in the world right now=OK

Well guess what?  Both GNR and this magazine are businesses in fact.  One's business is to make music and the other is to sell magazines about drumming.  Who is anyone here to say that one is more important than the other?  Because you love GNR more than you love drums?

Back in the day (yes, I am old), we DID have to buy all these crazy magazines to read the articles we wanted to see even if it was just to read a few pages and throw it on the shelf.  I have purchased many newspapers and such that I wouldn't have normally read to have hard copies of this stuff.

Now spare me the response of "you did this" or "so and so did that."