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

[Lisa]

Now the commander in chief has left? where are all the little foot soldiers?

Probably gone to help their leader with the soon to be copyright infringement cases against him. I guess he shouldn't be using a copyrighted song and pictures on his site without permission....

at least he didn't watermark them

Watermarked or not, he has pictures on that slide show that were taken by certain photographers that absolutely do not tolerate people using their pictures without permission. Thankfully I happen to know one of them. Let's hope punk got good lawyers

\oh my..is THAT a threat?
I take that as such and seriously offended. I think I will report this threat to the mods.
and since when do any of those people frequent the east coast?

[chineseblues]

Now the commander in chief has left? where are all the little foot soldiers?

Probably gone to help their leader with the soon to be copyright infringement cases against him. I guess he shouldn't be using a copyrighted song and pictures on his site without permission....

at least he didn't watermark them

Watermarked or not, he has pictures on that slide show that were taken by certain photographers that absolutely do not tolerate people using their pictures without permission. Thankfully I happen to know one of them. Let's hope punk got good lawyers

\oh my..is THAT a threat?
I take that as such and seriously offended. I think I will report this threat to the mods.
and since when do any of those people frequent the east coast?

Cool report it to the mods, I'm pretty confident I won't get in any trouble for what I said.

What does the east coast have to do with anything?

[Lisa]

don't you remember? many years ago and another board far far away, you posted naked pic with your guitar on the beach? I thought they were hawt..maybe you should post them again?

[SLCPUNK]

Watermarked or not, he has pictures on that slide show that were taken by certain photographers that absolutely do not tolerate people using their pictures without permission. Thankfully I happen to know one of them. Let's hope punk got good lawyers

Oh wow threats.

If somebody contacts me about a picture, I'll take it down, I won't need my lawyer for that. I'll just take it down.

Of course none of you assholes have GnR pictures all through your fansites I'm sure.

[*Timothy*]

Now the commander in chief has left? where are all the little foot soldiers?

Probably gone to help their leader with the soon to be copyright infringement cases against him. I guess he shouldn't be using a copyrighted song and pictures on his site without permission....

at least he didn't watermark them

Watermarked or not, he has pictures on that slide show that were taken by certain photographers that absolutely do not tolerate people using their pictures without permission. Thankfully I happen to know one of them. Let's hope punk got good lawyers

And the award for the most look at me post of the day!  Goes to.....

[TAP]

Now the commander in chief has left? where are all the little foot soldiers?

Probably gone to help their leader with the soon to be copyright infringement cases against him. I guess he shouldn't be using a copyrighted song and pictures on his site without permission....

at least he didn't watermark them

Watermarked or not, he has pictures on that slide show that were taken by certain photographers that absolutely do not tolerate people using their pictures without permission. Thankfully I happen to know one of them. Let's hope punk got good lawyers

And the award for the most look at me post of the day!  Goes to.....

the toughest health program graduate?

[SLCPUNK]

And the award for the most look at me post of the day!  Goes to.....

I'm sure he'll go make a beef, and that's ok, it's just the kind of guy he wants to be. If a photographer asks me to take something down, then I take it down. I've got all kinds of great pictures to simply replace it with, some personal ones included.

[radical tendency]

Watermarked or not, he has pictures on that slide show that were taken by certain photographers that absolutely do not tolerate people using their pictures without permission. Thankfully I happen to know one of them. Let's hope punk got good lawyers

A peculiar thing about copyright infringement is that unless there were financial motives behind the infringement(one profited from the infringement), the only action that can be accomplished is a "Cease and Desist".

[jarmo]

Problem solved, those people won't be posting here again.

The stress of having to read copyrighted materials here while not being allowed to rip off GN'R seems to be too much.


I'm not forcing anybody to visit this site, and since these people were so unhappy, and only found some kind of sick joy from whining about how this site is or about me as a person, I decided they're worn out their collective welcomes.




There's really no sense in me answering to them why I do things the way I do them because every time I tried, they have shown no interest in even trying to understand any of it.

I pointed out that the watermark was only added as a way to fingerprint the scans. Meaning, people would know where they came from. Not meaning that we own them. I even linked to a Wikipedia article about watermarks where fingerprinting is mentioned as one use of digital watermarks. Nobody bothered to take this in.

Also, in my opinion those watermarks hopefully make it harder for somebody to use the scans in a commercial way. They were put up for free, and nobody should make money off them.





The opinion is that I'm a hypocrite because I post articles from magazines while being against sharing of GN'R material. This is kinda amusing because I thought GN'R fans would actually agree with me on that. I was wrong. I don't understand how supporting your favorite band by buying their music is a bad thing.

Yes, magazines aren't doing that good, but you can't like in your own little bubble and think what works for you will work for everybody else. So just because you think stealing from GN'R is fine since everybody steals from magazines, don't expect us all to see it that way.


What's even more ironic is that these people who are so observant about copyrights are defending their own use of GN'R's music without permission. Apparently, since the songs stream on Myspace, they're free for anyone to use anywhere.

The fact that the band's record company uploaded those songs to the band's Myspace page, and therefore both approved it and are in control of it, doesn't seem to make any sense to them.

If it streams on Myspace, it's ok to stream anywhere else.

Oddly enough, lots of videos and music stream on sites all over the Internet but are removed from other sites.....

And I'm the hypocrite....




I've been running this site since 1996. I've had articles and pictures on the site since very early on.

Now in 2009, almost 13 YEARS later, a bunch of people who happen to all come from the same site (run by one of them) choose to attack my policy calling me a hypocrite among other things.

If you think I'm one, that's your opinion. I don't care. Especially since I don't have any plans to communicate with this people in any way whatsoever. So if some stranger on a message board thinks I'm a hypocrite, good for him/her. I will obviously point out WHY I think the way I do and in some rare cases the opponent will actually try to see it from my point of view.

I appreciate those who do try. It seems like this little clique were not interested. Hence, having a discussion with them is nearly impossible as you can see int his thread.

Points are ignored and questions that have been answered keeps getting repeated.




I do what I do and I don't really care what they do. That's been my attitude since day one. I don't really pay attention to what other fan sites do. I do the best I can, that's it.

That's not good enough for them, they want to tell me that I should do what they want me to do.



If you have a problem with how we run this place, you're obviously free to leave.

Just because you're pissed off that we don't post leaks but think it's ok to share new interviews etc., doesn't mean we're gonna change.



I know the policy might seem wrong, but after a while of running a site you might see that you need to have a balance. You need to figure out what's ok and what's not. Even though technically it's all "wrong" in a legal sense.





/jarmo

[faldor]

So is it the watermarks? or the posting of copyrighted material?

I personally think it was anything just to start a fight but that's just my opinion...

I have to agree. Gypsy Soul's original post was condescending, mocking, and clearly designed to elicit a response.

You clearly don't understand what I was talking about then. The bullshit was started by the usual bunch of suspects, not Gypsy.

So you totally missed her/his/it's initial post then.

Please clarify for me "usual suspects."

As usual, the brown lipstick parade is always around to do their kissing.

Smoochie, smoochie.

Not I never missed Gypsy's original post, she ALWAYS gets shit from people when she posts articles. It's usually the same bunch of people (SLC and his gang of hangers on).


As for kissing anyone's ass, think what you want. I just think its bullshit for you bunch to bitch about this when Gypsy was only doing something good for the fans.

That's exactly the point, it may not be worth bringing up anymore now that those who were bitching aren't around anymore.  But in defense of GypsySoul, she has posted 2 articles in recent weeks to my knowledge with the watermarks and those same people were bitching and moaning at the water marks then.  Instead of saying, thanks for the scans Gypsy, great read, or something along those lines.  All they did was bitch about how the watermarks shouldn't have been there, it bothered them so much.  That is the only reason she added those snide comments, she was provoked. 

Hopefully this thread will now die and we can talk about the positive things.  Enough bitching already.

[almost_human]

you are really making a mountain out of a mole hill...BFD if something is watermarked.  websites do it all the time, TMZ, CNN, The Dirty.  Its good marketing for your site as well. 

[jarmo]

you are really making a mountain out of a mole hill...BFD if something is watermarked.  websites do it all the time, TMZ, CNN, The Dirty.  Its good marketing for your site as well. 

True.

The person who bought the mag, typed out the article and scanned the photos did it for us. She doesn't post on other sites.

I don't see the big deal if she wants those who read it to know it came from here. Imagine that somebody actually likes the site and wants others to know about it.

And before that is twisted around to mean something it's not meaning, I'm not saying that copyright isn't a big deal. I'm talking about the watermark as a way to fingerprint the scans. The scans, that somebody spent time and money on, in order for us to read it in the first place. I'm not talking about owing the copyright as some claimed.

Maybe we'll make the scans more idiot proof in the future so even people with wild imaginations can "get it".


I had to kick out some posters due to the fact that they could not grasp this and resorted to the usual insults calling me both a liar and hypocrite, as well as those who managed to see the other side of the coin, as ass kissers. Kinda ironic, I'm used to being called the ass kisser for actually supporting the band I love.

Apparently because I know for a fact that people love using high quality pictures for all kinds of things (web sites, blogs, wallpapers, DVD menus, for eBay auctions etc etc.) and brought it up as a reason for the opposing of the watermarks, I'm a liar.

And because I don't allow my Guns N' Roses fan site to be used against the band, I'm a hypocrite.

That's the kind of opinion I expect from people who don't know me. 





/jarmo

[GeorgeSteele]

I don't think the watermarking is a good idea.  I understand the points you've made, Jarmo, they're all valid, but there are other things to consider.

For example, let's say the Brain article scans get copied onto other sites - with the watermark.  And then what if Modern Drummer gets pissed off and decides to takes things beyond a cease and desist.  Even if you complied with a cease and desist, there are the other sites with the scans that have your site's watermark on them.  It's no longer in your control to take down scans that say "HTGTH" on them.  Also, if those sites used the scans for commercial gain, would Modern Drummer have a problem with the fact that those sites got the scans from your site?  I really don't know; intuitively, it seems that would be an issue.  I think it would be better to lean on the safer side and not advertise that your site set the copyright infringement chain in motion.

On the other hand, I get how it must suck to put in the time and effort to transcribe something only to have others get the same benefit with a simple copy and paste.  Then again, ignoring all legal perspectives and looking strictly from a "karma' perspective, isn't that an appropriate price to pay?  That is, if other sites effortlessly reap the benefits of what this site worked on to copy, isn't it fair in a sense that the copier of the work suffer the same fate as the creator of the work?
The old 'reap what you sow' cliche and all.

[freedom78]

I don't think the watermarking is a good idea.  I understand the points you've made, Jarmo, they're all valid, but there are other things to consider.

For example, let's say the Brain article scans get copied onto other sites - with the watermark.  And then what if Modern Drummer gets pissed off and decides to takes things beyond a cease and desist.  Even if you complied with a cease and desist, there are the other sites with the scans that have your site's watermark on them.  It's no longer in your control to take down scans that say "HTGTH" on them.  Also, if those sites used the scans for commercial gain, would Modern Drummer have a problem with the fact that those sites got the scans from your site?  I really don't know; intuitively, it seems that would be an issue.  I think it would be better to lean on the safer side and not advertise that your site set the copyright infringement chain in motion.

On the other hand, I get how it must suck to put in the time and effort to transcribe something only to have others get the same benefit with a simple copy and paste.  Then again, ignoring all legal perspectives and looking strictly from a "karma' perspective, isn't that an appropriate price to pay?  That is, if other sites effortlessly reap the benefits of what this site worked on to copy, isn't it fair in a sense that the copier of the work suffer the same fate as the creator of the work?
The old 'reap what you sow' cliche and all.

A well reasoned and rational comment?  Surely you must be in the wrong thread, sir! 

I think your legal points are spot on. 

Regarding the inherent suckiness in others copy/pasting one's work...well, it seems that the question here depends on how we define the role of this (or any other) fan site.  If the point is to provide a good resource for GNR fans, then it shouldn't matter if other sites were to take than info and repost it, nor should it matter if we, here, do the same with new info found on mygnr, chinesedemocracy.com, or any other sites run by various punks.  In other words, if the real point is getting material to fans, then it should be spread near and far, without concern for credit.

Then again, if the point is to frame this as a competition between GNR fan sites and for one site to "win", then I suppose it matters who gets credit.

Strangely enough, you see this in many areas of the net.  Two sites dedicated to the enjoyment of craft beers (ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com) both offered roughly the same service...a forum for people to research and discuss beer and to rate those that they had tried.  But the weird thing was this...ratebeer.com thought of beeradvocate.com as a brother in the cause, and had no problem with the other site being mentioned or linked.  On the other hand, beeradvocate.com would delete any reference to ratebeer.com....clearly, they wanted to "win". 

Well, you can guess which one I frequent. 

The point is this...I think of these sites as a resource for fans to get information and to network with other fans.  I think most other people do as well, given the number of folks who participate at multiple sites.  So as far as credit goes, we should certainly thank whoever typed up the article and scanned the pics.  But if the point is to say "Ha ha, we got this magazine article first  " then I have no interest in that.  The only thing that I can think of that has been remotely exclusive to any fan site are the interviews they occasionally get from band members and the posts Axl made in their various forums, all of which was quickly transcribed to this and other sites and shared with the purpose of getting good information to us that we, the nutcase fans, would want to know about.  The only difference there is that the various sites were directly involved in the Q&A, and by providing a forum for it to take place they did deserve a more direct form of credit.  I'm glad I didn't have to go to five (?) sites to find all those Axl Q&A sessions, just like I'm sure some people on other sites were glad to have the Brain interview scanned in for them.  That's cooperation, and it's a good thing.  If the point is to "win", however, to the point that every new pic we get is watermarked by the site that found it first...well, that seems silly to me.   

[lynn1961]

Although this whole crazy thing has turned into an argument over copyrighting and legalities, I think the original point was that putting the watermark of HTGTH over some scanned pictures just looks, well, kind of ridiculous.   It makes it look like the pictures belong exclusively to this site, which they don't.  Once again, it's not even really about all the legalities, just the silliness of watermarking photos in the first place.  That's all.  It was an opinion which, unfortunately, turned into a huge and unecessary showdown.

Personally, I think doing a mass ban doesn't really solve anything, was unwarranted, and things could have been handled differently.  There's always going to be people who disagree with the way things are done.   While the "my site, my rules" principle is understandable, things need not be exclusive to that all the time.  Sometimes people have other opinions which might be valid and could be considered, rather than having things end up in an all-out full scale verbal attack on each other which resulted in the banishment of some longtime members who have also constructively contributed to this forum, in the past.   
 

[Death Cube K]

I think your legal points are spot on. 

Agreed. They were rational and with good sense of reality.

I never really understood the eagerness to put "fingermarks" all over someone elses work for the benefit of making it an "exclusive" for one board. Or, using the
argument of "credit to the scanner". It's like just ignoring the first level of the issue. Magazine and article writer. No one should take ANY credit for something they haven't produced themselves. Scanning an article isn't enough to start putting marks all over the scanned item. Not only is it highly illegal to do so, but I think most people react over the morality of doing so as we are all GNR fans. Scanning or buying something doesn't give you "rights" all of a sudden. In fact, you have no rights at all.

I think the original point was that putting the watermark of HTGTH over some scanned pictures just looks, well, kind of ridiculous

Absolutely. This is the subject people react to. When that didn't seem to be understood, people took it to the legality of it. The watermarks are morally "odd" and the legality can not be questioned.

I have a website dedicated to historical aviation and I also just had an article published in an aviation magazine. Let me tell you people, if I had seen anyone do to my work as they did here I would be absolutely furious. The scanning is fine with me, speaking as a writer, as it means my article will be read by more people. I do however doubt that the magazine would agree to that. But to put watermarks on my article and posting them on some aviation related board even with giving credit to the writer is absolutely beyond anything I can accept as a writer. I think anyone who does write for magazines would agree with me here? It doesn't matter what kind of excuses and explenations anyone comes up with. My article had a lot to do with a specific airplane, but I would not tolerate the website of this plane stamping their website address on my article just because they "are fans" of the airplane.

Next time, as I have said, drop the redicilous watermarks. Not only is it morally questionable, it's also illegal.

[chineseblues]

None of us can tell Gypsy what to do though. If she wants to watermark it then fine, it's really none of our business. If she gets in trouble for it, then she probably won't do it again. If the magazines don't care then who are we to say anything?

[jarmo]

It makes it look like the pictures belong exclusively to this site, which they don't.  

You fail to realize that they were put up here for the members of this board first and foremost.

The poster doesn't post or care for other forums. She did it for us.

I'm not saying it belongs to this site. I'm just saying a member here did something for the board she posts at.



Everybody wants to point out how much this site sucks. But they still like to come here to get stuff to copy and paste elsewhere. It's kinda funny.....

We suck, but we're good enough to copy from as long as you don't necessarily have to mention that it came from here. 

Personally, I think doing a mass ban doesn't really solve anything, was unwarranted, and things could have been handled differently.  

Your friends couldn't handle a civilized discussion.

Insults were thrown around like usual.

Instead of being civil about it, people who didn't even READ the article were taking the whole thread off topic with their whining and personal attacks.

No one should take ANY credit for something they haven't produced themselves.

Such as radio stations putting station IDs over songs?

TV stations broadcasting shows and films they didn't make themselves with a watermark logo? It's an extreme example. But the fact remians, they didn't produce it, they were just the middle man.

Scanning an article isn't enough to start putting marks all over the scanned item. Not only is it highly illegal to do so, but I think most people react over the morality of doing so as we are all GNR fans. Scanning or buying something doesn't give you "rights" all of a sudden. In fact, you have no rights at all.

Unfortunately that's not how it works in the real world.

People make fan videos using others' music/video and put their names on it, bootlegs are "brought to you by....", wallpapers made using copyrighted photos and artwork often have a name of the creator somewhere etc. etc.

Absolutely. This is the subject people react to. When that didn't seem to be understood, people took it to the legality of it. The watermarks are morally "odd" and the legality can not be questioned.

And I think they react because it means they can't just take it as they wish....

Not because they give a fuck about Modern Drummer.

If they gave a fuck about Modern Drummer, they'd have subscriptions to the magazine. 

Next time, as I have said, drop the redicilous watermarks.

You're free to do what you want with your scans.



Did you ever visit Perezhilton.com?

Manipulated photos....



Since it's so illegal to alter images. Do you object to people making wallpapers?





/jarmo

[Lisa]

None of us can tell Gypsy what to do though. If she wants to watermark it then fine, it's really none of our business. If she gets in trouble for it, then she probably won't do it again. If the magazines don't care then who are we to say anything?

did your photographer 'friends' tell you that?
just curious

[jarmo]

Same question to you.

Does it bother you that fans make wallpapers out of photos and artwork? And even add their name to them as the creators.....




/jarmo