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

[jarmo]

It would appear that banning is only the first step here?

You think we're a bunch of people who send out others on some kind of secret missions to other forums to do our dirty work and spy for us?

Once again, surprise surprise, I'm gonna repeat myself.

I don't care what the other GN'R fan sites do.

But if somebody who just started his own GN'R site starts attacking me for the way I chose to run mine, I might take a look at what he/she is doing.

Just to see where this person is coming from.

In this case, the person is taking the band's music without permission and attacking me for posting a Modern Drummer article without permission.


So there you go.


I don't send people out to join other forums to advertise this site, I don't join other forums to advertise this one, I don't go to other forums and send members PMs inviting them to my board etc.





Here's an avatar I used to have years ago:



Nobody was offended by that!  





/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

I'm intrigued at this spectacle however. Jarmo has purged the toxic posters from the system, yet the thread grows...

What spectacle??  Are you saying that you don't understand how a discussion on a forum (or anywhere else for that matter) can continue and grow without the presence of those peoples whose only contribution was to use the discussion to make personal attacks??

[freedom78]

No, I wouldn't say that I'm against them.  As I said, it's perfectly legal to make a copy of something for personal use (in the US...I can't speak to other countries' laws).  I can copy the first page of Moby Dick and frame it on my wall, if I like, just as I can plaster some pics and logos together to make a wallpaper.  But that's a sideshow.  I'm not concerned with this as an issue of legality.  I don't think anything illegal was done.  The only points I care to make are that watermarking something that was not created by you is misleading and, in this case especially, disruptive to the process of enjoying what was created in the first place.   

You didn't really answer the question...

Are you aware that these wallpapers are posted on message boards, Myspace profiles, web sites, blogs etc.? So the "personal use" excuse doesn't work.

Many of them also have the creator's name on them. Does that offend you? Isn't it misleading? Do you think that some guy, who puts the GN'R logo on a photo of Axl and then puts his name on the wallpaper, made the logo and took the photo?

As stated previously, I'm trying to figure out what you deem ok. Where do you draw the line?

I answered it.  I said "No, I wouldn't say that I'm against them" and then explained my answer.  How is that not answering it?  Is this a court?  Am I bound to give yes or no answers, as if no nuance exists in the world? 

NO...I AM NOT AGAINST THEM.

I was labeled a hypocrite for not allowing copyrighted GN'R songs to be posted here while allowing copyrighted articles/photos that benefit fellow GN'R fans to be posted.

As well as an ass kisser for supporting the band I created a site for all those years ago.

Not by me.

I'm not gonna bother explaining the misleading part because it's been explained and you just fail to understand it.

In the same way that you, in the quote directly below this, say that something is a matter of opinion ("debatable" to quote directly), it's pretty clear that "misleading" is a matter of opinion, too.  As I've explained before, if you're a GNR fan unaware of either HTGTH or Modern Drummer, and you come across an interview and pics that are watermarked as they were, then it can be misleading.  If you're entirely familiar with HTGTH or Modern Drummer, then it likely is not misleading.

I will just like to show you a web site that's more popular than this and how they do it. Maybe you can rally your friends (not implying you're a group of people with no own will, sorry no offense intended) and protest?

Of course you meant offense.  You had the chance to write it a different way, but did not.   

http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/13/phil-spector-mugshot-killer-stare/

Did TMZ.com take the mugshot? I'm not an expert, so maybe you can find out for me if TMZ.com is the photographer who takes mugshots of celebrities?

As the ass kissing hypocritical stupid nazi with no life experience that I am, when I see that pic I assume TMZ got a picture that nobody else got their hands on (yet), so they chose to watermark it. But then again, maybe I'm too stupid to understand that they just put it there to fool us all into thinking TMZ is the name of the photographer?

....and your argument is that TMZ is right about taking something public and putting their name on it? 

TMZ is, in all likelihood, doing it for publicity.  Again...not illegal, in my understanding, but that hardly makes it right.   

Also, in continuing my other point, which is that the watermarking was disruptive, I'd point out that the TMZ watermark is not nearly so bad as what was done here.  It's at the bottom of the pic, it's see through...much less of a problem than reading words on top of other words.  And I'm forced to ask...if the point of the watermark is to get credit, what good is it if it drives people to seek out other sources to read it? 

Regarding the "disruptive" nature of the scans.

That's debatable. Considering you did nothing. All you had to do is click on a link to see it for free.
 
Somebody got you something for free and you complain about how it's illegal and hard to read?

Yes, I'm aware that it's illegal. But if you want to enjoy the photos more, maybe you should buy the magazine instead of relying on somebody's good will?




/jarmo

And if you give me toilet paper with shit all over it, it's going to disrupt the extent to which I'm willing to wipe my own ass with it. 

And fucking finally....I DID NOT SAY IT WAS ILLEGAL.  That is not my complaint...at all.  Zero percent.  Nothing, nada, zilch, nil.  This keeps shifting towards a question of illegality, but I'm fairly certain everyone who raised that issue has been banned, so why does it keep coming up?  I keep saying that the watermarking was NOT illegal.  Period.

In this case, the person is taking the band's music without permission and attacking me for posting a Modern Drummer article without permission.

Punk has asked members of GNR if they mind him having the song on his page and has expressed to them a willingness to take it down if they ask.

This thread should really come with a two drink minimum.

[radical tendency]

I never made veiled threats against anyone. I did let one of the photographers who's pictures were being used know what was going on and that's all my involvement is.

First you told the naughty since banned poster to make sure he had a lawyer, and then you reported said poster to the photographer.

Did you care prior to this thread? What was your intent? Did you, or will you, report the offending pictures on this board as well as all other Guns n Roses fan sites? I'd guess probably not.

What type of behavior does this represent? Is the intent to protect the photographer, or just to get some guy in trouble?

[jarmo]

I answered it.  I said "No, I wouldn't say that I'm against them" and then explained my answer.  How is that not answering it?  Is this a court?  Am I bound to give yes or no answers, as if no nuance exists in the world? 

Your attitude is insulting. You think you're better than me? Is that it?

 


What I meant was, you said you weren't against it and then started explaining about the personal use part.

So it was almost like you're fine with wallpapers as long as they're just for personal use. I then pointed out that they are posted in public just as Gypsy's scans. That's all.


But I get it. You're against us altering photos, but others are free to do so in the name of art. No matter if they put their own name on a photograph/logo that they edited in some kind of photo editing software.

Just like all those who never raised their voice regarding wallpapers but got all upset now.

Find a photo, alter it, put your name on it, post it: FINE
Find a photo, alter it, put a site's name on it, post it: NOT FINE

In the same way that you, in the quote directly below this, say that something is a matter of opinion ("debatable" to quote directly), it's pretty clear that "misleading" is a matter of opinion, too.  As I've explained before, if you're a GNR fan unaware of either HTGTH or Modern Drummer, and you come across an interview and pics that are watermarked as they were, then it can be misleading.  If you're entirely familiar with HTGTH or Modern Drummer, then it likely is not misleading.

Yes. Totally.

But in this case the watermarked interview CLEARLY STATED THE SOURCE and CREDITS.

How you still claim that the interview is misleading is a bit confusing.

What's next? Should we assume that people can't read?



If you were that particular about all photos, I think you'll be busy looking for credits on the photos at your friend's site too.

I will just like to show you a web site that's more popular than this and how they do it. Maybe you can rally your friends (not implying you're a group of people with no own will, sorry no offense intended) and protest?

Of course you meant offense.  You had the chance to write it a different way, but did not.   

Are you serious?

If you're against little young ass kissing hypocritical uneducated me posting watermarked pictures, maybe you can inform your friends about TMZ.com. That was the point.

Do I sense some hostility in your comment?

....and your argument is that TMZ is right about taking something public and putting their name on it? 

TMZ is, in all likelihood, doing it for publicity.  Again...not illegal, in my understanding, but that hardly makes it right.   

No the argument is that it seems to me like others share the point of view I have.

Is it morally right or wrong? Depends who you ask.

Also, in continuing my other point, which is that the watermarking was disruptive, I'd point out that the TMZ watermark is not nearly so bad as what was done here.  It's at the bottom of the pic, it's see through...much less of a problem than reading words on top of other words.  And I'm forced to ask...if the point of the watermark is to get credit, what good is it if it drives people to seek out other sources to read it? 

So you managed to read the watermark but not the article's credits?

Now you didn't object to the watermarks on the photos. Just the article.

And if you give me toilet paper with shit all over it, it's going to disrupt the extent to which I'm willing to wipe my own ass with it. 

Thanks for the info.

Punk has asked members of GNR if they mind him having the song on his page and has expressed to them a willingness to take it down if they ask.

Good for him.

Imagine the publicity if somebody said "yeah, you should, it's not legally right".

"GN'R MEMBER HATES FANS!!!!!!!"

 


Why is the band's official Myspace only streaming samples of songs? Not the full tracks?

Their official site isn't streaming anything either...

Maybe they think samples are a better idea than to stream a full song now that you can buy the album?



/jarmo

[radical tendency]

Punk has asked members of GNR if they mind him having the song on his page and has expressed to them a willingness to take it down if they ask.

So far, according to the offending site, one member of Guns n Roses has already replied and said they do not have a problem with the song streaming.

I'd gather that is why the song continues to play.

Likewise the owner claims that he would take any photos down if there were objections. A cease and desist or an email would probably suffice if this were the case.

[jarmo]

It's funny that your last username was banned for insulting other members.

Sounds familiar.



/jarmo

[radical tendency]

Why is the band's official Myspace only streaming samples of songs? Not the full tracks?

http://www.myspace.com/gunsnroses

Streams Chinese Democracy, This I Love, Shacklers, IRS, and Sorry in it's entirety.

[freedom78]

I answered it.  I said "No, I wouldn't say that I'm against them" and then explained my answer.  How is that not answering it?  Is this a court?  Am I bound to give yes or no answers, as if no nuance exists in the world? 

Your attitude is insulting. You think you're better than me? Is that it?

 


What I meant was, you said you weren't against it and then started explaining about the personal use part.

So it was almost like you're fine with wallpapers as long as they're just for personal use. I then pointed out that they are posted in public just as Gypsy's scans. That's all.


But I get it. You're against us altering photos, but others are free to do so in the name of art. No matter if they put their own name on a photograph/logo that they edited in some kind of photo editing software.

Just like all those who never raised their voice regarding wallpapers but got all upset now.

As far as claiming of credit goes, I think that that's wrong (not necessary illegal).  It's not that GS claimed credit for scanning the article and pics...it's that it was done in the exact same way that someone would claim credit for having taken those pics or having written that article.  If the pics and article had had one watermark saying something like "scanned by GypsySoul" or "scanned for HTGTH" I'd have no problem with it.  It's clear that the claiming is not of the creative process, but of the scanning. 

But if I take your wedding photos and watermark them with my name, people will think that I'm the photographer, and not just someone who scanned them. 

Find a photo, alter it, put your name on it, post it: FINE
Find a photo, alter it, put a site's name on it, post it: NOT FINE

Depends on use.  Selling is definitely illegal.  I can accept major alteration as part of an artistic process, though I dispute that scanning is such a process.  Also, the quote to which I'm responding isn't correct, as far as I'm aware.  Was the photo altered OTHER than putting the site's name on it?  As far as I know, the only alteration was the watermarking.  Perhaps it was resized or something equally irrelevant as a creative process in and of itself.   

The wallpapers, to my mind, are similar to sampling in music.  Something owned by someone else is used in a larger artistic process.  If you sell it, you pay royalties (or get sued).  The watermarking was not part of such a process, though. 

I know you want a black/white answer, but it just doesn't exist in my mind.  If it did, and the world agreed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In the same way that you, in the quote directly below this, say that something is a matter of opinion ("debatable" to quote directly), it's pretty clear that "misleading" is a matter of opinion, too.  As I've explained before, if you're a GNR fan unaware of either HTGTH or Modern Drummer, and you come across an interview and pics that are watermarked as they were, then it can be misleading.  If you're entirely familiar with HTGTH or Modern Drummer, then it likely is not misleading.

Yes. Totally.

But in this case the watermarked interview CLEARLY STATED THE SOURCE and CREDITS.

How you still claim that the interview is misleading is a bit confusing.

What's next? Should we assume that people can't read?



If you were that particular about all photos, I think you'll be busy looking for credits on the photos at your friend's site too.

Thus my parallel argument about it just making it disruptive (really not the right word, but in for a penny...).

I will just like to show you a web site that's more popular than this and how they do it. Maybe you can rally your friends (not implying you're a group of people with no own will, sorry no offense intended) and protest?

Of course you meant offense.  You had the chance to write it a different way, but did not.   

Are you serious?

If you're against little young ass kissing hypocritical uneducated me posting watermarked pictures, maybe you can inform your friends about TMZ.com. That was the point.

Do I sense some hostility in your comment?

I was serious, but if you weren't really meaning offense and hiding it behind your "no offense" catch all then I admit I misinterpreted.  The beauty of the 'net...tough to really gauge motive.

As for "little young ass kissing hypocritical uneducated" you...well, I have no idea whatsoever how old you are.  No offense.   

^
l
l
l  Thus, my point about the internet and interpretations.

....and your argument is that TMZ is right about taking something public and putting their name on it? 

TMZ is, in all likelihood, doing it for publicity.  Again...not illegal, in my understanding, but that hardly makes it right.   

No the argument is that it seems to me like others share the point of view I have.

Is it morally right or wrong? Depends who you ask.

It does depend.  So why is it so problematic that some of us have a different opinion? 

Also, in continuing my other point, which is that the watermarking was disruptive, I'd point out that the TMZ watermark is not nearly so bad as what was done here.  It's at the bottom of the pic, it's see through...much less of a problem than reading words on top of other words.  And I'm forced to ask...if the point of the watermark is to get credit, what good is it if it drives people to seek out other sources to read it? 

So you managed to read the watermark but not the article's credits?

Now you didn't object to the watermarks on the photos. Just the article.

I didn't GET to the credits, because the watermark made me not want to read it. 

I don't recall the photo watermarks as much as the article.

And if you give me toilet paper with shit all over it, it's going to disrupt the extent to which I'm willing to wipe my own ass with it. 

Thanks for the info.

I'll send a pic, if you promise to watermark it. 

Punk has asked members of GNR if they mind him having the song on his page and has expressed to them a willingness to take it down if they ask.

Good for him.

Imagine the publicity if somebody said "yeah, you should, it's not legally right".

"GN'R MEMBER HATES FANS!!!!!!!"

 


Why is the band's official Myspace only streaming samples of songs? Not the full tracks?

Their official site isn't streaming anything either...

Maybe they think samples are a better idea than to stream a full song now that you can buy the album?

No idea.  Last I heard, the band wasn't intimately involved with either of those.  On the other hand, you can stream the entire album, free and legal, at http://www.last.fm/music/Guns+N%27+Roses/Chinese+Democracy .  I don't know why there's a discrepancy.  I still have a full GNR track on my Myspace page (as of last week, when last I checked in).

[jarmo]

Why is the band's official Myspace only streaming samples of songs? Not the full tracks?

http://www.myspace.com/gunsnroses

Streams Chinese Democracy, This I Love, Shacklers, IRS, and Sorry in it's entirety.

For me it says "sample" and they're all 29 seconds long...

I guess it's a territorial thing then.

It's not that GS claimed credit for scanning the article and pics...it's that it was done in the exact same way that someone would claim credit for having taken those pics or having written that article.  If the pics and article had had one watermark saying something like "scanned by GypsySoul" or "scanned for HTGTH" I'd have no problem with it.  It's clear that the claiming is not of the creative process, but of the scanning. 

Ok.

That'll be adjusted next time for more clarity.


Edited to add: Thanks for offering something constructive. Instead of just repeating "it's wrong!" over and over again, you took in the arguments you were presented with, considered them and came up with something constructive as a solution. That's good.   

If you can get over the whole idea that it's wrong and/or annoying and just realize that we have our reason(s) for doing things the way we do them, then I guess it's easier to be a bit more constructive.

It's unfortunate that so many are unwilling to do just that. It's easier to just whine I guess.

But credit to you for managing. 

Find a photo, alter it, put your name on it, post it: FINE
Find a photo, alter it, put a site's name on it, post it: NOT FINE

Depends on use.  Selling is definitely illegal.  I can accept major alteration as part of an artistic process, though I dispute that scanning is such a process.  Also, the quote to which I'm responding isn't correct, as far as I'm aware.  Was the photo altered OTHER than putting the site's name on it?  As far as I know, the only alteration was the watermarking.  Perhaps it was resized or something equally irrelevant as a creative process in and of itself.   

Scanned, resized, maybe some color adjustment was done....

The point is, in both cases you take a photo, do something to it and add your own name (or this site's name) on it.

The wallpapers, to my mind, are similar to sampling in music.  Something owned by someone else is used in a larger artistic process.  If you sell it, you pay royalties (or get sued).  The watermarking was not part of such a process, though. 

Yeah, that's a pretty good analogy.


It was just part of giving credit to the original "source", meaning the board where it appeared first due to a board member actually giving a shit and buying the damn thing.


Both sampling and image editing (Photoshopping) is taking somebody else's work and presenting it as your own.

I remember how upset some people when sampling started becoming popular....

I know you want a black/white answer, but it just doesn't exist in my mind.  If it did, and the world agreed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's funny.

I was the one telling your friends that not everything is black or white... And you know how that ended....

It does depend.  So why is it so problematic that some of us have a different opinion? 

The problem is that some of those who object could not have a civil conversation.

The problem is that they were quick label me as a hypocrite while they themselves have not objected to anybody else altering images or taking credit for other people's work during the years that they've posted here.

It all just seems like a personal thing. They wouldn't be the first ones to be "offended" by something simply because I'm the one saying something.



It's ok to attack and insult me. Because if I choose to ban you, you don't have to take any responsibility for it. Just remind everybody about how you're innocent and you were just banned for disagreeing with me. Add to that a reminder about how evil I am, how I'm an ass kisser etc. It's a win-win situation for you!

I'll send a pic, if you promise to watermark it. 

If I want to promote shit, I'd obviously add something else to it....

 



/jarmo

[chineseblues]

I never made veiled threats against anyone. I did let one of the photographers who's pictures were being used know what was going on and that's all my involvement is.

First you told the naughty since banned poster to make sure he had a lawyer, and then you reported said poster to the photographer.

Did you care prior to this thread? What was your intent? Did you, or will you, report the offending pictures on this board as well as all other Guns n Roses fan sites? I'd guess probably not.

What type of behavior does this represent? Is the intent to protect the photographer, or just to get some guy in trouble?

I never even heard of that site before this thread, and yes I have reported to the photographer about other places his pictures are or were in the past.

[chineseblues]

Why is the band's official Myspace only streaming samples of songs? Not the full tracks?

http://www.myspace.com/gunsnroses

Streams Chinese Democracy, This I Love, Shacklers, IRS, and Sorry in it's entirety.

For me it says "sample" and they're all 29 seconds long...

I guess it's a territorial thing then.


/jarmo

That's all it is for me too

[mallrat]

Just curious if all those that also used insult are going to be banned??

[jarmo]

Just curious if all those that also used insult are going to be banned??

Well *Timothy*.... I mean Marv... No.... Oops.... mallrat....

So hard to keep track when you post from the same IP#.....



You think I'm gonna ban my moderator AdZ?



/jarmo

[mallrat]

oh!! the same Ip I wonder why? Maybe cause more then one person here in the house has / had an account here?? Nope could be it...

And was Adz the only one to throw insults out?? I don't even believe I state anyone by name.

[jarmo]

oh!! the same Ip I wonder why? Maybe cause more then one person here in the house has / had an account here?? Nope could be it...

And some have had two!


How convenient. You all live in the same house, post on the same boards and agree on the evils of watermarks.

And was Adz the only one to throw insults out?? I don't even believe I state anyone by name.

His name was brought up earlier so I continued on that train of though....





/jarmo

[mallrat]

oh!! the same Ip I wonder why? Maybe cause more then one person here in the house has / had an account here?? Nope could be it...

And some have had two!


How convenient. You all live in the same house, post on the same boards and agree on the evils of watermarks.

And was Adz the only one to throw insults out?? I don't even believe I state anyone by name.

His name was brought up earlier so I continued on that train of though....





/jarmo

Didn't know people who live together were not allowd to have the same opinion?? And to the best of my knowing power Marv hasn't made a post on the subject.

And how is this off topic relevent to the discussion at hand??

[Lisa]

I just find this so fucking ridiculous now...I am older, supposedly more experienced then all of you, yet I find myself getting sucked in simply for the fact that I believe you to be incorrect and at this point , unable to even admit and inch of fault. I was a fan long before most of you were even out of highschool. I have bought more merch and cds then any one body has a right too. I have always supported wholeheartedly the band and what they were/are trying to accomplish..I've been there from the beginning,seen 8 times and will never in my life , ever miss the opportunity to see them again..more..where ever and how ever possible...and I can say that for most of the people you banned as well. If that is how you roll, so be it. If being a fan and a fan of this site means to kiss ass or be banned, then ban me. I always had the upmost respect for you and what you were trying to accomplish here. You ran a tight ship but at least we could speak our mind,relatively unscathed anyway...not sure where you lost your way son, but I hope you find your way back and remember, it is people like me, like the people you banned and a few hundred other people that makes this site what it was/is. You created something to be pround of..and now maybe not so much.
 

Talk about fuckin ridiculous!!!  Could you be any more condescending??  Where do you get off calling a grown man "son"?? 

Just because someone is A LOT younger than you that doesn't mean that they don't have A LOT more 'life experiences' than you do or A LOT more knowledge and insight and experience on certain things.


Wait .......
By your logic, since I'm older than you, Admin and Axl, I'm right about everything here!!! ... including everything concerning GNR??!!??!! 
HOORAY!!!  HOORAY!!!  THE GYPSY'S ALWAYS RIGHT!!! 

AXL, KIDDO!!!  CALL ME SO I CAN TELL YOU HOW I WANT GNR RUN!!! 





P.S.  Mr. Rose, Sir.  I was just making a joke.  I'm an old lady.  It was just the dementia talking.

are you really as ignorant as you seem to be? Is that ALL you gathered from my post? I did not infer 'son' in a condescending way..nor did I imply that my age makes me more superior then anyone..did you neglect to read the word 'supposedly' ? it was basically a post to make my displeasure known without 'attacking' anyone..or getting acused of attacking anyone.
It is sad really to read what you understood from the post or what you 'imagined' it said...remember, those words, are your words, you opinion, nothing more. So if you don't mind, I respectfully asked that you refrain from responding to anything I may post since you do not clearly understand english nor displeasure. I could have been rude and called names and pointed fingers, or singled other people out as I am singling you out now, but it was never my intention. Just because I happen to affiliated with the people who were banned you have painted me with the same brush as well. You're opinion is not worth a fraction of shit to me.The people who were banned are a million times kinder and intelligent.
So, maybe before you jump on someone and try to be the big bitch, perhaps you can read a post unbiasedly and take it for what its worth and not write what YOU think it means. You don't know me yet find it ok to insult me when Jarmo is saying all the banned people did what name call,insult others etc etc..are you above the law? obviously huh? it is OK for you to insult people right? eff it.

[jarmo]

Didn't know people who live together were not allowd to have the same opinion?? And to the best of my knowing power Marv hasn't made a post on the subject.

And how is this off topic relevent to the discussion at hand??

It's just the first time I've heard of such a case.

Three people in the same house all love GN'R and post on the same board.... What are the odds?




Lisa, surely you get the point. If I was as strict as some of you seem to imply regarding banning, I could've pointed out that you referring to me as "son" was condescending and insulting.


The only sad thing is that not all you experienced people managed to take part in a civil discussion. More interest was shown towards insults and repeating your lines than to take info in and offer something constructive. A few managed to do that and they haven't been banned....






/jarmo

[The Catcher]

Can you imagine someone from the site wanting to spread the word about the site which she provided the scans for? How outrageous! Bye SLCPUNK. So long... Maybe next time you won't get your panties in a bunch over unimportant bullshit.