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

[jarmo]

I cant believe we're talking about ''watermarks'' having such a great and extended interview to talk about.

So I'm not the only one...





/jarmo

[AdZ]

Yes, when you call me a thief or Adz tells me to fuck myself that's ok, but when I reply to it, then it "speaks volumes". Is there anything you do that doesn't contradict itself?

Actually:

It's LAME, just like you.

I was replying to you.

Nice to see you brought your gang though, that's cool.
Get the matching jackets yet?

[Bandita]

First off, I don't like being lumped in because I have an opinion.  Maybe it wasn't on this forum but I have discussed copyright and the internet before.

The fact of how Gypsy posted it was clear that she knew it was an issue for some, not to mention she is breaking the law.  If you want to allow that on the site, so be it but don't get mad when she gets called out on it.

Posting it here like that when it isn't available in full form online is essentially stealing sales of the magazine, don't you agree?

[SLCPUNK]

Wrong. Their site doesn't have the full thing.

There is enough that taking any type of claim for it is just silly, that's the point.

Maybe she thinks you'd just crop it out?

Articles are posted freely all over ALL GnR forums, not just mine or  yours. Just as concert updates were circulated over ALL forums, not just yours or mine. People read, clip n paste and spread it around. But to calm your paranoia you can rest assured I'm not here to merely gank you shit. It (articles etc) will always be somewhere, in some shape or form, but we all know this ain't the point. It's you trying to make it the point, so you can avoid mine.

I have found my article with Bumblefoot reprinted all over the interwebtubes, including Spanish speaking sites,  and that's fine with me. It was mine to share with GnR fans around the globe. If somebody had taken it then put their watermark on it, I'd take issue with it however. If I was so concerned, like you claim, about all this, then surely is would be watermarked would it not?

Me calling you a thief is not an insult, it's my opinion.

Not sure where you are from, but most people would consider that an insult.

I suspect we post at that site because we see things in a similar way, we don't see things in a similar way because we post at that site.

We are a group of GnR fans that are pretty much from the same era/are in the same age group. That's it in a nutshell, and to claim anything else is silly talk.

I was replying to you.

That would make sense, if I was talking to you first, which of course I was not.

The fact of how Gypsy posted it was clear that she knew it was an issue for some, not to mention she is breaking the law.  If you want to allow that on the site, so be it but don't get mad when she gets called out on it.

This is my point. Perhaps if she wasn't such a turd about it all, I would not have reacted in such a way.

[Jim Bob]

come on guys, lets stop arguing.    This is one of the greatest articles we've ever gotten in recent years.   watermark or not.   These are good times GnR fans unite. 

[jarmo]

The fact of how Gypsy posted it was clear that she knew it was an issue for some, not to mention she is breaking the law.  If you want to allow that on the site, so be it but don't get mad when she gets called out on it.

Pretty much anything you copy and paste is breaking the law.

You might wanna think about it next time you post GN'R leaks on your Myspace....


So, tell me, do you object to SLCPUNK streaming officially released Guns N' Roses song(s) on his site? Yes or no?

Posting it here like that when it isn't available in full form online is essentially stealing sales of the magazine, don't you agree?

Well it depends on the magazine I think.


In this case, how many of you are actually gonna go buy Modern Drummer magazine? How many can even find it in their local store?


Essentially you're fighting for the magazine and you're against GN'R fans talking about a new interview because if it's posted, the magazine might lose sales not to mention posting it might be illegal.

Correct?


Sorry, I think that's a bit weird to have that kind of attitude as a fan.

If there's a new interview with a band member, I'd love to read/listen to/watch it and then discuss it with other fans.
 



There's something called fair use which seems to say you can post stuff to discuss it.

Maybe that's why Blabbermouth can copy and paste stuff for their news section?

Me calling you a thief is not an insult, it's my opinion.

Not sure where you are from, but most people would consider that an insult.

I gave a reason, but instead of addressing it, you keep going on about how I "insulted" you.

So, it's still my opinion since the issue has not been addressed.




/jarmo

[Ulises]

Yes, one of the greatest articles that are now removed because some assholes wants to ruin for all of us

[SLCPUNK]

come on guys, lets stop arguing.    This is one of the greatest articles we've ever gotten in recent years.   watermark or not.   These are good times GnR fans unite. 

I agree, why not just put it up without the watermark?

[jarmo]

I agree, why not just put it up without the watermark?

Yeah.

Please go buy the magazine and scan it!

Thanks in advance.



/jarmo

[DeN]

I would like to read it, with watermarks, without watermarks, you can even draw some dicks on it, but please.

[Ulises]

DeN +1

[Bandita]

Yes, one of the greatest articles that are now removed because some assholes wants to ruin for all of us

So go buy the magazine or put it back without the watermarks.

In response to anything else, I never posted anything and marked it or claimed it as my work as I certainly know it isn't.

Even if I type it out somewhere it doesn't make it mine to mark as such.

It's funny how some people here only take issue with certain things when it suits them to otherwise they are content to look the other way and make nice.

Frankly, if she hadn't been a jerk about it in the 1st place I am sure no one would have cared.

[Jim Bob]

I would like to read it, with watermarks, without watermarks, you can even draw some dicks on it, but please.

how about boobies?

[SLCPUNK]

Yes, one of the greatest articles that are now removed because some assholes wants to ruin for all of us

javascript:void(0);

So go buy the magazine or put it back without the watermarks.

In response to anything else, I never posted anything and marked it or claimed it as my work as I certainly know it isn't.

Even if I type it out somewhere it doesn't make it mine to mark as such.

It's funny how some people here only take issue with certain things when it suits them to otherwise they are content to look the other way and make nice.

Frankly, if she hadn't been a jerk about it in the 1st place I am sure no one would have cared.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

[snooze72]

Magazines will mostly overlook copyright infractions IF they feel they're getting exposure / advertising out of it.  Pretty sure that the publisher would kiss Jarmo for the watermark.

They only put part of the article on their website for a reason -- they want to sell magazines.  A freely distributed scan on 50 GNR sites ain't gonna sell any mags.  

At least the watermark will help ensure limited distribution.

Media are allowed to reproduce small percentages,  this is seen as promotion.

The big difference between interviews/articles reproduced with the owners' blessings is the difference between fan and professional material.  The professionals need to SELL their stories and mags in order to survive.  

If you like Modern Drummer, don't slap this story up all over the net.  Magazines (and newspapers) are in a lot of trouble these days, that could drive them under.

If you like seeing this stuff very professionally written, photographed and distributed, support the publications over the fan sites.  

[jarmo]

So go buy the magazine or put it back without the watermarks.

Why don't you do it for the rest of us?

That way you'd be helping the magazine not to lose money!

In response to anything else, I never posted anything and marked it or claimed it as my work as I certainly know it isn't.

So putting watermarks on an article is very wrong and illegal, posting leaks and streaming the band's music without permission is fine?

It's funny how some people here only take issue with certain things when it suits them to otherwise they are content to look the other way and make nice.

You do realize you described yourself?


Basically the three of you have not said a word against stealing from the band (GN'R), but here you are objecting to stealing from Modern Drummer magazine.




/jarmo

[DeN]

I would like to read it, with watermarks, without watermarks, you can even draw some dicks on it, but please.

how about boobies?

thanks but I found it here : http://chinese-democracy.blogspot.com/2009/04/brain-axl-wants-to-put-out-remix-album.html

for the boobies you can send them to me in pm, anyway.

[SLCPUNK]

The argument about "Credit" is bologna anyway. Nearly every article that's floating around has a link or says "Hey thanks to whatshisface over at fillintheblankgnrfansite.com" anyway. I see links to articles from different GnR sites on every single GnR site, and they all give props to whoever found it and where it was first put up.

If you look at the blogspot (above), it gives props to Gypsy Soul, just as I'm saying. 

[TAP]

In response to anything else, I never posted anything and marked it or claimed it as my work as I certainly know it isn't.

So putting watermarks on an article is very wrong and illegal, posting leaks and streaming the band's music without permission is fine?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Bandita]

In response to anything else, I never posted anything and marked it or claimed it as my work as I certainly know it isn't.

So putting watermarks on an article is very wrong and illegal, posting leaks and streaming the band's music without permission is fine?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What Tap said.