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

[jarmo]

Ripping off the band how?

Well I was accused of being a hypocrite because I happen to respect the band's wishes and not allow discussions that promote distributing leaks.


That's another thing that I have explained the reasons for, none of which seem to make any sense to your friends. It's amazing how little of what I say make sense to your friends.

But then again, people with agendas rarely make any sense or have any interest in understanding.





/jarmo

[mallrat]

Well that really didn?t answer my question now did it?



The whole leaks thing seem be brought up more by you then anyone.



Understanding is a two way street too. 

[freedom78]

The real questions comes back to "why watermark it?".  It wasn't artistic.  It wasn't meant to claim ownership.  It was meant to claim credit for the scans and transcription.  ALright.  Fine.  I'm more than happy to give credit for that.  One might put "Pics scanned and interview transcribed by GypsySoul" at the bottom, and that would be fantastic.  She deserves credit for buying the mag and putting in the time to type it out and all that.  But the watermark isn't the right credit for that.  They generally indicate ownership.

Keyword "generally".

We obviously explained the reason to you and you understood it.

So there's at least some hope.....


Maybe you can guess the reason why your alternative of just putting the text below the picture doesn't "work"?

I can't begin to guess why it won't work.  Punk did a BBF interview.  Some guys transcribed it into Spanish ( http://www.laguns.com.ar/noticia-n-86.html  )and put it on a Spanish language GNR fan site.  And right below it, they gave him credit.  Seems like a good system to me.

Regarding the whole art theory.

GN'R wallpapers aren't just redrawings of photos. They are essentially altered versions of copyrighted images.

But guessing by the lack of objection to wallpapers over the years, that's fine. It's ok to put a copyrighted band logo over a copyrighted photo and then put my name on it.

And I'm the hypocrite.... 

Not aware that I called anyone a hypocrite.

And as I said, you're usually allowed (in the US at least) to make a copy of something for personal use.  It's the distribution (i.e. selling) that is often the problem.  What does this have to do with fan art again?  I don't think I said that the watermark is illegal...just misleading.

Well I was accused of being a hypocrite because I happen to respect the band's wishes and not allow discussions that promote distributing leaks.


That's another thing that I have explained the reasons for, none of which seem to make any sense to your friends. It's amazing how little of what I say make sense to your friends.

But then again, people with agendas rarely make any sense or have any interest in understanding.

I have no problem with the leak position.  To my mind, that issue and this aren't even close to being the same thing.

Now, since GNR has a Myspace page and you can use the songs they post on your OWN page...a parallel issue would be if I were to put "Nightrain" on my page, and about 0:05 in you hear, in a continuous loop, "freedom78, freedom78, freedom78".

What agenda?  So much of this seems to be based in the idea of one site ripping off another.  Am I really expected to believe that someone is a big enough fan to put months into creating a GNR fan site, for which they bought software and pay to have it hosted, but they're unwilling to shell out $4 for a magazine?  Sometimes this site will find things first.  Sometimes other sites will.  Is it really just a dick measuring contest?

I think this is a good example of how 'gray' an area this is:

So because someone else does it makes it right?  Got it.

So you just have selective reading, right?  Got it.

Not at all (and nice job of not actually presenting a substantive response).

If you bothered to read ALL the responses instead of selecting only those you want to attempt to spin, you would have read why I believe my using the watermark is irrelevant and an example of why it seems that placing it on photos and such seems to be a gray area.

The other response was you changing one word out of something someone else wrote.  If I REALLY wanted to be an ass, I'd make a comparison between changing one word and claiming the idea, and watermarking to claim the pic.

Nah. 

[jarmo]

The whole leaks thing seem be brought up more by you then anyone.

It was their example of me being a hypocrite.

I don't see a lot of hypocrisy in actually supporting the band you make a site for by not allowing their (unfinished) recordings being spread through your site.

Obviously people who are looking for reasons to attack me will find them anywhere.

I can't begin to guess why it won't work.  Punk did a BBF interview.  Some guys transcribed it into Spanish ( http://www.laguns.com.ar/noticia-n-86.html  )and put it on a Spanish language GNR fan site.  And right below it, they gave him credit.  Seems like a good system to me.

Ok. So how many times do I need to repeat myself?

Just because it worked for you guys and the ones who "copied" your article were decent enough to credit him, doesn't mean it's always like that for the rest.


As someone who's done a bunch of transcriptions over the years, do you think I got thanked for all of them?

Not that I do shit for thanks, but I'm just asking.


Just to show you that not everybody thank those who do the actual "work".

As I said earlier, and it was ignored, it seems to be a general attitude among several fans that it's ok to take shit from HTGTH without thanking this site because it's ok to hate HTGTH.

Personal reasons and pettiness.

Not aware that I called anyone a hypocrite.

Sorry i it came out that way. Your friends did.

And as I said, you're usually allowed (in the US at least) to make a copy of something for personal use.  It's the distribution (i.e. selling) that is often the problem.  What does this have to do with fan art again?  I don't think I said that the watermark is illegal...just misleading.

My point is that if you think a watermark is confusing people to think we own the photo, then I'm assuming the same can be said about plastering your name onto a logo and calling it a wallpaper.

You don't think that comparison is fair?

And yes, both are illegal but only one of them has caused objection from you and your friends.

That's why I made the hypocrisy remark.

Now, since GNR has a Myspace page and you can use the songs they post on your OWN page...a parallel issue would be if I were to put "Nightrain" on my page, and about 0:05 in you hear, in a continuous loop, "freedom78, freedom78, freedom78".

That actually happens. Radio stations do it all the time....

They pay to play the songs, but they still put their name over something that's not their copyrighted material (the song).....


And it's not really a good comparison.

Nightrain is a song we can all listen to on our cds or get easily.

Now if you had something nobody else had bothered looking for, and then did that in order to make sure people knew it was your recording of the song, then you have a case.

And that actually happens with bootlegs.

People put their own names etc on bootlegs even though they don't own the copyrights to the songs performed. Or they didn't even film the show...

You know, things like "Brought to you by freedom".

What agenda?  So much of this seems to be based in the idea of one site ripping off another.  Am I really expected to believe that someone is a big enough fan to put months into creating a GNR fan site, for which they bought software and pay to have it hosted, but they're unwilling to shell out $4 for a magazine?  Sometimes this site will find things first.  Sometimes other sites will.  Is it really just a dick measuring contest?

The whole idea that I've explained earlier. People with certain personal opinions let those opinions color their judgment.

It's like you make up bullshit reasons to attack me just because you feel the need to attack me.

Like I said, none of these people have, as far as I know, ever attacked anybody for using copyrighted logos/photos to create wallpapers. But as soon as I do something, it's another thing and a big fucking deal.

I'm sorry if I don't buy the whole excuse that they care for copyrights, I just think they were looking for a reason to attack me and found it. The things those people have said is proof enough that it wasn't about copyrights alone. It was personal and they know it.

Why would somebody single me out like that and ridicule my name if it wasn't personal....



It's more popular to attack this site and me, than to defend it.

As you saw, as soon as somebody dared to agree with me, those persons were called ass kissers.




/jarmo

[D]

Freedom that underwear analogy is probably one of the worst analogies I've ever read............


For someone to read that article with the HTGTH watermark, they'd have to be on HTGTH to read it.

The thread was clearly credited to "Modern Drummer" magazine so as I said, no one would be confused or misled and if they were, it would be the tiniest percentage of person.

I see the possible following for all of this:

1. Personal agenda against Gypsy and Jarmo for his censoring of anything GNR related. This was a way to try and call him out for not allowing one thing but yet embracing another.

2. they didn't want to post an article with HTGTH watermarks on their forum and they were pissed they wouldn't be able to easily copy and paste something.  As soon as Atari posted watermark proof copy, it went up over there from what I've heard almost instantly.........


Also, I love the insults thrown my way which are ridiculous seeing as no one on this forum except maybe YoungGunner has argued more with Jarmo over the last year and a half than I have.  When I agree with someone i say so, when I disagree, I am also one of the first to do so.

[CheapJon]

I find it so funny that everyone who is opposed to the watermarking thing is from a certain site run by someone who got banned from here. I can't be the only person to notice this?

you don't need to find that funny at all, i'm pretty sure i'm opposed to it, but i'd rather have an article then none + i know argueing about this wouldn't get anywhere so i focus my time on more joyful shit  i'm sure i'm not the only one feeling this way 

[mallrat]

For someone to read that article with the HTGTH watermark, they'd have to be on HTGTH to read it.

If that was the case there would have been no need in the posters Watermarking it.

I see the possible following for all of this:

1. Personal agenda against Gypsy and Jarmo for his censoring of anything GNR related. This was a way to try and call him out for not allowing one thing but yet embracing another.

2. they didn't want to post an article with HTGTH watermarks on their forum and they were pissed they wouldn't be able to easily copy and paste something.  As soon as Atari posted watermark proof copy, it went up over there from what I've heard almost instantly.........


Also, I love the insults thrown my way which are ridiculous seeing as no one on this forum except maybe YoungGunner has argued more with Jarmo over the last year and a half than I have.  When I agree with someone i say so, when I disagree, I am also one of the first to do so.

You really have near sighted vision if it that is the only 2 you could see.
ONE !! Could say that with you and Slc history you seen a chance to attack him and anyone that post on his site.

[D]

I didn't attack anybody. I gave my opinions on the matter and was attacked a couple times before ever doing any attacking.

I didn't attack everyone from that site, only the one who attacked me first

[w.axl.rose]

wow 16 pages

[GypsySoul]

If I REALLY wanted to be an ass, I'd make a comparison between changing one word and claiming the idea, and watermarking to claim the pic.

or you could not be an ass and just say that argument does make sense and that the watermark is irrelevant especially since the magazine and writer and photographer were clearly credited .... AND that at least one other GNR fan site admitted they had zero problems copying and posting that from my scans without the watermark 

[LeftToDecay]

*************************Intermission!!!*********************

Let's take a look at life and times of a devoted  GNR fan named Heidelkraut.

One day Heidelkraut obtains an illegal digital copy of Use Your Illusion I by rock&roll band Guns n' Roses.
Heidelkraut thinks it's a very good album and  wants to share it with her Internet friends! Thus, she makes a torrent file out of it to be uploaded in  Pirate Bay.

Scenario A:
Miss Heidelkraut  names her  torrent  as
Use your Illusion I by Guns N' Roses
Since she is a dedicated GNR fan she adds an info file resulting in everyone downloading torrent being able to read through song titles, duration,credits etc. Should they bother to do so. Many do!
Scenario B:
Miss Heidelkraut  names her  torrent as
Use your Illusion I by Miss Heidelkraut
Since she is a dedicated GNR fan she adds an info file resulting in everyone downloading torrent being able to read through song titles, duration,credits etc.Should they bother to do so. Many do!

Which scenario do you think following people are more likely to  find more wrong and irritating?

- Random normal people downloading the torrent
- Those overseeing and maintaining the hosting of the torrent site
- Record label

How wrong or  irritating people listed above find either of the scenarios?
Not very. Surely to most people, both are wrong and illegal in same indifferent "as serious as driving 85 Km/h when speed limit is 80 Km/h, who gives a fuck" -way, as it should be.

Still!! Is it entirely justified for Miss Heidelkraut to go ape shit when people whine to her about the name of the torrent? Surely she understands there are those who might feel all is not right there.

..Again it is certainly not an overly big deal or anything.

But hay really!! Why was it  necessary to turn it to a big deal? Why load an anti matter rail gun of shit and begin firing towards the direction of fan-factory here?
It seems so stupid and saddening to see so many long time, good posters banned over a fucking argument about watermarks?
That's just petty.  Really, what the fuck?

[freedom78]

2. they didn't want to post an article with HTGTH watermarks on their forum and they were pissed they wouldn't be able to easily copy and paste something.  As soon as Atari posted watermark proof copy, it went up over there from what I've heard almost instantly.........

You mean these pics which are easily found on Moderndrummer.com, along with a corresponding article?

Also, I love the insults thrown my way which are ridiculous seeing as no one on this forum except maybe YoungGunner has argued more with Jarmo over the last year and a half than I have.  When I agree with someone i say so, when I disagree, I am also one of the first to do so.

I'm glad you speak your mind.  How come when we do so, then, it has to be a massive conspiracy theory?  Why did you insult us as SLC's "little foot soldiers" as if we can't think on our own?  Are you the only one allowed free thought?  If anything, the myriad responses to my posts that attack arguments that I DIDN'T FUCKING MAKE should be indicative of the fact that maybe we "little foot soldiers" aren't automatons copy/pasting SLC's orders, but separate people with separate, albeit similar opinions.

My posts said that this is hypocrisy or illegal or stealing.  I haven't argued that this has something to do with the leaks and this sites policy about them.  Hell, I didn't even read most of Punk's posts in this thread.  I have my own opinions about it, and have expressed them as entirely my own sentiment, and not anyone else's.

Freedom that underwear analogy is probably one of the worst analogies I've ever read............

Silly, perhaps, but the main points are the same.  Finding something and putting your name on it, but expecting that no one will interpret that as ownership.  

And please stop attacking my analogies.

wow 16 pages

Yeah, no shit.  I think I'm done.

[jarmo]

It seems so stupid and saddening to see so many long time, good posters banned over a fucking argument?
That's just petty.  Really, what the fuck?

That's what happens when you resort to personal attacks to "prove your point".

You break our rules and then expect me to just let you be because you have a bunch of people doing the same exact thing...

After that it becomes the old "I was banned for disagreeing" act. No, you were banned for being stupid enough to break the rules when you had nothing better to say.

Easy as that.

These people think they're smart because they start shit and then if they're held responsible, they can always blame me for it. And some people actually buy that shit!



It's pretty stupid to assume I ban everybody I disagree with. LeftToDecay is a great example of that.



In addition, I don't see the point in having a bunch of people who are unhappy about how this place works posting here and people assuming I'm only here to kiss their asses.



By the way, your uploading example would've been more accurate if the person had said "brought to you by....". Which is what Gypsy's intention was.

It's been explained and ignored more times than I can remember in this thread. So it's hardly not surprising you failed to see the difference either.






/jarmo

[Lisa]

The people that you banned were not unhappy posters..infact, they happily posted here more then quite a bit...why? gee, pretty safe to say that they must have liked something here to keep them coming back, day after day, week after week and in most cases, year after YEAR! myself included. These were people that disagreed with YOU or something that happened on this site that was disagreeable to them. Something they did not believe in nor condone...in this case, it was simply the watermarking. It has been so blown out of proportion it even isn't funny any more. Is this how adults behave around the world? hmm, I don't agree with you, I will agrue with you, I will time and time again, try to stress my point or what I believe to be truth or fact and where did it get these people? Banned from a site because one person or a few, are unable to see the otherside or admit that these people are not at fault with their reasoning. Despite all the discussion, I find bothsides equally at fault for so called 'personal' attacks, yourself included Jarmo. 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.
 

[AtariLegend]

2. they didn't want to post an article with HTGTH watermarks on their forum and they were pissed they wouldn't be able to easily copy and paste something.  As soon as Atari posted watermark proof copy, it went up over there from what I've heard almost instantly.........

You mean these pics which are easily found on Moderndrummer.com, along with a corresponding article?

That website only has a few paragraphs of the article.

I copied and pasted the full thing from another site; that thanks "GypsySoul" for uploading the scans.

[Aussie_Axe]

The answer would be: No and more no. You should not have the marking all over it. It's like if you wrote an article and I watermarked it with my website all over it.

Or if you posted pictures of a concert and I then watermarked it with my website.

It's LAME, just like you.

Hey!

Go fuck yourself!

oh no.....some bad karma coming up for you little miss sunshine, insulting forum memebers, cyber nerd powers. 

[LeftToDecay]

It seems so stupid and saddening to see so many long time, good posters banned over a fucking argument?
That's just petty.  Really, what the fuck?

That's what happens when you resort to personal attacks to "prove your point".

You break our rules and then expect me to just let you be because you have a bunch of people doing the same exact thing...

Arguments happen. Sometimes in heat of it people get pissed off and break ze rules. We're all human and all that. You have contributed more than anyone else, 200000 posts here. Surely you have broken your own rules by mistake in some of them?
Since when has it been a large enough reason  for you to ban such established long time posters???We're not talking about " registered 2 weeks ago" trolls who pull off a "JARMO IS A NAZI " or so forth.

First " personal attack" in this thread that would earn us a PG rating if we were a sitcom was given by your own moderator? One who often  contributes and reacts to negative feedback in more or less the same totally clever  " go fuck yourself, i'm too cool to care" - way
Surely he is about to get banned any moment now as well then?
No? Why not?

[jarmo]

The people that you banned were not unhappy posters..infact, they happily posted here more then quite a bit...why? gee, pretty safe to say that they must have liked something here to keep them coming back, day after day, week after week and in most cases, year after YEAR! myself included.

They were happy posting between themselves in the off topic sections.

As soon as they decided to look in the GN'R section to start shit, the insults came flying.

These were people that disagreed with YOU or something that happened on this site that was disagreeable to them. Something they did not believe in nor condone...in this case, it was simply the watermarking. It has been so blown out of proportion it even isn't funny any more. Is this how adults behave around the world? hmm, I don't agree with you, I will agrue with you, I will time and time again, try to stress my point or what I believe to be truth or fact and where did it get these people?

Ask you adult friends where their hostility comes from.

Banned from a site because one person or a few, are unable to see the otherside or admit that these people are not at fault with their reasoning. Despite all the discussion, I find bothsides equally at fault for so called 'personal' attacks, yourself included Jarmo. 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.

Why do you always use that line?

I've admitted that you have a point in it being illegal haven't I?

Only a few people have managed to take in the points I've made though.

Obviously if you have the mindset that it doesn't require any work to transcribe interviews (from print, audio or video), then you can't relate to most of it.

The interesting thing is that some won't even try. It's just "no, no, no".

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 I said something like that, it'd be met with "he thinks he's better than us" and "he thinks he's the only real fan". 


Surely if you're a fan you can understand why we won't allow leaks and other things that hurt the band and/or is against the band's wishes?

Or am I wrong in assuming that? If you do understand that, maybe you can explain it to your friends.

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.

The people got banned for breaking the rules.

Oddly enough they closed their forum for guests after they were banned. Now they can talk shit behind closed doors. 



Your friends have posted about how they don't like this site, me or a lot of things about what I do. Yet I should just be smiling at the door welcoming them.

They basically spit on me when I got my back turned and I should just smile and welcome them while doing them favors.

Since when has it been a large enough reason  for you to ban such established long time posters???We're not talking about " registered 2 weeks ago" trolls who pull off a "JARMO IS A NAZI " or so forth.

Since day one?


These people have been warned before. Don't fool yourself into thinking they're just a bunch of innocent well behaving angels.

I've yet to hear a single word from any of them. Obviously they still think they've done nothing wrong and it's all my fault.




/jarmo

[LeftToDecay]

These people have been warned before. Don't fool yourself into thinking they're just a bunch of innocent well behaving angels.



/jarmo

I did a little bit of investigative journalism!

Last  incarnation of st.SLCpunk, R.I.P, at time of his banning, had 1000 posts and 0 karma. Poster named TAP had 2000 posts and 0 karma.
Bandita had 3500 posts and -1.
So, at least when looking  them through your own breakers of them rulez! -tracking and  observation mechanisms, we are not talking about a a  trivium of Antichrists here either.
How innocent an angel has to be, in order to not get banned when exchanging arguments and insults with you?

I've yet to hear a single word from any of them. Obviously they still think they've done nothing wrong and it's all my fault.

Yeah baning often has a minor negative side effect when it comes to being able to hear "a single word" from targets of such action!

Speaking of banning, since I indeed stand corrected now, and understand that  nefarious act of insulting another human beingn  has been large enough reason to ban an established poster since day one, I would like to hear more about the schedule of the baning ceremony of Adz? Or is it an act you do in privacy, him being soon to be ex-mod and all?

[jarmo]

SLCPUNK re-registered..... It's a convenient way to make the past disappear.


It's not about post counts or the date you registered. If you have no respect for those who post here or this place, you'll just have to live with the fact that I don't do this for you.

Don't expect me to do you favors.


The fact that those people racked up posts in the off topic sections and not the GN'R section doesn't really matter to you either.

So the rare occasion that they ventured into the GN'R section, it was only to start shit.

Did you see them post anything nice in that section lately?

I don't recall, maybe they did.

There's been all kinds of things they could've chosen to take part in. For example, I didn't see them post any questions for the band. It was just ignored altogether.

Instead of contributing, they just chose to not to..... But when they had a chance to be whining, they immediately took it.

Speaking of banning, are you gonna ban Adz or not? You didn't reply my question.

Of course not.

I'm a hypocrite and asskisser remember?


Banning a moderator who contributes to the site or a handful of people attacking the site. Tough choice!





/jarmo