Here Today... Gone To Hell!

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.

The article can be found online anyway:

http://www.moderndrummer.com/updatefull/200001754

Hey! :wave:

Go fuck yourself!

Adz, tell us how you really feel  :hihi:

While I understand SLCPunk's point that to some the watermarking could very well imply taking credit for the magazine's work, I appreciate you taking the time out to scan and type the article.  Thank you for that, Gypsy.

Very interesting and informative article.

Ali

That's not the entire article

Yea, that's about the response I thought i'd get. Frankly it's about all you're worth.

So lets get this right... if somebody leaks Axl's work that's bad and you won't support that.

But on the other hand you can take a photographer's work and then stick your website's name all over it.

Gotcha.

It's not about taking credit for others' work at all, all the credits are there at the top of the article!

It's about making sure that you have to buy your own fucking magazine if you want to use those pics for something other than looking at them here.

That's fucking it.


Funny being lectured about stealing by you.

Just by taking a quick look at your site, I can see that there's no mention of who took all those pictures you have on display in the slide show.

Did you take them yourself? I don't see any photo credits anywhere.... I guess you must've scanned them all yourself from magazines you bought.
 

How about the music that's playing on your site? Did you get permission from the band? Are you paying for using it? You're streaming a high quality album version of the title track and you're lecturing us about stealing/leaking? This from a guy who's actually stealing from the band....


I guess the Brain pictures would've looked great on your little slide show but now you might have to go find them elsewhere.  : ok:





/jarmo

That's a good point.  I can see it, and it makes sense.  But, I have seen a company like Getty Images that watermarks their images to denote that the images are theirs.  Not knowing the point you mentioned above, I could see how one could interpret the watermarking as an attempt to claim credit for something that isn't theirs.

Ali

All the credits are in the transcribed article.

I don't think for a second that anybody here is stupid enough to think we took those pictures, so it has to be about something else.







/jarmo

Hey that's pretty funny Jarmo. You're just trying to help Modern Drummer magazine's sale department right? How very noble of you. Give me a break dude.

Do you see my website name plastered all over pictures? Nope.

If the man who took the pictures objected to you putting your name on his work would you take it down? Yes or no?

If I were to use your definition of stealing as a barometer then you would be just as guilty. Are all the GnR pictures on your forum credited back to who took them? NOPE. Yet you allow them to be posted here on your site.

But that's not the point and you know it. The point is that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you, and then plastered your site's name on it. Instead of admitting your wrong, which you are, you choose to attack the guy who points out your bullshit. It's why all Adz could do is tell me to "fuck myself" because there is no other reasonable retort.

Of course nobody thinks anybody here took the pictures, that's why you're name shouldn't be on it.

What's shameful on your end is that you can't admit you're full of shit, so instead call me a thief, so for that you can fuck yourself asshole.


(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8539/watermarkv.jpg) (http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=watermarkv.jpg)

What can you use pics for other than looking at them? I guess I'm not following your argument - I don't see how looking at them somewhere else is better/worse than looking at them here??  ???

Oh, I know.  In this situation that is clearly the case.  But, it wasn't as clearly stated for the Tommy Stinson-Bass Player story.  Nonetheless, my point was more that taken out of context, one could misinterpret the watermarkings as claiming credit given that other photo companies, like Getty Images, do the same thing to make it clear the images are theirs.  I didn't say that I misinterpreted it as such.  I'm just saying it's possible if one were to just see said images.

Ali

If I was to give you a break, we would just send you all the pics without any watermarks so you can plaster them on your site with no mention of who took them or where they're from.  :P



So?

You took them and used without permission.

Like most other fan sites.




Of course.


Are you gonna stop stealing from Guns N' Roses (the band your site is about) by removing that high quality illegal stream?






Yes, the name is there so that people like you know where they downloaded the pics from.

In case they wanna upload them to their own slide shows a bit later and they've forgotten!  : ok:



We don't claim any credits to the photos, just that we've done the "work" of getting them for your viewing pleasure.

The problem is that some people have a huge problem with giving credit to others who do this kind of work.

As long as they can copy and paste, they don't have to. But when they just can't copy and paste, then they get all pissy about copyrights.



I learned this the hard way in 1996/97 when I spent weeks typing out articles for this site's articles section. Then within a few weeks, those articles appeared on many other sites.

I don't think those guys were transcribing them at the same time as me and managed to get the same exact typos I had in my transcriptions....




Funny how you didn't even bother responding to the fact that you have no credits at all on your site.





Ah, insults.


How is it not stealing when you stream an album track without paying a cent for it?


You're here attacking me for stealing somebody else's work while you're stealing from the band.

Do you have your priorities right?




I believe the magazine's cover was included so it was pretty obvious where it was from.



Next time there's a new GN'R related article, I'm expecting SLCPUNK to provide us all with the scans and transcription for free with no watermarks or mention of his own site, just to show us how big man he is.







Well you can always use them on your own site and get visitors to it so you make more ad money.....





/jarmo

You really shouldn't mark other people's work with your logo, it's just not right.

No one is going to buy the magazine now if it has already been scanned over here so I don't really see how it helps sales.

If it's online, you post a link and I think in essence that gives credit where it's due.  If it's not, tell people where you read it and where to buy it, I guess.

I'm glad all the posters from SLCPUNK's site are here to defend their cause.

In the end, you all basically don't want us to post articles.




Fair enough.




/jarmo

The difference is if something is online already and not credited or watermarked, that person sort of loses their right to it.  Internet laws are very iffy that way.  A magazine article which is printed clearly has rights.

Actually, Jarmo, I was referring not to the magazine cover, but to the fact that Gypsy clearly stated the writer and photographer's names for this thread at the very beginning, whereas that wasn't done as clearly for the Tommy Stinson article.  I'm talking more about the individual writers/photographers for the stories.

Ali

I'm assuming she types out the article as it is in the magazine.





/jarmo

Don't Copy, Modify or Display Images You Find

The Copyright act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce or modify their work, and to exclude others from doing so. Copying includes copying or saving their image to your hard drive, or copying to other mediums, like scanning a photo from a book and turning it into a JPEG file.It is illegal to copy from copyrighted sources

Modifying a work, say by cropping, coloring, distorting, enlarging, etc. is not a way around this law. Creating a derivative work "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" is an infringement.

If you take a copyrighted image without permission, and put it on a web page, you are violating the exclusive right of the copyright owner to display his work



http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm

Damn, well, if for no other reason than to avoid any legal hassles, perhaps it is best to just to transcribe the text and not scan and put in the images?

The text is the only part that really matters, in my opinion.

Ali

I don't see what effect plastering a third party name (HTGTH) all over the picture/article is protecting Modern drummer (1st party) from evil GNR fansite owner (2nd party)  infringing copyright and making ad money. It's coming across far more like a 'nyah, nyah, we got it first' dickwaving kind of thing.

Please.

You know damn well that's not the point.

Well it doesn't come across as "how dare you steal form that magazine (while our site is stealing from the band)!" either.

More like "we want to use those pics on our site but we can't because we don't want to advertise your site since it might mean less visitors for us".




Did you notice how SLCPUNK is posting one of my pictures? Something I actually own the copyright to.

So here he is defending Modern Drummer magazine by stealing from GN'R and editing my copyrighted picture.






Tell me what the point is then.

You're upset because the scans say the name of the site they appeared on?

Why exactly?

Please explain how that's worse than you streaming GN'R music.





Those scans are now gone thanks to you.

And since the so called GN'R community seems to object that those who do the work and spend their time/money to get us these articles gets the credit they deserve, I'm guessing there'll be less articles posted in the future. Unless you can copy and paste somebody else's scans.




/jarmo

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't know what the law is concerning transcribing text, but I don't see an issue with that off-hand.  I think the photo issue is where there was gray area, apparently even illegal area.  It's not worth it to post the scanned images if for no other reason than to avoid any legal problems.  I, for one, think the only thing that mattered was Brain's comments, not his pictures.

Ali

Oh yea, thanks to me. Were you in the military? Is this some sort of punishment where everybody suffers because you don't like some back talk? Give me a break dude. I guess it's impossible to put up without your watermark on it 'eh?


You seem to change the rational each post. I remember Kujo and I spending time and money sending back TMs with concert updates. We just did it because we were fans and didn't expect credit, or thanks, or anything silly like that. We were just sending updates to the boards.

Perhaps it would not have been such a big deal if your Gal Gypsy Soul didn't start off being a jerk about it all. Some posters already found the practice to be offensive. So when somebody like her starts off with "Boo hoo hoo" it may not warrant the type of response you like. Go figure.

Sorry if this doesn't full under your definition of "fan".

Dense is a very good word for it!

Text is copyright, you can't transcribe a novel and post it.

Why did you remove the article? Wanted to read that   :-\

Great answer.


So all three (SLCPUNK, TAP, Bandita) of you FAIL to see the other side of the coin. How some people might be tired of buying magazines every week just looking for GN'R mentions and then having it all copied and pasted without even a little "thank you" because under no circumstances can you mention that other GN'R site that sucks....



And those of you who do so all happen to post at SLCPUNK's site.

Wow. Amazing.




Of course it's thanks to you.

If you had been more interested in the article, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Since the focus changed, we had to do something.

It's called reacting.

I hope you're happy.






Thanks!


But maybe you shouldn't just think that everybody thinks like you.

I've done updates too. Just because I wanted to.

But that doesn't mean I don't understand that somebody else, who spends hours typing out an article might not agree if I say, "hey, just do it for the fans".





And just maybe she finds it offensive when people whine about the scans instead of talking about the content....




Falls under whiner.

The fact that you had to try to insult me speaks volumes....






/jarmo

Of course not with a novel.   But, Blabbermouth transcribes portions of interviews and newsstories from other sites all the time and has no problem with it, obviously.  That's what I'm talking about.

If nothing else, someone could give a synopsis of an article, mentioning all the pertinent bits of information.  That's pretty common practice.

Ali

Come on, paste the scans again

I know you'd like it to be about something like that, but it absolutely is not. You can search my post history, I've always been against watermarking scans. To say otherwise is dishonest on your part. Like I said anyway, the interview is available online. I already had it on my site, which proves your little theory is wrong.






Why not just say "Thanks to Gypsy for typing this up" rather than watermark it?






Of course she does, nobody likes getting called on their bullshit.






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?

Hmm...not sure if interviews count.  If the Pres. does an interview with one news network, quotes will be posted in stories by any and all other networks, wire services, etc.  

In other words, I can't run around screaming "I LOVE HOOKERS" and then claim that, if you think it's newsworthy and print it, you're stolen my intellectual property.

Then again, I know little about this...random thought, but does anyone know of a FREE DVD rip program that doesn't watermark?

Fair use isn't well defined. Newspapers seem to be going with a three paragraph or less rule of thumb with blogs as far as partial transcriptions are concerned....but internet copyright law is very grey as far as I can tell.

Agreed.  I'm not sure if interviews count.  And I certainly don't think transcribing an interview, which could fall under the title of entertainment news is at all analogous to transcribing an entire novel, which is a work of fiction.  That's why I mentioned Blabbermouth as an example.  And, if not the whole article, like I said, a synopsis of it would be worth writing up without offending anyone or violating copyright law.

Ali

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




Maybe she thinks you'd just crop it out?





Like post GN'R songs on my site and give lessons about stealing?

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

I called you a thief because I think you're being a hypocrite.

You're here defending copyrights while you're streaming copyrighted works by the band your site is dedicated to.

So just because your pictures don't say anything, it's ok.....



You telling me to fuck off is clearly you trying to insult me.....






/jarmo

I don't see how *we* collectively failed to see that, in fact that was my implication - can't speak for anyone else. Thanks for posting, but it wasn't yours.



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.

Superb interview. Dedicated to all the people who bitch about the band saying ''nobody in the band is allowed to talk except for Axl''.

I was lucky enough to be able to read the whole interview while the scans were up.

My suggestion: let GipsySoul post the scans again in a new thread and erase this one. I cant believe we're talking about ''watermarks'' having such a great and extended interview to talk about.

If you feel the read was good, please go and buy the damn magazine.

So I'm not the only one...





/jarmo

Actually:


I was replying to you. :-*

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

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?

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




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?




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


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.


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



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

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.  :beer:

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?




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?





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

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

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

Yeah.

Please go buy the magazine and scan it!

Thanks in advance.



/jarmo

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

DeN +1

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.

how about boobies?

This is exactly what I'm saying.

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.  

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

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





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







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

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.

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. 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What Tap said. :)

Just because you can't understand it?





You keep saying that, like you think it's some kind of universal answer.



My opinion is that stealing from the band we're supposed to support is more wrong, than posting and talking about a scanned GN'R interview.


Some of you copyright lawyers see both things as fine. Well unless you watermark a picture, that's obviously worse than stealing from the band.


Either you want fans to discuss articles/news and break copyright laws, or you don't.



Bandita and TAP, you still refuse to address anything.

Haha. How convenient.

You're more upset about GypsySoul's scans than stealing from the band you are fans of.





/jarmo

If that is what you would like me to do, I would be glad to spend the 3 or 4 bucks on the mag tomorrow and scan it without watermark for your reading pleasure.  I will even post it up without snide remarks insinuating that I know I am doing something wrong. : ok:

Great.

A lot of people do nothing more than whine but never offer anything constructive.


By the way, doesn't it bother you that you'd be breaking the law and making the magazine lose money by posting the scans?

Or is it just the watermarks that are illegal/objectionable?



/jarmo

Because it is a universal answer, Jesus told me so in a dream.

Would you like us to make SLC's site a main topic of conversation in this forum? I kind of doubt it. We're talking here about something here, I have no idea why something unrelated at a different site needs to be discussed in this thread or at this forum just because we happen to post in a forum somewhere else. But if it makes you feel better - SLC, please stop doing whatever naughty things you are doing.

Lets sum it up .

Stealing from a mag is good. Or acceptable.


Stealing from a band/label bad. Not acceptable.


.

No, I'm just interested in a simple yes/no answer.

I'm just curious how some of you are so against stealing from this drumming magazine that none of us are buying, but you seem to be fine with stealing from the band.

As a GN'R fan, I think stealing from the band is worse. As I've explained.



If you're so against his use of officially released GN'R music, I hope you go to his site and have a copyright discussion with him there.

I'm sure he'll explain to you that as long as he doesn't claim it's him singing on Chinese Democracy, it's fine for him to keep streaming it.  :rofl:





Correction: Stealing from a mag in order to have a discussion about something newsworthy with fellow fans is acceptable.

You don't agree?



/jarmo

Stealing is Stealing , sir.

No matter how you want to justify it..

What about Aaladin and Apu stealing a loaf of bread so they don't starve? :hihi:

Two wrongs don't make a right.



But that is the point, I doubt anyone here objects to you posting the modern drummer story - it's the appearance that it is yours to manipulate which is the issue.

But if it helps, I will raise the issue over there.....keep your eyes peeled.

Those thieve bastard should have been beheaded on the spot.  But I doubt that was the film Disney could have made money on.

I knew you'd say it.  :rofl:


You're a GN'R fan. So maybe you claim to love and support GN'R. Stealing from something you claim to love and support is one thing. Stealing from some magazine that you don't buy anyway is something else.

Do you know the saying "don't shit where you eat"?


But for you it's black or white.

It's like saying stealing a Twix bar because you're hungry is the same thing as robbing a bank....



So you're against posting articles without permission on fan sites because it's stealing?




No, do it over there.  : ok:

We're obviously wrong. So no need to spam our board with more of your games.





/jarmo

I did not "steal" anything.  I paid $30 for five copies of this mag.

and for the record ... I (GypsySoul) added the watermark myself

Where's Varg when you need him? :rofl:

Payment isn't a defence against copyright infringement

And how did I know you would come back with that . Wait now while I roll on the floor and laugh.....Okay i 'm done laughing.



( insert a generic replay about someone who's starving stealing food here.")

Cause We all know how that retrains to this topic.

 

I think we need to agree on a 'there' definition.

I see you took dancing lessons. You're dancing around the topic like some kind of Tony Manero!




So you don't think it's fair to steal from magazines to have something to talk about as fans? Yes/no

Or maybe you don't care because GN'R doesn't really interest you? Yes/No

You don't think it's worse to steal from the band you claim to be a fan of than to steal from a magazine? Yes/No




/jarmo

What part of stealing is stealing didn't you get??


Good thing you no what my interest are and aren't.

Hahahaha.


Yeah, it's better to keep saying that than to answer the uncomfortable questions.

What part of "not everything is black or white" don't you fucking get? Let me guess, it's everything between the first " and the second "...





Now, logout and go find a site that only posts stuff with permission or stuff they own the copyright to.  : ok:





/jarmo

(http://stuff.orly.ch/img/blog/internet_serious_business.jpg)

It's always some whiners who love to ruin the threads for the rest.

Q: Why can't we get scans without watermarks? You're stealing!  :crying:
A: Go buy the fucking magazine yourself and scan it.

Problem solved.





/jarmo

You've mounted a vigorous defence of your right to post the images/interview, yet you also took them down. How come?

What I not welcomed in double standard land anymore?


Lets all just use the whole black / white cope out.




But stealing from this place isn't as bad as stealing from the other... :crying:

oh God... Let's interrupt the 5 minutes of fame of these whinners. Please, Jarmo or any mod, put this whole thread in the trash can and lets start a new one where we discuss ABOUT THE INTERVIEW!

The poster made a decision to remove them. Not me.


I guess I can understand why. Maybe you don't deserve to read it for free since you're more interested in whining about some fucking watermarks.





You didn't figure it out after you were banned once?


This coming from a guy who says "stealing is stealing" and has the URL of a site stealing from GN'R/Universal Music/Black Frog in his signature.

You're offended by this theft from a magazine, yet you promote a site stealing from the band.

So, I wonder where this double standard land actually is....







Once again, says the people coming from "let's steal from GN'R" land....

 : ok:




I suggest that next time you see that there's a new GN'R article posted here, don't click on the thread. Instead wait until one of you buys the magazine and posts the scans for you, just the way you want them.

No wait, that's stealing, Just go buy the fucking magazine yourself and discuss it with others who have bought that issue.





/jarmo

Why would he/she/it punish the thousands of supporters just because of a few whiners? Personally I couldn't care less what a drummer says incidentally so that side of it failed.

Wonder if I can get $28.80 of my $30 back for all the stuff in that mag that I didn't want and have zero interest in?

So you couldn't care less about the content of the article but you're happy to ruin the thread for those who do.




I bet the rest of you who mostly post in the off topic sections don't care either.

But you just wanted to ruin it for those who do.


I think I speak for all the fans who enjoy reading these interviews, thank you for being so considerate. : ok:



Just tell me you don't care and I'll take care of it. Problem solved.

It's easy to do.

That way we don't have to waste time on this kind of shit in the future.

Having a bunch of people whining about scans when they don't even care about the articles in the first place.






/jarmo

How did I ruin it? I didn't take it down.

so what does this mean for when you go the doctors or dentists or wherever and they've got like 50 magazines in the waiting room?

You started whining about some watermarks.


Don't act like you did nothing. You and your online buddies


Your mission was accomplished. You ruined the thread for those GN'R fans who do give a shit about what the band's drummer has to say.

I hope you're happy.




/jarmo

Why was it taken down?

Very little....nothing in fact

I took it down because it upset SLCPUNK and his minions that they couldn't copy n' paste it without having to acknowledge HTGTH.

And if SLCPUNK is upset then AdZ is upset too and I just can't live with that guilt!!!  :crying:

Wrong, but nice try.

Why would you succumb to one alleged thief and piss off your legions of loyal support in the process?

 ???

This is getting fairly confusing.  "Acknowledge HTGTH" for what, exactly?    

What do you mean alleged? You guys are the ones saying "stealing is stealing" and "two wrongs don't make it right".

There can't be anything alleged about that!


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that what that guy does is wrong. Stealing is stealing!  :)



Now, move along and leave the GN'R section to those that care.  :peace:




Groovy watermarks of course.

Duh!



/jarmo

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

Sorry.  My Mistake.  I meant "acknowledging that it was obviously copied from a post on HTGTH."




I got legions??  :o

I didn't take it down.


Why don't you explain why you hate GN'R fans and wanted to ruin this thread for them with your whining?  : ok:




/jarmo

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


Why? Because neither of those things is true.

i dont really think posting a couple pages from a magazine article is stealing.

i don't really think watermarking it is a big deal either because you are using your bandwidth to host it.

i dont really think streaming a song on a website is stealing either.

streaming a whole album or scanning an entire magazine - thats a different story.

streaming a song or giving a few pages, its just a sample.   its actually good for both GnR and for the drummers mag because it might lead someone to go buy the album/magazine.   

I sell porn.   I don't give away entire videos, but i do spread small clips and sample pics all over the place as a way to get signups. 

Taken from Board rules and posting guidelines (2008 edition):

It's not cool to insult other members of this board!
Posts that only attack another poster without any contribution to the discussion aren't allowed. Anyone consistently attacking other board members will be banned.

Hmmm...maybe it's just me, but I would say that the words "Go fuck yourself!" would be considered an insult to another member.  It was also a post that attacked someone else without any significant contribution to the discussion.  I wonder what would happen if I said that to someone?  Think it would be allowed?  I think not. 

Unfortunately, I missed this one from the start so I didn't get to see the original scans and what started this whole thing, but from what I've been reading - what a bunch of shit!

So, why isn't the article just put up in the news section or on the front page?  Otherwise, if you want to read it you can find it other places, including gnrsyndicate.  Minus watermarks, of course.   

The scans shouldn't have been on here because they are a clear violation of copyright - much like putting up copyrighted songs, which Jarmo is so vehemently opposed to.  A link to the article and a brief blurb would have been fine.  Anything more than that and you are stealing from the publisher.  Oh, and putting your watermarks on it is a huge no-no.  That is you claiming credit for it, even if that is not your intention.
For a guy who was always so concerned with all these GNR fans stealing from the band by downloading unreleased songs you sure don't seem to practice what you preach.  Getting defensive about your hypocrisy seems all too typical.

this is retarded. who cares??? Its just a magazine article. The magazine is loosing what? 5 bucks? Im sure they dont care enough.

Of course they care.  The publishing industry is in the toilet; many magazines and newspapers have already closed operations or are on the verge of it.  I think the whole point was the hypocrisy of putting HTGTH watermarks on the scans when the founder of this site so vehemently argues for copyright.

Yep.

There are NO difference between scanning an article and posting it here than making the entire CD album free for download. If you think it's a difference you show A) lack of knowledge of copyright issues or you simply; B) add personal feelings, interest or your own copyright ideas and opinions into the matter.

What makes it even more interesting is adding your own watermarks on the scanned articles. That is like having sound clips infront of every CD song saying "heretodaygonetohell.com" before the song starts. Or add it in the middle of the song if you want. And we all know this would be out of the question to do. So why do it with articles when it follows the same copyright guidelines? Do you just make up your own copyright rules?

It is the hypocrisy of the matter which people address, not their personal feelings, ideas or opinion about copyright. If you are so hard on GNR demo songs for instance, it's double standards to not follow the same rules on articles. You can't just pick and choose what u feel like.

Hey Dexter, time to organise a remix contest to allow a fan to be on the remix album, what do you think ?

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


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






Once again.

For all you selective readers out there.

Stealing from a magazine for the purpose of having a discussion among GN'R fans is different than stealing from the band you are supposed to support.

Why is it different you might ask? Well, one is taking from something you're supposed to support and the other is taking something so you can have something to talk about as a fan.

I guess it makes no sense whatsoever if you're not a fan and you don't care about GN'R articles. If you only care about how much you hate this site, me or GN'R, then it really doesn't matter. Then you can just repeat "stealing is stealing" and feeling good about yourselves.



Sorry if in your world everything is black and white. Not even the legal system sees it like some of you do. "Stealing is stealing" doesn't work in court. Maybe you think a guy stealing a Twix bar will get sentenced the same as somebody who robs a bank. As far as I know, they won't.



I truly suggest all of you who are offended by my so called hypocrisy leave right away so I don't have to answer for all the copyright violations I've made during the 12.5 years that I've had a GN'R fan site.

Then the rest of us can enjoy talking about what matters, GN'R.




Why didn't you address SLCPUNK's insults?

Surprising? I think not.




/jarmo

No it's not, it's the same thing.
 

Oh, my, God.

Nobody even tries to see where I'm coming from because I didn't let you post and talk about leaks. I get it.

This is the punishment.


I should be disagreed with at all costs because I'm such a horrible hypocrite.


Fine.




So you guys don't want us here to post any new articles because we condone stealing from GN'R?

Is this opinion of yours only valid at HTGTH? You just want us to go away? The day this site is closed is a great day for you?






/jarmo

You speak of a moral issue and not a legal issue when u compare songs to articles. If that's your morale then that's fine with me.


Like I said, my morality with copyrights ain't the best and I have no problems with it. I think the watermark is way over
the top and it is also downright illegal and for your own good, stop doing it. You're playing with fire.


I take it this is directed to someone else.

As I've been trying to explain.... But some of you just refuse to try to see it.

I'm aware that scanning an article for all of us to read and discuss is illegal.

I'm also aware that a a majority of fan sites do it. Not just for GN'R. If you wonder why, I'm sure somebody can explain it to you.



I'm also aware that a bunch of fan sites don't actually try actively to work against the thing they are fans/supporters of as much as certain GN'R fans.

Certain GN'R fans have an "Us against them" mentality. And "them" isn't the outside world, it's the band.



I don't see it that way. So maybe that explains why I let these copyrighted articles be posted for "us".

If you're part of the outside world, obviously you'll get offended.

It seems like some of you are since you openly say that you couldn't care less what Brain has to say.



I guess by this whole "stealing is stealing" logic, if we allow articles to be posted, we should allow people to openly post copies of all GN'R albums for all of us to enjoy for free.

No matter that this (and other fan sites) are essentially promoting the artist and therefore supposed to help the artist in question.

That doesn't seem to matter, stealing is stealing and some of you just want to be able to steal from the thing you're supposed to promote/support.


How is that promoting the band if we just keep stealing from them and going against them in everything?



What's even funnier is the fact that the handful of the most vocal opponents in this thread are all agreeing with each other over at some other site.

Maybe next time you should just let us do what we do, and worry about running your own site.






Next time it'll be more clear that the watermark is not a claim for the copyright.

Unless that's not your issue.

Some of you are having issues with the confusion that we're claiming to own the copyrights while others are just having issues with the watermarks being there so they can't get nice clean high quality scans for free.




/jarmo

Jarmo, as real fan and logic person
I say you should lock this and start a new thread only about comments of the interview

Well shit, I wanted to read this.


Guess I'll go to barnes and nobles and read it.

the whole interview is posted in a GNR blog
(mods delete this if im breaking any rule)

For the last time I already had the article, so you can quit lying about this shit.

Can't we all just get along?

I can't believe I just went through 8 pages of bitching, complaining, and arguing about watermarks, stealing, copyrights.  Seriously?  I think there are some pretty interesting things in the article, much more interesting than any of the ridiculous arguments going on here.  Give it a rest!

Oh for crying out loud---

The whole point is that by watermarking it, you portray that the work is your own. 

If you post a link or direct someone somewhere else to see it you are showing that you are not taking credit for it.

WHY is this so hard to understand?

You can't prohibit one form of illegal behavior and then say another form is ok because you don't deem it to be quite as illegal as the other.

YOU don't allow certain things here.  That is your decision.  But you can't expect people NOT to say something when you allow one illegal behavior and not another.

...and you can take all the shots at me you like for saying this but it is what it is...

 :peace:

The only time someone would assume that the work was portrayed as the poster's own would be if they coudn't read.

Which would beg the question as to how they got onto the internet in the first place.

Well, this isn't exactly typical.

How the fuck am I portraying it as my own work when I CLEARLY CREDITED THE MAGAZINE AND THE WRITER AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER??

The only reason youze are bitching is because youze didn't want to admit that HTGTH posted it first.

Did I mention your name?

You're not the center of attention.

Judging by all your watermark free photos in your slideshow, I think you'd appreciate good clean high quality scans as much as the next person. Please correct me if I'm wrong.






First off, the whole credit thing was EXPLAINED to you in plain English. You refuse to acknowledge that fact for some unknown reason.

Instead of saying "fair enough, I misunderstood and maybe you can make it clearer that you don't own the pictures in the future", you keep going on and on like none of the issues have been addressed at all.

It's amazing how little you manage to take in of what's said and how much you keep repeating your little magic "stealing is stealing" mantra.



Where exactly are all the other GN'R sites using pictures without permission directing people?

They're not posting links anywhere. There's no mention of any credits for any of the music or photo's on your buddy's site there. If you guys are so fucking obsessed about giving credit, why not set an example for the rest of us and credit all the photos and music?


No, it's way easier to whine about others doing things wrong. That's always the easiest.

Whine, whine, whine.

Disregard any answers you get, just fucking whine.


People living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing rocks.




Why?

So you're pretty much saying it's all or nothing?

Either we don't allow any copyrighted material or we allow all? Is that correct?

You don't think it's common sense to draw the line somewhere and be a bit flexible in certain areas? That makes no sense to you whatsoever? It's all or nothing?


You think we should allow you to post full GN'R albums in mp3 format here? If we post a photo, we should be allowed to post music?

I just want to see if you're for or against stealing from the band.

It seems to me like some of you have no issues about that.

And you wonder why I have some issues with some of the so called "real fans".







I have explained it over and over again. It just fails to register with you.


Breaking the law in order to have something new to talk about isn't the same as breaking the law just to rip off the band we support.

You fail to understand this basic English sentence for some reason. It's all the same to you.

Maybe for those of you who couldn't give a fuck about GN'R it's all the same who you steal from.




GN'R fans being against posting of articles because it breaks copyrights is a bit weird.

I always was naive enough to think that you'd be excited to read a new interview and possibly talk about it with other fans.

Now I see that you couldn't care less as long as you can bitch about shit.




So those of you who have no interest in GN'R, just fuck off and leave this section to those who do. Thank you.  : ok:

Sorry if my language is insulting and/or offending, I tried to make it easy to understand that your kind of people are not welcome in this section.



/jarmo

You can't really do both. Do you also put sound bytes on MP3's you rip and upload which says "uploaded by gypsysoul, but all credit goes to the band and the writer"?


Legally yes. Morally no.

You disregard copyright issues where it fits you, because you feel that it's important for GNR fans to discuss new things which comes
from magazines. Nothing wrong about that, but by doing so you look away from the legal aspect and jumps into the morality of it instead.
You feel stealing from the band is a big no no, but stealing from a magazine is okay since it gives us something to discuss.


Yes it is.

The argument of "something new to talk about" doesn't work. The same argument could be used to support how someone wants to share
music of the band freely. "We want something new to talk about so here's a few songs".


You're not getting the point. No one here is against breaks of copyright rules to read article scans. What makes people react are two things;

1. You watermark them with your own website and try to get away with it by still crediting the original source. That's quite laughable. You think you would get away with that in court?  :hihi:

2. You pick and choose what you want to follow in terms of copyright rules.

Oh and the title thread is misleading. No one here is saying "stop posting articles for others to enjoy".

As far as I know, she hasn't uploaded mp3s.


And radio stations add their own station IDs to songs that aren't theirs. Is that also wrong?

"You're listening to WGNR..."


Are you gonna go on a crusade against them next?


How is this different? They broadcast a song, the station ID is in there to remind you where you heard the song.

Do people assume the radio station people are the ones performing all those because of that ID? I hope not, but judging by these responses, I guess it confuses the hell out of some of you.

Just like those watermarks were there to remind you were you downloaded the pics from.






And you have a problem with that.

I'm curious why.....




That argument is used by some already!

In case you haven't noticed...


It seems to work for everybody, except the five or so of you who keep whining about these scans.




Oh really? How come I've addressed all your questions, but instead of even trying to understand, you keep repeating them....





Depends if the judge is one of you "stealing is stealing" people....








And why exactly is that a problem?

Please explain this to me ASAP!

Why can't I as a fan be more flexible knowing that as a fan I'd love to read a new interview?

Why is that so fucking horrible that some of you feel the need to ruin the interview threads with your attacks on me and this site?

Why is it such a fucking problem that I feel like supporting the band and not steal from them by uploading their albums for everybody to download for free?

Please, please, please explain this to me.



Why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why can't we have some kind of middle ground as GN'R fans?

Why does it seem to work for other band's fans but not some of the GN'R fans?

Is it just because it happens to be this site and myself so it's personal? You get some kind of weird gratification from pointing out how lame and "hypocritical" I am?




None of you copyright crusaders have managed to offer one fucking proper answer to why it's not ok to be flexible in order to benefit fellow GN'R fans while trying to not rip off the one thing we are all supposed to be fans of.

You just keep saying that it's illegal.... Which I'm aware of, by the way.




I'll admit that I was stupid enough to assume that other GN'R fans could see the reasoning behind allowing scans of articles being posted for us all to enjoy, and not allowing GN'R's music to be freely distributed. I guess I was asking for way too much!

Next time I'll know.




/jarmo

if it's an interview to whom it belongs the most? I say it's the interviewee who's quoted. unless you're more a fan of the interviewer/magazine than of the musician.

and when there's no complaint from brain/ the band or from the magazine, what's the big issue?

In the issue, why don't you buy a copy yourself? I would if it was available in my area.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Didn't scans of a magazine get removed from here once before because the magazine requested they be taken down? Classic Rock magazine I seem to remember. Were there HTGTH watermarks on those? (Not a rhetorical question, I honestly can't remember)

Yeah, I've removed both photos and articles when asked to by photographers and publishers.


Rarely do we have a bunch of fans objecting like these days.



/jarmo

How would Classic Rock find out?

Did someone snitch?

Your guess is as good as mine.




/jarmo

I thought that was because the article included some lies by a certain Mr zoot something.

As far as I know, and I know it goes in my country, any media in question pays a fee for playing copyrighted songs on their shows.


I don't have a problem. I am addressing your interesting sense of following copyright rules.


You wouldn't get away with it.


Morality.

From not allowing discussion about leaks to putting watermarks on scanned articles for example.


So if you support something you follow the rules, but if you do not support something you do not follow the rules?


It's not ok when you rip off others in order to please a group of people.

No one would put any question marks over some scans if you just dropped the watermarks on them. As I have previously tried my best to explain to you, you can end up in deep shit by doing it. Just as deep as if you posted the entire damn CD on this forum. It doesn't matter what product it is.

The difference is that leaks are against the authors will and the interviews aren't.

watermarks may bother you when you read it but you aren't the chooser. Why you don't buy a copy?

Yeah, they pay.

But does it make you think they're the ones performing the song?

Since watermarks make you think the site owns the rights to that picture (meaning, we took the picture ourselves), does a station ID make you think the station is the performer of the song?


MTV broadcasts a music video (not really, just in theory). You record it and put it on Youtube for all your online buddies.

How many of them e-mail you asking for more tracks from this artist called MTV that has that cool song you uploaded?







But it's still interesting even though I've made it pretty clear why I have the opinion I do?

It's like you choose to completely disregard what I say.





We respect the band and they did not want those leaks out. So therefore we did not have discussions about them.

Clear enough?

I don't know what so weird about that.

But then again, I was wrong earlier about how much I should assume people actually want to understand and how much simple hate can fuel some.







Do you shit where you eat?



Do you live by your own way of thinking?

There doesn't seem to be any flexibility with some of you..... If you stole a Twix bar as a kid, you might as well rob a bank next. Stealing is stealing.

Having a glass of wine or twenty. Same thing, you're under the influence of alcohol in both cases.


Even the law sees differences between cases as theft or killing a person.


I could go on with more examples if you wish.






Funny how the photos I removed a few years ago had no watermarks whatsoever.... The photographer still objected.




You just prove the point that you all love to get free shit to use as you wish.

If somebody makes it a bit difficult for you to use that free shit, it's very illegal all of a sudden and you object.



So let's say you have a site where you host a bunch of photos you didn't take with no credits or watermarks.

I could make the claim that I was under the impression that everything you have on your own site was made by you.

You're not making it clear enough for everybody that the pictures, sounds etc. aren't yours and that you have not permission to use them legally.

Maybe you can put up a huge disclaimer that takes up 75% of your page saying so. Maybe then there'd be no confusion.


You know, this whole "I thought it means you own the picture" thing can work in all kinds of ways. If you want it to.






Thanks for your concern.

Imagine if some of you managed to be more civil about it.





Even Wikipedia lists the sole reason why those scans were watermarked.




Exactly.

If you want your own high quality scans, buy the magazine and support them.






/jarmo

Frankly, I didn't even read it.  I just think your watermarking is retarded.

Had it not been watermarked I probably would have read it but whenever you post something like that it just gives me a headache. ;D

Also, can I interest you in a remedial English lesson?

This thread is hilarious, by the way.

Had Gypsy not posted the article, would any of us known Brain was in a magazine called Modern Drummer?


I don't think it will hurt magazine sales cause no body would've known anyway and I'd say it will increase their sales cause die hards hear will now go buy it.


I could care less about watermarking. I didn't see it and think "WOW Gypsy or Jarmo conducted this interview"

If I typed a 5 page something or the other out, I wouldn't want some other person taking it and claiming it like they found it.

This has to be the longest thread about nothing in HTGTH history that hasn't involved an old vs new or Axl vs Slash

I bet.

Especially for people who have nothing better to do thn to visit a GN'R site to whine about how it's run. Then go back to their own little secret lair to pat themselves on their collective back for a job well done.



It's probably funny when you don't understand or even try to understand 75% of what's posted.



You're the second one of those who objected who admits that you didn't care enough to read the article.

It wasn't even posted for you, yet you object. Nice...


In the future, just keep out of the GN'R section in case there are other violations of your own personal guidelines (which we don't follow here in case you assumed so).


Cheer up!



/jarmo

I can't believe how ridiculous you people are complaining about this. Do you really have nothing better to do than come on here and bitch about some stupid watermark? Is your lives really that miserable?


Hundreds of people probably read those scans and were grateful that Gypsy took the time to upload them for us and then a hand full of winos had to come along and ruin it. You should have kept them there Gypsy, to hell with those crybabies.

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

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


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


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

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

I merely explained how posting articles work here.

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



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







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





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

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

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


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





/jarmo

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

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



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

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






/jarmo

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

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

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

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


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

Better luck next time.



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

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


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


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



/jarmo

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

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

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

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

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

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

(http://www.jdray.net/photos/d/2872-2/BackPatKittehG128435699011043750.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurting GNR=Bad

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

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

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

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

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

^I think people were concerned more about the watermarks. I don't know exactly what watermarks legally mean, plus I never saw the original scans so I won't comment further. :P

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

That is funny, especially reading everyone's own personal definition of copyright. The second funniest thing is the secret hideouts.

Cause every GNR site on the net has the article up......


Maybe watermarks could be altered to say "Posted by such and such'

that way the first person to take the time to do it gets the credit and it takes away the argument.


Its like the huge write up the guys at gnrevolution did

if other forums are using that and not giving them credit, that is bullshit

If you look up, you'll see the point going over your head.

Also, I don't really see the double standard issue and someone explain it to me if I am wrong

The GNR song stuff is the only thing I can recall Jarmo ever regulating but everything else has always been fair game.

I can understand not wanting unreleased stuff from the band we are here to support being shared as it hurts the band. I never took Jarmo as being anti sharing though.

Live boots have always been shared, we've looked at magazine stuff for years............shared songs from other bands...........

I'm confused, you want us to give credit to the thief?

For me personally it's the watermarking.  Anything else I stated is to back up retarded arguments that people are putting forward about what is OK illegal behavior.

so the point u have is, it is ok for every gnr site to do it but not jarmo cause he doesn't let unreleased GNR stuff get posted?

when the point is as ridiculous as yours, I am happy for it to go over my head cause it makes no sense.

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

above the head and below the knees as usual.

Thank you! ;D

How is it being a thief? I don't quite get that.

If I spend 30 bucks and 2 hours of my time doing something cool for the GNR community, I don't want 10 other sites ripping it and passing it off like they did all the work. I'd damn sure want the credit for finding it, buying it and taking the time to scan it etc.



I am not defending Gyspsy either as we have never gotten a long and all that, but here, I don't understand exactly what the issue is and why only Gypsy is being insulted when every forum has the exact same article up.

so aren't you technically calling yourself thieves if your site also has the article up?

Anyone who scans/transcribes it and posts it is breaching copyright - if you add a watermark to it or do anything that suggests you own it, then it's a worse breach of copyright. Which gnr site posted it first or anything like that is irrelevant.

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. :drool:

I just find it laughable Tap

Does the site u guys post on have this article up? yes or no?

So why are u guys giving Jarmo shit if u also have it up?


I have no comment on Gyspsy, as I said, we don't like each other and I am not gonna start defending her now


but I don't get the piling on of Jarmo when probably every site on the net has the same thing scanned and plastered up.

If u are this huge crusader of copyright infringements, then lets just take down every picture on every forum and even the name Guns N Roses, GNR or what have you cause it is all technically copyright infringment


If u have a PIC of Axl on your forum, that is copyright infringement.

You can spend $1m and a year copying something, but it doesn't make it yours.

Nobody was "upset" in regards to copyright, just as nobody believed they were claiming it was their work. It's all strawman horseshit. They also claim I'm only upset because I want the goods for myself without giving them credit, which is another immature lie ( I mean these have really been juvenile responses.) Every frivolous claim they have made has been addressed logically and honestly by all of those accused, yet they continue lying and arguing about tripe they dreamed up. (Really, they should all consider a job at Fox News.)

My comment, which I stand by, is that watermarking is lame. Gypsy started off the thread with an inflammatory remark towards those who disagree with this practice. She just had to say something to kick it off. When an objection came her way, they decided to lie, use strawman tactics, call names, and make wild accusations about the group who disagreed with them. Not surprisingly, and surely no coincidence, I'd also file that under "lame."

By the end of the thread we're left with Jarmo arguing against a bunch of fabrications he dreamed up. I'm not sure if it's more pathetic that he may actually believe his own bullshit, or that he expects others to accept it as truth. Although I will say, I?d have to give Jarmo runner up for the hypocrite category, after D?s all too predictable brown nose session as the thread winds down (Really, what?s more pathetic than somebody kissing the ass of a liar and hypocrite on a public forum? D may take the whole enchilada after all.)

Au contraire, I understand clearly point that you were trying to make in your opinion...

Not any more, Gypsy Soul took it down.

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.

She might want to take that personally then.  Just saying. :peace:

Yeah I am a brown noser.

Guess u haven't seen very many Slash threads lately or my hatred of Robin Finck post

I call things as I see them and the piling on of Jarmo for allowing a magazine article when your site and every other site is doing the same thing is just ridiculous.

When I don't agree with Jarmo, I am usually the first person to say so.



if Watermarking is lame so why did u watermark my pic?

typical hypocritical bullshit


bitch and get upset at one person, turn around and do the exact same.

thats cool though.

so the site u guys post on doesn't have that interview and shit up?

Yes, everybody is just picking on poor old Gypsy Soul.

It couldn't have been because she said something stupid at the start of the thread right? She can say stupid shit like that, but when a poster responds they are "giving her shit."

OK, gotcha.

Sir, you might want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Hello satire meet D, be sure to talk to him slowly.

The thing about you is that you will go so far and then get all apologetic about it later on and then thank everyone who is looking for not getting banned.

Your opinion would mean a lot more if you didn't do that, it might actually look like you meant it.

But I digress, this thread is not about you.  You seem like a nice enough guy, though.

Watermarking of your pic and your reaction to it shows exactly how lame it is, see?  Granted, maybe not the most mature of responses but it's good to have a little fun at times, you get it?

Why do people keep mentioning other sites? I thought this was administrative, feedback and help for HTGTH, not for every GNR site on the net.

I don't want u going to my Myspace or the gallery in here and pulling my pics from it, I don't want u watermarking any shit onto my pics.

I am not defending Gypsy, I am defending the people who were blasting Jarmo for the supposed Copyright hypocrisy via allowing magazines but not GNR stuff.


I just find it funny that people with tons of copyright infringements are blasting someone else for a copyright infringement. I think it is hilarious.

Hilarity=laughter and as we all know, laughter is good for the soul. :hihi:

You're not listening genius. All I said at the start was that the practice was LAME, which it is. Jarmo turned it into a copyright "you're much worse than me" argument to defend Gypsy. That's it. All anybody has to do is read the first post of this thread.

nope, he did that way before I even got involved in this thread. I also don't apologize. i have my own opinions and just because I disagree with Jarmo on this and this, doesn't mean i dont like him or won't take up for him when i feel he is right.  as much as jim bob and i don't get a long, id still take up for him if I felt he was in the right and poeple were wrong.


Also, I've been banned from this site before while a certain someone sit back and let us take the fall while he kept his nose clean.

Just not Gypsy Soul.

jesus D..it allcomes down to THE WATERMARKING..get it?

No, of course he doesn't "get it." Just like Jarmo doesn't "get it" because he's too busy lying his ass off.

I think this got the discussion away from the watermarks, glad I went back and read

First time for everything I guess.

Edit: All one has to do is read the first post, that's it.

Then Jarmo comes in with his lies and junior high accusations.

Oh u are hilarious

see, u got nothing, so u have to pull an Adz and do a stupid insult.


it also cracks me up when u try to insult my intelligence but yet I am about to graduate from one of the toughest health programs around.

Somebody please tell me you got a screen shot of this.

it started off about watermarking and then u added the "U don't allow Axl's work but u allow this which makes it a copyright vs copyright issue.

Had u left the Axl part out, u would be right but u opened the door for all sorts of shit by throwing in the Axl stuff.

Well I've got some work to do and this thread is filled to the brim with turds....

yep and the biggest one in the pot is running away : ok:

I'm an astronaut.

I work for Vandalay Industries.

The biggest reason I am in this thread is due to my pic being watermarked WAY before I made any kind of post.

I for obvious reasons don't want THAT site or any site watermarked on my photo but definitely not that site for obvious reasons

so when i see him bitching about someone else watermarking something, u are damn right I am jumping in.

is it the same program Warchild graduated from?

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

Fair point .

Just like I'm sure the mag didn't want their work watermarked up.

Wait, which one of youze stole my Bon Jovi album?

It's ok if you put two hours of work and $30 into it.

same place you wished you were : ok:

Someone has super secret hideout envy.

The gang jackets are bitchin' too.

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 :)

I bet magazines prefer their articles watermarked when posted by the readers.

BTW what's about boots? In most cases they aren't recorded by the uploaders who get the credits but no fan has complained about it yet I believe.

\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?

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?

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.

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

the toughest health program graduate?

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.

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".

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

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.

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

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!  :hihi:

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  :P " 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.   

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.   
 

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.



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.

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?

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.  :hihi:





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.






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.





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.






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.  ;)







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

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

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

bottom line, NO. if someone is doing it for their personal pleasure and they created it in photoshop, and usuing it just for themselves, say as a screen saver or skin for their email...

B U T if it is on a public forum(with hundreds of people reading in a given day) and they d/l the photo from somewhere else,yet watermark that photo with the websites' name/logo, does that not indicate that the site using the watermark has exclusive rights? they own? they took the photo? bought the photo? the whole reason for watermarking photos or interviews is beyond me unless it indicates ownership. If it does not belong to me, if I didn't have a hand in its creation then I have no right to it and shouldn't put "Lisa's Pic" all across it. It gives the perception to people who may not be so computer sauve, that this site owns or has laid some kind of claim against a certain pic.

It's like taking a personal photo and giving to your boyfriend...but you break up..and the new girlfriend finds your photo and posts it to a public forum with her name watermarked all over it for shits and giggles.
IMHO

A wallpaper. You take a photo and/or artwork, you alter it in a photo editing application and.then post it online for others to see/use.

It might or might not say your name somewhere as the creator.


You think that's wrong?


If the answer is "yes", we've had this thread for years: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=48568.0

And there's also: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=45608.0



How do you feel about the fact that eBay watermarks their images used in the auctions?


Like here, look in the bottom right corner:

(http://i21.ebayimg.com/08/i/001/40/22/7eec_1.JPG)

Would you be ready to e-mail them to protest?

I bet eBay themselves didn't take that photo. But it's hosted by them for the auction.



/jarmo

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Oh right I know, you are just looking to stir more shit.

You fail to realize that these media types pays fees. Do you think they download it off Isohunt and edit it with their watermark?


And they can all be brought down to their knees. If that's to the copyright holders approach.


And thats where I think you're wrong.


Nope.


Haha, good try. Too bad you don't see the difference.

HUGE difference between Ebay and a message board ::)..like comparing apples and oranges.
and I did say personal use for their created wallpaper..not posting on the net for others to use. Jarmo, you're talking constantly in circular arguments because you never want to give a single inch by saying someone else may be right or may at least be correct in their own logic.

so again is it posting the articles or watermarks?

Of course I know they pay.

But the whole idea was that it's wrong to watermark something you didn't produce. That's essentially what they do....

I even pointed out that it was an extreme example.


Got an issue with bootlegs and fan made music videos?



I'm just speaking as someone who's had most of the articles I transcribed by typing them up word by word copied and pasted on other sites.

I'm aware how easy it is to copy and paste things or hotlink images to post as your own on forums, blogs and web sites.

That's why I have my opinion.





I know the difference.


But I suspect they put the watermark on the images for the same purpose as Gypsy did. It's not about owning the copyright for it.

That was my point.  :)





How come none of you have had the idea to complain about those wallpaper threads? They've been around since 2005.

Could it be that it was fine because Gypsy or myself weren't involved?

You looked between your fingers because none of them mentioned this site's name. And if they mentioned the name of the creator, it was fine. Even though the images and/or artwork was copyrighted.



That's exactly what your friends do.

I have pointed out that I understand that it's not legally right to post articles. Like you claim. So there goes your theory.

I have stated why we post them even though it's not legally correct.

I have posted reasons for why I think the way I do.


Everything was explained to you and I was naive enough to think that somebody could see it from my point of view.

Instead I was met with idiotic statements like "stealing is stealing".

That's like saying speeding is speeding. But how come the punishment is related to how much you speed? I don't see it as black or white.

Obviously both are illegal, but it's still not the same. It's just an easy way out of the discussion for those who have no interest in it in the first place.



I'm sorry that I don't see things in just black and white like you and your friends. I'm sorry that I didn't join in on the name calling and making fun of peoples' names when I had the chance. Because that seems to be the way you cool people discuss things.




/jarmo

It's unfortunate that the discussion degenerated into trading insults, but a review of the thread shows that both sides share blame for that.  Particularly, in my opinion, it was wrong for you to call SLC a thief.  Starting off by impugning someone's character in such a manner completely killed any chance for a civilized discussion.  Also, not all the people banned were making personal attacks.

I may be biased because I very much enjoyed the contributions to this site from SLC, Tap and Bandita.  I'm very disappointed to see them get banned, it's kinda sad.  

As I explained.

Them calling me a hypocrite while their own sites does something I'm completely against. In their case, it's using the band's music without permission to do so.


You know, you can attack me for copyright infringement, but when I see you're doing the same exact thing, and in my opinion something worse, I will tell you so.




Those people were, not only attacking me as usual, but also those that "dared" to voice an opinion that actually either supported my point of view or pointed out that I might have a point.

That's like the cool kids bullying the not so cool in elementary school.


And this is just from people who openly admit that they didn't read the article, who like to point out how much this site sucks and how big of an idiot I am.

I don't necessarily understand why I need to be doing them favors after their disrespectful behavior.



/jarmo

I did not see it as them attacking you for copyright infringement, rather that the watermarking was inappropriate.  Whether it is or isn't, I don't know (only that I wouldn't do it for fear of potential liability).  Basically, my take was that all sites post articles, even though it's technically copyright infringement, the issue was the watermarking.  Maybe the comments about it could have been less charged, but even still, the stealing comment was a low blow.  I understand why you said it, in defense of the band, but I would expect if the band had an issue with it, they would have been asked to stop.  To me, streaming music online that you can't download doesn't seem any worse than going to someone's house who plays the music for you. 

Is it not stealing when someone takes something that doesn't belong to them (the song playing on his site and copyrighted pictures) and uses them without paying for it or getting permission to do so? I'm fairly certain you will find it is....

It's already been established that all sites post copyrighted articles, pictures, etc., this one included.  As for streaming music on a fan site for the band, I'm not so sure that's stealing, you're gonna need to source that one.

No that's not what they do. They don't steal movies and then watermark it as their own. They pay fees, make contracts, the whole deal.


Fan made music videos are breach of copyright. It's up to the copyright holder what he feels about it or want to do with it.

As for bootlegs, that is also up to the artist to decide. Some allow it, some don't. Selling bootlegs for money are morally disgusting.



It's not the same. The intention of GypsySoul might be the same but the outcome is not.


Copyright is copyright. It goes under different laws than both stealing and speeding. You know that.

You wouldn't get away with any of this in a court of law, but that's not really the point. The point was the morality of putting watermarks on someone elses work. If I see anyone doing that to my articles I will be pissed off.

And for that I got called a hypocrite among other things.

But when I point out that posting a full song isn't exactly cool in my book, I'm just being a mean liar?

People get offended when I call them out on posting an officially released track, but when I'm called a hypocritical liar, it's just no big deal?


They pretty much ruined the thread for the whole board with the whining and they're the ones who are insulted?

You start shit and expect me to do you favors? Get a clue....




To use their defense, stealing is stealing.  :rofl:

Myspace streams a lot of music, but those songs were paid for and/or uploaded by the artist/record label.


Just because a song is streaming on a Myspace page, a band web site, a radio station web site or some other legal alternative, doesn't give you the legal right to rip a track off your recently purchased (I hope) cd and post it on your own site.

When you do, you're essentially stealing from the band. That was my point.


Even though you're not intending to do so, you're doing it to promote the band and you don't make money of it, it doesn't make it legally right.


Now, all this time it's been said that they like to link to articles and list sources etc.

Why didn't that work with the audio? Why not just link to the band's Myspace and said "listen over there"?

The problem is that the band's Myspace only has samples. Not full songs.

So it makes me wonder, if the record label feels like samples are more than enough, how come a fan site just keeps defending their policy of posting a full song?





But you said it's wrong to watermark something you didn't produce.... ;)

Does MTV pay fees for playing music?

As far as I know, they don't....







I was asking you.

I'm not interested in hearing what you think the artists think.

Just like in this case, we haven't heard from the magazine or photographer. Your opinion on the matter is pretty clear though...






And who gets to decide that?




Yes, the point is "you're putting them there because you think you own them".

That whole thing has been explained to be the wrong idea....




Do you object to wallpaper creation?




/jarmo

Well, I think the original poster invited the negative comments with the unflattering emoticons and such.  Apparently, there was prior history, but that I know nothing about.

From what I could tell, the liar/hypocrite comments were preceded by your thief remark, other than SLC's comparison of your treatment of the leaks and the watermarking, implying it was inconsistent.  You ultimately addressed that inconsistency in a rational way, perhaps that could have been done from the start without the stealing allegations and such.



That all makes sense, I suppose, so I'll take you on your word that it's "not legally right", but explaining to someone how what they are doing is 'not legally right' is not the same as calling him a thief.  Especially when you yourself acknowledge it's not being done for personal profit but rather to celebrate and promote the band.


 

At this point, I can't imagine why we don't just repost the article, sans watermark, which is the easy and obvious middle ground.

Yes, because the usual shit happened with the prior transcription.

So she made fun of those whiners.



The first insult was from SLCPUNK calling Gypsy lame.

Then he went onto comparing leaking GN'R songs and how we're against it while we post articles. That's the whole hypocrite thing.


Twist it around anyway you want, he knows what he said and that's where it started.




His second post in the thread, the one following his first one where he called Gypsy lame, was the one where he made sure that he thought we re a bunch of hypocrites.


They were all pretty much in on the "you're a hypocrite kissing the band's ass" train.

If you fail to understand why we won't let you talk about something the band didn't want out in the first place, you just need to get a fucking clue.

Everything was explained to these people.

Running a Guns N' Roses fan site that goes against Guns N' Roses never interested me. I've made this very clear. More than once I might add.

That's also been turned into being something negative by these people.

The explanation was only met with "you're a hypocrite". I didn't realize that fans supporting GN'R are hypocrites.

I would have not made any of those comments if it wasn't for the little army coming over here to start shit. I don't care what the fuck he does with his site!






You have to remember that the whole discussion was about me stealing from Modern Drummer while not allowing fans to steal from GN'R.

A fucking ridiculous thing to even bring up if you're a GN'R fan.

If you have to ask "Why won't you let us use your site to rip off the band and spread bullshit about them?", then I truly feel sorry for you.






/jarmo

Talking of sharing: http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=55996.0

How come he didn't copy and paste his own interview for us and just posted a link?

Now, I know that if you interview somebody and just started a new site, you'll probably want visitors.

But since it's all about doing it for the fans and sharing, I thought it was interesting how he handled his own interview by posting a link to promote his own site.

 :)



/jarmo

I honestly just don't see the big deal out of watermarking. If I spend time doing something, I don't want 20 other places taking credit for it.

I am postitive that anyone with an IQ over 50 would be able to realize that Gypsy or HTGTH didn't write the article or take the photos. Hell one could even go as far as saying this promoted "Modern Drummer" magazine. I personally had never heard of it.

I guarantee posting this article and making die hard fans aware will actually increase the sales of said magazine cause people who collect all things GNR will now go out and buy the magazine.


I jumped into this, not because I care about watermarking, but just due to the usual hypocrisy.

a week previously, the person in mention posted and watermarked one of my photos but yet will come in here and bitch about someone else watermarking. Then that same person will try to call Jarmo out on being a hypocrite for allowing Modern Drummer scans but not GNR leaks.

Don't get me started on all the insults thrown my way just because I happen to agree with Jarmo for a change.

He was just upset because he didn't want the words "HERE TODAY ... GONE TO HELL" on his site.

Once AtariLegend posted the text from that blog site, slcpunk immediately copy n' pasted it to his site along with the pics he copied from the Modern Drummer site.  (And then a few hours later he changed his site so that you now need to register and log in to see what he did).

But I guess the timing is just a coincidence.  He was probably in the process of paying Modern Drummer and the writer and the photographer and the advertisers for the rights.

Everybody understands that things get copied around once they appear online.

But maybe not everybody here knows how certain people on other sites view this site.

This site is like the Antichrist. The name should just not be mentioned.

Even if they find something posted here, there are people out there who just won't say it due to whatever personal agenda they have.


If you're that petty that you can't mention this site because you were banned here or you don't like the way it's run, then I can understand why somebody who actually do like this site, might object and fingerprint her "work" (no, not her copyright, but her transcription) just to mess with that kind of people.




/jarmo

Because it's easier to post a link than to post an entire article/interview?  I don't know...just speculation.  But "Ron" and "GNR Syndicate" are both in bold throughout the interview, to make it easy to read...that's a pain to go back through and do again.    

Do we have any reason to believe that Punk would object to someone posting that interview here?  

Even if he did object, he'd have no power to prevent your from quoting from it.  That stuff happens all the time between different media outlets, of which I'd consider these forums to be a part in such interview capacities.  


Again, take credit for doing what, exactly?  The scanning?  I can't imagine who would really care about the identity of the scanner.  THe problem is that the watermarking is confusing...is someone taking credit for taking a photo, or for scanning it in?  Most of the time, I think people would believe that watermarking implies some role in the creative process, not in the copying process.  When you make copies at work, do you watermark them for credit?  Are you concerned that Ellen in accounting will get all that credit for making those copies?  That doesn't seem like an issue to me.  But if someone you worked with wrote out a new business plan and typed it up, and you made copies with your name plastered all over them, don't you think that would cause confusion?  Don't you think that that person would think you're claiming creative credit?     


First, never overestimate the people on the internet.  There are 300 million people in our country, and a few billion more besides.  There are plenty of people who know nothing about this site, Gypsy, or Modern Drummer magazine (I'm included in that last group). 


Good.  I hope so.  They deserve CREDIT for doing pieces on real musicians and not dressed up Barbie corporate pop crap.


First, the watermarked photo was clearly a joke...an initial response to the silliness of plastering your watermark on something that isn't yours.  Second, it has more to do with the strange relationship you and Punk seem to have, which predates my membership on this site.  I don't know where it comes from, but I can freely admit that you seem to take more than your fair share of grief, perhaps just because you're a good sport with it (from what I've seen).  So, sure...it's hypocrisy.  But it is so with the purpose of highlighting the silliness of something, and not in the "credit taking" way that was the issue here.

And, as I've said...I don't see why we don't just repost it, without watermarks, and with appropriate credit to the interviewing site.

I'm aware that it's easier, but I'm also aware that obviously if you just started a site, you'd like some visitors.


Since these people are so about sharing and stuff, I just found it interesting how he "just" shared the link. That's all.





The CREDITS were always there. Nobody ever tried to hide who wrote the article or who took the pics.

The article has since been reposted because a blog copied it in plain text.




/jarmo

I think it's great that he shared it!  He's a GNR fan who scored an interview with a GNR member, and then wanted other GNR fans to know about the interview.  Isn't that why all you guys do this stuff?  Because you're fans, dedicated to something you love?  Nothin' wrong with that.


They may have been...at this point, I've honestly forgotten. 

Nothing wrong with being proud of your work and sharing.

Just ironic that the ones who are the most vocal about championing copy and pasting between sites are the ones linking to their sites instead of copying and pasting. ;)




/jarmo

What hard work went into scanning that article?  You are scanning which any person with an IQ of 50 can do. Then you are typing up someone elses word! . And that is now considered hard work???

You have someone agruing for and against Copyright infrigment at the same time. 

Stealing is stealing!! Now there are different degrees of it . But does that change the fact that it?s still stealing.

Who care if you have to regester at his site now?? It's not like you were banned from their ! Then they wanted to talk crap on you.

You try typing it out.


I've transcribed everything from old GN'R articles to quotes from live concerts to interviews.

Try it sometimes and then tell me if you enjoy doing it.


But until you do, don't say it doesn't require any work.




/jarmo

I didn't say it wasn't work.  But I did ask how it was considered hard work.  It might not be the most fun you are going to have.  But it certianly isn't hard work.


 

It's all relative.

All I'm saying, maybe you don't see the big deal because you enjoy typing out interviews and can do it in five minutes.

Maybe to others it's hard enough that they'd want some kind of credit for taking the time out to actually do it.




/jarmo

My problem with the whole stealing vs stealing argument was

U got one person doing the same thing if not worse, condeming and shouting down someone else for doing it.

It would be like cheating on your wife and then cussing out your friend and telling them what a bastard they are for cheating on theirs.


Sure posting an article from a magazine can be seen as "Stealing" but we've always been able to post magazine stuff cause a lot of people may not have access to this magazine.

Jarmo got a rap for being anti sharing for whatever reason and I don't get it. We've always shared magazine stuff, live boots etc

Somehow he not allowing leaks transformed him into this holier than thou Anti everything person and I don't think it is fair.

As Gyspsy said, IF they truly have the interview up.......... I don't see the complaint cause they are doing the exact same thing so why come in here being the copyright police when they are breaking way more copyright laws than Jarmo?

I can see getting credit for doing it.  But lets not act like it?s the equlivent to writing the next great novel.   

I just see it done on the internet all the time Mallrat. Like when the GNRevolution cats went back and compiled all of the great CD stuff into one great history thread.

Does every site that copied that give them credit? would they have a right to want credit for it even though they didn't come up with the info?

Sure they should get credit because it takes a lot of time, dedication and hard work to compile years worth of that kind of info just like it takes Jarmo or Gyspsy or whoever is nice enough loads of time to type out a magazine interview or what not that we may not have access to.

They do have the interview up.  That was never the issue.  Would you like some crackers, with your red herring? 

The issue was the implication of ownership when you put your mark on something that was not created by you. 


FOr example:

(http://homepage.mac.com/mseffie/assignments/beowulf/beowulf%20covers/heaney.gif)

This doesn't have a known author, and STILL the guy only takes credit as a translator (similar to a transcriber, though across languages).

And again getting credit for doign so is fine by me. Just don't go acting like they have done the great thing ever.  Typing up something that has alrady been typed up, isn't rocket science.  Calling it hard work is like saying some who has done , one of those paint by numbers a great artist.



Thanks god Freedom78 got what I was talking about.

dude if you are going to jump in, at least know the entire story.

it started off as a "Watermark" issue and then he turned it into "You don't allow GNR leaks but you are ok allowing a magazine"

which turns it into a hypocrisy issue and this entire copyright vs copyright issue.  So as I said,If he kept it pointed towards the watermarking and only the watermarking, He would've had legs to stand on. As soon as he started with the copyright vs copyright shit and throwing it out that Jarmo allows this but not that etc, it turned into an entirely new discussion.

I could care less about a watermark, I just don't understand why people feel the need to bitch about something as insignifcant as that. It is clear as day "This article is from Modern Drummer Magazine!  If someone thinks cause it has a HTGTH watermark that somehow that implies HTGTH did the interview, they should spend less time on the internet and take some how to for dummy classes or maybe just stop breathing altogether.

the fact the article was copy and pasted once atari posted it makes believe it was sour grapes cause they wouldn't be able to easily copy it to that site.

I don't think anybody claimed so.

The people opposing the watermarks just want you to believe that those watermarks were added to fool you into thinking we write all articles and take all the photos ourselves.

Doesn't require a very clever person to figure that one out.  :hihi:




Since some of you object to watermarks, in other words altering copyrighted photos, maybe you can enlighten the GN'R fans about how wrong it is to make GN'R wallpapers using photos and copyrighted logos/artwork? This has been going on for years and some fans actually enjoy them, and use them on their own computers. Shouldn't you put an end to it?




/jarmo

You can easily argue that those are independent, creative, artistic acts.  The legality of that issue may not be clear (i.e. see the AP versus the guy who made the Obama poster), but it's difficult to argue that reading words and retyping them is art.  Now, if GypsySoul put the watermark on the pics as some statement about the corporate nature of music, and wanted to suggest that it truly belongs to the fans, then I'd be happy to listen.

GS?  Is that what you were trying to say?

It?s amazing that even when you are agreeing with someone.  That they still want to find something to argue about.

And D, honey I know the whole story.

I don't think it's insignificant.  When painters paint, they sign it, to take credit for their work.  When photographers put their pics online, they often watermark the digital copy, so that others cannot use it without the credit going where it's due (or without paying).  Of course, the other purpose of watermarking is to make something ugly, so that you pay for proper use.  

For example:

(http://www.libertycalendars.com/images/dscf0133watermarked_woik.jpg)

Now, if I want to use it, I have to (1) pay for a proper, un-marked copy or (2) use the marked copy, making it impossible for me to claim that I truly own it.  

The earlier watermarking did these things...it made the article harder to read and implied ownership, so that others could use it without giving credit.  But the credit belonged to MD, not HTGTH.    

The argument has been that you can't take somebody else's work and make it your own by altering it.

That's exactly what you do when you plaster a logo on a photo and call it a wallpaper. Some of them even feature the creator's name on them with no other credits.


Are you saying that if Gypsy took a scanned photo, altered some color balances, maybe re-sized it and put some additional copyrighted artwork on it, that it would be considered art and therefore ok?




/jarmo

I'm fairly certain that I said it was legally questionable. 

But in all honesty, my first response to the article wasn't "Hey, that's illegal/immoral/credit thievery!" so much as "Hey, that's horribly hard to read, with that watermark behind it at every 0.5 cm." 

I'm just trying to understand what the people who object are objecting to mostly.

Since watermarking is such an offense, I'm sure making wallpapers out of copyrighted material and presenting it as your own work is just as bad.

Now you were kinda backtracking and saying it's art.

So I'm trying to figure out where the line between stealing and art goes. I know you said it's not legal, but you didn't seem to object.

This isn't necessarily aimed at you personally, but to all those who say the watermarking equals altering a picture to present it as your own work.


Maybe I'll have to tell gypsy to take some Photoshop lessons and then she can present her scans as art and everybody will be happy? ;)


I personally don't really object to either because I understand why people do them.

There's a lot of talented people out there who do amazing wallpapers and it would be a shame to have them stop just because a few people object to the copyright infringements. People who don't even own the copyrights themselves.

And you can't really accuse me of being a hypocrite because many of those same GN'R wallpapers use GN'R artwork that belongs to the band.....  But maybe you can twist it around to meaning that I'm promoting stealing from GN'R.  ::) :P



/jarmo

I don't know that I ever used the word "stealing", and I don't intend to.  I don't think there's been theft, and if the magazine in question didn't like what had been done, I would hope their first move wouldn't be to call the police. 

Now...there is something to be said about art.  I didn't build a building, but if I paint a picture of it, it's art (crappy art, in all likelihood, in my case).  Obviously, this is getting philosophical, and there is no clear line in such an issue.  But there's a difference, on one hand, between someone coming along and completely renovating a building and transforming it and, on the other, changing the name above the door.  One might be art; the other is not.  The questions I would have would be about the intent. For example:

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/02/10/arts/faireybig.jpg)

Now, the artist claims that his rendering of this portrait so significantly changes the original that it is, in and of itself, a new creative act, and not "stealing" the original.  His purpose, clearly, was artistic.  And while I may be inclined to agree with the artist, I noted that the law has yet to speak to this case.  I suppose a similar argument would apply to most fan art.  You're allowed to make a copy of something for personal use, so the creation itself isn't illegal.  If they tried to sell it, I suppose it might be, but this isn't Metallica, so I can't imagine GNR suing the fans for something like that, even if it were illegal.  Not to mention that some of the pics likely don't even belong to the band, and have probably been spread around the net so much that ownership is a lost question.

Anyway, taking that photograph (not the painting), I can watermark it to show ownership to the AP or to the site where I found it, the NY Times, or to myself.  But only one of those created it in any way.  The NY Times just copied it, as did I. 

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.

I think the big point is, Gypsy didn't watermark it to "Claim Ownership" and people berated her as if that was what she was trying to do.

Everyone learns something cool from time to time and they use it when applicable.

Doing the watermark or writing Gypsy Soul on it for me is the same thing............


it is one of those things I always felt was "Understood" on the internet.

I feel like people want to complain, so they attack and go overboard with the watermarks when maybe that isn't the real issue.


IF I see something and it has a watermark on the internet, I say "Oh, that site must have been the first to scoop the interview and put it up.  I don't go WOW HTGTH took some amazing photos.

I've not been around all evening and am a few pages behind here, so bear with me please.

First of all, here we go again.  This shouldn't even be an argument or discussion.  It is what it is.

I realize they were put up for this board and that's great that she did that.  All I'm saying is the watermarks looked - well - ok - stupid.  I don't know who put them there or why.  I'm not insulting or taking away from what was done.  All I'm saying is this whole thing started over the watermarks which shouldn't have been there in the first place because it made it look like it belonged exclusively to this site, when it didn't - all legalities and crap aside.  That's all this was about.  That's it.  Is that why it was done? So no one would copy and paste it?  Magazine articles exist elsewhere on the internet, so don't necessarily have to be copied and pasted from here. 


Well, the entire thing got out of hand, with many other posters included.  Telling someone to go fuck themselves doesn't help set up the situation well, at all.  That's intolerable and shouldn't be allowed by anyone. 

The thing is, this is just crazy.  Everyone was pissed off and acting irrational and unreasonable.  It clearly got out of hand.       

This whole thing started out not because of sharing, posting, copying and pasting or even copyrighting.  Who really gives a shit?  It's done all the time, between many sites.  It was the dumb watermarks, that's all.  It got out of hand after that. 

And this is the first time I've ever heard this site referred to as the Antichrist of sites. I saw that posted earlier, as well, but -  Really?!?   Oh come on.    If it's because of not allowing the leaks - well the leaks shouldn't have been allowed.  That's a whole other story though.

I just want to add that freedom78 makes a lot of sense, I think. 

The thing is, this whole thing got so sadly out of hand.  It was a simple thing over watermarks which some of us felt shouldn't have been there and again - it's not about legalities - just shouldn't have been.  It's that simple.  No argument.  No debate.  What does it hurt to seriously listen to what people have to say about things once in awhile and take it into consideration instead of making WW III out of it ?   

uh? i don't see how that can be the same thing.  ??? it is certainly " better" that she used the watermark, however, i don't understand why she should do that in the first place. she's no administrator and this site isn't hers, so i'm a little puzzled as to why she did that thing.
also, that watermark thing was unnecessary imho because that kind of article gets (re)posted everywhere anyway. all them gnr sites would have had it sooner or later because anybody can scan/retype that kind of stuff if he has time on his hands. it can also be copypasted,  :hihi:

i think watermarking should be done only when you have some interview you conduced yourself or pictures you took  - therefore it's exclusive stuff and it's understandable you want to watermark it. i don't get it why people want to watermark something that isn't theirs -like this article. Why? because they were the first one to post it or something?  that's just a way to flatter oneself in vain, imho. you can get the credits you think you "deserve" if people who repost your stuff mention your name somewhere in their post, ? la 'thanx to______'  , you know.


if i see something that has a watermark on it, i think 'wow, this is copyrighted material and maybe i should ensure i can repost it'. it's all about the way we interpret things, i guess.  ;)

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?

I find it so telling that most who are supportive of the watermarking of the thing couldn't form a logical argument if it were typed, scanned, and watermarked with step by step instructions. The digression of this thread into illogical hubris by some has me wondering what the hell they teach in schools these days.

Are not people embarrassed by the use of logical fallacies anymore?

Are they that ignorant that they don't recognize the foolishness of their argument?

If somebody's foolish, it's those who fail to take in any kind of explanations and reasons given for the actions.

There's very little of understanding in this thread.

All those people like to do is whine and whine. Very little of "Oh, I see. Now I understand why you do it even though I disagree with it".

Every explanation is just met with "you're a hypocrite and a liar" or "it's stealing".

Talk about foolish....



I personally don't see a lot of logic from those of you who oppose. There's not really much of a reason for this sudden outburst other than personal agendas as far as I can see.

I'm still interested in hearing more about the the fact that you don't seem to object to people making wallpapers out of copyrighted material and then presenting it as their own work.

This is something that has been going on for years among GN'R fans and on these boards.

Yet I don't recall any of these banned individuals making a fuss about it at any point in time. Which leads me to suspect that it's just personal against gypsy and/or myself.


I see this kind of behavior regularly, so it comes as no surprise.

People just look for reasons to attack me and/or this site. Out of personal reason and/or just to get some attention.

In this particular case it's very telling that most of those who are vocal about the whole issue are all sporting adverts for the same site.

I guess some have nothing better to do than to promote their own sites by starting shit and talking shit about others.





Yes, here we go again. Something that has been explained and here you are not understanding it.

Deja vu!


I'll break it down for you:

1. Gypsy posts only here (HTGTH).
2. She buys a magazine and transcribes (types) out all the words for other visitors on this site (HTGTH). She couldn't care less about what other people do on other sites since she doesn't post or visit anywhere else.
3. She posts the article for us here (HTGTH) because she likes this site (HTGTH).
4. She doesn't like have her "work" (transcription) posted on other sites besides this (HTGTH) because some people basically refuse to credit this site (HTGTH) due to their personal reasons.
5. The only credit she has been after all along is for people to know that even though they might hate this site (HTGTH), they are reading something thanks to an user here (HTGTH).


Now, if you still don't understand it, maybe you would if you had typed out articles for fellow GN'R fans for years and seen the same pattern repeat year after year.... You buy a magazine you don't even read normally, type it out, post it and then have some other guy post it on another forum without even a little "thank you". Just because the user who originally posted it posts on a site you're supposed to hate.

That's some petty shit right there.

But I suspect none of you have done anything close to what gypsy has done for us.

She gets very little back for the things she has given all of us.

Right now, the thing she seems to get most is shit from fellow GN'R fans who should be thanking her, but instead are attacking her for taking the time to provide us with something new (an article and photos).

She spent her own time, and money, on something she didn't have to do, and she gets shit for it. Even from people who contribute very little. Ironic.



/jarmo

I can make the same argument but only take out the word "unnecessary" and replace it with the word "irrelevant"

---

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

Zac Efron on the cover of GQ (mag)
Photo Credit:  Peggy Sirota/GQ

I believe x17online are NOT a part of the GQ writing/production staff and did NOT take these pics yet they watermarked the GQ mag cover and the other pic with their own website.  They listed the photo credit under the pic and they mentioned GQ in the text.

http://x17online.com/index.php?page=2

Apparently perezhilton posted ALL the Zac/GQ pics and just listed the mag and photo credits in the text.  I don?t believe perez is part of the GQ writing/production staff or took these pics neither.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-13-zefron-does-gq

If someone who was a GNR fan with no prior knowledge of either HTGTH or Modern Drummer saw those pics, they'd absolutely assume that HTGTH was in some way responsible for those photos (i.e. they took them, the own them...whatever).

And if I find your underwear in the woods and write my name in them to claim credit for having found it, not a single damned person who sees that name will think that it's anything but a claim of ownership.  Everyone would think "why is D wearing some other dude's undies". 


You realize of course that that means that everyone supporting watermarking is from a certain site run by someone who banned a bunch of people.  See...the reverse is true.  And equally irrelevant.


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.

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"?



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....  ::)



/jarmo

Legally or illegally I don?t care . The whole watermarking thing is lame. 

The whole fingerprinting thing does work in this case.  It would be like me putting a GPS tracking system in your car so I can track were you are going. 

As for the wallpaper stuff.  If you feel so strongly against it! Take the thread dealing with  out of here, Jarmo. 

I find it intriguing that the offending parties have been evicted, yet the thread continues to grow to gargantuan proportions without the "Whiners". Seems  a bit contradictory to your previous claims wouldn't you say?  :hihi:

Did you notice that the personal attacks and insults have stopped?



That's your opinion and you just can't accept that others who get you stuff for free disagree.




I'm not against it.

I guess it's another point you have managed to either miss or ignore. Not surprising.

The whole point was brought up by me since you claim putting a name on an image equals claiming ownership. So if I make a wallpaper out of copyrighted images and put my name on it, do I claim I made the original logo/artwork and took the photo used in the wallpaper?

Of course not!



I don't object to fingerprinting images or fans using copyrighted photos/logos to make cool looking wallpapers (unless it's done to make money).


I'm just trying to figure out why some of you object to one kind of photo manipulation while something else that's been going on for years in the open (wallpaper making) you have no issues with.


But I'm the one labeled a hypocrite because I refuse to let your friends rip off GN'R on a site I started.....





/jarmo

Maybe cause in their opinion it's lame.

I didn't miss your point , but you did such a good job comparing the two that It actually made question the wallpaper thing.


Ripping off the band how?

they aren't getting money for anything ..

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

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. 

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.


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.


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?


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.