justin bieber blocked from uploading his song by his record companies - GoFuckYourself.com

gideongallery · 12-04-2010, 03:34 PM

http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang...ght-minefield/

Quote:

There?s a level of irony to the situation. Bieber got his start on YouTube, where home videos of him on his account singing covers of hip-hop songs from artists Usher and Chris Brown attracted the attention of a talent scout in 2007. After a meteoric rise to fame, Bieber is one of the biggest YouTube stars today, the second to reach 1 billion views on the Google-owned video site, behind Lady Gaga.

You would think if anyone deserved to be able to upload his own music videos to YouTube, it would be Bieber. So why couldn?t he? The answer lies in the complicated legalities behind copyright law and new media. It comes down to the question: who owns the video? In Bieber?s case, the answer depends on who you ask.

we need anti trust sanctions for this type of shit.

d-null · 12-04-2010, 03:39 PM

he must have signed a contract that is the reason behind this, I don't see the controversy here

iSpyCams · 12-04-2010, 03:40 PM

"Insert random disparaging remark about Justin Bieber here"

Davy · 12-04-2010, 04:33 PM

Well done, record company! Thank you!

Nautilus · 12-04-2010, 04:56 PM

He could always decline signing up with the record company and just go on uploading his piece of crap songs to YT as much as he wants. But now that he signed up and they invested money in him, he's bound by contractual obligations. You can't have both. Either you upload to YT and enjoy your billion views and your $100 ad sense check, or you sign up with the record company, get paid millions but shut up and do what they want you to do.

kane · 12-04-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang...ght-minefield/

we need anti trust sanctions for this type of shit.

Why? I would imagine it is in his contact that he can't do this. If he wanted to be a YouTube star he shouldn't have signed up with a major label.

gideongallery · 12-04-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Why? I would imagine it is in his contact that he can't do this. If he wanted to be a YouTube star he shouldn't have signed up with a major label.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

He could always decline signing up with the record company and just go on uploading his piece of crap songs to YT as much as he wants. But now that he signed up and they invested money in him, he's bound by contractual obligations. You can't have both. Either you upload to YT and enjoy your billion views and your $100 ad sense check, or you sign up with the record company, get paid millions but shut up and do what they want you to do.

you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights.

"check out my new video" is a valid form of commentary.

BTW

read the article, facebook is set to monetize, youtube was blocked completely that medium selection not content liciencing.

Spunky · 12-04-2010, 07:58 PM

It's discrimination against Canadians!

Agent 488 · 12-04-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights.

if you believe that you are fucked in the head.

rogueteens · 12-04-2010, 08:42 PM

One billion views! Bloody hell!

BIGTYMER · 12-04-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spunky

It's discrimination against Canadians!

Send him back to Canada! And take your maple syrup with you!!!

kane · 12-04-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights.

"check out my new video" is a valid form of commentary.

BTW

read the article, facebook is set to monetize, youtube was blocked completely that medium selection not content liciencing.

You have told me in the past many different times that a person today can use social media, youtube and torrent sites to sell their music and make more money than they could without a record label because they aren't getting fucked over. So do you no longer believe that? Do you suddenly now think the only way to be a success is to sign with a major label?

Bieber wasn't forced into a major label contract. He could have gone your route and done it on his own, but he chose not to. When other people put up millions of dollars to record and market your music, you play by their rules.

Mutt · 12-04-2010, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

You have told me in the past many different times that a person today can use social media, youtube and torrent sites to sell their music and make more money than they could without a record label because they aren't getting fucked over. So do you no longer believe that? Do you suddenly now think the only way to be a success is to sign with a major label?

Bieber wasn't forced into a major label contract. He could have gone your route and done it on his own, but he chose not to. When other people put up millions of dollars to record and market your music, you play by their rules.

PornMD · 12-04-2010, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights.

Or Usher etc. could have not given him a deal and he'd merely be a YouTube sensation and make much much less. Everyone knows record companies bend them over and they sign deals anyways - what's new?

Spunky · 12-04-2010, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER

Send him back to Canada! And take your maple syrup with you!!!

I'll trade the maple syrup for Celine Dion

GatorB · 12-04-2010, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights.

"check out my new video" is a valid form of commentary.

BTW

read the article, facebook is set to monetize, youtube was blocked completely that medium selection not content liciencing.

What part of CONRACT don't you get? No one forced him to sign with a record company. YOua re 100% freeto make you own music to do with what you want to with it under copyright law. Once he signed with the label the music belongs to them.

gideongallery · 12-05-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

You have told me in the past many different times that a person today can use social media, youtube and torrent sites to sell their music and make more money than they could without a record label because they aren't getting fucked over. So do you no longer believe that? Do you suddenly now think the only way to be a success is to sign with a major label?

Bieber wasn't forced into a major label contract. He could have gone your route and done it on his own, but he chose not to. When other people put up millions of dollars to record and market your music, you play by their rules.

wow you really like dodging issues don't you

i will make it simple for you

facebook = monetize

youtube = block

that medium selection not content liciencing

both are commentary mediums which means that the same as saying you can only timeshift by watching reruns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

What part of CONRACT don't you get? No one forced him to sign with a record company. YOua re 100% freeto make you own music to do with what you want to with it under copyright law. Once he signed with the label the music belongs to them.

you can't TOS/CONTRACT away fair use.

anti trust laws need to be applied when a company cross that line.

gideongallery · 12-05-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

You have told me in the past many different times that a person today can use social media, youtube and torrent sites to sell their music and make more money than they could without a record label because they aren't getting fucked over.

btw that why i put the word "impossible" in quotes because i know the truth,

it however does not change the fact that monopoly power of the copyright was used for medium selection in this case, not liciencing income protection as it was designed to be.

kane · 12-05-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

wow you really like dodging issues don't you

i will make it simple for you

facebook = monetize

youtube = block

that medium selection not content liciencing

both are commentary mediums which means that the same as saying you can only timeshift by watching reruns.

you can't TOS/CONTRACT away fair use.

anti trust laws need to be applied when a company cross that line.

But uploading a song to youtube and putting the phrase "Check out my new video" is not legit fair use commentary. It isn't commentary at all. It is asking people to watch/listen to your new video.

It doesn't change the reality of the world. If you sign a contract that says you can't upload your new music to YouTube, Facebook or whatever then that is what you have to stick by. It isn't worth arguing with you over what is fair use and what isn't because you have a warped sense of reality. We will never see eye to eye on it,

The simple fact of matter is this: If you sign a contract, you have to stick by it. If you sign a record contact and they control who you upload to and who you don't than that is how it works. You knew this when you signed the contract, you knew this when you took all their money. You can't suddenly change your mind and decide now that you have millions in the bank you want to no longer abide by the contract.

MaDalton · 12-05-2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

He could always decline signing up with the record company and just go on uploading his piece of crap songs to YT as much as he wants. But now that he signed up and they invested money in him, he's bound by contractual obligations. You can't have both. Either you upload to YT and enjoy your billion views and your $100 ad sense check, or you sign up with the record company, get paid millions but shut up and do what they want you to do.

what he said...

gideongallery · 12-05-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

But uploading a song to youtube and putting the phrase "Check out my new video" is not legit fair use commentary. It isn't commentary at all. It is asking people to watch/listen to your new video.

says the guy who is so fundamentally clueless about copyright law and fair use that you argued copyright holders have complete control over how their music can and can not be used no matter if that action censors free speech or not

sort of strange given the fact that the constitution says that congress doesn't have the right to make laws that do that, and copyright act is a congress created law.

the only condition on if something is fair use or not is if it meets the 4 conditions of fair use

which puts this action (censoring commentary on one medium vs another) clearly in the censorship position.

he was able to post the video on facebook, just not on youtube

it the selective authorization that the anti-trust violation get it thru you head.

your dodging the issue, just like you did the last time we had this debate

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...+s ues&page=4

Quote:

It doesn't change the reality of the world. If you sign a contract that says you can't upload your new music to YouTube, Facebook or whatever then that is what you have to stick by. It isn't worth arguing with you over what is fair use and what isn't because you have a warped sense of reality. We will never see eye to eye on it,

Quote:

The simple fact of matter is this: If you sign a contract, you have to stick by it. If you sign a record contact and they control who you upload to and who you don't than that is how it works. You knew this when you signed the contract, you knew this when you took all their money. You can't suddenly change your mind and decide now that you have millions in the bank you want to no longer abide by the contract.

so the fact that you can't legally contract away fair use has nothing to do with your arguement that JB has to obey the contract even though it basically TOS away his fair use rights (to his own shit btw).

kane · 12-05-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

says the guy who is so fundamentally clueless about copyright law and fair use that you argued copyright holders have complete control over how their music can and can not be used no matter if that action censors free speech or not

sort of strange given the fact that the constitution says that congress doesn't have the right to make laws that do that, and copyright act is a congress created law.

the only condition on if something is fair use or not is if it meets the 4 conditions of fair use

which puts this action (censoring commentary on one medium vs another) clearly in the censorship position.

he was able to post the video on facebook, just not on youtube

it the selective authorization that the anti-trust violation get it thru you head.

your dodging the issue, just like you did the last time we had this debate

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...+s ues&page=4

so the fact that you can't legally contract away fair use has nothing to do with your arguement that JB has to obey the contract even though it basically TOS away his fair use rights (to his own shit btw).

Did it occur to you that maybe his record label has a deal with Facebook to offer his new stuff to them first? Did it occur to you that maybe there are reasons they only let him put it on Facebook? This is what we who live in the real world call business. You see, sometimes in basic business you make a deal with a company to offer your goods or services to them on some sort of exclusive level so that you both benefit from it. Look at it like this. Taylor Swift recently put out a new album. She offered a deluxe edition of the album that had 3 extra songs on it, but it was only for sale at Target. Quick, call in the dogs! That is anti-trust! Taylor Swift is using her extra three songs to leverage the market and force you to buy it from Target! That is a monopoly and it must be stopped! It must be liberated! put it up on a torrent site and let everyone have it for free, that is the only way it will be fair!

Please.

There is no censoring of free speech here. It is a business deal, nothing more. Free Speech isn't always 100% absolute. If I go online and say a bunch of shit about you, you can sue me for it. Bieber could still post his video on YouTube, he would just have to face the wrath of his record label and he is not willing to do that.

You are getting desperate. You used to try to spin fancy words (half of which you would spell wrong) and then divert your arguments into other areas in an effort to detract from the original point. That was at least mildly amusing. Now you are just screaming free speech and you have no idea what you are talking about.

gideongallery · 12-05-2010, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Did it occur to you that maybe his record label has a deal with Facebook to offer his new stuff to them first? Did it occur to you that maybe there are reasons they only let him put it on Facebook? This is what we who live in the real world call business. You see, sometimes in basic business you make a deal with a company to offer your goods or services to them on some sort of exclusive level so that you both benefit from it. Look at it like this. Taylor Swift recently put out a new album. She offered a deluxe edition of the album that had 3 extra songs on it, but it was only for sale at Target. Quick, call in the dogs! That is anti-trust! Taylor Swift is using her extra three songs to leverage the market and force you to buy it from Target! That is a monopoly and it must be stopped! It must be liberated! put it up on a torrent site and let everyone have it for free, that is the only way it will be fair!

Please.

i love how your trying to defend shit that got standard oil broken up and try and call it just business because the monopoly is copyright monopoly

standard oil had similar exclusive deals, their gas station partners got gas first, and in full supply while their competitors got short supplied

the only reason this shit is allowed in the industry is that anti-trust laws have not been applied to the abuse.

Quote:

There is no censoring of free speech here. It is a business deal, nothing more. Free Speech isn't always 100% absolute. If I go online and say a bunch of shit about you, you can sue me for it. Bieber could still post his video on YouTube, he would just have to face the wrath of his record label and he is not willing to do that.

did you not read the article it the auto filtering of youtube that pulled the shit down. This publicity is him taking on the record company.

Quote:

You are getting desperate. You used to try to spin fancy words (half of which you would spell wrong) and then divert your arguments into other areas in an effort to detract from the original point. That was at least mildly amusing. Now you are just screaming free speech and you have no idea what you are talking about.

actually your the one who dragged the conversation to free speech and commentary. I started and am now back to the anti trust issue.

your trying to defend an action that got standard oil broken up period.

kane · 12-05-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i love how your trying to defend shit that got standard oil broken up and try and call it just business because the monopoly is copyright monopoly

standard oil had similar exclusive deals, their gas station partners got gas first, and in full supply while their competitors got short supplied

the only reason this shit is allowed in the industry is that anti-trust laws have not been applied to the abuse.

Apples and oranges. You can still get your Taylor Swift record anywhere, you just can't get the deluxe edition unless you go to target. Same with the Bieber video. You can get it, you just have to watch it on Facebook. No anti-trust here, you are just grasping for straws and trying to find new ways to give away content.

Oh, and in case you didn't read the article you posted and are pissed off about, the Bieber video on up on Youtube. Clearly this was a case of their software triggering a block, they cleared up who the copyrigtht owner was and then allowed the video to be posted.That sounds reasonable and fair to me. So clearly there is no anti-trust here because the video is on the site now.

Quote:

did you not read the article it the auto filtering of youtube that pulled the shit down. This publicity is him taking on the record company.

I did. It looks like he tried to upload it but it was blocked because they thought it was someone who doesn't have the right to upload it doing so. Once they verified who was uploading and and who owned the copyright, the video was put on the site.

Quote:

actually your the one who dragged the conversation to free speech and commentary. I started and am now back to the anti trust issue.

your trying to defend an action that got standard oil broken up period.

How many voices do you have in your head? You spew so much shit that you don't even remember what you said. If you look at post #7 you will see that in fact it is you who brought up commentary and free speech in the same freaking post. Here let me quote it for you: "you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights." I had never mentioned free speech. At this point I had only said he was under contract with the record company. You brought up free speech.

You then said: ""check out my new video" is a valid form of commentary."
Again it is you who brought up commentary.

You need to get some medication or something to calm those voices in your head down so you can at least remember what it is you wrote.

BTW in all the research that you have done as you defend Bieber and his right to upload, did you happen to find that email you claimed you sent to The Doc but every time you are asked for proof you never show it?

Some Guy · 12-05-2010, 07:16 PM

I wish Justin Bieber would be blocked from living.

gideongallery · 12-05-2010, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

How many voices do you have in your head? You spew so much shit that you don't even remember what you said. If you look at post #7 you will see that in fact it is you who brought up commentary and free speech in the same freaking post.

in response to you claiming that his actions were a copyright violation simply because he had a record contract (since were trying to claim the COPYRIGHT based takedown was valid)

in which case the fair use of commentary is relevent to your arguement (unrelated to my original complaint of anti trust) since it justified the posting even IF he signed a contract.

Quote:

Here let me quote it for you: "you just proved my point, the monopolistic control of the record companies pretty much make it "impossible" to be a success without allowing them to censor your free speach rights." I had never mentioned free speech. At this point I had only said he was under contract with the record company. You brought up free speech.

You then said: ""check out my new video" is a valid form of commentary."
Again it is you who brought up commentary.

You need to get some medication or something to calm those voices in your head down so you can at least remember what it is you wrote.

exactly you dragged it away from anti-trust to copyright by claiming the him signing a contract completely and absolutely took away his right to post (the record company was justified in putting in a block filter on everyone including him)

i address that issue to (commentary) to get it back to the anti trust.

Quote:

BTW in all the research that you have done as you defend Bieber and his right to upload, did you happen to find that email you claimed you sent to The Doc but every time you are asked for proof you never show it?

yup took the screen shot on the day i said i would post if doc agreed to do the deal as we had originally agreed (he doing 100% of day to day operations)

i know you and him both tried to justify him acting like a pussy and backing out of what he agreed to do, but i gain nothing by post it.

gideongallery · 12-05-2010, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Apples and oranges. You can still get your Taylor Swift record anywhere, you just can't get the deluxe edition unless you go to target. Same with the Bieber video. You can get it, you just have to watch it on Facebook. No anti-trust here, you are just grasping for straws and trying to find new ways to give away content.

standard oil didn't completely shut out the competing gas stations they only short supplied them, you could still get gas at all those stations (they just ran out).

so the fact that you could get the same exact gas from the non standard oil gas stations doesn't invalid the anti trust nature of standard oils short supplying them.

But a complete out right ban of a particular version of content is not

how fucking stupid are you.

it exactly the same action, the record company is choosing one provider over another in the DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL. That medium selection period. two companies are colluding together to extend one monopoly (copyright or oil) into another market (streaming video distribution or gasoline).

2MuchMark · 12-05-2010, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang...ght-minefield/

we need anti trust sanctions for this type of shit.

Whats the problem? Beiber doesn't own Beiber. The record company owns Bieber. No problem no controversy.

kane · 12-05-2010, 11:17 PM

[QUOTE=gideongallery;17752760]in response to you claiming that his actions were a copyright violation simply because he had a record contract (since were trying to claim the COPYRIGHT based takedown was valid)

in which case the fair use of commentary is relevent to your arguement (unrelated to my original complaint of anti trust) since it justified the posting even IF he signed a contract.

Quote:

exactly you dragged it away from anti-trust to copyright by claiming the him signing a contract completely and absolutely took away his right to post (the record company was justified in putting in a block filter on everyone including him)

i address that issue to (commentary) to get it back to the anti trust.

I just said he may have had a contract the prevented him from posting it. You are the one that then created a bunch of other arguments over it. There is no use in arguing fair use in this case. The case is over. Did you read the article? It was a mistake and video is up. There is no anti-trust. There is no free speech issue. There is no fair use issue. There was a mistake made, Bieber overreacted as 15 year old kids (and you) often do and now everything is fine.

There really is nothing left to talk about here.

Quote:

yup took the screen shot on the day i said i would post if doc agreed to do the deal as we had originally agreed (he doing 100% of day to day operations)

i know you and him both tried to justify him acting like a pussy and backing out of what he agreed to do, but i gain nothing by post it.

This is 100% pure and utter horseshit! You know it. You have zero credibility. All you would have to do is black out any potentially sensitive material in the email that you don't want people to see and post the screen shots that shows you made this offer to him and he accepted it. The problem is this is about the third or fourth version of the story. First there was no response. Then you said you sent it but he never replied. Then you said you sent it and he tried to change the deal. Now you won't post it because you have nothing to gain. The deal is dead. It is never going to happen, but you can make yourself look like something more than a self-righteous schizophrenic who feels entitled to everyone's content without paying for it if you just post the email. Just black out everything but you making the offer as you claim you did and his reply backing out. Post it and the header and maybe you could gain a little credibility. But you won't because we both know there is no email.

kane · 12-05-2010, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

standard oil didn't completely shut out the competing gas stations they only short supplied them, you could still get gas at all those stations (they just ran out).

so the fact that you could get the same exact gas from the non standard oil gas stations doesn't invalid the anti trust nature of standard oils short supplying them.

But a complete out right ban of a particular version of content is not

how fucking stupid are you.

it exactly the same action, the record company is choosing one provider over another in the DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL. That medium selection period. two companies are colluding together to extend one monopoly (copyright or oil) into another market (streaming video distribution or gasoline).

Did you read what you just wrote. You said it yourself. Standard gas SHORTED other gas stations that were not their preferred providers so they ran out. It appears they also charged different prices for the same product to different people because they were the only option available and he only company that sold oil in that area.

That is not what is happening here. Here you can get the full Taylor Swift album anywhere. But the one that they have at Target has a little bit more on it. nobody is being shorted. The normal version is available to anyone and everyone, a limited edition version is the one that is available at Target. It's not as if Swift refused to supply any records or only a tiny amount to one chain in order to force you to go to Target and buy the more expensive deluxe edition.

Sharona · 12-06-2010, 04:43 AM

Whats the big deal
he sucks anyway.

seeandsee · 12-06-2010, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang...ght-minefield/

we need anti trust sanctions for this type of shit.

you can upload your own song, parody of world

Fletch XXX · 12-06-2010, 06:26 AM

justin bieber doesnt write a note or lyrics and he think he owns the song? LOLz

Paul Markham · 12-06-2010, 06:40 AM

Obviously GG thinks if you sign a contract you're not bound to it. I wonder if he thinks the same about his work?

tranza · 12-06-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Either you upload to YT and enjoy your billion views and your $100 ad sense check.

Youtube pays around $6k for every million views. So 1 billion views totals to a nice $6M payout. It's not $100 adsense...

SmokeyTheBear · 12-06-2010, 08:46 AM

silly thread. every musician is blocked from uploading their own videos by their record company.

thread should read , Justin bieber signs contract saying he wont upload videos , whines when he realises he signed contract saying he wont upload videos. Not to worry though , he used wads of thousand dollar bills to wipe up his tears ( the wads of cash he got for signing contract )

kazbalah · 12-06-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davy

Well done, record company! Thank you!

I agree - the less i have to hear of that little shit the better.

I dont know why, but i just want to smack that little kid in the head hahaha...

gideongallery · 12-12-2010, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE=kane;17752800]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

in response to you claiming that his actions were a copyright violation simply because he had a record contract (since were trying to claim the COPYRIGHT based takedown was valid)

in which case the fair use of commentary is relevent to your arguement (unrelated to my original complaint of anti trust) since it justified the posting even IF he signed a contract.

I just said he may have had a contract the prevented him from posting it. You are the one that then created a bunch of other arguments over it. There is no use in arguing fair use in this case. The case is over. Did you read the article? It was a mistake and video is up. There is no anti-trust. There is no free speech issue. There is no fair use issue. There was a mistake made, Bieber overreacted as 15 year old kids (and you) often do and now everything is fine.

There really is nothing left to talk about here.

did you read the article at all, it up now after he complained
the power of press not a mistake caused the change.

anyway, your arguement that the contract prevents so it ok is bullshit that the point of anti trust law, microsoft contract with OEM prevent them from preloading ie,
it was still invalidated by anti trust law, a contract does not supercede the laws of the country

fair use
anti trust all take priority to contract agreements.

if a term of an agreement violates the law that term is invalid even if both parties agreed to it.

Quote:

This is 100% pure and utter horseshit! You know it. You have zero credibility. All you would have to do is black out any potentially sensitive material in the email that you don't want people to see and post the screen shots that shows you made this offer to him and he accepted it. The problem is this is about the third or fourth version of the story. First there was no response. Then you said you sent it but he never replied. Then you said you sent it and he tried to change the deal. Now you won't post it because you have nothing to gain. The deal is dead. It is never going to happen, but you can make yourself look like something more than a self-righteous schizophrenic who feels entitled to everyone's content without paying for it if you just post the email. Just black out everything but you making the offer as you claim you did and his reply backing out. Post it and the header and maybe you could gain a little credibility. But you won't because we both know there is no email.

my god you love misrepresenting what i said

let me spell it out

i sent doc the letter clarifying what the deal was (him doing 100% of the day to day operations)
doc never responded
doc claimed he never recieved it
i sent it again
doc claimed he never recieved it and then publically claimed the deal was something different IN THIS FORUM (now i was supposed to do 100% day to day operations of private tracker, hiring models, product placement, chat studio etc basically turning it into a standard affiliate deal)
you tried to explain who turning it into a standard affilate agreement was a good deal
Doc demanded i post the screen shot
i said i would do it only IF he agreed to do the deal as we originally agreed not his new bullshit made up way
doc disappeared and you tried to defend him again saying i should do it even though i gain no benefit

i don't post it because i gain no benefit period. No money is comming my way for doing it
and considering how when DOC backpeddled from agreeing to handle "100% of the day to day operations" to demanding i handle the all the operations of the "private tracker" including all the "day to day operations" you defended it there is no way it will change anyones opinion if i do.

give me something to post, put 100k in an escrow.com account with the condition all i have to do is show the image of the email i sent to claim the money.

if you truely believed docs statements you should have no problem doing it.
i am betting you will bitch out like robbie when i offered to post it if he put all his content in the public domain if i do.

BTW i think it funny that you keep demanding that i give you my content for free, while arguing that i am the person who believes that i am entitled to everyone elses content for free.

For the record i never said once, i have only defended free speech, and fair use (not paying twice for content).

MIS · 12-12-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Either you upload to YT and enjoy your billion views and your $100 ad sense check, or you sign up with the record company, get paid millions but shut up and do what they want you to do.

</thread>

kane · 12-12-2010, 01:07 PM

[QUOTE=gideongallery;17768340]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

did you read the article at all, it up now after he complained
the power of press not a mistake caused the change.

anyway, your arguement that the contract prevents so it ok is bullshit that the point of anti trust law, microsoft contract with OEM prevent them from preloading ie,
it was still invalidated by anti trust law, a contract does not supercede the laws of the country

fair use
anti trust all take priority to contract agreements.

if a term of an agreement violates the law that term is invalid even if both parties agreed to it.

He tried to upload it, it was blocked and he complained on his twitter. With all of his followers it was a story very quickly and YouTube looked into it. He could have gotten the same results had he just asked the label or YouTube privately. They didn't give in because he complained, they made a mistake. It really is that simple.

Quote:

my god you love misrepresenting what i said

let me spell it out

i sent doc the letter clarifying what the deal was (him doing 100% of the day to day operations)
doc never responded
doc claimed he never recieved it
i sent it again
doc claimed he never recieved it and then publically claimed the deal was something different IN THIS FORUM (now i was supposed to do 100% day to day operations of private tracker, hiring models, product placement, chat studio etc basically turning it into a standard affiliate deal)
you tried to explain who turning it into a standard affilate agreement was a good deal
Doc demanded i post the screen shot
i said i would do it only IF he agreed to do the deal as we originally agreed not his new bullshit made up way
doc disappeared and you tried to defend him again saying i should do it even though i gain no benefit

i don't post it because i gain no benefit period. No money is comming my way for doing it
and considering how when DOC backpeddled from agreeing to handle "100% of the day to day operations" to demanding i handle the all the operations of the "private tracker" including all the "day to day operations" you defended it there is no way it will change anyones opinion if i do.

give me something to post, put 100k in an escrow.com account with the condition all i have to do is show the image of the email i sent to claim the money.

if you truely believed docs statements you should have no problem doing it.
i am betting you will bitch out like robbie when i offered to post it if he put all his content in the public domain if i do.

BTW i think it funny that you keep demanding that i give you my content for free, while arguing that i am the person who believes that i am entitled to everyone elses content for free.

For the record i never said once, i have only defended free speech, and fair use (not paying twice for content).

You do have something to gain. No it isn't money. It is credibility. To everyone but you it looked like you claimed to already be started "building the sites" for whatever network you were going to put together for this and you claimed to have sent him an email about all of this. It then became clear that you misunderstood the deal. By day to day operation he meant that he would run the members area of the site, handle the content and billing etc and it would be your job to get the traffic and send the joins. When you realized he meant it was going to be more than you just showing him a few things and walking away you suddenly started backing out. You said you told him what you would do in the email (as you still do now) and he claims to have never gotten it. You won't show proof that you sent it so it is your word Vs. his word.

I'm not asking you to give away you content. I'm not asking you to give away your secret. Just show a screenshot of the email and black out anything that could be considered sensitive. You won't do that because you know that the email doesn't exist.

gideongallery · 12-12-2010, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Did you read what you just wrote. You said it yourself. Standard gas SHORTED other gas stations that were not their preferred providers so they ran out. It appears they also charged different prices for the same product to different people because they were the only option available and he only company that sold oil in that area.

That is not what is happening here. Here you can get the full Taylor Swift album anywhere. But the one that they have at Target has a little bit more on it. nobody is being shorted. The normal version is available to anyone and everyone, a limited edition version is the one that is available at Target. It's not as if Swift refused to supply any records or only a tiny amount to one chain in order to force you to go to Target and buy the more expensive deluxe edition.

so the full album has exactly the same content as the deluxe it just more expense

bullshit it two different grades of the same commodity (content in this case)

if i wanted the higher quality version i have to go to target

that medium extension of the content monopoly

standard oil did the same shit with grades of gasoline, short supplying (they however never did it zero like your tayor swift example) standard grades, and forcing competitors to buy premium grades at higher prices to meet their inventory levels.

the different prices issue your talking about was that type of price fixing.
it was basically were all out of regular gas, we can only give you 10% of your order, but we have plenty of premium gas at 20% more per gallon.

it basically an exclusive deal in reverse with the premium gas widely distributed and the regular one exclusively distributed.

really no difference in the terms of the abuse of the monopoly, still extending the commodity monopoly (content) to the distribution (medium).

gideongallery · 12-12-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

He tried to upload it, it was blocked and he complained on his twitter. With all of his followers it was a story very quickly and YouTube looked into it. He could have gotten the same results had he just asked the label or YouTube privately. They didn't give in because he complained, they made a mistake. It really is that simple.

re read the article
he complained publically on twitter BLAMING youtube
youtube techs responded publically back explaining it was the record company decision
it was not a mistake by youtube, it was a CHOICE by the record company, they set the flag to auto delete it
the record company had to go in and change the flag to allow it.

Youtube never made a mistake, all i am saying is preferential treatment, setting one companies flag to delete and another to allow is as much a monopoly abuse as when standard oil gave one station full supply of regular gas, and short supplied another with that grade (again never reduced to zero only short supplied them)

Quote:

You do have something to gain. No it isn't money. It is credibility. To everyone but you it looked like you claimed to already be started "building the sites" for whatever network you were going to put together for this and you claimed to have sent him an email about all of this. It then became clear that you misunderstood the deal. By day to day operation he meant that he would run the members area of the site, handle the content and billing etc and it would be your job to get the traffic and send the joins. When you realized he meant it was going to be more than you just showing him a few things and walking away you suddenly started backing out. You said you told him what you would do in the email (as you still do now) and he claims to have never gotten it. You won't show proof that you sent it so it is your word Vs. his word.

I'm not asking you to give away you content. I'm not asking you to give away your secret. Just show a screenshot of the email and black out anything that could be considered sensitive.

there is no way whatsoever you can claim that agreeing to handle 100% of the day to day operations of the joint venture could mean just running the membership site, and me handling all the other shit

there is no possible way he can claim that he didn't realize that i wanted to show him a bunch of stuff and then just walk away becuase i specifically said that what i would do
and that when he stated it would be cool as long as it produced 100 sales a day.

those two fact make it impossible for the deal to be anything other than me showing him a bunch of techniques, his staff implementing them, and i keep teaching until the site generates 100 sales a day.

any other interpretation of produce 100 sales a day would explictly violate the 100% agreement he made publically

however when Doc Publically tried to change "produce" to mean you do all the work, and all the day to day maintance to get those sales (a statement which clearly and absolutely violates the 100% agreement) you defended his position (hell your still trying to do it now).

Given that fact if i were to post the screenshot, you and robbie would simply find some way to "explain" how that screen shot was not good enough.

I would gain zero credibity from posting the screen shot becuase you would misrepresent things to back the doc lying ways.

I gain nothing from posting, and i have a potential of gaining something by not posting (since one of you guys might finally have the balls to back up your bullshit name calling with some cash).

Quote:

You won't do that because you know that the email doesn't exist.

so why don't you put up the 100k in the escrow account and let see which one of us is right.

kane · 12-12-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so the full album has exactly the same content as the deluxe it just more expense

bullshit it two different grades of the same commodity (content in this case)

if i wanted the higher quality version i have to go to target

that medium extension of the content monopoly

standard oil did the same shit with grades of gasoline, short supplying (they however never did it zero like your tayor swift example) standard grades, and forcing competitors to buy premium grades at higher prices to meet their inventory levels.

the different prices issue your talking about was that type of price fixing.
it was basically were all out of regular gas, we can only give you 10% of your order, but we have plenty of premium gas at 20% more per gallon.

it basically an exclusive deal in reverse with the premium gas widely distributed and the regular one exclusively distributed.

really no difference in the terms of the abuse of the monopoly, still extending the commodity monopoly (content) to the distribution (medium).

It is not the same album at two different prices. One has three extra songs on it and costs a buck or two more. The difference is that there is no short supply. If you want the regular album you can buy it from any record store or website. If you want the deluxe edition you will have to go to target to get it. Target also makes it available for order online and you can buy the digital download of it as well so it's not like it isn't readily available.

If we are talking about price fixing then why is the album available at Fry's for $11.99, but at my local store (not a Fry's) it is $13.99? Should we sick the government on my local store for charging $2 more for the same content as Fry's?

While we are at it why don't we go after AC/DC. Their last album was sold only in Walmart stores. So if you wanted it you had to buy it through them. Or what about Paul McCartney who sold a certain version of his last album solely at Starbucks.

The bottom line is simple. Just because someone releases a record does not mean you are entitled to buying it. But then again, you and I have debated this point ad nauseum before so it is not worth debating again.

kane · 12-12-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

re read the article
he complained publically on twitter BLAMING youtube
youtube techs responded publically back explaining it was the record company decision
it was not a mistake by youtube, it was a CHOICE by the record company, they set the flag to auto delete it
the record company had to go in and change the flag to allow it.

Youtube never made a mistake, all i am saying is preferential treatment, setting one companies flag to delete and another to allow is as much a monopoly abuse as when standard oil gave one station full supply of regular gas, and short supplied another with that grade (again never reduced to zero only short supplied them)

So then your problem is with YouTube not with his record label? It doesn't really matter. In the end YouTube didn't realize it was him trying to upload his video and they were trying to protect themselves. After he complained everything was. I still say had he contacted his record label and/or YouTube privately he would have gotten the same results. There is no anti-trust here, just a misunderstanding, but you don't want to see that.

Quote:

there is no way whatsoever you can claim that agreeing to handle 100% of the day to day operations of the joint venture could mean just running the membership site, and me handling all the other shit

there is no possible way he can claim that he didn't realize that i wanted to show him a bunch of stuff and then just walk away becuase i specifically said that what i would do
and that when he stated it would be cool as long as it produced 100 sales a day.

those two fact make it impossible for the deal to be anything other than me showing him a bunch of techniques, his staff implementing them, and i keep teaching until the site generates 100 sales a day.

any other interpretation of produce 100 sales a day would explictly violate the 100% agreement he made publically

however when Doc Publically tried to change "produce" to mean you do all the work, and all the day to day maintance to get those sales (a statement which clearly and absolutely violates the 100% agreement) you defended his position (hell your still trying to do it now).

Given that fact if i were to post the screenshot, you and robbie would simply find some way to "explain" how that screen shot was not good enough.

I would gain zero credibity from posting the screen shot becuase you would misrepresent things to back the doc lying ways.

I gain nothing from posting, and i have a potential of gaining something by not posting (since one of you guys might finally have the balls to back up your bullshit name calling with some cash).

so why don't you put up the 100k in the escrow account and let see which one of us is right.

It has been so long now that I can't recall the exact wording, but he said in the post if YOU - meaning you, not him using our techniques but YOU - could send 100 joins per day he could have a paysite set up with any kind of content you wanted and he would run the site. By reading what he wrote it was clear to me and everyone else that he meant he would run the site itself and you would get the traffic and generate the sales. The problem is you aren't in this business and have no idea how this business actually runs so you misunderstood him.That is fine. A normal human being misunderstands something and they admit it and say so. You could have simply said, "Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant, I can't/won't do that deal." While you would have been ridiculed, you would have at least been up front about it and eventually it would have blown over. But you can't do that. You can never be wrong so you spin it around and around and around until everyone just eventually gives up and that is what you are doing here.

If you showed a screenshot of an email with all the correct info on it and in that email it was very clear what you felt your position was I would give you credit for that and I would say that you made your position clear, but until then I am going with my stance that once you realized what he meant you also realized that your techniques could never generate those kinds of sales so you backed out.

I'm not putting shit into escrow. If you post it, and it says everything you say it does, I will give you the due credit. It won't mean that we will suddenly agree on everything, but it will give you credibility in that argument. But in the end I'm no paying $1 for it. Whether people believe you or not doesn't really matter to me. I just like bringing it up because I know it will piss you off and it makes you look like the schizo.

And you have noting more to gain other than credibility. I seriously doubt anyone will pay you one cent for your email.

arock10 · 12-12-2010, 03:47 PM

gideongallery he just needs to make a fake upload account and then upload all the videos

MrCain · 12-12-2010, 03:57 PM

Who cares about the little fucker.

TeenCat · 12-12-2010, 04:53 PM

gideongallery · 01-06-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

It is not the same album at two different prices.

and i never said it was, standard oil sold two DIFFERENT grades of gas too, regular and premium

Quote:

One has three extra songs on it and costs a buck or two more.

the cleaner burning premium gss

Quote:

the difference is that there is no short supply. If you want the regular album you can buy it from any record store or website. If you want the deluxe edition you will have to go to target to get it. Target also makes it available for order online and you can buy the digital download of it as well so it's not like it isn't readily available.

so when standard oil gave non partners 20% of the regular gas, and gave their partners 100% of their orders that short supply (but still sold all stations all the premium gas they wanted) that shorting the supply

but giving non partners no copys of the deluxe addition is not shorting the supply.

when did zero become greater then 20

news flash the bogus arguement you just made could have been made about standard oils partners stations, you could buy it from any texico station you wanted to
just like you can buy it from any target store, the point is competiion is reduced to 1 so the price you get is forced up.

Quote:

If we are talking about price fixing then why is the album available at Fry's for $11.99, but at my local store (not a Fry's) it is $13.99? Should we sick the government on my local store for charging $2 more for the same content as Fry's?

No you idiot that exactly what i am arguing for, competition, it not like the example your trying to justify above and below, where only one store can sell it so no one can compete on price.

Quote:

While we are at it why don't we go after AC/DC. Their last album was sold only in Walmart stores. So if you wanted it you had to buy it through them. Or what about Paul McCartney who sold a certain version of his last album solely at Starbucks.

The bottom line is simple. Just because someone releases a record does not mean you are entitled to buying it. But then again, you and I have debated this point ad nauseum before so it is not worth debating again.

if you release an album for sale, me having a right to buy it is exactly what the free market is about.

gideongallery · 01-06-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

It has been so long now that I can't recall the exact wording, but he said in the post if YOU - meaning you, not him using our techniques but YOU - could send 100 joins per day he could have a paysite set up with any kind of content you wanted and he would run the site.

i suggest you look at the thread
the 100 sales a day was in response to me saying that i was going to "make a bunch of changes and then walk away"

it was one of my primary conditions

that the point, if you interpret the word you in the way you are trying to do, it means doc was deliberately trying to kill the deal while i was negotiating in good faith.

while agree that i would have the right to "make a few changes and then walk away" he slapped a condition on that right that absolutely prevented me from being able to do that.

Quote:

By reading what he wrote it was clear to me and everyone else that he meant he would run the site itself and you would get the traffic and generate the sales. The problem is you aren't in this business and have no idea how this business actually runs so you misunderstood him.That is fine.

wtf you knew he was trying to slap a condition that deliberately invalidated one of my pre conditions, you knew that what he was doing, and you not only kept quiet but are now trying to defend that scum bag move.

if someone were to hire you to do writing for them, would you trying and sneak in a condition that would cause them to not get what they are asking for.

Quote:

A normal human being misunderstands something and they admit it and say so. You could have simply said, "Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant, I can't/won't do that deal." While you would have been ridiculed, you would have at least been up front about it and eventually it would have blown over. But you can't do that. You can never be wrong so you spin it around and around and around until everyone just eventually gives up and that is what you are doing here.

wtf

robbie bitches that back in the day he could make good money submitting 1 or 2 galleries a day to the tgp [day to day operation] because those galleries converted 1:100

and now the tube sites have taken all that traffic and they convert in 1:20000

i pointed because robbie doesn't know how to submit videos to tube site properly, and if he did it right, he would be able to convert 1:257

doc makes his partnership offer

and your now claiming that expecting him to move the guy doing the daily gallery submissions to now do the submission to the tube site is unreasonable

the fact is the bogus misrepresentation of the deal you and the doc are trying to spin doesn't evne match your current statments about handling the day to day operations of the site, because he was going to keep doing the gallery submission/directory submision/seo etc stuff that was discussed in the thread as normal day to day opearions of the past (which would have brought in 10-20 sales) he was going to stop doing all that shit, and expect me to do all the work of generating 100 sales a day all by my self.

moving the guy who was basically wasting his time submitting useless galleries to doing tube submission the correct way is in fact the only way you could claim he was handling 100% of the day to day operations, because replacing tgp submissions [old day to day operations] with correct tube submissions [new day to day operations] is just a simple TASK based substitution.

expecting me to do all that work, and DROPPING the expense of that old day to day operation would represent doing 40% of the day to day operations.

kane · 01-06-2011, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i suggest you look at the thread
the 100 sales a day was in response to me saying that i was going to "make a bunch of changes and then walk away"

it was one of my primary conditions

that the point, if you interpret the word you in the way you are trying to do, it means doc was deliberately trying to kill the deal while i was negotiating in good faith.

while agree that i would have the right to "make a few changes and then walk away" he slapped a condition on that right that absolutely prevented me from being able to do that.

wtf you knew he was trying to slap a condition that deliberately invalidated one of my pre conditions, you knew that what he was doing, and you not only kept quiet but are now trying to defend that scum bag move.

if someone were to hire you to do writing for them, would you trying and sneak in a condition that would cause them to not get what they are asking for.

wtf

robbie bitches that back in the day he could make good money submitting 1 or 2 galleries a day to the tgp [day to day operation] because those galleries converted 1:100

and now the tube sites have taken all that traffic and they convert in 1:20000

i pointed because robbie doesn't know how to submit videos to tube site properly, and if he did it right, he would be able to convert 1:257

doc makes his partnership offer

and your now claiming that expecting him to move the guy doing the daily gallery submissions to now do the submission to the tube site is unreasonable

the fact is the bogus misrepresentation of the deal you and the doc are trying to spin doesn't evne match your current statments about handling the day to day operations of the site, because he was going to keep doing the gallery submission/directory submision/seo etc stuff that was discussed in the thread as normal day to day opearions of the past (which would have brought in 10-20 sales) he was going to stop doing all that shit, and expect me to do all the work of generating 100 sales a day all by my self.

moving the guy who was basically wasting his time submitting useless galleries to doing tube submission the correct way is in fact the only way you could claim he was handling 100% of the day to day operations, because replacing tgp submissions [old day to day operations] with correct tube submissions [new day to day operations] is just a simple TASK based substitution.

expecting me to do all that work, and DROPPING the expense of that old day to day operation would represent doing 40% of the day to day operations.

Dear Gideon,

The horse is dead. You no longer need to kick it. Until you show the email you claimed to have sent to Doc that he says he never got, you have zero credibility.

I'm not going to go back and try to find the original thread all this started in. From my recollection you were telling Robbie he could convert tube traffic very well if he knew what he was doing. Doc then made you the offer, but said that the offer was only worthwhile if you could produce 100 joins per day. You are not in this business and didn't understand what he was saying. when you realized what he was saying and understood that you couldn't do that you backed out. That is my position and until I see proof otherwise that is the position I am going to maintain.

There is no shame in being wrong. You can admit that you misunderstood the original offer and that you don't want to actually produce the traffic. That is fine. But when you insist on twisting and turning the story back and forth and changing your position while distorting what happened you look like a fool.

Produce the email and all will be fine, but then again, at this point I think it is only you who cares.

Sincerely,
Kane

12-04-2010, 04:33 PM	#4
Davy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 4,323	Well done, record company! Thank you! __________________ --- ICQ 14-76-98 <-- I don't use this at all

12-04-2010, 04:56 PM	#5
Nautilus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,631	He could always decline signing up with the record company and just go on uploading his piece of crap songs to YT as much as he wants. But now that he signed up and they invested money in him, he's bound by contractual obligations. You can't have both. Either you upload to YT and enjoy your billion views and your $100 ad sense check, or you sign up with the record company, get paid millions but shut up and do what they want you to do. __________________ . . FerroCash - 50+ quality niche paysites to promote \| 100K+ FHGs \| Check recently added galleries New sites \| Pantyhose \| Nylon \| Shemale \| Strapon \| Lesbian \| Mature/MILF \| Anal \| Old&Young \| Gay \| Feet Morphing RSS feeds - check them at the Official blog\| Page Peels (Sample 1 : Sample 2) Wish to review or evaluate our sites before promoting them? Contact me for free password. ICQ: 38.89.22.76 e-mail: support AT ferrocash.com

12-04-2010, 07:58 PM	#8
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,940	It's discrimination against Canadians! __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

12-04-2010, 08:42 PM	#10
rogueteens So fucking bland Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: England Posts: 8,005	One billion views! Bloody hell! __________________ Free traffic and backlinks from one of the fastest growing adult pinsites on the net - SAUCY PICTURES! Easily my best performing webcam sponsor - CLICK HERE!!

12-05-2010, 07:16 PM	#25
Some Guy Affordable Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 1,750	I wish Justin Bieber would be blocked from living. __________________ Need a Cheap Design? - Cheap Quality Content Available! Fuck you Michelle Malkin and Fox News

12-04-2010, 03:39 PM	#2
d-null . . . Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 13,724	he must have signed a contract that is the reason behind this, I don't see the controversy here

12-04-2010, 03:40 PM	#3
iSpyCams Amateur Gynecologist Industry Role: Join Date: May 2009 Location: Medellin Posts: 4,436	"Insert random disparaging remark about Justin Bieber here"

12-06-2010, 04:43 AM	#31
Sharona Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 14	Whats the big deal he sucks anyway.

12-06-2010, 06:26 AM	#33
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	justin bieber doesnt write a note or lyrics and he think he owns the song? LOLz __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

12-06-2010, 06:40 AM	#34
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Obviously GG thinks if you sign a contract you're not bound to it. I wonder if he thinks the same about his work? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

12-06-2010, 08:46 AM	#36
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	silly thread. every musician is blocked from uploading their own videos by their record company. thread should read , Justin bieber signs contract saying he wont upload videos , whines when he realises he signed contract saying he wont upload videos. Not to worry though , he used wads of thousand dollar bills to wipe up his tears ( the wads of cash he got for signing contract ) __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

12-12-2010, 03:47 PM	#45
arock10 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,218	gideongallery he just needs to make a fake upload account and then upload all the videos __________________ Sup

12-12-2010, 03:57 PM	#46
MrCain Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 3,332	Who cares about the little fucker. __________________ Sigmund

12-12-2010, 04:53 PM	#47
TeenCat Too lazy to set a koala Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: CZ/EU forever! Posts: 16,139	__________________ 6bot / Coming again very soon! Svit Zlin Radio 24/7!