justin bieber blocked from uploading his song by his record companies
 

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

we need anti trust sanctions for this type of shit.

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

"Insert random disparaging remark about Justin Bieber here"

Well done, record company! Thank you!

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.

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.

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.

It's discrimination against Canadians!

if you believe that you are fucked in the head.

One billion views! Bloody hell!

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

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.

:thumbsup

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?

I'll trade the maple syrup for Celine Dion

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.

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.

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.

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.

what he said...

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).

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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.

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.



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.


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.

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.


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.


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?

I wish Justin Bieber would be blocked from living.

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.

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.


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.

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).

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

[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.

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.


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.

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.

Whats the big deal
he sucks anyway.

you can upload your own song, parody of world

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

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

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

:2 cents:

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 )

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...

[QUOTE=kane;17752800]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.





my god you love misrepresenting what i said

let me spell it out

1. i sent doc the letter clarifying what the deal was (him doing 100% of the day to day operations)
2. doc never responded
3. doc claimed he never recieved it
4. i sent it again
5. 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)
6. you tried to explain who turning it into a standard affilate agreement was a good deal
7. Doc demanded i post the screen shot
8. 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
9. 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).

</thread>

[QUOTE=gideongallery;17768340]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.







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.