|
justin bieber blocked from uploading his song by his record companies
http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang...ght-minefield/
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
"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!
|
Quote:
|
One billion views! Bloody hell!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
anti trust laws need to be applied when a company cross that line. |
Quote:
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. |
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, 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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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:
i address that issue to (commentary) to get it back to the anti trust. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. Quote:
There really is nothing left to talk about here. Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
: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 ) |
Quote:
I dont know why, but i just want to smack that little kid in the head hahaha... |
[QUOTE=kane;17752800]
Quote:
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:
let me spell it out
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). |
Quote:
</thread> |
[QUOTE=gideongallery;17768340]
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
:error:error:error 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). |
Quote:
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:
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:
|
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? 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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
gideongallery he just needs to make a fake upload account and then upload all the videos
|
Who cares about the little fucker.
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh |
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123