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

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - justin bieber blocked from uploading his song by his record companies (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1000514)

gideongallery

12-12-2010 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 17752814)

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
: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).

gideongallery

12-12-2010 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 17768361)

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 (Post 17768366)

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 (Post 17768385)

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:

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

http://topnews.in/light/files/justin-bieber.jpg

gideongallery

01-06-2011 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 17768390)

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.
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

gideongallery

01-06-2011 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 17768412)

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 (Post 17826120)

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

gideongallery

01-06-2011 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 17768412)

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 explictly said in the thread i would make a bunch of changes and then walk away, there is and that not good enough

remember how i said that you would twist it to suit docs lie

well you just proved my point

you started out by saying i could blank out all the IP just show the email, now your saying post "felt your position was "

i clearly said i was going to make a bunch of changes and then walk away, what the fuck more do i need to say to prove that i expected to be able to change his process( ie replace the guy submitting tgp galleries, to submitting videos and torrent ) and then walk away

Quote:

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.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

so your claiming that you believe that i never sent doc any email at the same time as you say that you doubt "anyone will pay you one sent for your email"

the only reason you doubt anyone will pay me one sent for the email is because you know i sent it and doc lied about not getting it.
if you truely believed i had not sent it that putting a miilion dollars in escrow would cost you a penny because i would never be able to claim the money, because i would never be able to produce the proof.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page