:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

i took your made up ratio of 1:10000 and multiplied with real numbers and your complaining that i am pulling numbers out of my ass


i used your numbers because they were insanely in your favor and no where close to the real numbers

you don't want me to use the real numbers


http://techland.time.com/2011/02/17/...s-84000-sites/


the similar any piracy one took down 20k innocent site owners for 147 guilty

when chilling effect started collecting stats of all dmca for youtube more then 72% were bogus

that number has dropped to a little over 36% now that they reported, and since eff funded the lenz vs universal case

but that still 1/3


you might not want to complain about your own made up numbers buddy it only make you look really fucking bad

first of all those royalty streams like radio play and album sales licensing the music are all covered in the payback scheme of a standard record contract, so NONE OF THOSE REVENUE EXIST UNTIL AFTER YOU PAY BACK COSTS

second of all with vertical integration record companies will "licence" artist songs for free for feature with in their TV shows etc as promotion (what sick is they used to CHARGE for that)

third promotion cost are over inflated for example, a guy screening your emails and answering them in your voice may be paid $10/hour but when it charged to band it charged at an average for an employee of the company (including the CEO being paid 5-10 million a year) so you get charged $60-70/hour for that shit.

fourth recording albums are staggered in development. while the entire album is recorded only a single is fully produced, and marketed. If that falls flat the album is locked in a vault never to see the light of day.

you keep accusing me of pulling number out of my ass
tell you what why don't you find one artist who performed in one 25,000 person stadium and not paid back the production cost of their album

the situation your talking about hasn't happened yet, the guys who made it big enough to do those massive tours are all the extreme rare success stories who actually covered cost

most artist how don't cover cost find their album locked in a vault and find they are legally prohibited from performing their shit live because they no longer own the copyright

this kind of bullshit pipe dream the worst thing you can do to an artist because you make them believe that the screw job they are getting is some how fair




google street corner symphony and read a little about the shit the lead singer went thru with his record deal.

the guys solo career was killed because the record company didn't want to release the album

he had to create a band, go on the sing off, and he still prevented from using that success to sell his own solo shit for another 2 years.


he is just fucking luck he wasn't in a band first because then he would have been totally screwed.

google is in troublez!!!

http://video.google.com/

:warning:warning:warning:warning:warning

You total and utter cunt :1orglaugh

seriously moron did you not pass grade three english

how do you not understand pronoun I and me referes to in that sentence

why would you ignore the defined noun in the sentence and be so stupid as to refer to a completely external context.

history has shown us that it is a waste of time money and resource and achieves nothing.

That time money and resource would be better spent making a better product.

Next.

a) I didn't 'raise it' again. I just called you by your name. As it is on your whois, and everyone knows I didn't think it was an issue. Sorry.

b) I have never done children's parties. Thanks so much for your concern though.

c) Why do you think the bill is a good idea?

Do you still think that teachers need a will of iron not to fuck 15 year olds in their class?

Or was that a "joke"

LOL!

Why do your friends think you being a teacher would be a bad idea?

LOL!

censorship

Buy a a book called "So you want to be a rock star." It is a great story of an unknown band getting signed and getting some hit songs. You might learn something.

Second, learn the simple reality that every record contract is different. A band like Aerosmith signed a 4 album $40 million dollar deal. They get $10 million in advance money per album. At that level they would need to sell around 10 million copies of the album just to make their advance back never mind the costs of production and promotion. Yet they go on tour and make millions. The reason they sign the big deal is that they know they can't sell that many records so they want to get as much money up front as possible then cash in on tour. But, of course, you have read every single contract for ever single act ever signed and know every detail of those contracts so I'm sure you will explain how I am wrong. Another example is Rihanna. Right now she is one of the biggest acts in the world and she recently fired a bunch of people and sicked lawyers on her label because she found out even after selling all these albums and concert tickets and ringtones etc that she has made only around $20,000 in royalties. . . yet somehow she just bought an 8 million dollar house. But shouldn't all of that money gone to the label? Please Gideon, you know ever contract. How did that happen?

The simple fact is this: If you want to be a worldwide megastar the only way to do that is through the major label system. There has not been one act that did it on their own without the help of a major label's money and influence. I'm not saying they don't get fucked over and ripped off, but you take the good with the bad. If you want to go it alone and try to make some money, good luck with that maybe you will, maybe you won't.

I used a random number as an example of why they wouldn't take the risk to continue to fight piracy. You then divided it by the population number and claimed it was fact that this many people would be fucked over and that many businesses would be destroyed. You apparently assume every single person on the planet is guilty of copyright violation under this new bill.

That is why I said you pulled the number out your ass. It is what you do Gideon. You pull numbers and "facts" out of your ass, present them as real and then when you can't back it up you change the subject just like you did here. This article is about child porn, not copyright violation so I'm not even going to bother reading it.

you realize that 20k after paying back all expenses right

you can't understand how her massive advance paid for the house then you really are stupid

regardless

that doesn't meet your made up example



two simple conditions

1. don't cover advance and production cost
2. go from rinky dink to playing just 1 25k stadium.

go

you really need to learn how to read
seriously man i never said that was the number of people who would be screwed over

i just defined that even with your insanely inaccurate ratio you still talking about a shit load of damage

that statement is 100% true, based on your ratios that the number of people your predicting will get screwed over if this law is enacted.

personally i believe it way higher than that.



what exactly about the statement

do you not understand.

So you think movies are made from thin air, with no costs involved? Why do you feel entitled to get your entertainment for free? Because you are a self entitled little shit that only consumes, and never creates. That's exactly why. Tell me how I'm wrong about that, I'm sure you'll come off looking like a genius.

This is vintage Gideon. You made a dumb statement and now you are trying to talk circles to get out of it.

I simply used the example of one wrong lawsuit in 10,000 as a number I chose to show the risk.

You quoted yourself that with my math I predicted 684,050 would be totally destroyed.

When Porno Jew said he agreed with you your response was "simple math using his numbers

really impossible to disagree with a statement of fact."


I asked how you came up with that fact and your response was : "divide the population by 10k
divide the number of companies by 10k

1 innocent person per 10,000 (9,999 guilty, 1 innocent)"

So you simply took my 1 in 10000 and multiplied it by the total number of people on the planet to pull a big number out of your ass. You are assuming every single person on the planet will be charged with copyright violation under this new law. You said it. Not me. Now you are trying to back out of it.

Also you claim "the similar anti-piracy one took down 20K innocent sites and only 147 were found guilty." Yet you have no link and no proof so I am gong to assume that just like the numbers above you pulled them out of your ass and are wrongly representing them as fact.

I'm done with you. I've wasted too much time already.

This is the WHOIS info

Cinema Erotique
Cherry Chapman ([email protected])
Ul Zacisze 6/10 m56
Lodz
Lodz,00-564
PL
Tel. +48.2078028791

b) sorry, I thought you might as kids would love it.


c) the problem was the bill passed by Bill Clinton that gave "safe harbor" to the internet companies to host IT that was not theirs. This now has to be un done or a new model found for financing the creative media.

As I understand the bill you refer to has no chance of passing and I would probably agree with you on problems with it.

I am depressed though that you don't seem to understand the investment, time, people and expertise that go into making mainstream culture.

1. internet population not world population as you may have heard if facebook was a country it would be the third biggest country in the world

http://www.onlinemarketing-trends.co...fographic.html

add in youtube/twitter etc and you get the point


2. you didn't say charged under the law, you include settled too, which i assume included people who sent a notice back and have the case dropped, or internal investigation determined was not valid and dropped voluntarily both of which are legally definitions included in the term settled.



3. interesting how you need me to post proof for my statement

yet produce 1 single example of an newly signed artist who
a) didn't pay back the advance/production
b) still successfully toured the country with at least 1 -25k appearance.

still waiting.

I'm done debating the numbers game with you. You used my 10,000 example and divided it by world population and now you are trying to deny it. Anyone with a 5th grade education can see that.

As for your example.

I will give you 4 that I know of off the top of my head.

1. Everclear. I happen to know the singer and founder of the band. Their record deal was so bad that after their second album they declared bankruptcy in order to renegotiate their deal. The label was charging them for so many bullshit items under the heading of "Misc and other expenses" that they could never get out of debt. He told me personally the only way they made money off those first two albums was to tour. At the height of their fame they were playing 15-25K venues and they made some nice cash from it.

2. TLC. Almost same deal as above. They had a shitty deal and a lot of expenses so they made nothing off record sales, yet in a rolling stone article they mentioned how they were going to launch a large scale world tour before the next album so that they could make some money since they get nothing from the label and still owe the label money.

3. POD. I know a guy who was once the program director for a local rock radio station. Every year they put on a big summer concert. This particular year POD had a big album out. They ended up paying the band $600,000 to headline their show of around 40,000 people. It was tough to book them because they were doing heavy promotion for the record, but they told the program director that they love gigs like this because it is money they get, not the record company.

4.Scott Wyland/ Stone Temple Pilots. He was on Howard Stern a little while back talking about touring with the band again. He told Howard that he personally is broke because of all of his drug problems so he has to tour to make money. He explained how the band is actually still in debt to the record label so when someone buys an album they don't see a dime and the only way he can make money is on the road,but it is hard to do because the other members of the band saved their money from their previous world tours and don't need to tour now, but they do it to help Scott.

I'm sure there are more.

I don't have a problem with "approved or sample cleared" music.

And there's nothing in the proposed Act which says that you cannot apply for the required clearances from the copyright owner if you wish to use their creation for cover or sample purposes.

ah i see so your fudging the number to include music video production in the total cost of producing the RECORD.

the scum bag is strong in you my friend

all the kickstarter campaigns are just for the RECORD deal.

non commercial covers are fair use authorized not artist authorized

you just destroyed legitimate fair use with that statement

tell me what happens under this law if the artist is a dick who doesn't give permission.

you got it the free speech is censored.

WTF are you talking about? I don't say anything about music videos anywhere in what I wrote. Are you off your meds again?

BTW music video production is almost always a cost recouped by the artist as part of the promotion costs of the album and they don't see a dime of royalties until that money is paid back. They don't just pay back their advance and and record production costs and then suddenly get to start pocketing money from tour.

If that is the critera then I have 2 more examples.

1. Aerosmith. I mentioned them above. They signed a deal that gave them $10 million in advance money per album. They spent a ton of money producing those albums because they would live big, stay in nice places, record in exotic locals and bill it all to the label as production costs. The sales of their royalty share of the record sales never covered those costs yet they toured the world in stadiums and made millions.

2. No Doubt. When they were at the height of their fame the got a deal similar to the Aerosmith deal. They would do things like go to Jamaica for a month to record and bill it all to production. Their royalties never covered that amount, but they sold out stadiums world wide and banked tens of millions of dollars from it.

Again, I'm sure their are others.

Your version of "fair use" is a bit warped.

Why is the original artist a dick ?

wow so your using an example of an ESTABLISH artist who is already playing 25k venues squeezing the record company for a fair deal

or a band trying to get their record company to release them by artificially inflating the cost obligations as a justification for your bogus story

look at it again

1. record company invest 2 million dollars
2. they sell 2 million copies
3. they don't pay back the record company
4. however because of all that promotion they pull gigs on the summer festival circuit
5. followed by radio station concerts, music festivals etc.

I have been looking for an example of that for years

i have never seen it

no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band

every band had to go thru years of paying back all advances BEFORE they ever got the push that would allow them play major stadiums and ONLY then did they ever get an advance so big they couldn't pay it back.


In all the years i have been looking into this, with all my friends in the music industry, not one person has shown me the chain of events you described in your little story.

that makes no sense, as usual.

care to actually explain yourself there

which one of the for conditions of fair use does a "non commercial cover that is different enough that it would not cost the original artist a single lost sale" did i break

so you want to live in a world were people have the right to say "you can say that because i strung those words together in that way before you"

you really believe that the copyright act is so unconstitutionally flawed it legitimately allows that level of control.

that exactly what fair use is designed to prevent

ummm, this is a webmaster board for people in the industry right? Just don't understand why all these trolls are here spamming, if they have nothing to do with the industry, and not only support piracy but admit to doing it daily.... gfy is another company losing in profits because of piracy, why not ban these people?

lol. I actually feel sorry for him if he thinks that he's not allowed to watch porn with anyone. Given that he's a truck driver with noticeably poor grammar skills, it's also reasonable to assume that he lacks a proper education and more than likely has not had much exposure to the finer things in life. He's probably not part of the primary demographic for something produced by someone like Marc Dorcel or the fictional character of ambiguous sexuality known as Cherry Chapman. He probably did his valuations based on Bang Bros. type content which, let's face it, has been so devalued to the point that his $0.50 valuation wasn't too far off the mark. I actually think it's kind of neat to read about how he views the world and whatnot.

BTW - Got my copy of Inglorious Bitches in the mail earlier this week. Haven't watched it yet but am hoping to at some point this week with a girl I hooked up with a month or so ago. May give it a test run beforehand to make sure I know the exact time the anal scenes start. lol

he said the only way you should be allowed to cover a song is if you got authorization from the original singer

the only way you could sample their song is if you got permission

it doesn't matter that the new law doesn't hinder authorized covers

it the unauthorized ones that NEED to be protected for free speech and fair market competition purposes.

Thats right, Protect the thieves who live by thier own rules!

:321GFY

Please tell me you really aren't this dumb.

You have never heard of a record label plowing money into an unknown act? Again, read a book called "So You Want to be a Rock N Roll Star." The book is about the rise of Semisonic. It explains how the label had more than a million dollars invested in them by the time their debut record was on the shelf.

Here are a few others.

Britney Spears - a HUGE promotional push right from the start.
Christina Aguilera - See Britney Spears
Candlebox - this band had only played a handful of live shows and signed for an $800K advance and had at least another million dollars in them before they ever released a record.
Everclear - the band I mentioned before went through this exact stage.

There are many others like Ashanti, Taylor Swift, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beiber, while I don't know how much they had invested in them, it was A LOT. There are many cases where record labels put a ton of money into unknown acts because they think they have the ability to be huge right out the gate.

Let's just agree to be done with this topic. It doesn't matter how I answer the question you won't be happy that you are wrong so you will just change the question again. So this is my last answer to you in this thread.

We've gone through this before - I can't be bothered to do it again, you aren't going to change



When people sample or cover, they aren't just using the same words in the same order - they are also using the melody and musical phrasing.

So to be honest, yeah, I have no issues living in a world where that person has more of a say with what happens to their creation.......and "if" someone wants to use it, they get clearance and if need be, pay for the right.

Otherwise.......we have an explosion of untalented and uncreative people using the works of others......great, I can get tons of music for free but at the cost of real creativity.

and exactly which one of those failed to pay back the advance.

every single case you referenced made investment in stages

while they might have ultimately put did not invest in advance

justin beiber made back the entire production cost of entire album on the first single

his advance was tiny at first.

your using examples of establish bands who already were doing 25k stadiums and only got the not covering the advance at the tail end of their deals.

and now your using examples of people who paid back the advance hand over fist and got their push after they prove themselves at the smaller scale level.

to make your bogus claim

again order is important

1. money
2. not paying back
3. however getting concerts
4. 25 k stadium

so like the last time you cant, it your same bullshit copyright monopoly should be absolute because that the way i want it to be.



thank god the first amendment makes sure your insane level of control can't happen

songs /speeches are all protected equally

imagine if we lived in a world where the only way you could use a politicians speech to make fun of him was if you got his permission.

OK, I lied. One more response. You keep changing your question. now we are back to your first question.

My last post was in response to this statement by you :"no record company has ever plowed money into the promotion of an unknown band"

I have a list there that clearly makes that statement false.

You don't need to respond. I don't really care what your response is, it will likely be you once again changing the question.

lol, thats not what happened last time




Insane level of control LOL......seriously, go and create something for once.

One more step towards a piracy free internet - not that I think it will ever be free of pirates/thieves - I just rejoice at every milestone

http://torrentfreak.com/major-usenet...-order-111106/

there is room on the internet for people to give THEIR OWN work away for free

and there is room for people to SELL their work and be protected from those who steal

the consumer will decide which methodology will prevail

the consumer has NO RIGHT to decide what is free and what is not - that is up to the producers of content

don't want to pay for it? then don't.

you are not entitled to just take what you want.

and you certainly are not entitled to profit from your thievery - directly OR indirectly

.

really why don't you post the link then

Read that earlier and couldn't help but be a little happier today :)




Of course, the pirates are blaming everyone BUT themselves for current course of events.

well everything on the internet indirectly profits from piracy at some time or another

so say good bye to the internet.