Curse

Empress Amarox · May 13, 2009, 09:47 PM // 21:47

You're only furthering my above points at this point and you have yet to refute any of them.

[DE] · May 13, 2009, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingMetroid

you should know better than to argue with stupid people [DE], you disappoint me D:

I just got home from college for the summer. I am a bit bored :<

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Anthrax

You're only furthering my above points at this point and you have yet to refute any of them.

I give kids drugs and punt babies off bridges. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong about copyright laws.

Empress Amarox · May 13, 2009, 10:13 PM // 22:13

Ahem... Lets break it down, shall we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

Copyright Laws

You're mad because a law is being enforced? Oh no!

This was never about laws being enforced or not. Audio tracks copyrighted by WMG are being removed due to business dealings between Google and WMG. When Google could not come to an appropriate business arrangement, they opted for this alternative instead. Why? Because WMG would sue the shit out of them if they didn't.

We can look at this in the same light as MTV: You turn on MTV and you see music videos. The music producer did not put them there themselves, nor did they select play orders or anything else. They are allowed to be there because of business arrangements between MTV and the various record recording industries - Universal, Sony BMG, WMG, et cetera.

These things in particular are mutually exclusive. Why? Because by this we can then understand that the record label is either being paid to allow their content to be played on a certain station or they are paying said station for the advertisement and promotion of their artists so they will therefore sell more records. I am not in the business, so at best I can only assume that perhaps a combination of the two are in order.

With that said, we can now get into this little Google:WMG fiasco. This is purely a business arrangement. I am not upset in particular at copyright laws, I am upset at WMG's business practices and their current dealings with YouTube's parent company Google which thereby created this dilemma in the first place. And that is the point I have been trying to make, however frivolously it may seem to this point; however, I should instruct you not to so easily judge and attack an individual. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is not particularly such a pleasant practice when faced with non sequiturs as I so commonly practice due to redundancy given at this point and my great disappointment with the vast community in general which has lead to such behavior. However, you should at least try to control your emotions and attack my argument, not me. By attacking me, you only make yourself look foolish.

Now, shall we continue?

If you haven't postulated it yet from the content of this post listed above, then perhaps I can further simplify the issue?

Other record labels have been able to come to agreements with Google to be reimbursed for their content being advertised on Google's subsidiary YouTube, as per uploaded by various YouTubers, though proper attribution has been henceforth required of all content matching aforementioned labels, which is (somehow, beyond your comprehension) pre-programmed algorithmic functions which find and identify, not alien to the Google spidering technology used for web crawling, content respectively with properties belonging to said entities and marking the aforementioned with proper attribution. WMG however does not allow this. This, which you must understand is years after they have not been getting any money whatsoever by YouTube, they refuse to accept reimbursement out of good faith, whereas the others have. I see this in no other light than a spiteful nature and purely mean spirited business tactics. And though this is not illegal in the business world, it is certainly not something one has to appreciate nor support.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Diddy bow · May 13, 2009, 10:19 PM // 22:19

It's a pain really but if warner own the rights they can do whatever they want with it. They don't tell you what to do with your stuff.

Empress Amarox · May 13, 2009, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diddy bow

It's a pain really but if warner own the rights they can do whatever they want with it. They don't tell you what to do with your stuff.

Well, that certainly doesn't mean I can't complain about it.

After all, are Riverside and Sardelac here not just big complaint forums about GW itself, which ArenaNet owns the rights to and can do whatever they want with?

Yes. We can, and we do complain. It is human nature, especially among the displeased and I think it's a very healthy practice.

Enough complaining brings about change.

[DE] · May 13, 2009, 10:32 PM // 22:32

It has everything to do with copyright laws. Because Google and WMG couldn't reach an agreement it was required for them to take down all the music on youtube produced by WMG. Just because WMG doesn't want Google allow users to use their songs on youtube doesn't mean they're a mean spirited company. There are many different companies with many different viewpoints, especially with copyright issues. You may not agree with how WMG deals with copyrights but that doesn't mean what they're doing is wrong.

Instead, it seems like you're just pissed because WMG made a totally legal and fair decision to not accept Google's business deal, thereby making Google take down all WMG's music on youtube as to not deal with a copyright lawsuit. There's nothing wrong with that.

Empress Amarox · May 13, 2009, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

It has everything to do with copyright laws. Because Google and WMG couldn't reach an agreement it was required for them to take down all the music on youtube produced by WMG. Just because WMG doesn't want Google allow users to use their songs on youtube doesn't mean they're a mean spirited company. There are many different companies with many different viewpoints, especially with copyright issues. You may not agree with how WMG deals with copyrights but that doesn't mean what they're doing is wrong.

On the contrary, it does not. I am not arguing against copyright laws, nor do I have a problem with them.

It does mean they are a mean spirited company in my view.

And no, it certainly doesn't mean what they're doing is "wrong" legally, though we could get into a whole different discussion based on morality. Though, morality and business are not good partners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

Instead, it seems like you're just pissed because WMG made a totally legal and fair decision to not accept Google's business deal, thereby making Google take down all WMG's music on youtube as to not deal with a copyright lawsuit. There's nothing wrong with that.

Indeed, I certainly am pissed at this and I have every right to be, and I have every right to complain about it. While I can certainly agree that these actions are legal and in this respect "there's nothing wrong with that," I must disagree on a moral grounds going back to my previous statements about it being a very greedy and mean spirited move by WMG.

While you may be right about different companies having different views, this does not alleviate the fact that I can also then complain about them not jumping on the bandwagon.

So, you see... While you may wish to defend WMG on a legal standpoint, my argument in its entirety is subwholly based in entire disregard to such a point and is instead based on morality and just downright bad fan treatment. And with that said: It's certainly legal for me to disagree with their actions and complain about them.

Snow Bunny · May 13, 2009, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

Enough complaining brings about change.

You have no goddamn right to complain about something Warner legally and legitimately purchased.

Who the hell are you to demand that they cater to your demands for free? They purchased the rights to much of that music at heavy expense.

You are entitled to nothing. Get that? Nothing. You have no right to be upset that they wish to set standards. They're in the business to make money - they don't exist to cater to brats like yourself.

[DE] is completely right. Because Google and WMG can't settle a copyright agreement, Warner will lock its music down. Warner paid for the music, it's only fair that for YouTube, owned by Google, to show Warner's music, they should be be entitled to lock it down.

You have no justification to complain.

Empress Amarox · May 13, 2009, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Woo-sah?

Yes I do.

I think you're confusing legality with certain freedoms which guarantee me that right.

I certainly have the right to complain about anything I'd like to complain about.

FlamingMetroid · May 13, 2009, 11:31 PM // 23:31

Everything is entitled to me because of my existence

Snow Bunny · May 13, 2009, 11:48 PM // 23:48

You have the legal right to complain, just not a moral one.

God you're thick.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

You have the legal right to complain, just not a moral one.

I'm an idiot.

I certainly have a few.

Morality is not tied to legality. If that were the case, you could argue that washboarding was morally sound and therefore people have no right to complain, when in fact it is wrong and people do have a right to complain.

The same is true here. I'm sticking by my previous statement and that is that I find it to be a mean spirited business decision and a lot of people are not thrilled about it, myself included.

Snow Bunny · May 14, 2009, 12:26 AM // 00:26

It's a business decision. As stated previously, they exist to make money.

Why do they owe you anything?

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Who said or otherwise implied that they owe me something? Quote me, by all means - I insist.

I pwnd U · May 14, 2009, 01:30 AM // 01:30

Have you ever read any of the copyright laws or tried to understand them? Because it sounds like to me you are just trying to justify you being pissed at Warner because they took all their music down from YouTube. I say read the copyright laws and then come back and tell us why, legally, they should not have done that. Here I'll even link you to a page about U.S Copyright laws!

http://www.copyright.gov/

And here is a link to the basics of Copyrights!

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 01:36 AM // 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

Have you ever read any of the copyright laws or tried to understand them? Because it sounds like to me you are just trying to justify you being pissed at Warner because they took all their music down from YouTube. I say read the copyright laws and then come back and tell us why, legally, they should not have done that. Here I'll even link you to a page about U.S Copyright laws!

http://www.copyright.gov/

And here is a link to the basics of Copyrights!

I say RTFT, noob.

I pwnd U · May 14, 2009, 01:40 AM // 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

I say RTFT, noob.

I'm talking comprehension, not being able to copy and paste then replacing what it says with WMG or YouTube. BTW, insulting people is not going to get you anywhere in life, nor does it make you seem that you know what you are talking about.

Empress Amarox · May 14, 2009, 01:52 AM // 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

I'm talking comprehension, not being able to copy and paste then replacing what it says with WMG or YouTube. BTW, insulting people is not going to get you anywhere in life, nor does it make you seem that you know what you are talking about.

Did you read the posts linked in the post you're quoting, even one bit?

This has not one f'ing thing to do with copyright.

And you have the nerve to lecture me on comprehension...

Two separate thoughts:
1. Sound track disabled due to copyright claims.
2. Complaint-worthy action based on all other record label's decisions.

Legality is nowhere in the room.

They may have a legal right to do it, but that doesn't mean we have to like their decision. And, I should remind you: There are absolutely no conditions that must be met before one can complain about something.

And why the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO do you think I'm copy/pasting?

[DE] · May 14, 2009, 01:55 AM // 01:55

There may be no conditions that need to be met for someone to complain about something. But that doesn't mean that what the person is complaining about isn't stupid. For a reference of this, see the OP.