And the crazy creeps in. :1orglaugh

he has no method or seminars or whatever. that's why he demands a million in escrow to show it to you. the guy is just a flat out fake.

Actually I did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_(band)

It is rumored that the members received in excess of $1 million at signing, along with an unprecedented amount of control over their work.

It is unclear how much of this is an advance, what the total amount was and what all this money would be used for.

And you know this how?

i remember hemlet did get that at the peak of the nirvana / grunge thing.

Yet for some reason gideon seems to think he is fooling us. Anybody that has dealt with piracy is used to the lies.

sad thing he's not even a pirate. some kind of IT guy or something. have no idea what he gets out of this.

yeah there were a lot of bands that made a lot of money at the height of the grunge thing. There were several bands that literally formed and started playing and within a month were signed to major labels. They didn't get millions, but several of them got six figure advances just because they had the right sound and look.

So he has an income and just steals for the hell of it? I would actually feel a little something for him if he were poor and just wanted to watch his favorite show because he can't afford cable.

As much as he is into the game, I bet he has money or a paycheck riding on the outcome.

so your proof that they recieved a $1 million dollar advance is a rumor that is unclear how much of this is an advance.

i see why you don't want to argue with me about this if that the best proof you can give

No the point is that neither of us know for sure. It appears that the received around a $1 million dollar advance. Some of that money was likely designated for production of the album. Neither of us know how much was for production and how much was an advance. I remember when the deal happened Jimmy Iovine caught some crap for giving them that much and he defended himself saying that a band like this would record an album and spend at least a year touring to support it and it wasn't fair that they do that for some tiny amount like $20,000.

Either way, my link has as much proof that a large percentage of that payout was an advance as yours did that the advance was linked to multiple records and other conditions.

im sorry but as much as everyone hates gideon, tubes, torrents and forums loaded with pirated content are still here and look set to stay. he said it ages ago and it still holds true today.

noone can argue with that.

GG, You demonstrate you're not aware of the context of Kroes' comments, and why they were made to the symposium. It wasn't about fair use -- more to the point, what *you* define as fair use -- but territorial licensing.

Example: US publishers by-and-large do not license their electronic books for distribution outside North America. Those licensing deals are made through distribution partners, most of whom pay upfront fees that offset the cost of publishing. The EU wants to break down the old territorial distribution barriers, but as foreign distribution rights can help pay for new works to be published (by spreading out the costs) there are no overnight fixes.

The EU, like all governing bodies, doesn't want to relax (what you see as) fair use. They want to find new TAXES and they see slow adoption of non-territorial digital rights management as spurring piracy, which they can't tax. They don't share your fair use utopia goals, dude.

do you even understand the concept of access shifting

that exactly the type of copyright abuse that would be stopped cold if the fair use of access shift ever gets established

saying you can only read this work if you live in america is just as wrong as demanding that you watch a tv show at 9pm on monday only.

it the same principle, extending the content monopoly to the medium.

ah but that the rub, you made the claim that record companies invest in artist in advance of them being a success,

and you just admitted you don't know for sure

i said there has never been any documented proof of that ever

my statement is true as long as there is no documented proof (which is obviously the case if you and i both don't know for sure)

your is a bald face lie until you actually do know for sure.

No. I said that record companies dump money into artists. That doesn't just mean that they give them big advances it also means they spend money on marketing them and building them up before they are ever a success. You are the one that is stuck on the advance part of it.

Also, just because there is no documented proof of something does not make you talking bullshit true. You said of Helmet: That the agreed total payment promoting the album, that agreement had conditions

the only way it was paid out is if those conditions were met.

Again total misrepresentation of the deal.

btw that deal had options on the second and third album
so that wasn't even the deal for a single album.

You have no idea if that is true or not. You made that up! Now you are actually trying to say that since there isn't documented proof to prove you wrong that this is a true statement?

Dude you need to get back on your meds.

Also, I have presented documented proof that record labels do spend money on unknown artists. As I have stated several times read the books "Hit Men" and "So You Want To Be a Rock N Roll Star" and you will see for yourself exactly how much money is spent trying to break unknown artists.

1. multi - album deals are standard practise
2. the band your talking about did multiple albums with that record company
3. if it was single album deal they should have been able to get a similar bidding war up for the second and third album

second you declared

that constitutes a condition.

btw your still spread the lie again

you keep trying to argue that just because they put money into a band it HAS to be before their a success.

you have never produced one single shred of proof that a label invested massive amount of money BEFORE the artist was ever know

you keep talking about total investment, with zero break down of WHEN it was spent.

many here http://www.thespacedoutgroup.com/201...g-record-deals

I can only say it so many times so this will be my final post in this thread. Until you read those two books I have mentioned I'm not longer commenting. In those books it explains, in detail, how much money some record companies had spent on artists before they were known and helping break them.

SemiSonic had $500,000 in marketing put into them just to get their first single on the radio before ANYONE knew who they were.

Nirvana had a deal with SubPop but their first album didn't sell well at all and they wanted out. They singed with DGC and got a $287,000 advance just to sign with DGC. DGC also paid $75,000 plus 3% to get them out of their deal with subpop and they paid Butch Vig $100,000 plus 3 points to produce the record. So DCG spent $462,000 on Nirvana before they ever even set foot in a recording studio. While they weren't an unknown band they might as well have been.

I have time and again given examples, but since you don't like to be wrong you refuse to acknowledge them. I'm done.

One of these days I am going to actually learn that I should just listen to my gut and never respond to you because it never gets anywhere because you know everything about everything and you would sooner chew your own leg off than admit you might be incorrect about something.

kane this is how you do it:
Unread Today, 04:35 PM
gideongallery
This message is hidden because gideongallery is on your ignore list.

gideongalley isn't in this business. And as far as I can tell he isn't in ANY business.

He knows nothing about the porn industry. And I forgot more about the music industry in the time it took me to type this than he will ever know.

He is un-creative and has no artistic ability at all. He just wants to be able to steal everything off the internet because he wasn't raised right by his parents.

Put him on ignore. He has nothing to offer to this forum.

the funniest part of this thread is that there are people here who actually think gideon has a job in IT or a business of some sort.

what does he do then?

This is solid advice that I think I am going to take.

Nobody knows. He claims he shows people how to use torrents to distribute content and make money off it and he gets paid for this, but when asked he won't show any proof unless you are willing to pay him a million dollars.

When offered a deal to put his methods to use in a partnership deal that could have made him rich if he followed through on his claims he backed out even after claiming he had started working on it.

My theory is he works somewhere doing something and he spends his free time trying to figure out how to use other people's content and hiding behind fair use to justify it.

I know this!

Near as I can tell he's a branding bug keeper or some such.

He raises the little critters in his mother's basement. Feeds them scraps from his dinner plate and the like.

Soon as he figures out how to monetize those things he's gonna be a rich and powerful man :thumbsup


.

yeah i forgot.

I think you are slightly confused. They mention the copyright laws are not up to date in protecting buyers of copyrighted material and the usage of new technologies in conjunction with the material people PAID for.

I don't see them anywhere saying that it should be made public available so people who illegally distribute and / or download copyrighted material would not be breaking the law

so now your examples of big advances is the on paper buying out of copyright that the artist had to sign away during their development deal stage.

That not a payout to the artist that one of those dirty tricks record companies do to screw artist out of their royalties.

It a promissory note which only get paid out if the artist turns a profit.

amazing how you keep asking me to give you stuff for free while complaining about other people doing the same thing to you.



in response doc said

according to you
Doc meant that i had to do all the work to PERSONALLY drive 100/sales day
therefore never walk away from the site

you all knew that doc was deliberately creating a kill condition on the deal (since it violated my show him and walk away condition) and your all such scum bags not one of you called him on it.

if fact you are still pretending that i backed out of the deal.



well then why not put your money where your mouth is then.

why would you try out techniques of someone who doesn't "know what you are talking about"

if i was showing you shit you know would not work you just agree not to use it and get all your money back

if i showed you something that was so promising you need to test out you by 1 solo girl masturbation scene for like $300

test it out, the entire loss would be capped at that $300 level

It's one person's opinion, and here's the best part:

"The commissioner did not provide any definitive answers as to what should replace the current copyright system"


:1orglaugh

Of course I do, but that's not the point of the statements made at the conference. She well knows cloud access to digital material is an business model being developed by just about all of the media companies. What ISN'T in their plan is access shifting so that a million others can get it, too, who haven't paid for it.

If you had even the slightest knowledge of what you think you're talking about you'd realize these committees are set up to help improve their income base. What's "wrong" with the current copyright laws is that it exports the money somewhere else. Or the money never gets there due to rampant piracy, caused by the unavailability of the content in that territory.

I'm starting to change my mind about this. I still think the opposition has exaggerated some claims and I would encourage people to actually read the part of the law that says it applies only to sites dedicated to nothing but infringement. However, when the Business Software Alliance, a group dedicated to protecting copyright, says the law is too broad that says something. The BSA is all about protecting copyright and even they say the bill should be improved to more narrowly target the worst offenders. I hereby withdraw any comments I made in support of the bill, while still supporting the idea of actually reading any bill or at least a fairly unbiased summary.

access shifting fixes this problem, if the copyright holder doesn't licence it to that territory then anyone within that territory can get it and fill that need.

It the same principle as time shifting : tv stations provided time shifting it was called re runs

the still could provide reruns if they wanted too, in fact they did

however they lost the ability to stop other people from competing (VCR) in the fair use time shifting space.

that competition resulted in a market so big that it exceed all other markets combined (home viewing market)

no one figured out what should replace the slavery model either


no one figured out what would replace monopolies like standard oil either.

imagine the world we would have lived in if the excuse "you haven't figured out what to replace the fucked up model with so we should just keep that model until you do" worked.

as I have said many times on this board. the funny thing is, Sony is actually who fought for time-shifting. Universal Studios sued them for copyright infringement and that was their defense.

The Supreme court of the US has deemed time-shifting as fair use.

exactly the point

in the current access shifting debate people like Kane and the copyright holders are saying that they are already providing access shifting because they will licence the content for that area 6 months or a year later

it exactly the same bull shit argument as saying that re runs were adequate time shifting

bought the book and started reading it

you bald face lied about semisonic

500k was not spent before anyone knew who they were

they recorded their own demo album called pleasure

they had a development with cherrydisc which paid them back album in exchange for copyright and a future committement

cherrydisc spent a little money promoting them at the local level and they got radio play for some of their songs

the 500k you misrepresented as marketing before they were ever heard on the radio included buying out their old contract and paying cherrydisc (aka the 10 fold payback of the contract for every dollar they invested)

so it just another example of small promo, followed by big promo if you prove your worth again.

Your still zero examples of your made up story about record companies investing in unknown acts.

Looks like trying to justify the same old thieving arguments to me.

Some people will try to justify, rationalize and plain old lie to get what they want.:2 cents:

Fuck the thieves. Support SOPA and Protect IP Act.:thumbsup

Not a fan of this direction

please explain the situation only kicks in if you are NOT licencing it to a region

that zero revenue situation therefore there is not even income to take

even if you want to use your insanely stupid your stealing my potential sales bullshit it doesn't apply

because there is no income to steal what so ever

http://i43.tinypic.com/1426fqp.jpg

.

The term backlash has such a peaceful history behind it