Originally Posted by kane (Post 18574255)

I'm not debating this with you. I spent about 5 years in the record industry. I know how they work. Sure, most people get signed and they record an album and if the first single doesn't hit the label abandons them. But there are acts that the label believes heavily in where they pump money into them before they ever see the light of day.

There are great examples I gave you in that. Whitney Houston's label spent $600,000 recording her album. That is a lot of money before she ever paid back a dime. Candlebox got an $800,000 advance. Britney Spears was signed to Jive records. They hired a vocal coach to work with her for a month to refine her voice. They then paid to send her to Sweden and hired some of the biggest, best known producers and song writers in the business to work with her. Before her album came out they paid to send her on a tour of malls where she did little mini-shows. This is all money spent before the single ever hit the air.

You saying it NEVER happens is just wrong.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18574260)

bald face lie

i never refused to show you proof i refused to show you proof for free

put the million dollars in an escrow account that is accessible and i will post the bill for conference room tomorrow.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18574268)

I wouldn't want to debate the issue with me either if i was lying as much as you were

Britney spears won star search, was on the Micky mouse club years before jive records exec ever met her.

the statement "Jive records was into Britney for about $3 million before anyone knew her name" is a bald face lie

She signed a development deal before she ever got her advance.
he album was recorded under that development deal

in fact some of her earliest mall tours used her Micky mouse club appearance as promotion

and because of that those malls PAID for her to appear.

The cost were more than recovered, your example are bogus. That the point it magic numbers shift around the time that money was paid, ignoring the revenue that came in
to fake an upfront investment when there was none.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18574271)

Which is essentially refusing to show proof. This is what yo do. You demand such a one sided agreement that nobody will ever call you on it thus you are safe in your realm of bullshit.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18574295)

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You could use the internet to find this stuff you you know.

Britney spears left the Mickey Mouse Club in 1994. She signed with Jive records in 1997. Her mall tour was in 1998 and was co-sponsored by L'Oreal. The Mickey Mouse Club stopped existing in 1996 or there about. It was long gone before she ever started recording a record.

But Britney aside. What about Candlebox getting an $800,000 advance? What about Semisonic getting a much smaller advance but having the record label spend around $700,000 on their album and getting their first single out there? What about the label spending $600,000 just to record Whitney Houston's first album?

Another to add to the list is a band called Helmet. They were in demand had a small bidding war around them and signed a record deal with Interscope that gave them more than $1 million up front and they were unknown.

Even if I am wrong about Britney Spears I am not wrong about these other people who had big money spent on them before anyone knew who they were.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18574295)

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. You could use the internet to find this stuff you you know.

Britney spears left the Mickey Mouse Club in 1994. She signed with Jive records in 1997. Her mall tour was in 1998 and was co-sponsored by L'Oreal. The Mickey Mouse Club stopped existing in 1996 or there about. It was long gone before she ever started recording a record.

Even if I am wrong about Britney Spears I am not wrong about these other people who had big money spent on them before anyone knew who they were.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18574309)

funny so it one sided for me to place a condition that i could only claim IF i was telling the truth.

if i was lying you would put the money up, i would fail to claim it and you would have paid out nothing.

The only reason to refuse is that you know it can be done.

you could charge what i charge for the shit i have shown you guys for free, analyse the kickstarter campaigns i showed you. understand them fully and you could teach that as a course for 2k a pop easy.

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18573971)

Patent law especially and copyright coulda use some tweaking. The people who are radically against protecting the livelihoods of people who create content don't arm to be thinking things through, though. We couldn't spend all this time doing R&D if people were allowed to just steal copies of Strongbox and Throttlebox. In order to eat, we have to sell software, and that means copyright protection. Our systems would therefore not exist without some sort of copyright protection, because we couldn't spend our time and money creating something we couldn't sell.

If you spend your day building a table, after investing your money in the tools you need to build tables and investing your time into learning how to build tables, the table you build is yours, right? Why would anyone think that digital goods are any different than wooden goods?

The odd thing is, those who rail against music copyright don't seem to download any of the millions of songs that have been freely released by the artists. I do lighting for a band who has all of their music freely downloadable from their web site. How many people listen to it? Essentially none, because professionally produced music recorded and mixed in a $2 million studio sounds a lot better. These pirates COULD legitimately download the free stuff, but they don't. They want the best professional stuff produced with the most expensive gear, but they are indignant about paying 99¢ as their share of the cost. They think you and I should pay their share, it seems. Odd. Very odd thinking.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18574271)

Which is essentially refusing to show proof. This is what yo do. You demand such a one sided agreement that nobody will ever call you on it thus you are safe in your realm of bullshit.

Answer my question:

1. How much will you charge me to show me your system?
2. Do you have a money back guarantee so that if you show me the system and I decide it is not going to work for me I can choose not to use it and get my money back?
3. Will you be able to supply references of people who have used your system and can vouch for you?















Bullshit. You are talking circles again. There is no difference. If I make a song and want to hold the copyright life and get paid anytime someone samples it or uses it or sells it, that is no different than you supplying someone with knowledge and they forcing them to pay you everytime they use it.

You use my music in your movie that you intend to make money off of = me getting paid.

Someone uses your system to sell their product = you getting paid.

there is no difference. You created something and every time someone wants to use it for a profit you want to get paid.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18574316)

re read wikipedia moron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meantime_(album)

it was a $1 million dollar budget, not an advance

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18574431)

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.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18574461)

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

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18574458)

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

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18574464)

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

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18574455)

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?

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18575036)

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

Originally Posted by VGeorgie (Post 18575591)

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.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18575286)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18576574)

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.

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18576668)

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.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18576815)

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.

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 18576891)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18576890)

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.

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18576894)

what does he do then?

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18576815)

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.

Originally Posted by porno jew (Post 18576894)

what does he do then?

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy (Post 18577027)

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


.

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 18573497)

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communi...sion-10024835/




as predicted by your truly

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18576877)

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.