WMG sucks donkey dick.
 

I'm declaring an official boycott of anything and everything with their name, logo, likeness, etc....

Seriously.... fuck them right in the pockeybook.

I'll still buy from EMI and Sony... while I'm investigating others. But as of now, Warner is off my list.

:P

Some background or history or story would be nice.

"Here's all the contact information that I could find for the Warner Music Group.

You'll notice that there's a FAX number down there, and I think we should use it."

Backstabber, your video hit the nail RIGHT on the head... and I'd be willing to bet the band mentioned at 1:06 is at the heart of it.

Caleb, I agree. I think I'll work on a banner of some sort, and see what I can do with that.

<insert bugle-charge here>

Using that number, one of my old friends would owe them $750 million dollars.

People don't purchase music because the prices are fixed or the services suck. You can pay $20.00 for an album to only enjoy a few songs. You can download on Itunes and only pay $1.00 for the right to LISTEN to the piece of music through their shitty god-awful resource-hog of a media player. You feel ripped off and straight fucked no matter what you do.

Let's see how my music collection works out. I have an estimated 900 songs.
900 songs downloaded for free. Cost: $0.00
900 songs downloaded through ITunes. Cost: $900.00, with limited use
900 songs picked single-handed from Albums: $18,000 in album costs

What do you think I'm going with? I don't even listen to 90% of my music collection anymore, anyway, because specific songs get old after awhile. I'm always living on the more recent 10% of my music collection. My money would eventually feel wasted.

Thankfully I don't like anything produced by anyone signed to the WMG label or it's subsidiaries. But I still think they need to pull that dick out of their ass.

I think the crazy man in the military dress is right. I don't like enough songs for it to be worth downloading... I really only listen to a few CD's so the risk to cost ratio is skewed. That said, I still find their behavior and mentality disgusting. 80 million dollars? Seriously? They didn't loose 100 dollars on her downloading those song so what can that number possibly achieve other than to be strictly punitive? I know this world is surrounded by people who sue the crap out of other people for no reason... like that crazy macdonald's bitch that doesn't know how to hold a coffee cup... but WMG is apparently just as bad.

I find it interesting that the term of a copyright is now 75 years + the life of the author, and authors are rarely the owners of copyrights anymore. In the next ten years about 1,000,000 patents will pass into public domain but not a single copyright as far as I know. I should have been a lobbyist. I'd be loaded.

Worse, actually. Because they are suing people who obviously DON'T have it it begin with. Not that I agree with the McDonalds 'tard, but at least McDonalds could actually PAY the amount(I sided with McDonalds on this one, after hearing the details of the case).

I was in BJ's Wholesale club today, and saw 4 DVDs I wanted. I bought 2 of them, because the other 2 were put out by Warner. I don't care if they were cheap.... I'm not giving them a single fucking penny anymore.

Other companies know/acknowledge 2 things: They can't really stop people from viewing their stuff if they really want to, and second; by not fighting it(aka promoting it), they are in a better position for people to BUY their stuff. I own a copy of the music videos I have been downloading recently, on another format(either DVD, or VHS)... but I can't copy them onto my iPod because of the anti-piracy coding. BUT, I can DL a copy of those same videos from YouTube for that use, so it's covered under "fair use". Warner is fucking me out of that "fair use", because I am not allowed to view the videos at my convenience. I have copies of my CDs on my iPod, legally. Because the Supreme Court determined it was alright to transfer the data from one medium to another for PERSONAL USE.

The only things I have ever DL'd "illegally", are things not available on the format I wanted them on. That's actually covered under "Fair Usage". If they are ever made available on the format I am using them on, I'll buy them.

Example: The "Pac-Man Fever" album. I own copies of it on LP Record, Cassette Tape, and 45-RPM Single. It was never put out on CD. The technology is in place to allow anyone to record it from the original medium to a digital format. I've paid for the usage of that music, so they have no room to bitch. Yet Warner seems to think it's not right to do that.... ergo, fuck Warner.

That's because in many cases the lawyers write up the contracts in such a way as to give the copyright over to a company, rather than allow the original author to keep it. I researched that when I was shopping around for a publisher. I made sure that *I* retained the copyright to *MY* work. I don't mind people passing it around(read: allowing other people to read their copy of the book they paid for)... or even quoting me for any reason(as long as they cite me as saying it), beit onine, in person, whatever.

I think I'd owe them somewhere in the ballpark of 1 billion....

Thankfully 95% of it is independent labels or unsigned.

Only if they don't have some kind of DRM or encryption. Bypassing encryption or DRM is illegal under the DMCA, even if you aren't actually violating the copyright. But I see what you mean, all my old CDs are encryption free so I can copy them as much as I want as long as I don't distribute to others.

Also, beyond contracts, we have the work for hire doctrine. If you create something as an employee or under contract the copyright belongs to the employer, not you. Employers/corporations can transfer ownership of the copyright to the original author, but this would be less money and control, so it doesn't happen very often. There are a number of smaller publishers that do allow people to retain the rights to their work, such as the one you worked with, but companies like WMG never, ever, do this.

Which is why I prefer to remain an independant writer. I may submit articles and commentary to local papers, which I authorize them to reproduce as they will, I still retain copyright. It's a 2-way street, though... cuz they don't pay me either. It's more for exposure than anything else.

...I can see it now:

:twisted:

BLASPHEMY!!! I would NEVER compare Football to that sissy game, Baseball!!

lmao...yeah it's just a simpson quote edited to fit your ramblings. But you get the idea.

I have had many videos taken down because of the WMG copy write issue.
Follow the directions to get your videos back up on youtube if they have been flagged.

Resolving WMG Copyright

Here's how to get around the WMG copyright issue. It worked for me. Hope it helps! It only takes a few minutes and it's worth it!

1) Select "Resolve Copyright" on the video you are having copyright issues with.
2) Scroll down and pick the option "I want to learn more about this dispute process".
3) Scroll down and pick the option "Take me to the dispute form".
4) Pick option #2 and PASTE the following statement into the text bar next to it;
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

5) Fill out the rest of the info on the page. Use your REAL name and continue
6) Scroll down on the next page and select "Submit dispute".

Heh, so one of my videos has a UMG copyright issue. I assume that the exact same process for WMG copyright issues could be applied to UMG.