AFDRR

5 hours ago, ludurigan said:

lets say it was just a video shoot

ok

but the fact that they played rocket queen (check axl playing bass) indicates that most likely they played other songs, right?

(maybe as a way to say "thank you" to the crowd?)

so even if it was "just a video shoot" everything indicates that they actually played a few songs (maybe several songs? maybe a full show?) for the crowd who went to the video shoot

right?

I just wanted to say that the video doesn't contain stuff from 91 in my opinion. I'm sure they did a short (or maybe long) gig after the video shoot but they also did ISE more than once as someone already mentioned which explains the different clothes, hair and mic stands.

Just to make sure the difference between an original record company (someone who's actually in charge) and some dumb shit. I just uploaded the ISO video (original, no split or anything) and it got blocked right away in 224 countries (so pretty much everywhere). But no take down as in now (might come if I let it be). And it came from UMG, not RIAA or IFPI or Uzi Suicidal bla.

Not saying this is a lot better but this is how record companies (the real owners) work and not the.....

I uploaded the first few songs on May 14th. Today I posted the ISO split screen video here (which is still up) but my Saskatoon video is down now (Not the November Rain Video from that show). Who took it down? The RIAA Manually? Yes. They dont take down videos without someone writing them to take it down, and this I know.

Someone tell that UziSuicde cunt to stop or she gets a real problem.

RIAA just took down the ISO video too

18 minutes ago, Guigsdaddy76 said:

yes the cathouse stuff was.  You can tell its different 

What difference? The mic stand was used at the cathouse and so was his hair done different.

You guys realise this was an actual video shoot and not just taken from a live gig?

10 hours ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

What’s there to discuss? Hasn’t this video been in circulation for years?

35 minutes ago, fanfzero said:

Apparently it was official. From the email (translated from spanish)

"Hi, fanfzero:

We've blocked your video due to a copyright claim. In other words, nobody will be able to watch your video on Youtube and It's posible that you won't be able to access some features of the platform. 

Video Title: Guns n roses - Madrid Spain 1993 FULL SHOW [Remastered] 
Song Protected with copyright: Welcome To The Jungle (Live Version (Explicit)) 
Claimed by: UMG

Details:

Sound recording manually detected. 

Claim: UMG (in the name of Geffen)

Blocked worldwide"

The thing is that I let another guy to pick a piece of my video and upload it to his channel.

He uploaded Welcome To the Jungle and his video is still up.

 

Any chance that this is the WTTJ from the Live Era Album? Or at least parts of it?

31 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Thanks for explaining so well

So if I create a video discussing the band, I cannot add any inserts of their music, their videos, a few seconds of my own videos recorded at the show, none of that?
What about old interviews from sources like MTV?

This is too complicated... how do the Youtuber gamers do then? I've seen them showing themselves playing games that surely are copyrigthed to their owners

Do you know of any good book(s) (or other sources) where I can read about the whole YouTube saga?

Let's say you make an own GNR documentary and put in clips of their videos, interviews, whatever (not the full videos but parts) and upload it on YT. This would be the so called fair use. They would still be able to monitize your video but won't take it down even if it you use a numerous of videos by different copyright owners. Saw this with some videos, uploading the full video gets you a block or even a takedown (=strike) but using parts of it was fine (still there was a copyright claim but no take down or block).

This discussion is way OT though

Seeding it on Zomb now if someone still needs it

30 minutes ago, FRANSAD said:

Lot of my videos where claimed manually, bootlegs as in fan filmed? True but the music in this footage is still owned by GN'R / universal. I also learned they renewed the contract because there was enough to be earned of the old songs on YT and other places 

Bootlegs as in never released material - no matter if some demo that found its way out of some basement, audience recorded footage or pro like the Saskatoon gig. All of it (whatever is live) is considered as bootlegs. Yes of course the music played or recorded is owned by someone (not necessarily the band) but most bands really don't care about it as long as it's not planned to be released. Some make money out of it in releasing the gigs themselves (which is a good thing) but at the end only hardcore fans care about it anyway. Don't get me wrong I didn't want to say you make money out of it, I just never saw an audience recording being claimed by a band or record company on YT but I guess your channel is big enough so they are happy you make them a bit of money with your videos (which obviously is fine).

Btw is the DTJ video private too I can't find it?

1 hour ago, FRANSAD said:

Hey guys just quick reaction from me cause I'm @work. This fella never took my Saskatoon video's down i put them on private so yesterday I made an Saskatoon DTJ video where I exposed his name because i wanted him to strike me. On all my videos i have monetizing from universal / geffen etc. In exchange they let me post their videos. Now I don't wanna brag about it but this is quite some cash I'm gegenerating for them. Even this exposure video I did was allready claimed by them...... To be continued in my next lunch break 

 

Did you make an actual deal with them or is this just what you think? YT works simple. You upload something, if it gets detected by the bots (or the owner) they are able to monitize the video (and not the uploader). If the owner doesnt want it on YT he takes it down (even after months of making money out of it). Also lots of your videos are bootlegs so i'm not sure why all your videos are monitized (its the frans n roses channel, right?)

1 hour ago, TheSeeker said:

This is a good article explaining how YouTube's copyright system is run almost entirely by bots and is almost impossible to appeal

https://petapixel.com/2016/02/20/how-i-turned-a-bs-youtube-copyright-claim-back-on-the-real-infringer/

The comments section below that article is EVEN BETTER since it has people telling stories about their videos getting taken down

My favorite comment from there that's relevant to our situation:

 

 

I read that yesterday too. Never knew how easy it is for someone taking down other videos without needing proof that he is the actual owner or at least be assigned to do so. On the other hand it seems impossible to do something against it. Although I still think if there are enough complaints YT takes a closer look at that Uzi idiot.

16 minutes ago, killuridols said:

 I can't believe what I just read.... The story of that guy... but in the end he lost and he was the legal owner of everything... 

Looks like we don't have a chance with the videos but there has to be a way to peel the bitch off of our backs.

Not posting links here would be a start. Apparently the girl is too lazy or dumb to look for the videos herself and only takes down what gets posted here. Best example that Jorge Cubas videos, they were up since day one and nothing happened then they get posted here and they got taken down.

1 minute ago, zigzagbigbag said:

 

No, I don't know whos the copyright owner. Neither do you. 

But you do seriously expect some individual idiot being that successful playing bootleg police without owning the copyrights?! Have you ever tried to delete some content from the internet without being the authorized person?! 

Apart from that, do you have to be the owner of the house to be jutified to stop some robber from breaking in?! 

Once again, I do not defend the shutdown of all the links but I do see myself to be entitled to be upset about this actiom.   Just my five cents. 

 

 

 

From what I read Uzi Suicidal LLC is no real company. If GNR would be really into all this then all copies would have been taken down already. But they're not. The most common ones are gone, still tons of videos up though. And again who knows if the copyright owner isn't fine with it being shared?

1 minute ago, zigzagbigbag said:

I dont get all the upset. 

I think everyone who was interested in the footage still has it. 

In the end we are still talking about bootleg material which is still illegal, at least in most countries of the world. Just because digital bootlegging is that easy in 2018 it does not mean that it has to be accepted by the copyright owner (or the person who claims to be the owner). 

Dont get me wrong: I dont defent the shutdown of all the links but I do not understand the overall reaction. Its not that someone has stolen something from you. Its the other way around ... strictly speaking. 

Strictly speaking you don't know who owns the copyright of the footage (doesn't need to be the band or their management) Maybe the owner is fine with it being on YT and there's no need for someone playing bootleg police

Why not dispute the claims? I would but my vids are still up. I'm sure YT would take a closer look into the one who claims to be the owner of the copyright if lot of people dispute it. At the end the footage never was released officially. If someone officially from Guns claims the videos so be it but some crazy twat whos bored should not be able to take down videos. 

17 minutes ago, Chunder Monkey said:

Is there a possibility that GNR want to go after the person selling the bootlegs in Japan and for that reason they needed to remove the youtube versions to prove they are protecting their copyright and it's not public domain etc?

I could see the band would take a worse view of shops selling bootlegs than just random fans swapping them.

I think all this would be avoided nicely if GNR would set up some way for fans to purchase offical boots - like how bands like metallica sell stuff after the show online.

The person taking the videos on YT down (There are still at least 4 full versions up btw) apparently is not connected to the band in any way.

So what is Uzi Suicidal LLC? A crazy fan? I googled it and came to a thread of this forum from 2014... But I am not sure what came out of that discussion

1 minute ago, fanfzero said:

For the golden gods show, the claim was sent by WebSheriff, it happened more or less at the same time when Axl asked to remove his memes from google (apparently some people received a claim from "WebSheriff in the name of Axl Rose").

It would be funny if someone uploaded it to the Nightrain forum.

I'm sorry but I don't know who WebSheriff is. Was that the name YT sent you who claimed the copyright?

Anyway, I uploaded the first 6 songs of the gig 3 hours ago - nothing happened (no bot copyright stuff was found, no strike, nothing. I even can monitze the thing if I want). November Rain I also uploaded because someone here said copyrighted stuff got detected - well, same here as you see.

Other than that nothing happened so far. So I'm sure this is all done manually and whoever is in charge is reading here. Will think about a (real) private tracker or some other option for the next weeks because this is shit...

1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Strikes happen on youtube all the time from 'hall monitor' type individuals. Literally if you have an account, you can request a strike for the simple reason that your feelings were hurt. I'm just saying, this guy has the biggest incentive of anyone.

I got 2 YT channels taken down. The strikes I got (for non-gnr stuff) were from copyright owners always. I always got an email telling me who claimed the rights and never it was "some random guy". Maybe everyone can complain or whatever (because of tits blabla) but getting a strike needs copyright violation I think.

5 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I'm guessing the strikes are coming from some individual, not the band (since they'd be striking every other pro-shot concert on youtube as well, but they don't). Most likely that guy is the one who sold the bootleg.

No. The guy selling bootlegs doesn't own the copyright - he can't do anything.

6 minutes ago, killuridols said:

How does this thing work? 

You people get the content taken down but there's no explanation of what is the violation?

Can anyone push a button and have your content taken down or do they need to be the owners of the material and prove it?

Copyright owners (who care) inform YT and they take it down. Not sure about YT's bot stuff - I had videos of other bands uploaded which were blocked worldwide the second it was uploaded (New BBC stuff is a good example here). I don't know though when there are videos blocked and when deleted. I think the blocking is automatically (mostly) but the deleting (including a strike) only goes manually. There would be a chance YT takes the strike back but this includes writing the copyright owner an email and ask them to take the delete back - which most owners don't bother to even read...

1 minute ago, TheSeeker said:

Can we at least figure out who's behind the YouTube takedowns?

Like I mentioned in the previous thread, the copyright bots might be detecting the snippet of whatever song is playing before McBob does the intro - try muting or trimming that part off and see if the video stays up

My guess is that GNR (their Management) found out about this (obviously) and registered it at IFPI. So now they can let it be taken down (At least manually at the moment because there are still links up and I'm uploading it too in a few minutes just for testing). Not sure why the threads get deleted here though.

I don't think this was at the Cathouse and those 9 minutes is definitely not the "only footage"

Would like to see the footage here at around 17:55 though in full without the X

No. First of all I prefer to own something instead of streaming (yeah, might be old fashioned but it's still my opinion). Also this would only be fine with me if they actually put out EVERYTHING they have which they won't, including doucumentaries, behind the scenes footage. Just 10-15 shows from each era is not worth making a subscription. And of course they must put in new stuff regularly.

So no, they won't do that. If they would release DVD/BR boxsets with shows (of the 85-93 era) I'd happily pay 10, 15, 20$ per show - 5 shows for 100$? Take my money. If they put in behind the scenes footage (longer than 5 minutes) make it 120 or even 150$. No, guitar picks or rings would NOT make it worth 150$ for me - I want actual footage. 

Having said that, in my opinion it's very hard to come up with something like that (the streaming site). Just because they have a lot of footage in their archives doesn't mean they can release/stream all they want. There's a lot of legal stuff in the background that would need to be fixed first.

Lovely footage