|
Post by webm@ster on Feb 15, 2008 10:56:23 GMT -5
I have been contacted by official outside parties regarding recent posts made on this forum referring to Oasis' recording studio details.
I now have no choice but to implement following posting rules.
- Posts claiming to be coming from "insiders" and offering unauthorized news from the recording sessions ( fake or real ) will be deleted. The poster will get one warning before his account gets closed - Members using IP spoofing software to hide origin of posting will be banned without warning.
I will enforce this no matter how many flaming responses I get regarding this decision. Myself and many of the members on here would like to keep this forum open.
Thank you all for your cooperation!
webm@ster
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Feb 15, 2008 13:36:02 GMT -5
Webby, you've done the right thing, definitely.
|
|
|
Post by gavincampbell on Feb 15, 2008 19:12:08 GMT -5
yeah i agree
no i have heard such and such today posts
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Feb 16, 2008 9:17:30 GMT -5
That's OK with me anyway I am getting so tired of these weirdo's posting a bunch of BS anyway!
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Feb 16, 2008 22:33:31 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what their legal authority is in this instance. It's no one on this boards fault if one of their employees decides to come on and blab as its hardly intellectual property to talk about what a particular band is doing in a recording studio.
It's one thing if they're posting actual lyrics or even worse MP3s of unmastered material, but gossip? They have legal standing to police that. They do not own conjecture or words. They have no legal standing to police what is said here or even threaten it (which is the assumption considering the content of the original post).
I can understand it from the board's perspective to curb the hoaxing and silly stories from tennis players and stuff, but the record company has no legal grounds to police what gets said on this board, real or hoax. If I started a rumor that Noel was fucking a giraffe or worse he was having an affair with Jordin Sparks in studio B at Capitol Records and even drew a picture/diagram of said act on a form they make readily available for public download (the studio diagram is available as a PDF file from their website), how is that any different?
I'm not flaming or complaining, but this really seems to be an overreactive measure to appease a record company that in a court would have no case whatsoever. If they can't control their own employees from blabbing, that is not the board's fault and the information is hardly intellectual property even if a confidentiality agreement was signed between the employee/employer. Their issue would be with them. How is it different from The Sun or Perez Hilton posting celebrity gossip? It doesnt matter if its true or not.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Feb 17, 2008 4:13:49 GMT -5
well, you are probably right, but I doubt webby has the cash to put up a fight in court should this situation reach that point.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Feb 17, 2008 4:41:26 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what their legal authority is in this instance. It's no one on this boards fault if one of their employees decides to come on and blab as its hardly intellectual property to talk about what a particular band is doing in a recording studio. It's one thing if they're posting actual lyrics or even worse MP3s of unmastered material, but gossip? They have legal standing to police that. They do not own conjecture or words. They have no legal standing to police what is said here or even threaten it (which is the assumption considering the content of the original post). I can understand it from the board's perspective to curb the hoaxing and silly stories from tennis players and stuff, but the record company has no legal grounds to police what gets said on this board, real or hoax. If I started a rumor that Noel was fucking a giraffe or worse he was having an affair with Jordin Sparks in studio B at Capitol Records and even drew a picture/diagram of said act on a form they make readily available for public download (the studio diagram is available as a PDF file from their website), how is that any different? I'm not flaming or complaining, but this really seems to be an overreactive measure to appease a record company that in a court would have no case whatsoever. If they can't control their own employees from blabbing, that is not the board's fault and the information is hardly intellectual property even if a confidentiality agreement was signed between the employee/employer. Their issue would be with them. How is it different from The Sun or Perez Hilton posting celebrity gossip? It doesnt matter if its true or not. EMI London and Capitol Recording Studios LA were involved. I've been doing this long enough now to know what measures are in this board's interest or not.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Feb 17, 2008 7:40:04 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what their legal authority is in this instance. It's no one on this boards fault if one of their employees decides to come on and blab as its hardly intellectual property to talk about what a particular band is doing in a recording studio. It's one thing if they're posting actual lyrics or even worse MP3s of unmastered material, but gossip? They have legal standing to police that. They do not own conjecture or words. They have no legal standing to police what is said here or even threaten it (which is the assumption considering the content of the original post). I can understand it from the board's perspective to curb the hoaxing and silly stories from tennis players and stuff, but the record company has no legal grounds to police what gets said on this board, real or hoax. If I started a rumor that Noel was fucking a giraffe or worse he was having an affair with Jordin Sparks in studio B at Capitol Records and even drew a picture/diagram of said act on a form they make readily available for public download (the studio diagram is available as a PDF file from their website), how is that any different? I'm not flaming or complaining, but this really seems to be an overreactive measure to appease a record company that in a court would have no case whatsoever. If they can't control their own employees from blabbing, that is not the board's fault and the information is hardly intellectual property even if a confidentiality agreement was signed between the employee/employer. Their issue would be with them. How is it different from The Sun or Perez Hilton posting celebrity gossip? It doesnt matter if its true or not. Shoofee is my new lawyer. Good things.
|
|
|
Post by Iliad ♣ on Feb 17, 2008 7:56:37 GMT -5
All these bootleg recordings in the Sound and Vision forum are more likely to be illegal than the made-up album news
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Feb 17, 2008 10:13:54 GMT -5
All these bootleg recordings in the Sound and Vision forum are more likely to be illegal than the made-up album news maybe that kind of stuff is tolerable, where as fucking about with the new official release is not kosher as far as the record companies are concerned
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Feb 17, 2008 10:35:51 GMT -5
I'm curious as to what their legal authority is in this instance. It's no one on this boards fault if one of their employees decides to come on and blab as its hardly intellectual property to talk about what a particular band is doing in a recording studio. It's one thing if they're posting actual lyrics or even worse MP3s of unmastered material, but gossip? They have legal standing to police that. They do not own conjecture or words. They have no legal standing to police what is said here or even threaten it (which is the assumption considering the content of the original post). I can understand it from the board's perspective to curb the hoaxing and silly stories from tennis players and stuff, but the record company has no legal grounds to police what gets said on this board, real or hoax. If I started a rumor that Noel was fucking a giraffe or worse he was having an affair with Jordin Sparks in studio B at Capitol Records and even drew a picture/diagram of said act on a form they make readily available for public download (the studio diagram is available as a PDF file from their website), how is that any different? I'm not flaming or complaining, but this really seems to be an overreactive measure to appease a record company that in a court would have no case whatsoever. If they can't control their own employees from blabbing, that is not the board's fault and the information is hardly intellectual property even if a confidentiality agreement was signed between the employee/employer. Their issue would be with them. How is it different from The Sun or Perez Hilton posting celebrity gossip? It doesnt matter if its true or not. EMI London and Capitol Recording Studios LA were involved. I've been doing this long enough now to know what measures are in this board's interest or not. I understand that and I'm not complaining at all by saying what Ive said. I couldnt care less if bogus album news is allowed or not, just the reasoning behind the ban seems foolish. I find it incredibly hard to believe that any record company would have any authority whatsoever to do anything to you or this place, because of news about a forthcoming release that may or not be true. The fact that they've said something at all lends validity to the fakes even. Even if Noel himself was involved, nothing at all could happen to this place. Their issue would be with the source and they'd have virtually 0 stance at all to come after you in any way, aside from taking away business (i.e ads) if they're involved in any of those. Can you elaborate at all on their threats/stance? Are they claiming copyright or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by shoofee on Feb 17, 2008 10:37:26 GMT -5
All these bootleg recordings in the Sound and Vision forum are more likely to be illegal than the made-up album news maybe that kind of stuff is tolerable, where as fucking about with the new official release is not kosher as far as the record companies are concerned Information is not the same thing as posting actual product materials. If they posted lyrics, mp3s, or pictures, or something tangible they'd have a say. Those can all be backed up to an intellectual claim. Saying that Noel was recording Talk Tonight at 3pm on a Tuesday has no legal ground for an intellectual property claim. It's literally on the same level as paparazzi type of things. "I saw Noel smoking crack on the streets of Baltimore, wearing a dyed green toupee, and doing the Macarena to Blur". Its the same sort of ballpark. A third party saying whats going on with the band is a totally seperate issue and a record company has no legal grounds whatsoever to threaten anyone or any site with "action" for that. Its absolutely no different than NME or another newspaper having a "spy" and reporting back to the paper except the information in L4E's case isnt used to sell papers.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Feb 17, 2008 15:59:04 GMT -5
Can you elaborate at all on their threats/stance? Are they claiming copyright or something like that? please check your PM box
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Feb 17, 2008 16:23:17 GMT -5
Can you elaborate at all on their threats/stance? Are they claiming copyright or something like that? please check your PM box I'd like to know as well.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Feb 17, 2008 16:42:34 GMT -5
[quote author=winterbush board=critic thread=45185 post=531830 time=1203283397 I'd like to know as well.[/quote]
check PM box
|
|
|
Post by startclocks on Feb 17, 2008 16:57:58 GMT -5
What exactly was the big problem? Was the posted information too close to the truth? We've been seeing fake "exclusive insider" news for ages, and never had any problems. Was the issue that the Daily Star (or whatever it's called) came on the site and printed one of the insider reports as real news?
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Feb 17, 2008 17:13:49 GMT -5
I'd like to know as well. same here.
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Feb 17, 2008 17:25:32 GMT -5
Guys I'm going to close this thread now before it gets blown out of proportion. The complaint below regarding the posts made on here is from the Capitol Recording Studios manager. I think it sums it up quite well. Thanks for everyone's cooperation. (webby)
".........inaccuracies may be misconstrued by fans, the band, and potential clients regarding their security at my facilities.........................."
|
|
|
Post by caro on Feb 17, 2008 17:29:57 GMT -5
Stop harassing Webby or I'll kick your asses ;D I will though
|
|