Evanescence, Seether and Creed videos no longer available

Knowname · Post by **Knowname** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:40 am

RolltheStampede wrote:I think a lot of you are forgetting what the org is for. The org was not meant to be a store house for all yur videos but a catelog of videos that poeple have been. Just because you can not post your videos on Animemusicvideos.org anymore doesnt mean that you have to stop making your video. I think its pretty stupid to stop making your videos just because you cant have them hosted on animemusicvideos.org anymore.
i think you should just treat videos done by these bands like a hentai or live action video. just because you cant get them from the org doesnt mean that you cant them at all. you can still post your videos on the org you just cant have them linked on the org.

You know, that is the same thing ppl say against OT, and I respectfully disagree. I doubt your intention of branching the org out into new areas be it OT, envelope art, banners, live hosting etc. is JUST TO index videos but instead I have to see that as nothing but an excuse. Things change. Book it.

RolltheStampede · Post by **RolltheStampede** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:43 am

After sitting and thinking about it the main issue at hand would be tnat the company doesnt not want there music distributed from the org. This would mean the distibution of the audio. As of right now there is no concern with distributing the edited video. So say I had a video set to creed or seether or something. One way I would think to still have it distributed on the org would be to just remove my audio from my already edited video. Then after downloading of set video. Anyone who already has a legitamate version of the same song that I used could just use a free program such as TMPEG and just add the music to edited video. That way there is no distribution problem with the org. I would think you could put something in the video description to the effect "I used the 4:35 second version of Evanesence Bring me to life and video should be merged using some kind of video software."

And maybe as audio source there could be some kind of generic thing you put down like "See details for merging details." as the song name

Knowname · Post by **Knowname** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:45 am

Michele wrote:Your letter is serious and say the truth but the problem is that one person or one letter like yours would mean nothing, like 100 or 500.. That's the truth I think! ;( Btw Phade receive the PM so I'm sure we'll soon have an answer ^__^

yes I was thinking of includeing a petition, but I doubt the bands want to hear that. The company, yes, but I as a band would be like 'this is what we pay our agent for!' and we don't want that reacction.

Knowname · Post by **Knowname** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:47 am

RolltheStampede wrote:After sitting and thinking about it the main issue at hand would be tnat the company doesnt not want there music distributed from the org. This would mean the distibution of the audio. As of right now there is no concern with distributing the edited video. So say I had a video set to creed or seether or something. One way I would think to still have it distributed on the org would be to just remove my audio from my already edited video. Then after downloading of set video. Anyone who already has a legitamate version of the same song that I used could just use a free program such as TMPEG and just add the music to edited video. That way there is no distribution problem with the org. I would think you could put something in the video description to the effect "I used the 4:35 second version of Evanesence Bring me to life and video should be merged using some kind of video software."

a great ide for indirect/ direct links, but when ppl can't even be bothered with installing a codec, the quick comments you would receive would be ATTROCIOUS!!

Knowname · Post by **Knowname** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:50 am

also that would make the inclusion of bumpers with sound slightly impossible... though it would force ppl to put bumpers at the END of their video or do it generic WMM (TRL) style.

[Mike of the Desert] · Post by **[Mike of the Desert]** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:55 am

yes I was thinking of includeing a petition, but I doubt the bands want to hear that. The company, yes, but I as a band would be like 'this is what we pay our agent for!' a

Yes it would be exactly like that. ;\
About the other suggestion.. It would be a solution but nearly impossible to do, in the end no one would go out buying a CD (for example for a different version of Imaginary, Immortal etc etc.) only to view an amv. In the end we can only hope that announce the video in the forums to be permitted, that would be the best solution, like RolltheStampede said, we could simply find another host for the video, that should not be a problem. We should pay, anyway, but sincerely not that much that could be a problem, I think.

Infinity Squared · Post by **Infinity Squared** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:08 am

Hmm... well, a lot of stuff has been said in this thread already, and I might have missed it but what if a suggestion like this occurs:

You made a video done to a song to one of these 3. Now, what you do is, you put it up on your profile, basically put it in the catalog... but you never upload the video. As far as it goes, that should still be ok...

Now, what if you put in your video catalog entry "If you want to see this orgasmically awesome Evanescence video, PM me and I'll send you a link" will that be viewed as still in breach of whatever the cease and desist notice said?

Anyway, that's just me trying to find a loophole...

jubjub2 · Post by **jubjub2** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:52 am

Most of what I would have said has already been covered... But I did want to thank Phade for dealing so well with this situation. I'm sure the resulting ulcers will heal with time.

DaCoolGohan · Post by **DaCoolGohan** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:02 pm

bum wrote:Why? Do you refuse to support an artist just because a record label decided to protect there copyright in a way which members of this site see as wrong?

Yeah just because you aren't allowed to distro a video with these songs in them, doesn't mean you shouldn't support the artists if you like them. I really doubt that the actual Artist wanted to crack down on us, hell they make barely any money from Album Sales, they make it on their concerts and their mechandise sales, such as T-Shirts, Hats and such. Just because you may think what the Record Company did was wrong, still support an artist you like.

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:04 pm

dacoolgohan wrote:
bum wrote:Why? Do you refuse to support an artist just because a record label decided to protect there copyright in a way which members of this site see as wrong?
Yeah just because you aren't allowed to distro a video with these songs in them, doesn't mean you shouldn't support the artists if you like them. I really doubt that the actual Artist wanted to crack down on us, hell they make barely any money from Album Sales, they make it on their concerts and their mechandise sales, such as T-Shirts, Hats and such. Just because you may think what the Record Company did was wrong, still support an artist you like.

Ah yes. Well said.