PDA

View Full Version : About the recent bans



Tijs
06-19-2012, 03:12 PM
First off, you can legally and without a problem listen to the new album by following this link:
http://www.offspring.com/news/341/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now,

Quite a few of you have been banned today. Most of you have received a PM by me in the last hour, explaining why you got banned, containing this message:


You have been recently banned for one of the following reasons:
- Posting a link to a leak of the new album;
- Requesting a link to a leak of the new album;
- Talking about (the leak of) the new album before its release;
- Discussing the new songs before they're released;
- Posting in a thread containing links to the leak of the new album.

We hope you understand we want to do everything we can to prevent the album from being leaked and being spread before the official release.

Our policies about leaks have always been stated clearly. We do not tolerate it, especially not on the official Offspring website.

It's impossible for us to review each post one by one in such short notice. Therefor it's highly like that your ban was preemptive.

Now that we've had some time to do so, your ban has been lifted and you may post again. You have NOT received an official warning.

If your ban has been lifted, we apologize that you weren't able to use your account for the past 6 to 7 hours. It was preemptive so that we could deal with the situation in a normal matter.

Several members however, will remain banned for the original length of the ban, or will be banned for longer. See list below:

Banned for 24 hours (~17h remaining) - Requesting links to leak.
Banned for 7 days - Posting/offering links to leaks.

Llamas
06-19-2012, 03:17 PM
This situation was very, very well handled by the mods. *Golf clap*

Rooster
06-19-2012, 03:18 PM
Well, I guess the banner... Has been waved.


*ba dum tss*

_Lost_
06-19-2012, 03:22 PM
Oh man Rok... that was lame.

Rooster
06-19-2012, 03:30 PM
Yeah, I know... It wasn't the best joke. But it's better to try and joke about the situation (I was one of the temporarily banned people) than making a fuss of it, right? I was rather amused by the whole situation :p

Anyway, given how fast that thread gained pages and that there was a shitload of posts to get through the mods did a good job. :)

_Lost_
06-19-2012, 03:37 PM
I agree. I hope everyone can be understanding. You gotta stop the spread, then sift out the rest. I think it was handled well and I am glad to see the folks here that I know take it in stride.

KickHimWhenHe'sDown
06-19-2012, 03:43 PM
I missed all of this. Also, the tags are funny.

JohnnyNemesis
06-21-2012, 03:31 PM
i favor new mods

Just kidding; Tijs continues to do a stellar job, and this is just another example. Kudos; respect his man!

RageAndLov
06-22-2012, 10:01 AM
What about the band's official stance on piracy which says that everyone should illegally download their music if they want to? They even use the official logo of Napster to symbolise that. Why are people being banned when they are only following the suggestion to the band?

Little_Miss_1565
06-22-2012, 10:03 AM
What about the band's official stance on piracy which says that everyone should illegally download their music if they want to? They even use the official logo of Napster to symbolise that. Why are people being banned when they are only following the suggestion to the band?

You know that was kind of a joke, right? They pirated Napster's logo and sold merch, which put Napster in the weird position of having to send a cease and desist on copyright grounds, given that they were in the business of violating copyrights themselves.

They continue to say (rightfully) that there's no way to stop people from pirating their records. That does not mean that the band enjoys shitting on the people who work hard to produce, distribute, and market their records by allowing their own website to help pirate it.

RageAndLov
06-22-2012, 10:19 AM
They continue to say (rightfully) that there's no way to stop people from pirating their records. That does not mean that the band enjoys shitting on the people who work hard to produce, distribute, and market their records by allowing their own website to help pirate it.

Why did they want to upload Co1 for free on their own website then? Was it not for Sony threatening to sue the band, they would have been "shitting on the people who work hard to produce, distribute, and market their records by allowing their own website to help pirate it".

Little_Miss_1565
06-22-2012, 10:20 AM
You'll notice they experimented with that once (10 years ago, I might add, which might as well be a lifetime ago in the music industry) and never did it again.

RageAndLov
06-22-2012, 10:24 AM
You'll notice they experimented with that once (10 years ago, I might add, which might as well be a lifetime ago in the music industry) and never did it again.

Of course they didn't. They do not want to be sued, like most rational people. That doesn't mean they don't approve of piracy.
Is this the website of The Offspring or the website of Sony/Columbia?

Little_Miss_1565
06-22-2012, 10:26 AM
Of course they didn't. They do not want to be sued, like most rational people. That doesn't mean they don't approve of piracy.
Is this the website of The Offspring or the website of Sony/Columbia?

Just because you want them to approve of pirating the record doesn't mean they do, or will, nor does it mean it makes sense to apply things from a decade ago to fit your worldview.

RageAndLov
06-22-2012, 10:33 AM
Just because you want them to approve of pirating the record doesn't mean they do, or will, nor does it mean it makes sense to apply things from a decade ago to fit your worldview.

I don't care what they think about piracy. I will buy the album when it is released, just like how I have bought every other Offspring album. I just think it is kind of funny to see their own website and its staff to work against the band's views on piracy, which I presume still is prevalent today as I have not heard or read anything contradictory to the matter.

Little_Miss_1565
06-22-2012, 10:37 AM
From whom do you think we get our orders to remove links pirating the album?

mrconeman
06-22-2012, 11:01 AM
It's really obvious that during that period (giving away CO1, uploading all their music, and having million dollar competitions) the band, piracy, the music industry and the internet at large where in totally different stages of development than what they all are now.

Applying what they thought 10 years ago, about what is now an entirely different thing, to what they think now, even in the face of adverse evidence (management/the band have clearly decided against it and instructed the mods accordingly) is kind of dumb.

_Lost_
06-22-2012, 03:51 PM
Just look at the end of the year tallies for album sales for the U.S.. Adele had the top selling album of 2012 with 5.82 million copies sold. In the years leading up to the release of Co1, the top selling albums were well over 9 million copies sold ('98 9.3 mil, '99 9.4 mil, '00 9.9 mil). Until Adele's album last year, no one had managed to break 5 million since 2005, in large part, because of pirating. Even then, no one has come even close to the 9.9 million that N'sync (really folks?) had managed to sell in 2000 in the last 11 years. This has been said by everyone, everywhere, but pirating albums has forced the music industry to rely on other things, like concert tickets and merchandise sales, for the bulk of their profit. This being the undeniable truth, why would the Offspring, having seen what pirating has done to their own album sales/income, still be FOR pirating their album?

JohnnyNemesis
06-23-2012, 02:39 PM
which I presume still is prevalent today as I have not heard or read anything contradictory to the matter.

I respect what you're saying and I'm all about conversation and discussion and learning more, so don't get the wrong idea...but...you shouldn't make this presumption. You really shouldn't.

It's been said for many many years now, but it bears repeating because Little_Miss_1565 and Tijs often get their directives straight from the management and in some cases the band themselves. They're not just going around making random rules and enforcing them for the heck of it, and it's not like they, or anyone, ENJOYS banning people. That's not fun for anyone. Considering the fact that it's been stated and proven, repeatedly over the years, that they get their cues from management and the band, it'd be nice to give them the benefit of the doubt in these matters a lot more often.

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't ask questions, I'm sure everyone agrees that if you do so in a calm, reasonable way like you just did, that's a good thing. I'm just saying, why don't 1565 and Tijs get the benefit of the doubt by now considering how long they've worked in this capacity and how hard they've worked in this capacity?

Also, sidenote: I personally think it's pretty much not cool to leak the album, but if anyone is going to do that at all, why the HECK would they do so on the forum of the band's official website? That strikes me as extremely shortsighted if I'm being diplomatic, and extremely dumb and disrespectful if I'm being real.

Oxygene
07-01-2012, 02:55 PM
When Americana was leaked the band were excited about it.. In the days before the music industry imploded because of the double digit IQ of the record companies overpaid CEOs at one point having your album available on tehInterwebz was a status symbol. We are talking about times when the most free webspace you could get was 5-8 megs mind u... Things have evolved. U could have your album leaked months before release, and still sell 10 million copies. Ifit was still that way I doubt anyone would give a fuck, but now the business is in a position where people working hard on getting us our "art" we love may have issues feeding their families. So: not cool.

Please be tolerant.