damn right props to promo only :-)

if sv did that, i think a few people would cancel their subscriptions too.

it would never happen

I sent you an email..

But the text at the beginning and end is gone?

Haven't noticed that yet....what set of videos are the watermarks on?

prob on the latest express video or the Nov Series.

Nov urban series doesn't have it.

that's weak. it's gonna make it hard for video editors to do clean mashups.

that sucks... can you post an image of what it looks like?

they just started, it will be on all series next month. will post in a bit.

That sucks! Please post an image.

its on quite a few. its very hard to see. its in the bottom right hand corner and its the promo only logo. and it lasts through about half or more of the video. its almost clear. but still sucks balls like a hooker

That would suck as it takes away from the video. I will not subscribe next year if that is the case as I have already paid for this year. To me it's already bad that we have to pay for the services that are suppose to be free anyway. On top of that they put their label on it which is already annoying. For it to go through the whole video would just be damn sad.

naw havov, I think that's the old UK PO. I've seen those too. The new one for US PO is on the top left corner and it's for the entire video, start to finish. I'll post a pic soon. It's not huge, but it's still there and I don't like it at all.

oh. crap thats wack

I guess that's to protect their vids from being bootlegged and sold as erm other services.

Since the watermark is not big I don't see any problem with it. Other services like MixMash also use watermarks.

No pic, but Scotty B talking about why they are doing it.

I don't care that it's translucent.
I know you can crop it out easily for widescreen videos.
I just don't think it should be there at all. It doesn't look professional.
img368.imageshack.us
img266.imageshack.us
img266.imageshack.us
img266.imageshack.us

club.promoonly.com

Yeah twizzles ambient backgrounds will block out the WS ones, but the FS will still look janky in my opinion.

wow... yeah.. thats not cool. especially if they are still gonna put all the info up in the front of the video as well. I hate that even more and now they want to add to it. Not cool

We might as well be copying videos from BET or MTV and have those logos, at least tv rips are free.

Is this "our" Scotty B.?


I agree that both at the same time is a bit too much. MixMash only has a less obvious watermark without any text/info.

hahaha that's what I was thinking!

Just to clarify... this would be ok if there was not text. But having both at the same time?

I mean... after all customers are paying for it. I think having the advert "Promo Only" everytime is a bit too much for content customers are paying for. My 1 cent.

I have a few MixMash DVD's and I don't mind that so much... it's at the bottom right and it's very unobtrusive. I also really like the fact that they don't have all the info listed for the video

I could prob deal with the watermark without all their text, especially if I do an edit and want to toss my name on it (not for selling), but maybe that is why they do it.

It's an eye sore. My eyes go directly to the watermark.
We pay for Promo Only so we don't have to have logos. Otherwise, it's the same as MTV/BET as puma said before. Why pay $100/month when I already got cable TV?

true. a waste of money

they will only change it back to the old ways if members discontinue service. they need to feel it in the pocket.

i have something for all of you

www.njoywith

***smacks forehead and shakes head***

havov, you know anybody selling weed and their lcation too??

what --scratching head--

hahaha

I don't really see it as a problem. I can see why they would do this, so many people are trying to make money off of edits and trying to pass the videos off as their own.

not the video. just the video work. everyone knows the artists. its just a matter of remix audio and video stimulation

I understand piracy is big, but how does putting a watermark stop the torrent pirates and p2p people. It's the remixers that try to sell the stuff that will end up with the problem.

not sell----donate---- there for not illegal

I think the remix sites are the main problem. There is big money to be made and promo only wants to make sure they keep it all. I am curious if the other subscription sites will follow.

lol

Just signed up for a year of Screen Play. Urban and Hits/Top40.
I specifically told them I was signing up because Promo Only started putting a watermark on the videos. They said they would not do that. I hope they will keep their word.

Might have to check out screen play as well.

How mcuh is that Screen Play subscription?

guys there are other sources out there where the videos are clean (no logos, no artist, or song title) Just the music video. Just talk to your buddies that are in the underground scene.
If PO does go this route, and its for good. I will cancel my subscriptions.

PM me those sources...

Hi all,

Thank you for you recent input regarding the watermark contained on our videos.

The watermark became a necessity as a result of the piracy of our products. We have noticed a substantial increase in individuals selling copies of our Content on DVDs and hard drives as well as increased listings on torrent websites, You Tube, etc. The watermark was created with the VJ in mind. We attempted to make it as transparent as possible to avoid being too noticeable, while at the same time acting as the deterrent it was intended to be. If you have any suggestions for improving the watermark, please let us know. You can email your suggestions to nick.hahn@promoonly.com .

We do appreciate your business and are open to suggestions.

Best regards,

"Nick James" Hahn
Director of Marketing and Distribution
257 S. Lake Destiny Drive
Orlando, FL 32810
nick.hahn@promoonly.com

The only improvement will be to take it off. You think because you put a watermark on them that it would deter people from posting them on any site let alone on torrents. NOT,,,,it's no different than what you already do by putting Promo only on each video for like 7 second at the beginning and the end and they still take that. People don't care about how they get the content if it's free. I have payed for the subscription and I can get any of the videos via torrents as well can even get them without labels, watermarks and or branding . I am part of pool that has the same content as to which I pay for from Promo Only that I could get for free and yet I pay. When I talked to the rep Greg I think and asked him about water marking before I made my decision on which Video Pool to join he told me that the videos were labeled with Promo only and the name of the songs no water marking and now they come and say we want to do this after we have paid...Just wrong. I will be going to screen play like many others. I could still get your content for free if I chose to be illegal and download it then it would matter about the water marking as I got it for free. See it makes no difference.

it's not fair for customers who paid for a year subscription. they should be allowed to get a refund for the rest of the year. i think technically, promo only videos should have no logos at all. not even at the begining. i guess screenplay is goona see a boost in sales.

LOL. I've never heard that expression before.

Does it cost extra to get this???

I was checking out the watermark. I actually wouldn't mind it as much if there logo wasn't so wack. Also, It's time to get out of the 90s with the fonts they use for the titling also. How about something a little more modern and streamlined looking. Lastly, since you are doing the watermark thing can you quit having the titling on top of the verses of the song? How about just at the intro.

I also agree with Funkytownstopsix about the illegal downloaders. This problem has been around for years and it's not going to stop with a watermark. I think the main problem is the companies that are editing your videos for mashups and the like. This will probably slow then down.

Speaking of things to complain about...how about the crooklyn clan and their pricing on videos. C'mon...up to $8.49 for a single video.

I can see where PO is coming from but at the same time we pay for a service that provides clean videos. I'm going to take the non watermarked route. I'm sorry it's not worth the money I pay.

My video subscription with PO ends with the Dec dvd issue. I guess I won't be renewing either. I've spent over $3k in video subscriptions with them... The watermark does nothing to deter the cheap pirates, it only pisses off your current paying customers! The text at the beginning and end of the videos is already bad enough...

The person who started this "COMPLAIN TO PROMO ONLY", is one of the people we are targeting. He signed a LEGAL contract and then doing exactly what he is NOT supposed to do. He complains about how our watermark (which is translucent and small unlike his) but has no problem using his own throughout the video, covering up our chyrons, posting videos on the internet, etc...And yes...there are examples which have been logged and sent to the appropriate parties.

The companies who are giving "credits" for our content remixed or not? ILLEGAL!!! I'm gonna distribute legal content to you and you're going to give it to a sketchy competitor? And complaining about Chyrons? Labels want that on there and yet another reason why we had to put the watermark on....folks keep cutting the CHYRONS out. How is the artist supposed to get exposure if the average person can't identify the song being played?


Folks....it boils down to this. Bad apples ruin it for everyone. Do you think we want to take the extra time to put the watermark on there? Do you think we want to spend our time replying to posts like these instead of trying to source more content? No....but people like "D-Twizzle" can't adhere to the contracts they sign. Guess what? Screenplay has the same type of agreements. Labels are getting strict and they WANT accountability. When you post the stuff on Youtube....Illegal. Myspace...illegal. You know this. We know this. BE LEGAL!!! The LABELS will cut off ALL suppliers of content if this continues. You guys need think about the BOTTOM LINE here.... "WHY we did this?

Hi D-Twizzle! See your link below....

To view my video blendz and video remixes go to my youtube site: youtube.com
Also check out www.SmashVidz.com and www.8thWonderPromos.com to download some of my exclusive video remixes!


Where did you get the content? You have permission from the labels to alter and distribute the content?

BAD APPLE!

Really? All these years cats have been playing just the song in clubs, labels don't send out promo vinyl to us that screams out the Chyrons info in the beginning of the song and people still know or find out who the artist, song is. With the video actually playing along, it should be even easier!

I understand why y'all had to do this and if it could be done in a less obtrusive way... maybe folks could deal with it a little better but statements like the above are ridiculous and hold no weight because if we can just play the song with out it having to say all the info in the track and thats ok.... why can't the video accomplish the same thing when it carries even more info via the artists image actually being heard AND seen.

The videos most of us play are commercial. People already know who the artist is. Who cares what label it is. To the avg Joe does it matter if sony music released it?

DJ Saturn.....It matters to Sony.

And to respond to DJBIGWIZ.....labels require the chyron...not us. Why? They created the video as a promotional tool for the SONG. Chyrons have been around since the first video appeared on MTV. If you don't know who the artist is (example: FLO RIDA), how can you buy the song at Best Buy? The amount of DJs calling asking "who sings that song that sounds like Nelly? it says 'low low low' and 'Boots with the fur'?" when it was first released was ridiculous....the folks on the radio don't always call the song out before and after it is played, ya know?

I don't mind the Chyrons sure put there what's required. I'm just not feeling the full watermark but if the labels are requiring that from legal sources then what can we do?

How is posting an edit you did on myspace or youtube illegal when no one can download it. I can understand if someone takes promo only videos, edits them and sells them, but obviously d-twizzle isn't doing that. If you look at where PO has their artist text and look at a video edit by d-twizzle the same spot in the video where the po stuff is, is not there in his edits.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but it doesn't seem fair that you or anyone would have to get permission to edit a video and use it at gigs. That means every person on here who has a PO video and made it with an extended intro is wrong and that means that mp3 pools (real ones) not some bootleg pirate site that adds extended intros to the artists songs are wrong in some way. I don't buy it.

now as for CC remixing shit and selling them is something different.

What's the point of getting music or videos if you can't edit them to make it dj friendly or to stand out from the crowd.

This isn't about edits for your gigs.

This is about selling remixes OR posting them online. It is illegal and in violation of Myspace and Youtube's policies to post edits of something you don't own. Why? Because the labels say so. The Artist says so. The Courts say so. Do you own the materials? Nope. Even says so in ANY contract from a legitimate promotional service. Period. It boils down to "you are either part of the problem or part of the solution".

So you can edit the video, but can't post it online even if it's is just for someone to see and not to download. Isn't that like free advertisement for the artist. I understand you can't get the latest south park and air it on you tube, but why can't you show a video edit you did, when it is not for sale.

Maybe I need to read the fine print.

it works both ways nick. if it wasn't for video edits like the ones d-twizzle does, i doubt you would have as many customers. vj's breaking into video are going to join subscriptions that they see from good video edits. promo only has made lots of money from video editers as well.

holy shit.......

ok.. fair enough. That's not on y'all.

As far as the watermark goes... I feel you on needing that on there. (although I don't like it... but I do understand it) I just think it wouldn't be AS big of an issue if it was less obtrusive... like the Mix Mash water mark... it's there but it's not in your face noticeable.
i59.photobucket.com

Maybe the real issue we, as DJ's should be concentrating on is the fact that Promo Only is now policing and reporting DJ's (that are Promo Only customers) to the "appropriate parties."



Nick, tell Preacher to expect at least another cancellation. Thanks to you.

1) If you post a video online...anyone can rip it. You all know that. That argument is out the window...NEXT!
2) "Promo only has made lots of money from video editers (SP)". AND all of you guys make money off of our content, no? Or do you DJ for free? Please don't play the "I should get the content for free since I am promoting (insert artist/ company/ label name here)" card here. You make money and build your name off of our content which in reality belongs to the label and the artist. Chevrolet doesn't pay me or give me a new truck because I look good driving my S-10 around either. Be smart.
3) BIGWIZ.......thanks for the suggestion about MIXMASH watermark. We are taking CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions and this is one of them.
4) "Jesus Christ"....Yep...we report folks who violate the terms they agreed to, both to the labels and the RIAA. I guess you are illegally doing something as well? Otherwise, why would you worry? D-Twizzle (and others) aren't obligated to use our service or any other legitimate service. They could have said "no" after reading our subscriber agreement. We do our job FULLY, not just so we can make money. We protect the interests of everyone involved. My apologies for us adhering to doing what we say we will do. I do hope you detect the sarcasm.

And just so everyone here knows...he didn't cancel his subscription...

I did.

I'm currently shopping around for a Latin video pool. Currently I been buying tons of DVD's from the stores and making trips to Mexicali or Tijuana Mexico just to get the good shit! Yesterday I got the new Belanova & Soda Stereo DVD's which won't be available in the US 'til the end of the year.

I want to subscribe to a provider such as Promo Only, ScreenPlay or any other company that provides latin videos. While both playlists are very similar, I'm leaning more towards Screen Play because they don't have the watermark. If I wanted the watermark, I would just record the videos off Telehit, BandaMax, or even MTV Tr3s.

You claim that you added the watermark with the VJ in mind, I just became a VJ and I don't like it at all. You obviously didn't keep me in mind. Please do something about it. If you must have it there, why not have it show up randomly every now and then?

Just my 2¢.

Fuck this, I'm making my own home videos that imitate the original music videos. Gotta do what you gotta do.

LOL! Now that is legal. :)

BTW, I do think the artist info at the beginning is helpful (to promote!), but the Mixmash watermark just looks a lot fresher and ... yes less intrusive than the current PO watermark. I think I saw a few PO videos which had their watermark at the lower right corner, they seem to look okay. The current one (at least the one from the screenshot posted before) does not look good.

But, yeah, I don't think we need to discuss about what is legal or not. The rules are known, und unfortunately it will be very very hard (if possible at all) for us DJ's or companies such as PO, SP, MM etc. to change the rules. The labels decide in the end... we DJ's can only speak with what tools we use, what we promote etc.

hahaha... on some straight "Be Kind Rewind" shit. Hell yeah.

this is going to be one of those threads, huh?

bad move on calling out Twizzle here. I hope you have proof of all that, because if not I would imagine he could sue for defamation. If he really did break some laws and you reported it to the "proper" authorities, that is all you can really do. Coming on here and playing this game, will only loose customers. I would never subscribe to a company who handled their business like this.

one less subscription from the small pool of VJs that would actually pay for a service like this, I would have been sending in that check in January

OH, and I really do not want to see your proof demonstrated here. not the place for it

I just cancelled mine too. I see where PO is coming from but that watermark looks crappy and unprofessional. When I approach a client, they ask me if I bought my videos. One of my selling points is that my videos will not have any TV watermarks because I pay for my videos. Thats also a bargaining tool with cost, videos are expensive. The watermark seems as if I got them off the television, extremely unprofessional. Please look into the design of the logo.

So let me get this straight, nickjames...

It's technically "illegal" to post it up on youtube although:

1. The quality at which someone can rip it off of youtube is 99% pisspoor and unusable in any situation.

2. YOUTUBE RECOGNIZES IT AS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AND THUS, AS THE LABELS ALLOW, ONLY PUTS ADS ON THE PAGE OF THE MUSIC VIDEO INSTEAD OF TAKING IT DOWN

As someone who has posted custom edits on youtube, they flag about 90% of mine as material from sony/bmg/umg/etc, yet has one ever come down? No. Have I ever gotten a warning letter? No. The labels WANT the EXPOSURE that youtube and the others bring. If they didn't, they would force each and every music video/video remix down.

So please don't come on here saying that using Youtube or some other service like that is illegal when CLEARLY steps are being put in place to keep it up and running BY THE LABELS.



You say that PO needs to have the text and everything there so people know what this new hit song is that is being played by the VJ. Yet when was the last time Promo Only "broke" any music via a music video? You use Flo Rida's "Low" as an example, but let's break that one down now:

Flo Rida LP Single Release Date (to the consumer, not DJ): October 2, 2007
Promo Only Music Release Date (On the Urban Series, I believe): November 2007
"Express" Video Release Date: March 1, 2008
Urban Video Release Date: May 2008


Now I'll be generous and say that Flo Rida's "Low" didn't blow up until November, which HAS to be the case if it's on the Promo Only Monthly music series. So you're telling me that people still need to read the text to figure out a huuuuge hit song that's been big for AT LEAST FOUR TO SIX MONTHS?!?! That's ridiculous and a joke in itself.


I just see the logo as a blatant form of advertising that's only going to drive your subscription base down. Especially since right now times are hard, is that really what you want?

This starting to sound like a witch hunt. Not very good PR for PO.

1) Once again...if you do not like the chyrons, talk to the labels.
2) If you think the labels don't make Youtube or Myspace pull videos, talk to 2nd Nature or Kris P or Monk formerly of Rabbit In the Moon.
3) I'll say this one more time... we didn't want to do the watermark. Label pressure had us put the watermark on. Folks must abide by the terms to which they agreed. They didn't.

Ok, I don't know about how you dj, but I sure as shit won't be ripping a myspace vid with shit quality to dj with on a big ass screen. I encode some of my vids above 3Mbps and would never play some tv rip or myspace rip.

So if we (dj's) put a video on myspace and have a Property of po on it the entire time will that be ok to have on websites for viewing our edits. Obviously we will not do this at gigs.

And furthermore, the guy who rips the vid off of myspace is the one at fault. You don't see a property of warner bros at the movie theatre, but if the pirate with the video camera records it from the screen he is at fault, which is the right way, not the movie theatre's fault.

Why don't you do like movie theatres and have those quick 1 or two frame dots that appear on the screen so that way you will know it's PO stuff instead of the watermark.

That's it. I pulled the trigger. I subscribed to Screen Play. Doug at Screen Play was extremely helpful and knew his shit. He assured me that no watermarks will be added. That made me happy. Not only that, but their latin selection is way better than Promo Only's. :) On top of that, he gave me some free DVD's. Woohoo!!!

If you switch to Screen Play tell them DJ Woody from LA sent you!

So, why don't your mp3's from PO say property of PO on the hook, why because no one would play your shit, just like only sucka ass dj's will download a dj clue mixtape and play the songs at a gig.

I understand the whole "intellectual property" thing, but don't ruin it for everyone else.

It's clearly wrong if someone sells the stuff or puts it up for others to download. I also know that the studios don't allow posting of their copyrighted material. But... There has to be some leeway with regards to DJ's. We post mixes to promote ourselves and as well as promoting the music and technology. How do people know if you're any good or not without listening or viewing something you did? Lots of people are amazed when we do video mix shows. It promotes the music as well as generates business for the rest of the industry because other DJ's get interested in buying VSL and video subscriptions.

True. Myspace/Youtube shouldn't be a problem for PO, since the Myspace+Youtube were taken to court and they have to pay royalties, right? Even if not... no one will play with videos downloaded from YouTube. C'mon.

This is their website.

www.screenplayvj.com

My only problem with ScreenPlay right now, is that I can't decide which FREE DVD to get! They have too much good shit!

We aren't worried about edits on Myspace or Youtube taking away business from us. We're worried about the labels getting upset that videos they are servicing to promotional pools are being used improperly and illegally and then shutting down the ways in which HONEST folks can get legitimate content. Whether anyone on here sees it or not, we are doing this for YOU. So YOU can have the highest quality content without hassle or interruption.

You do have a choice. If you prefer to source your music another way, you can. I came on here to explain the "WHYs". We do things LEGALLY. We will continue to do things this way for our employees, the labels and YOU!

Good luck to all of you in whatever you choose. We only want the best for the industry and have for 16 + years.

I am going to have to agree with elite, that is a selling point of us VJ's to come out and spin with non advertized videos. I have had club owners tell me that they could pay some kid to record MTV videos and put them up on a computer using Virtual DJ. I told the owners how crappy that would look with an MTV logo showing all night, just looks very unprofessional. Now I would be biteing my own tongue, knowing that now my subscription with PROMO ONLY for the last 3 years, is going to change without a letter being sent stating that PROMO ONLY is changing their format. I am sure that alof of us could come up with a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT against PROMO ONLY because of this.

I understand why you guys think what your doing is right, but honestly the groups that release your DVDS, and pirated software do it for fun, its like a status symbol but in the geek world. Look how much money companies spend on SECUROM Protection and other software protection. It doesnt take someone long at all to figure a work around/ a hack to copy it and run on a computer. So all that money is wasted.
Here is a great anaolgy, Direct TV many years ago were subject to being hacked, alot of hackers were able to hack there services and get them for free, because of the laws, their wasnt much that could be done, finally Direct TV got wise and decided to hire the guys that were making the hacks for their service and paying them big money. Guess what......Direct TV hasnt been hacked since......So maybe instead of ripping on Twizzle, maybe you guys should offer him a job, there are alot of fellow VJ's out there they love the intro/outro beats they put together. Same thing with people making mash ups.

Oh and another thing nickjames, I would almost bet that you guys have someone internally leaking your DVDS out before they get shipped to customers. I have seen alot of your stuff up on sites, before my subscription has even showed up.....and if this is already happening, Ill be safe to bet, that they will release the original content (no watermark).

Placing a water mark on the videos will accomplish one thing that I know for sure more exposer PO, turst me on that. You rarely find any screenplay videos on the torrents but damn you can find every PO vid you want, and for some reason I don't think the watermarking will change that. What it might do is give PO issues as that is a for sure way to know where the material came from. I paid for all mine I do see your point if someone is selling them for money, but hell you could just download them for free and water marking wont stop that. Why run off good paying customers by adding water marks. I don't sell any of my videos mixes nor do I sell anything that I have remixed on top of that I give the artist name and song if I do a remix. Hell I have only done one anyway. The point is this, water marking I knew would come one day but really what will it stop.

Since your hanging out with us NickJames does this mean you guys will take off that wwww.promo branding since you have a water mark on there now the whole damn time.
I am only talking about the promoonly part the rest of the branding should be sufficient. Also why do we get videos so late I mean they are played on Bet, MTV, ect ect months before we get them. Also I have been seeing a lot of filler videos, also if I subscribe to Urban how is it that I get pop songs,,,,,,, what's up with that can you give us some incite on this things.

Just got a callback from screenplay 5 minutes after I filled in their contact form on the web page. Signed up for a new yearly subscription with them... Glad my PO subscription happens to end with the December issue!

Yes! ScreenPlay is really good with customer support. It's like Serato, they get to it right away!!!

Look, before this gets way outta hand, a couple of quick things.

I truly apologize if you think we are doing something wrong, evil or bad.
I know a lot the subscribers out there are doing things the right way, and I thank you for that.
I don't like to have cluttered videos either, but we had to do something.
Clearly, the honor system we had in place with our subscribers was being taken advantage of.

Every one of you as a dj would take the same approach, if people were taking your mixes, re-editing them and call them their own.
Even more so if you were taking the legal heat, while they were making a profit.

Right now, this is the best way to stop the illegal activity of people remixing our videos and posting them to either download or submit to other companies. We may revisit this in the future, and are always open to suggestions.
If you have a better way, please feel free to email me.

One suggestion was to place a a one or 2 frame blip. We have been doing that for the last 5 years. That's the way we know what source people have been using for their edits. Even those that have appeared on other company''s reels!

Although I can empathize with your frustration, a small watermark is hardly a reason to jump companies.
Don't get me wrong ScreenPlay is a great company too. But if their videos get abused to the point where ours were, they might take some kind of action too.

I know this watermark won't stop bit torrent use, it won't even stop djs from using personal edits for their shows.
It will stop people from taking our content and supplying another company with their version of our video.
You would do the same thing if someone started using, editing or selling (or make a "donation" for) your mixes, without your permission.

What if I were to put up a link where people can download Serato for free, but they can make a "donation" to cover my "expenses".
I'm sure the kind folks at Serato would take whatever legal action possible to ensure that I wouldn't be able to stay in business long!!

look, I'm a MTV VJ!

see the logo

What's funny is no matter what they do people will still leak their shit and throw it up on bit torrent or some other p2p site.

you see academy award dvds with serials show up on those damn sites, they just blur the serial number on the video. Like stated earlier, they do it for fun, hack it and get geek points for being the first group to release the latest cracked softoware, dvd, etc.

Even if they don't end up on the web, you can always find the bootlegs on LOS CALLEJONES on Downtown LA or in the Swap Meets! haha

Agreed, bit torrent use is hard to stop.
The labels do have a plan they are setting into place, no one will like it, if it gets implemented.

We, at Promo Only, can at least try to stop our clips from showing where they are not supposed to be.

That's all we are trying to do here.
Nothing more, nothing less.

The honor system was taken advantage of to a great degree here.
We could either protect our stuff or be a tattle tale on every offender.
We chose to protect the content, with a small watermark, keeping people honest.

It would be way easy, (sorry to pick on you D-Twizzle, but since his site was already mentioned) to forward his YouTube page to the Sony legal department so he could explain to them why he has illegal remixes of their videos on his page.

That is not for us to decide. We are a content provider. One of the better ones at that. We want to continue to have good relationships with the labels and our subscribers while not getting into any legal trouble. By the illegal remixing and posting our videos we were becoming accomplices and looking bad in the labels eyes.

Damn Woody, the alleys and swap meets? You're bonafide ghetto.

Your rep just called out D-Twizzle on a public board, and then accused Jesus Christ of impropriety as well. The way I see it, more apologies are due.

Funytownstopsix:

You had some questions about programming.
Please feel free to either hit our boards, email me directly or even call
I am always open to suggestions.

scott.bucher@promoonly.com
407.331.3600 x251

This was not a good comparison, since you can download "Serato" Scratch LIVE for free.
;-)

+legally.

nik 39: Wrong I may be, but you get the Idea...

While I understand Promo Only for protecting their business, there has to be a better solution than watermarking the videos. I can clearly see both sides of the coin here. I as a DJ don't like the watermark. On the other hand, if I was Promo Only, I would be pissed off too! I have a few ideas, but I would rather keep my mouth shut!

Promo Only should go back to the drawing board and research their mistake quick. Otherwise they will keep loosing clients.

While the watermark was a big deterrent for me, I can guarantee you that was not the only reason why I chose ScreenPlay. Their latin selection was far superior and up to date. But that's another topic.

If PO doesn't do something about the watermark, they will loose more clients to Screen Play. Only time will tell.

You kinda just did notify them... This is a public forum and it does get spidered by google and other search engines. Thank you for SNITCHING!

Sincerely,

The Anti-Snitch Brigade

The only way the record companies ever figure out how to deal with new technology is to have the solution forced on them. They've been failing for 10 straight years.

Any ideas they have about how to distribute video are gonna be wrong. Any business that stays too far on their side risks getting pulled down with them when the better ideas finally come along.

Promo Only should be pushing back against Sony and the like. This is all still very new, there's tons of improvements to make. As customers we can't tolerate suppliers taking steps backward. Promo Only won't be seeing any business from over here.

i'm joining screenplay tonight. i doubt they will come on here and snitch on there bread and butter.

I think President Obama is gonna fix this mess too! :) Time for change 08'

Anti Snitch Brigade, funny!

I think the YouTube page speaks for itself, way before this forum and thread.

My explanation is that in my next conversations with any Sony label reps, won't involve me saying "Look Here, Look Here!"

Our point is we are a content provider, and we saw our content being abused, so we protected it, some people may disagree, some one here may even come up with a better solution.

So unlike lvmez just said, we aren't snitching on our bread n butter, but did make a change.

Watch a lot of people make changes in response.

What happens if you have no video subscribers because of your watermark?

I too see the point, but here comes the point, why pay for PO if you can get the same videos branded with BET MTV, they both have watermarks, but serve different purposes. BET, MTV, VH1 provide videos for people to watch, not use for djing. PO provides to the DJ to use. I don't see why both should have watermarks throughout the entire video.

Pretty soon, they will just have a big one dead center, that way they won't get cropped out.

Kind of like the VSL DEMO output window?

Exactly, it's a demo, You wouldn't catch anyone playing vsl out with that logo.

Because with BET/MTV videos, the quality may/or may not be as good.

Having the chyron from TV doesn't look as professional or exclusive.

And besides, when your playing the clip of T.I.'s "Whatever You Like" you got from MTV on New Year's Eve, why would you want your video promoting the Thanksgiving special of "The Hills"??

bourbonstmc
I will have to look back through to see the accusation about Jesus Christ, (that sounds weird! LOL), but as for D-Twizzle...

Perceive it however you will and D-Twizzle has a right to his own opinion, and endorse what ever company he wishes. As I stated above ScreenPlay is a great company too.

But D-Twizzle signed up with Promo Only as a professional dj to play music videos. He never seeked, asked for or signed an agreement with us as a professional, or amateur video editor.

Someone mentioned that we should hire people like D-Twizzle. If you know anything about me I am always open to suggestions and new ideas. But we always do things legally, meaning every remix that is on our series has to get approved from the label before we release it. If he is fine with that, I have no problems taking remix submissions from him, or anyone. Never have had a problem, never will. (The other thing requirement is the audio source would have to be legal - most mashups aren't legal)

He did post a pageful of videos on YouTube. That in itself is illegal and a violation of our agreement with not only subscribers, but with the labels.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

Article 12 (ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broad-
cast or communicate to the public, through any means, without authority,
works or copies of works knowingly without authority...

Source:
www.copyright.gov

Ridiculous and anachronistic. You run your business in the real world, not a fantasy land.

You call it "protecting" the videos, we see it as poisoning them. You will never be able to make us all see it your way.

That is not a very strong argument Scott. There are night times when videos are played without the "thanksgiving"/other-text. Plus the video quality itself with digital-TV is very good as well.

Regardless of the requirements from the labels you are following - such an obvious watermark as the current one does not look professional either. Gotta agree with that point.

Most of the people "stealing" crappy clips off YouTube wouldn't pay you anyway. You already have a lot of us as clients. You shouldn't punish your existing customers for the actions of random people. They will just find another place to steal it.

This is a big group of people here who buy the music & videos that they play out.

Who says that his (said offender) videos are from your source. Just cause he subscribes to you doesn't mean he took your videos.

I've seen some Sm%&^^dz videos and those actually look way better than PO, PO dvd comes interlaced and when you deinterlace them you lose quality. I am not sure where they get the videos from, but I doubt it's from PO especially since theirs come out a few weeks before PO releases them.

+1.

I don't subscribe yet because I don't do any video gigs yet, but I do know that if and when I need to I'll look into screenplay or something else, if there are any.

I do understand you have to protect the content, but how would you feel if you just bought the Wall-E dvd for you kids to watch and a big ass disney logo was on the screen the entire time?

Wow, a bunch of posts here:

No, I am a dj and do see your side, XRM5.
But explain it to me how it is fair to watch our videos getting remixed and submitted to either another company for their resale or posted on a site, where it can be downloaded in crappy quality or decent high quality and then get heat from the label for it?

As for the Wall-E video I would be upset, but I don't see the Wall-E video being re-edited and having the remixed version posted, or submitted elsewhere. Bit torrents yes, but a remixed Wall-E on YouTube? Probably won't see that.

As for knowing what videos are ours, as i mentioned, we have been putting one frame blipped watermarks on our clips for the last 5 years. If the blips is found on the remix clip, chances are pretty good (100%) it was ours.

Wait wait wait...I'm getting confused here...

One PO Rep, "Nick James" Hahn, states:


Which in my opinion means PO has no problems with us making custom edits for us to play out with at gigs...

Yet ANOTHER PO Rep, Scott Butcher, states:


So...which is it?

This wasn't any easy decision for us to make, part of us felt like we were adding something we shouldn't, but we also had people feeling that just because they had Vegas, Adobe Premiere, Final Cut or whatever that they could do whatever they wanted to the videos without repercussion.

This wasn't the way i planned to celebrate my birthday!!! (nov 10th)

Happy birthday nevertheless! :)

Funny thing is that I haven't bought a Promo Only DVD since 2005 when I left the nightclub that subscribed to them. I have been a subscriber to your Music CD's for at least 5 years and I will not be renewing my subscriptions. I'd rather join DJ City or go to The Source than spend another dime with Promo Only.

No? But your Director of Marketing and Distribution has already done that.




Funny... I always thought that the content belonged to the record companies.

On Promo Only website: I wonder if the record companies are aware of these unauthorized mixes of their videos.

My question is if you and the labels are so upset about people remixing your videos and selling them then why not go after the people selling them? Why take it out on the legitimate subscribers?

A lot of good stuff here . . . lol You guys are crying a little to much. It's not that big of a deal. People are not going to say don't pay that DJ cause there's a watermark on his videos! I'm up for anything that will make it harder for all these wannabe remix sites to get vidz!

Not trying to take it out on legal subscribers in any way shape or form, as i mentioned we may enhance or change things about the watermark in the future, we are always open to suggestion.

Ok, can is it legal for us as dj's to take your po dvd, rip it, drop the video in vegas, final cut, etc and make it extended and use it for our own personal use and not post it on any website, share it, sell it, get donations for it?

^damn edit button no can in the beginning^

Sounds like an accusation to me. Not great PR when your employee behaves that way on a DJ message board.

it is a big deal. When a lot of us promise our clients professional-caliber videos and edits un-watermarked and then our subscription base adds on a watermark, even if it is only semi-noticeable, can put a lot of us out of a job.

Put it this way...would you pay top dollar for a high-end moving head intelligent light only to find that all the gobos are the producer's (i.e. Martin, Elation, etc) and that there's no way to replace their gobo logos? Those of you who do mobiles will get this analogy a whole lot more than the club guys, but it's the same idea as PO now watermarking all of their vids which just adds to their exposure at the cost of the VJ's professionalism.

Wow, hit once and it came up twice.

Dj Puma, legally, by the letter of the law - no.
Is it something we know goes on, and can enforce - hardly.

This isn't about that, we aren't looking for that.

This isn't about edits for your gigs.
Do they happen? Yes. Ever since tape could be edited.
Is it legal - no.
Can we enforce it?
If its kept to personal use, hardly.
Someone doing edits at home, won't be bothered by the watermark, or not as much as someone making those edits and distributing or selling them. The watermark doesn't leave the footage clean. People were editing around the chyrons we had, and thought they had clean video to edit to mash ups and either post, sell or distribute.

Puma I asked the same question and got no response, as the two PO reps had contradicting statements.

It isn't about exposure, we'll take the PO out and leave the circle...
Still people will complain.

As for answers - I'm only one guy trying to type and answer - please give me at least a little time to respond to everyone's comment or accusation.

JC,

First, I'm sorry you feel such hatred, but you are entitled to feel however you wish.
By our content, I was trying to paraphrase while typing fast "our content" = "videos supplied by the labels to us for use by our subscribers per our agreement"

As for our powersets, and remixes - every last one since I've been here in July 2001 has a signed release form. you are welcome to stop by the office and see. I even have all the emails, and forms for those that weren't approved archived as well. Please don't dig. I haven't made this personal with you, please give me that same respect.

Well its 6:48 here on the East Coast - we close at 7.
If you have any further comments or question please feel free to email me or even call tomorrow. It's my birthday and I definitely deserve a drink!!

Scott,

Well putting the watermark isnt going to solve the problem, you know what will happen next, all vjs will now start throwing up their own logo that will cover up the PROMO ONLY logo. Their are some places to get non logo videos from but seeing how MixMash, Promo Only, and Screen Play have the majority of the market. So if logos become a thing and people still make their own remixes,(now using the logo ones). Wouldnt that really show the labels more where the videos are coming from seein your label on all the videos???? Thats what you were claiming earlier. So I dont quite understand, that your doing this to protect you from the labels coming down on you, but if lets say Twizzle was using PO videos, wouldnt this be more obvious for the labels to see that PROMO ONLY sources are floating around? So your making it alot easier for Promo Only to get in trouble from the lables (thats what you were claiming earlier or at least how I understood it).
But needless, these guys will just throw their own logos to cover up yours. You can already do this with Virtual DJ and Mixed Emergency, and of course if you want to re-edit all your videos you can do it in software, however the software that I mentioned is a simple logo and you tell the opacity and location where you want to put the image. so really not much work is needed.

Oh and Happy Birthday, but I dont think no one forced you to log onto this website and post.

Sounds like alot of snitching going on on Promo Only's part and trying to make a case of D-Twizzle, who is one of the main reasons (along with my good friend Gene aka DVDJ G-FUNK) I even got interested in pursuing video in the first place.

Lets do a hypothetical, just so we can be clear. Lets say, I make my own remix of a track, say, A Dance remix of TI / JT's "Dead and Gone".... Now, I have a subscription to your service and you make this video available. I take said video and make a video mashup to go along with my newly created remix. My intention would be to play this video mashup of my own remix only in my live video performances. Did I just commit a crime for creating a video remix using promo Only video or Do I have the ability to make a video remix legally with permission from PO first?

Let's get a definite answer on that.

Are we talking domestic laws (USA) or international?

Because the UK branch of Promo Only has a very short translucent watermark for like 10 seconds on the screen on the bottom right hand corner about 15 seconds into a video and about 15 seconds before it ends.

And the UK branch has NO text saying the name of the song, label, artist, etc... just their name if you catch it.

Even though it probably not associated with the USA branch of Promo Only it is a hypocritical thing for one branch to do something COMPLETELY opposite.

The reason I bring this up is that if their reason for this is coming directly from their labels about making sure EVERYONE knows what the song info is on the screen then one of their own affiliates isn't even following it. And MixMash has NO text on the screen.

What about going to your local store or on-line retailer and BUYING the latest Chris Brown CD/DVD. I never see the music videos with watermarks or TEXT saying the artist, label, song title on the screen. Considering it came directly from the label you think if that is their requirement they would put it on the videos there too.

Bottom line is that no professional video DJ likes too look like an bad when playing content. I doubt club owners/promoters/etc (people that hire us) know what the hell "promo only" is. It only looks like we just played something we recorded on a new music television station. That is one of the main reasons you are seeing a bunch of subscribers or potential subscribers jumping ship. Too bad for promo only. Good news for screenplay and other competitors who apparently are not following their "bosses" (the labels) requirements.

And for the record:

SmashVidz uses NO content from promo only. They have support from the record labels.

8thwonder video pool is shady and has blatantly used promo only videos for their profit. I am surprised they still exist.

Crooklyn Clan video remixers use NO promo only, screenplay, or other content distributed material providers videos as their source for editing.


What I find funny is all this talk about protecting the content from which came from promo only to make sure it isn't used for remixing, etc... on their audio cd series Urban Club.... they provide acapellas, instrumentals, etc... basic tools do just that... remixing. I can't remember ANY one time that someone requested the acappella for any of the latest hits to be played at a club... So why in the hell do you put that on a series to help with the very mess you are angry about? I understand live remixing with that content.. but you know damn well those aren't always used that way.

^nice point on the acaps and instrumentals. Acapellas mainly, the instrumentals can be used for extended intros or just used to mix with, but Acaps are definitely used for remixing, I've never got the "yo can you play the acaplla of apple bottom jeans."

Is the issue having the logo on the screen or having the logo on the top right hand side.

Would having the logo on the bottom right hand side make this any easier?

Taking the logo off would make things peachy.

I agree as well...but let's get past that one point for a minute.

Would having the logo on the bottom right hand side make this any easier?

I don't think you're getting the point. It's not about where the logo is it's that there is a logo and it's during the whole video. That's the problem.

where's d-twizzle at?

Jail?

No, removing the logo AND sending new watermark free copies to everyone would make things peachy!

Oh I get the point. If you search my other posts you will see that I have been saying that this was going to start happening for over a year.

It happened with audio, it happened with DVD's and movies and everyone was living in a dream world if you didn't think it wasn't going to happen with music videos...especially with the introduction of Serato video, VDJ, and other software that lowered the entry price of being a VJ.

My only point about that logo is that it becomes more advertising rather than a "bug? And placing it in the lower right hand side accomplishes the exact same thing and lowers the "advertising" issue IMO.

Busy gettin' rid of the evidence...

DELETE

delete, writes zeros to hard drives 10 times.

Interestingly, I'm watching the November Pop Mix Video right now and guess what... NO WATERMARK!

Now the question is why? Can't the remixers PO claim this watermark is targeting just as easily use the mix series videos? They're barely mixed, and when you remove the audio track, that wouldn't even be an issue.

Why? It's simple - the retailers that the mix series videos target would be PISSED! They wouldn't stand for having this ridiculous PO logo on display constantly in their stores and we shouldn't stand for having it on display at our gigs either!

^wait for the December vids, I think it's only on the express for the latest week, November came out in October.

Y does it matter as we get videos way late. We can never get videos as they come out. They are on Bet MTV way before we get them if anything we respark intrest in the already played out videos.


A lot of questions were answered but none of mine by Promo only.

i thought ppl use acapellas to do live "remixing" on the decks....

Its funny how informed views are.

It starts with December issues.
Besides for our retail division, the videos have 2 watermarks.

Acapellas and instrumentals are issued for the dj to play creatively live.
We didnt name the issue Urban Remix Tools for a reason.
Shame on us for trying to trust what subscribers agree to when they subscribe.

Ford Motor Co. does things differently in the UK, speedometers of kph, steering wheels are on the different side. Does it make them hypocritical to do things different in the UK, than how they do things in the US. Probably not, Different laws and different problems happen in different countries.

Funkytown, I thought I answered you, although indirectly, at 6:05
Since this thread was about the watermark, I didn't to divert to programming questions or issues.

Going back to dinner. If you wish to ask me questions, or give suggestions, my info is above.

Responses like this are the very height of arrogance, particularly when dealing with a bunch of upset customers.

We're supposed to contact you using your parameters to give "suggestions" in this matter? You can kiss my ass Scott! Reread the thread. If you don't get the "suggestion" everyone is making, you don't deserve our business.

Thank you Radioactive Rob,

You displayed no arrogance with your Pop Mix discovery, funny?
I didn't make this personal, didn't stoop to any level of banality or name calling.

I have read the thread, and am willing to take any suggestions in replacing the watermark. Replacing, not removing. If you have one that still protects our content from being used illegally, I'm willing to listen. Taking it off, without any way to protect our content is ridiculous.

Give me suggestions, how should we approach a person who uses our content illegally, How do you protect your content?

I'm looking towards progress and some kind of compromise, and looking for suggestions from everyone. All you are giving me is RadioActive waste. Please show me you are better than just one liners, and give us viable alternatives.

I'll be back tomorrow to see if there is progress and suggestions, or just generic bashing.

By the way thank you to those here who gave your honest opinion, yes even the last post. I do value these views and opinions, good and bad. And we do take them into consideration.

Thank you again, and if there is any suggestions for an alternative, even as mentioned above a possible location change, we do take these seriously.

Wow!~ Are you really that mad? How would you act if you had "GROWN ASS ADULTS" asking you dumb ass questions they should know the answer too? Or better yet have 100 people saying they're going to cancel their subscription WHEN 50% don't even have one. . . lol They just want to be part of the "Bitching"

As far as upset customers go a lot of the "PROFESSIONS" I've talk too don't really care about the watermark!

D-Twizzle is on Vacation in Florida.

The watermark to me is very similar to a DJ putting his drop throughout a remix. It gets really tiresome and not a lot of DJ's are going to play the remix out.

is twizzle on the run?

You already have the solution Scott - at least you claim to.

If you already insert watermarked frames in your videos that ID them, you've already done everything necessary. You've caught the bad guys. If you hadn't, caught them, would we even be having this discussion? (Unless your real motive for the watermarks has nothing to do with the reasons you're giving us.)

So here's what you do... Take the bad guys to court! Make an example out of them. Don't screw with your loyal customers.

Do you really think these video remixers have no idea how to use the pan and scan features in their video editing software to avoid having your watermark on screen? Not likely... They'll figure it out.

In the end, the full-time watermark solution will only end up doing what you've already seen here - upsetting your customers. We like to think the shows we put on are ours. We like our clients to think the same. When someone is paying me upwards of $2K to do a video show for them, I don't want them asking why the hell I have P O on the screen the whole night.

It's named URBAN CLUB... not URBAN REMIX TOOLS... you work there and don't even know that? wow...



what?



what?

I actually asked if this was domestic (USA) or international laws or REQUIREMENTS from the labels... So why would the record labels have a different view in another country regarding your so-called requirements regarding text on screen labels and watermarks?

So what you are saying is if I move to the UK that this "problem" with remixing promo only content isn't a problem there... and the record labels don't care about the UK and outside the USA.



why not put "THIS VIDEO WAS BOUGHT FROM PROMO ONLY" in the middle of the screen... ? That would rock! I will sign up for that! And I could probably just be DJ-ing in my studio instead of in a club or something where I get paid.




Or you could just stop doing video... abstinence keeps people from getting STD's.



you see how he just twisted your name into something else... he is a funny guy.




define generic bashing..

Yup. And right about now I'm really regretting all the money I've spent with this company over the years.

More than that, I'm regretting all the people I've referred to them and the kudos I've given them.

Scott, if the watermark HAS to be present and y'all refuse to get rid of it, why not make a watermark that is more simple of a design and more transparent and in the lower right hand side. (just like the Mix Mash watermark.
I know you (or someone from PO said y'all put it at the top so the bottom right could be reserved for a store logo that plays PO videos but why not make them put their logo up top and put the PO mark at lower right so it's not so out of place for the club guys.
Also, since y'all deem it necessary to add this now and it is not what a lot of people signed up for, why not offer a slightly discounted rate... since having a wm on the video obviously lowers the customers perceived value of it. (just a thought)

Happy B-Day by the way

Scott,

If PROMO ONLY is worried about their work???? Isn't the work of that of the label and artist? Than wouldnt the label put the artist and label information on the entire video??
Well if you guys are serious about this, than instead of putting a watermark, look into invisible digital watermarking, where every dvd that roles off the press has its own unique digital watermarks embedded into the disc, when these are burned (copied) the watermarks go with them. This way you can track down the people that are sharing your videos, or using them to make profit for themselves. Than you can cancel that users subscription, and take legal actions against that paticular user, instead of punishing the majority of your customer base.
If the software companies did this to their video games and had a logo on the entire time you played a game, do you think people would still buy the software? Would you watch a 2 hour movie, that has Universal Studio, or Fox Logo on for the entire length of the movie? Do you think club goers and club owners are going to like to see logo on screens for the entire night?
This will just force the clubs to go back to audio, because the logo will get such bad rap and the owner will say the hell with music videos. Than this will end up hurting Promo Only in the long wrong.

In regardds to Twizzle, I heard he was on his way to cayman islands....Safe from US laws there.

I just got off the phone with my girlfriend, and I was like "HEY, BABE, GUESS WHAT? I JOINED THIS VIDEO SERVICE." And to my surprise, guess what her first response was? "DID YOU MAKE SURE IT DIDN'T HAVE ANNOYING LOGOS ON IT?" LOL I started laughing and told her about this thread.

Well guys good news...do some googling, there is software out there that will remove watermarks on video. Its going to be another step but hey we are already converting .vob to .mp4 so whats a little bit more work .....Watermark master, and adobe after effects....Like I said do some googling, there are some online videos and tutorials on how to do this. I havent yet tried it but looks fairly easy. I will give it a shot once I get the new PO dvd that has it on it.

::tracked::

I'm really interested to see what happens, and dumping on D-Twizzle is wrong, especially if he has been paying for your service. Not cool. I have three one year subscriptions (latin, urban, and hot videos) and have been very happy with the service, but seeing this is really upsetting to me. I will discuss w/ my bosses (the club owners) and see what they think, since it is their clubs that I am mixing at, and if they don't like this "watermark", then there wont really be a choice, but if it does not bother them then it wont bother me. Just business guys.

People notice the logos... even the Promo only on the title bars gets annoying. Oh wells.. Sure takes the fun out of video mixing with all this drama.

Just mentioned this thread to my wife because she heard me mumbling, first thing out of her mouth was "that sux, dont think hector will like that much". Hector is one of my bosses. We will see

I would like to hear a response to this as well.

its funny - i think the problem lies with the labels. They were 100 years late when the internet came around and music was being passed around - the labels didnt know and still dont really know how to handle this and now its too late. Same thing with videos.

There's a lot of talk about what the labels think - i wonder what the artists themselves think? Unfortunately its called the music business, so the labels probably dont care what the artists think - just get that paper.

Do the artists like seeing their video clips all over youtube which are effectively promoting them, and also can give a very indirect measuring stick about how popular their song is? Jay-Z released acapella versions of his albums for the pure purpose of people to remix them - to get the creative juices flowing. As an artist it seems like he wants this creativity to occur - unfortunately it went back to labels taking legal action etc.

I personally think that the whole torrent / youtube / myspace vids / etc etc is an indication of what the people want, and how they want to get it and what they want to do with it. I appreciate owenership of intellectual property and creative works - but the whole system needs to be majorly updated IMO.

Somebody call the cops????

HAHA! LOL! Just kidding..........

Free D-Twizzle!, Opps I meant.........Leave D-Twizzle ALONE!

*Cues Michael Jacksons "Leave Me Alone"

Exactly, why does the label even care where the videos are. For one, they are not selling them like they do for music. The artist gets seen and then the people buy the music of the artist.

Free publicity

how many general consumers buy music videos.... ?
how many DJ's buy music videos... ?

besides having it play in and endless loop on MTV, BET, etc... DJ's buy and USE music videos to enhance our show to entertain the very people that BUY the music to get the record labels rich!

Record labels SHOULD be happy we are playing their stuff and SHOULD just be giving it away to DJ's to help PROMOTE their artist to thus improve their chances of getting a hit record out of club play, etc.

...

Personally I think it is just Promo Only upset that people are using videos obtained through their DVD series to create DJ friendly edits and remixes. If they won't do it for us... we will... or other web based video dj site will. my12inch now offers "vj tools"... dj friendly edits, remixes ,etc.

Has any video DJ here EVER played an entire night with just unmodified content ONLY from promo only? chances are very slim you did.

Promo Only isn't the ONLY source for videos. The video DJ community is already taking notice that this whole watermark issue is not a good decision on their part. Chances are they will end up losing more than they though they were by see-ing SOME of their videos posted on different sites, etc. Almost like blowing up an entire city to get rid of the criminals... well .. just overkill. Do the watermark because you SAY you are losing business due to piracy, etc... then now you have NO ONE buying your product and lose EVEN more...

someone is bound to get a fired or on the bosses shitlist if they lose their ass on this genius idea.

+1

I would think that if they had these blip frames embedded to ID their videos...why would they need to add a watermark. If you find your video being used and sold other places...you need to go after the offender. All this is going to do is turn people off and cause PO to lose money from the actual paying customers.

The way I see it...you're pissing off thousands of people and losing money in order to deter maybe 10 relevant people. Doesn't sound like a good business plan to me.

While I agree chyrons are helpful for people to identify the video playing, I never did understand why UK PO and MixMash opt not to have them. Sure we may have our steering wheels on the left and they have theirs on the right, but don't Europeans glance at the screens too to see the artist?

I never had a problem with chyrons in music videos per se (promo only or anyone else), but rather their immediate placement during the first chorus/verse of the song. Anyone who has mixed video creatively will tell you that flashing titles during loops, backspins, juggles, etc, gets VERY annoying. I think it should be up to the discretion of the VJ when the titles come on and that is why I have always suggested using the SubPic track of the DVD spec to get interactive non-burned in chyrons.

As far as logo placement of the logo in the top left: uniqueness. Sure, it may be covered up, but how many other services/tv networks use that location for anything? This will help pinpoint the source of a particular video. Although I liked the idea of invisible watermarking/blip frames a lot better.


And, while you're open to suggestions how about getting rid of the ridiculous overscan black borders you place around the videos? Why are those there!!? And maybe using an MPEG encoder capable of film mode to take advantage of 99% of music videos being pulled down 23.98 progressive?

Scott> If you guys cant go with invisibile watermarking, than appearantly your just trying to promote yourselves more. The logo is Fricken huge. Paying 100 bucks a month for express video with a logo is not worth it.I guess if I want the latest stuff now with a logo, I might as well download it off MTV or BET.
I agree with Phat AL, the labels should be giving their stuff away to the DJ's to play out and get exposure to the artisit, this is how it happened back in the days of records. However Corporate America has gotten to greedy, always finding a way to make a quick buck. That is why today you see alot of artist releasing their stuff on their websties.
I am going to be curious to see how many Express customers, and other series you loose due to this watermark. Like I mentioned earlier, if its not for promotional (which you claim its not, than it should be alot smaller)than go with invisible watermarking, everyone will win. Promo Only wont loose customers, Us the DJ's wont have this watermark.
I am going to give it a shot to remove the logo (i know I am going to break the laws now, but this is for educational purposes only).

Scoot where you at...

Sticking his head in the sand and trying to pretend the backlash against this stupid idea doesn't exist?

In meetings with PO's owner trying to explain why he's getting so many calls from pissed off customers?

Trying to figure out how they're going to fix the problem they've created as cheaply as possible?

I didn't really get a chance to read this whole thread. I'm out of town (not in jail, lol) and skimmed through it on my cell phone. I'll try to add some input on the parts I did read. I have nothing personal against anyone here, just trying to stay on topic which is the watermark. As many people have posted, the watermark doesn't deter any of the file sharing/torrent sites out there. People will share regardless, that will never change.
As far as me making remixes or edits with PO videos, I don't think that this hurts your business. Regardless if I make a remix of "sexy back" people will still/want the original video. They would go to PO, SP, SV, etc to get a subscription for that. People don't just get 1 month here and there, they need a yearly+ subscription so they can get continuous content. Plus, I'm not getting paid for that stuff. Ask the people at Smash, I don't get paid anything from them for remixes. I'm not getting rich off selling video remixes. I'm making video remixes for personal exposure and for other VJs so they can play something hot in the club. I've seen video remixes from Kris P and 2nd Nature 3+ years ago, which made me want to get into the game and also want to see their live video shows. The exposure works, I've been flown across the country because of people who's seen my video remixes and want me to play at their club.
Besides all this drama, I'm really not the problem for your company. I was a paying customer spending $100/month, every month. You need to go after the people who aren't paying any money at all. That's what makes sense.
While I do admit I've used PO videos to make video remixes, a lot of the remixes I make are from videos direct from the labels. I get DVDs and digibeta tapes from them every week. They are sending me stuff way faster than PO Express. I've made remixes of Britney Spears Womanizer video in October. PO does not even have this out yet. ScreenPlay just got it out this week. Smash had this a long time now at great quality, not some TV rip.
As far as Sony/BMG is concerned. They AUTHORIZED my videos on youtube. Why? So they can make money off of it. This is an actual email from youtube...

screen shot of actual email img152.imageshack.us

Scott, Happy Birthday. I know you're in Orlando, but if you want to make the drive down to South Florida, I'll be spinning a Video set at Delray Beach on Friday. I'd be more than happy to buy you and Nick a few drinks at the club. No love lost, just money out of PO's pockets for losing a paying customer.

now, back to the beach,
d-twizzle aka the bad apple

Well I suggested a change that would remove the PO text line from the splash on each end and incorporate the logo into the bottom right.
So the splash would fade off leaving the LITTLE po logo in the bottom right throughout the song where the splash would then fade back in minus the PO text line.

I don't think its going away, but this would be acceptable to me.

r

Take the damn ugly logo out!

I'm sorry PO folk, but I'm still on the dj's side and d-twizzles side. You've seen the email, Sony/BMG is not getting hurt from this. The only ones that are complaining are PO. Why, because it all boils down to money. PO gets videos from the labels and them sells them to dj's, that equals profit for PO. Then PO sees their videos on torrents, some dj's blogspot or where ever and get pissed. PO thinks they are losing revenue from the pirates, which may be true, but they are still making money off of the dj's for videos provided by the labels.
Putting the watermark will not stop pirates from illegally downloading your videos, it will stop the DJ's from buying your videos and possibly audio.

Go ahead test it, I guarantee in a week or two someone somewhere will have posted your content on a website or torrent with the PO watermark. So now you will have not only lost customers to the watermark but you have not done anything to stop the illegal distribution of your videos.

Scott and Nick, don't go to the club to mee t D_Twizzle it's a set-up remember what happen here!!!!!! DON'T GO!!! Watchwww.youtube.com

Can't nobody hold D_Twizzle down.....

Twizzle I didnt know u from FLA

The most simple solution to this problem would be to simply insert the logo on every 15th or every 30th, or even a few random frames which is simple to do. Your video will be marked as yours, but the naked eye won't catch the logo, so we don't look like we're using BET video rips. This would solve both your problem and ours...

We won't have ugly watermarks, and you will easily be able to prove that the content is yours..

the only way we'd catch the logo would be to scroll frame by frame....

hell, you could even put a full screen disclaimer, and for one frame, you'd never even see it.

He's actually from Seattle, but he's more than likely vacationing and doing some live video gigs in Florida this week.

Unless their sole use of the logo is for advertising and promotional purposes.

@ 30 fps that would be full on thinking about it...

Leave it up to the COPS to mistake someones home state for another.

Yeah, but who is going to go through every video frame by frame to look for a hidden mark, I sure as shit won't do it.

Much to RadioActive Rob's dismay I'm back...

As I read through this thread so I can respond, I will ask this:

If you were a dj handing out or selling demos, in this case mixed DVDs, and a dj at another club or wedding company started using your tapes during his sets. How would protect your demo from that dj using it without your permission?

Also a quick point, I saw D-Twizzle responded, I've only glanced through, but I want to say thank you and give you respect back for the way you wrote your response.
We may not agree on all points, but your respect is much appreciated, and I plan on giving nothing but respect back to you.

I don't think we sell demos. We give those away. If I was selling a mix DVD then I wouldn't watermark it. If you want to watermark your videos to say property of PO then why don't you provide the service for free and we probably won't mind the branding?

They are going to use that product regardless, w/ logo or without logo. It's a sacrifice on promo onlys part tho to change the product to the dislike of the customer (The DJ). It is a sacrifice that will cost you guys customers, and if your ok with that, proceed, but later down the road, if this becomes a small domino effect, which i doubt it will, you cannot say you guys did not have fair warning. I know people will probably switch over to other companies like screenplay.

I can understand from your point why this must be done, but im thinking also, if I were in your shoes, this is a great time to start promoting your services since products/tools like video-sl are now available, and make some good revenue, but I will say this, now when dj's talk about your services, they will say "you could go the promo only route, but the only thing is they put this big annoying logo on the top left part of the videos".

If your going to change the product, you might want to change the price as well, just a thought.

I wont pay $89 or $99 a month for video's marked, promoting another company with a logo and a chyron.

The way the service is, i think it is fair, but changing the product changes its value.

^Nice point culprit.


And as for a demo, it's a demo of course there will be drops on it, but A) I am not selling it and B) if he takes my video edits and plays them with my drop or logo, then he is afool.

il even use an example, a good one at that.

My company puts it's logo's w/ order and product information inside the handles of the cases, so it is semi hidden, just like promo only does when the chyron appears and disappears, to display important information about the product.

www.nelsoncasecorp.com

If I all of a sudden start adding logo's to the bottom left or the top left of my cases, especially without consulting the customer before hand, they would be really upset, and I might loose a customer.

A little late for that. Respect would have been to contact him directly with your concerns- before calling him out on a public board (already done) and snitching on him (implied). It seems your rep wanted to make an example of him, and did- unfortunately for you, the example is DJ's subscribing to a rival service.

Respect goes both ways, he could have called our office first too.
And if it's supposedly legal, then how did any implied snitching take place?

All I was saying, and mean, is that after all that has been posted, he could have piled on, but didn't, nor did he resort to name calling or other tactics.

He stated his case with respect, and I thanked him for that, and told him I would give him that same respect.

Never too late for that.

Puma, your point is exactly ours.

The videos are for promotional use only. Hence our name.
Not for re-editing and then distributing via or posting or re-selling.
You are saying you would protect your reel the same way we do ours, with some kind of identification.

Culprit, I appreciate your points and your approach, thank you.
Nice cases by the way...
My point is there are companies like yours who use only authorized dealers (Not sure if your does or not) but if a store here Orlando wasn't an authorized dealer and was modifying your cases without permission (replacing your handles with theirs, reselling them under a different brand name, touting them as better or charging more for them) I'm sure the parent company would take action, including branding as a possibility.
Same here, we've tried other options, but the problem still exists and is getting more rampant. Something needed to be done.
As I mentioned, we are open to suggestions on how to tweak this towards a satisfactory compromise. Hopefully we will reach one that can appease both sides.

Scott, what do you think of the things I mentioned?

just a sec

Just to be clear, it is not the intention of the watermark to promote ourselves, If we take the PO off and leave the circle you would still be pissed. Plain and simple we are protecting our content from showing up where it isn't supposed to be.

eye357: Funny!!

Dj CZAR: Best suggestion yet, one route I never thought of, I will see if that is a possibility. As for the black scan bars, unfortunately, we don't place them there.
That is how they are sent either on DigiBeta or through the labels digital delivery system. about 90-95 percent of the videos we receive are still 4x3 or letterboxed.

Dj Woody: Funny story - does your girl have a tattoo? Just kidding - thanks for the Email. much appreciated!

Never was the intention to dump on Twizzle, I only brought him up since he was already mentioned. We appreciate his business he brought us, but also he was violating the agreement.

KMXE: I agree with you to a point. The Jay-Z acapella album in particular.
Funny thing about that, when that came out we tried to do a series called Mix Essentials, with videos with intros and outros, acapella videos. Do you know who didn't approve of the acapella videos we submitted to him. Jay-Z. Go figure.

Funkytownstopsix: I know you had some programming questions, and I want to answer whatever questions you have. But I also want to keep this thread dedicated to the watermark topic. Not trying to avoid you, just trying to stay on topic.

Please email me, call me or post on boards and i will answer you as quickly as I can, most likely on that same day. I am here at Promo 10-6 eastern time.

Sorry, I was trying to answer as many people as possible when your post popped up.

Our mpeg encoder and mastering software does allow for film mode, but our source video is still being serviced, for the most part, as 4x3 Beta SPs or DigiBetas. Rarely do we get 16x9 video. A 23.98? Even more rare. Most labels use a dub house like BitMax for distribution, they tend to bulk distribute clips in the most widely used format.

Unfortunate for all of us, but true.

D-Twizzle is a good guy, this initial thread was about protesting the watermarks and turned into something else. He was unionizing like any other industry when they feel strong about something. Both sides have their point of views and reasonings. If PO doesn't remove the watermarks, than they will loose some business as stated by many DJ's here deciding to cancel there subscription. This is the great thing about America, one individual can start a fire. I thank D-Twizzle (new DJ name "the bad apple") for having the nuts to bring it to our attention. Especially in the early stages where something can or cannot be done about it.

I'm in support of D-Twizzle with subscription cancellation if the watermarks stay. I also understand and support Promo Only's decision to keep it. But overall it's business and if their business decision is to keep the watermark, than it will lead my business decision to seek watermark free videos elsewhere.

S

Scott. It's obvious by the theme in your posts that you still don't get it. Let me break it down for you:

1. I'm sure culprit could care less if anyone was replacing his handles, touting the cases as their own and selling them for a 100% profit. As long as I pay someone for a product -- as long as I'm not misrepresenting the product (ie. bulletproof and life saving flight cases will protect you and your valuables from explosions and plane crashes) -- then I don't think they have anything to say about my use of said product.

2. You are NOT giving out Promotional products. You are selling them for a MASSIVE profit margin. The record companies aren't charging you for the videos, they are giving you the videos.

3. IT'S NOT YOUR CONTENT!!!

4. I think you're missing the point of why half the people here are upset. It isn't because of the obtrusive self-promotion. It's the fact that your representative decided to report a paying client to whoever the proper authorities are.

5. The real reason you're mad isn't that someone is violating the EULA they agreed to when signing up for Promo Only. It's because they found a way to get paid by using the videos that they buy from you without paying you a royalty... even though you don't pay for the videos that you sell!!!

Is the irony starting to kick in yet?

No disrespect to Scott or Promo Only, just pointing out my opinion, and thanks for the compliment on the cases. You guys do provide an excellent product as well.

Wow, Jesus, let me ask for forgiveness.

1. I guess we don't pay Universal thousand of dollars every year to be serviced videos.
2. I guess Warner does charge a percentage fee of every video of theirs featured on every disc.
3. I guess Sony, isn't stopping all distribution of their videos at the end of 2008 until a fee for play system is devised.

I do know that the video itself is intellectually copyrighted and owned by the labels, artists and whoever. It is licensed to us as promotional material for djs to play. NOT EDIT! Not to edit and then sell to another company either.

Again, as stated above buy many people that it supposed isn't illegal to do whatever you want to a video - then how did anything illegal come about to snitch on?

But then again you are all knowing and are just testing me with the previous post filled with parables!!

Thanks Culprit!
And right back at you.

Scott....So the answer is "YES" you do have to pay for the videos???

Pardon Me Jesus for I have sinned, in my haste I spelled some words wrong!
Cowering in your presence I was nervous.
Forgive me.

Yes!
Thousands of dollars!

Not necessary....you are stooping down to a level, a professional like yourself shouldn't go.

Stay on topic please Scott

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Looking back, it was blasphemous and could offend, and for that, I do apologize.
I just was getting caught up, and i shouldn't.

And again, this stupid, ugly watermark does absolutely nothing to combat the problem at hand!

If the perpetrators are really pirates, they'll distribute the videos either with or without watermarks.

If they're underground remixers, they'll either pan and scan around it or throw their own logo over the top of it. Remember - these are the same people that put shout outs to themselves in the songs anyway. Do you seriously think they won't just cover up this fugly watermark with their own logo?

How about a show of hands now. Who's glad the watermark is there? Who thinks it adds value to their show? Who thinks it will help impress their clients?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Listen if I wanna watch the "WHO'S NAILIN PAYLIN" porno parody of Sara Paylin distributed by HUSTLER VIDEO, I can do so no matter what,....uh my bad..wrong forum.

I'm coming from the stance that the intro and outro text was always a pain in the ass, however the watermark, itself, I feel isnt a huge deal because most club goers and such arent going to be sober enough to care. However, it seems like Promo Only is fighting a battle against piracy that can never be won. By adding the watermark (shameless promotion) whatever you want to call it doesnt help the fight. If anything it sets PO apart from the other providers in the wrong way. For the most part SP and PO are the same thing, give or take who gets what track first. So it comes down to, one having a watermark and the other not. For the same price Id choose the one without it, heck if it comes to it id pay more not to have it!

Rob,
You are right to a point.
I've mentioned this before, we are not going to stop our videos from showing up on a bit torrent but placing a watermark.

I've even professed that I would prefer a clean video too.
Never said the watermark was pretty, I even called it a necessary evil.

How can we prevent people from editing the video and then selling it to a competitor? This is one way, and we're open to suggestions for other options, including changing size and location, or any other other viable ideas.

Some have already been submitted, and for that I thank those of you who took the time to do so.

Scott,

I have asked several times about moving the logo to the lower right hand side. What is your response to that?

And the reason is that it would not be so obvious down there as up top. IF your goal is NOT based on advertising then this should be a non-issue for your company.

You asked about another way. Easy...go to a download service to trusted VJ's and then you can use an individual serialized number embeded in the video...there are several ways to do that quite easily.

This way no logo's need to be on the video's and your services are still protected.

As we both know ANY logo, protection, DRM, etc can and will be broken. The issue is how far both sides want to go. Also usually in the effort of breaking the protection the end quality always suffers...and then you have an inferior product floating around out there. And no one likes that.

Scotts Response From: club.promoonly.com

Lower left can get too busy or covered if a song with a long title comes about. Also, when featuring our videos in retail outlets, stores have their own logo that they may feature - usually in the upper or lower right hand side. Upper left seemed the natural choice.

SO IT IS ABOUT ADVERTISING!

Sandra, people were editing around the chyrons, re-editing the videos to unauthorized versions or mash up and then submitting these remixes to other companies. essentially using us as a supplier for competitors, all very illegal.

1. We don't want to be involved with that illegal activity.
2. Why would want to supply our competitors with footage, that we pay licensing fees for and they don't

For the dj doing everything legal, I agree this is a change, not earth shattering as some may portray but it is a change. But judging from what I've read and researched, quite a few people here also use video mashups. Home edited mixes, I really could care less about. Although by the letter of the law, illegal, they are too hard to enforce and honestly I wish they all could be legal.

Its the dj who learned Final Cut, Adobe or some other editing software that is now starting the own little email club, megaupload site or selling the remixes to competitors that is the problem.

Why? it goes against what we agree with the labels.
Capitol sends out a form that prohibits any videos from being on the web, available for download and quite a few other options. If they keep on getting fed up with their videos being distributed unregulated, they will follow suit like Warner and pull their videos and start charging outrageous fees to those who wish to provide them.

Warner does that now (after their suit with YouTube), Universal does it, Sony is about to. All this adds to the cost of legitimate businesses like us , or Screenplay. And why would it be fair for us to watch www.coolmadeupvideomashupsite.com make a profit of the videos we pay a license for.

I'm sure no one here wants to pay the ASCAP/BMI fees for someone else to use

DeeJay Z

Again, not about advertising.

If you saw my following post on that thread, you will see its more about production efficiency and how we already had a way we produced video reels for our business division. We have a separate division that handles retail chains, like 5-7-9, Hard Rock Cafes, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, etc.

Once we retrack and title a video clip, we save the proofed master for later use, either for our DJ series, or our retail side. Companies like Royal Caribbean, have a logo that we place on the lower right, and have place it their for years.

So this current watermark was placed somewhere different, not for advertising purposes but for convenience of production. More in depth answers will be found on that thread.

The videos already include invisible watermarks on certain frames, yes?

Take the competitors to court and assert your rights under law. Problem solved! If you cut off the head of the monster, the monster dies.

What's the point of these invisible watermarks you've supposedly been embedding otherwise?

Scott, I want you to understand I'm not being difficult here just for the sake of being difficult. Many of my clients pay me very well to do shows for them. My Y2K party was for a senior VP at Dell Computer. I've done a $100,000+ debutante ball where the client literally flew in rare artwork from around the world. I've done corporate events for all types of companies. Some have wanted their logo chroma keyed on screen throughout the party. Do you think they would want to share the screen with your leaning PO?

For these high end parties, I don't display any signage of my own. Why? It's tacky. The event planners that hire me for these parties are pretty demanding, and I know one in particular will question me about having the logo on screen throughout her client's parties.

Yes, moving it to the lower right and creating a smaller, less obtrusive logo that uses no letters might help, but if there's an alternative on the market that means I don't have to deal with the watermark headache at all, that's where I have to go. I really hate that, because I've been a long time fan of your products. I've praised your quality to many VJs. In fact, I recently talked a guy in my local DJ association out of going with Screenplay via TM Century and buying PO instead.

I simply can't risk upsetting the high-end party planners that use me. Having this ugly logo on screen throughout their events would be a sure-fire way to do just that.

So then go after www.coolmadeupvideomashupsite.com and stop punishing those who aren't the cause of the problem...

Now I know why all black people hate cops so much...cops generalize their "target audience" and lumps everyone together...Promo Only's doing the same damn thing.

Thanks for the clarification....Understandable.

Sorry, Justin, if you thought I didn't answer you directly.
I thought the thread on our boards, that was also brought up here answer your question.

I apologize if you thought I didn't answer you.

The right side was reserved for production purposes for our retail division.
More detail 4 posts up.

Scott, my post wasn't in support of you. With a demo you cannot sell it and putting a drop on it is because we don't want ipod dj to go playing a 45 minute mix as his own and to get our names out there.

If I am providing the material to a dj to use, there will be no drop.

How would everyone like to hear property of promo only on the monthly audio tracks, or get a track from beatport that says beatport on it.

No one would, so instead of hearing the drops you want us to see the logo on the videos that we as dj's play for people, to combat piracy.

Scott,

Sorry you don't want to answer my questions...so let me comment on yours.

You are not worried about companies like Royal Caribbean using the videos illegally. And even if they did there is a large logo sitting on the lower right hand side. In that case it is not a question of the video's going astray.

Now then let's talk about DJ's who purchase your product. Actually not your product as you are just the middleman that has been able to fill a niche. The product actually belongs to the studios and the artist.

But back to the current issue. I really do believe that there is an issue with how the product is getting used. I also believe that it seems to have gotten out of hand. However it does appear obvious that Promo Only is not only adding a logo in an effort to show the studios that you are trying solve this issue but is also using this as an opportunity to engage in additional promotional advertising placement as well.

I can understand and support the first, but the second seems a bit heavy handed. And in taking this position you are doing your company more harm than the issue seems to warrant.

Now some will stay with Promo Only and some will leave. It really doesn't matter at this point. But this is a turning point in our industry and it's not going to get any easier from here on out. In this case Promo Only has taken an issue and instead of trying to make the best out of it...has made the worst out of it. And in doing so as given your competitors a wide open door to lay the blame of the coming revolution concerning DRM issues right at your feet. Increasing their bottom line and causing Promo Only harm that didn't need to be caused.

Just my thoughts.

Scott we passed posts, sorry about that.

Rob, thanks!!

I'd much rather talk to you with this approach than go at each other.
Thank you.

I definitely understand your points.

I myself have done 5 years of parties for Miller Lite and agree that after including some chroma key stuff that the screen can start looking tacky! And thats a beer company, not a $100,000 debutante ball. With my club gigs the clubsa re usually large and upscale again tacky is bad. That is my professional and personal stance and with that point I totally agree with you.

We've gone the route mentioned, but as video editing became more prevalent the problem grew exponentially. To a point where it wasn't feasable to follow up case by case, so as you said we went to the head of the monster. Since their isn't one head editor to attack and stop others from editing we looked at the source. The Video.

It got to the point where we needed to do something. Maybe the watermark needs adjusting, maybe someone will come up with a better plan. We didn't come up with this randomly, we talked, thought about ideas, tested opacity for burn in factor on TVs. I appreciate the support and endorsement you have given us over the years, and knowing, imagine what it took for us to come to this decision. It wasn't an easy one

Again, thank for the respect and the insight, your info is much needed on this topic.

Scott,

I see your mentioning that the watermark has nothing to do about advertising, so why not go with the invisible digital watermark system? This way you will know your content, and you can track to what subscriber leaked it.
You say your paying thousands to the labels, some of us DJ's are paying thousands to Promo Only. Expecially all the new guys trying to get caught up with old videos from many years ago, that you guys still have a great libaray of.
In regards to your content being up on sites? Well hate to inform you of this but the November Express week 1 is already out. So looks like the logo isnt stopping the pirates, and I believe myself and a few others mentioned that it wouldnt, all the watermark is doing is hurting us subscribers who use your DVD's out in public when we perform.
So once again, if you have to go with something so you can tell its your content, go with invisible digital watermark, it will serve 2 purposes.
1) You can tell its your content
2) You can bust the people or person that is copying or releasing your content to the interent.

Dan,

A watermark does not track who placed it on the site...only an individual numbered system can do that...and even that can be removed if you have enough incentive.

I would favor that type of system on a download basis. The question is who pays for that? I am sure that the DJ would have to pay extra if they didn't want the logo on the screen.

But the invisible watermark system would let PO know it's PO content coming out of a competing service. That would give them the ammo to then take the rogue remix sites to court.

But the invisble watermark system doesn't deter the average dj, from remixing the video and doing the initial damage of remixing it and either posting or selling it.

We don't want to spend our time policing every track a shady competitor puts out to see if their new remixes have our watermark. The idea with this watermark, wrong or right, prevents the content from being submitted in the first place. Not by all, there will always be those who can outsmart what's being thrown at them.

We have definitely looked into download servicing and are working through problems like this, digital watermarks etc. Good to see that some of us are on the same wave length.

Unfortunately, this watermark affects the good djs who rightfully are worried about what event planners will think, while stopping those who were causing one of problems we needed to address. Our next step is to figure out a compromise help those who are in the right. Some of the suggestions made, like DJ Czar, Justin And Rob help a great deal.

That's true, and I completely understand your position. I'd probably be thinking along the same lines if it was me. I just hope a solution can be found that's less of a burden on the people actually playing by the rules.



Thanks for understanding Scott... I look forward to your solution.

Ok, you don't see the movie companies putting out dvds with watermarks on every copy of their dvds.

They sell it and make their money, who would buy any dvd with a logo on it throughout the entire thing. Especially when you are paying for it.

As I mentioned before, no one would.
and someone brought up the fact about remixing wall-e.

have you searched youtube for happy feet and walk it out by UNK.

I think Scott and PO family are going to arrive in the clusb soon with a Black Light and check for watermark tracks on the screens.

I still don't see what's wrong with uploading to youtube when the labels are AUTHORIZING THE VIDEOS TO STAY UP WITH AD PLACEMENT...

Because fuckwad-suckass-fakeass-ipodass-videodj will supposedly rip that video and play it at his gig instead of buying it from PO

All IVTC on SD material is done during the encoding stage, masters are 99% 29.97 (as with NTSCT DigiBeta, SP, D1, etc). During encoding, the encoder will look for repeat fields and only encode them once, thus eliminating bandwidth. It will insert RFF/TFF flags telling the player which fields to repeat, thus restoring the original 29.97 framerate. 99% of feature film DVDs are encoded this way and many broadcasters and headend operators use realtime MPEG2 encoders in this mode as well.



I actually work at BitMax, I'll say hello to Richard, Josh and Sergio for you :)

I found their new watermark

www.zshare.net

Wait... I thought THIS was their new-and-improved-ultra-secure-theft-and-tamper-proof watermark: www.zshare.net

LOL...this thread was giving me a headache until puma posted that...

haha nice one Jesus christo

justin> the invisible watermark system can track, each dvd/cd has embeded digital footprints with a serial number like system. So each dvd/cd is different. This is placed digitaly thro out the dvd/cd. So than its up to PO to tie those serial numbers to account numbers.
You ae correct that a visual watermark you cant track, but I never implied that. If you see I was making reference to the invisible watermark system that companies are using for this sort of thing.

Well that explains a little bit of your in depth tech knowledge about video :)

Impressive.

one of the reasons why scott is saying promo only is doing this is to stop "re-editing the videos to unauthorized versions or mash up..."

it is all about supply and demand...

why exactly haven't they even done this themselves?

Even the most basic edit to make DJ friendly mixes would have kept other "competitors" from doing that if Promo Only did them.

.........

watermark doesn't solve their on-going issue.

Piracy is not going away anytime soon... You can find bootleg copies of movies on the web that are JUST now hitting the theater...

While I agree the visible watermark does nothing to solve the problem of remixers using PO videos, I do have a guess as to why they haven't been doing the remixes themselves.

A friend of mine works for the Hot Tracks remix service. A good portion of the remixes they do are rejected by the labels. From what I understand, the labels don't always have a particularly good reason for rejecting them either. You spend hours making a remix, only to have it 86ed by the label - not particularly fun, and not a particularly good use of time for a service that works primarily with straight promotional videos.

That does bring up an interesting idea though. Maybe PO could outsource the remix work to the guys that are doing it anyway for the underground sites. If their remixes make it past the labels, they go on the discs and the remixers get paid. VJs subscribe to the PO remix discs and everyone's happy.

Thanks Puma, just exploiting and serving........Opps wrong statement

As usual, I see the same thing though, the large companies going after small fries who arent doing much really, but yet they go after the small fries because small fries can't obtain BIG lawyers like BIG companies can. Not saying D-Twizzle couldnt but I think u all understand what I am saying......

Some people forget if it werent for technology and the DJ, most of these companies would be SHIT OUT OF LUCK!!!!!

And I guarantee you that no one uses those movies in a theatre setting without paying a fee. The studios are zealots about protecting their product.

You think this is bad..ha.

Dan,

No Problem :)

You do know that the serialized system will cost more don't you? Are we willing to pay more money for a video without a watermark? I don't know the answer to that.

Good idea in concept but in reality it will never work. The original artist / director will have to be the ones that release this version. You have no idea how many sign-off's it takes to even get the original version that we see approved. And it's not just the artist / director. It's also the studio and others as well that all have an interest / ownership in that artist.

MAYBE you might get a company that is authorized to do that, like Promo Only does now with some of their "authorized" remixes...but perhaps Scott should talk to that point.

Thats clearly not a good move in the long term for PO

I just want to know the number of remixers or sites that you are trying to target. It can't be that many. If it's not that many and you know who they are...what's the problem of taking them out in court with the use of your blip frame watermark??

If the remixer somehow edits around those blip frames and titles...how can you tell if the accused have been using your videos??

This thread is starting to get old, I think its time to just move on to Screen Play. Just let Promo Only make their mistake and learn from it.
Just like Twizzle said, hes getting his content from label company. I have friend in Detroit that gets videos from label company before PO releases them. Maybe we all should just start contacting label companies, and cut out the middle man (Promo Only).

I have tried this recently. Some are accomodating and others...not so much. What is mentioned about about the whole Sony thing not giving out promos is true. I have heard this from a number or reps. Hey Sony...I am willing to pay if things come out in a timely manner. I am not going pay Crooklyn Clan video remix money but I would pay.

"Free D-Twizzle" t-shirts on sale now, get at me if you're interested.

D-Twizzle was one of the main reasons I crossed over into Video. I love his work and that was the main reason I spent 2 grand on videos from Promo Only. I bet I am not the only that he has inspired which in turn made promo only more money as he indorse them. Oh well the trill is gone.... Calling Screen Play this week as well as my subscription is up in December. I always had a hard time with them adding PromoOnly.com for 10secends as if they were the makers of the video.Almost went to screen play but I asked him who I should go with it like many others did. Why piss off those who have been loyal.
Really I have no issues with the water mark if you take that damn Promo Only Dot com off the video. and place it somewhere to the left of the screen a hell of a lot smaller. I will get at you scott on programing as it does suck.

Don't quote me on this, but I very much doubt the director of a music video needs to sign off on a remix.. Music video directors work for hire, it's the labels that own the content. I don't think even the artist needs to be notified. I mean sure they could voice their opinion and eventually get their label to reject a certain remix, but for the most part I believe it's the labels' pencil pushers that do the approving.


I don't think most realize how difficult and costly this is to implement. DVDs are a mass replicated product, you author the disc, strike a glass master, and stamp a million clones from it. In order for every disc to have a UNIQUE watermark, every disc needs to be encoded and authored separately. I've seen such a system used for feature film screeners at a post house I worked at, I believe it was by Philips. However, the runs were very limited, a few hundred at most. And it was still very, very costly.


I've never seen PO add a web address in any of their videos. The last line of their lower thirds does say "Promo Only" but I've always felt it was very unobtrusive. Most people don't even take it as a company name but rather its literal meaning, that is the video they're watching is "for promotional use only," or "promo only."

my bad Czar u are correct..Still hate that shit.

Actually there are a lot of artists that are very hands on with their music and will reject an audio remix of their song. It has happened with a number of remixers I know personally. I had to deal with a situation regarding an outkast remix that Andre 3000 heard when he was visiting s radio station. With that being said, I am pretty sure they would have some sort of control over their videos as well.

As far as the directors, a number of record reps I have spoken with have stated that the directors do get say in what happens with their videos. They are somewhat artists in their own right and a lot of them see their work as creations they don't want messed around with.

Thanks for clarifying, Chris, it was for the most part an educated guess. Looking forward to seeing your video mixes!

Wow, this place is a war zone.

I support promo only, if they have to put watermarks, then they have to put watermarks. Study law, and you will understand.
Sort of

1 P.O. Subscription not lost.

Hi Scott, I would like to suggest you to replace the letters with a logo half the size. Because some people might think that we are playing mixes from another DJ with those initials, lets say Dj Promo Only. Although people doesnt even know some body with that name, but many would think the mix is not live because the water mark would not be moving from the same position as you could embed with any video software. If a small logo is placed on the left bottom corner would be easier to hide it moving down the projector a little bit or zooming in the tv screen.

By the way, I don't like the actual water mark either. Thank you.

Back in my early post-production days I worked with a few labels on the post work for their videos. (and yes it's nice to run across them when I VJ and watch them all over again ) I can say for a fact that the artist and directors do have a say-so in the look and feel of their videos. You wouldn't get a director to sign on if they didn't feel like they were in charge :)

Now I do believe that a company can develop a reputation for doing a video remix, and over time be able to be THE company that gets turned to for this type is thing. Maybe the increased use of Promo Only's videos will show the labels that there is a need for this product in the marketplace.

But there really needs to be a return on it before it is feasible. And $5.00 per video remix in our small VJ pool will not created the return needed. Are you willing to pay $25.00 per remixed video...or perhaps $200.00 per month for 10-12 remixed videos per month?

I just Googled the words: remove video watermark

And got an amazing amount of help on how to do just that. Some of the methods are incredibly effective. It's really pretty simple. You get a clean slate of the watermark (over a black background for example) then invert it and apply it in the video editing software of your choice using the proper tools. There are how to demos for most of the popular video editing software on YouTube.

Voila! No more watermark!

Of course, the only people that are going to have time to do that are the video remixers, as they put out each new release, but they have the tools.

Just another reason why this will do nothing to stop the remixers and will only cause difficulty for the legitimate users.

+1

This is exactly what the thread was made for. So all the people who don't like the watermark can come together and complain about it to PO. They need to speak up and let PO know that it needs to be removed. It's just like people coming together and voting. If nobody said anything and voiced their opinion, then PO wouldn't know how much people are upset about this.

I'm getting screenplay now. There's a lot of videos that screenplay monthly series gets quicker than PO weekly express series. If anyone else wants to go that route, Call Doug @ Screenplay 607 988 9866 and tell him D-Twizzle sent you. You'll get something extra for that.

Just realize everyone that as soon as you attempt to remove the watermark, which you can do, you then have to re-render the piece of video you are working on. In this case the entire piece of video.

This is a render that is above and beyond the encoding you have to do to it.

Congratulation you have just lost 2 generations of video quality. Yes you may not have a watermark (assuming you were effective) but you have a piece of video that is going to look like crap compared to the original.

so what do they use? every video is from the label? i know a lot of the video remixers on there and many of them have asked me specifically if i had a PO VOB so they can make a remix. how do you explain movies (motion picture) that are used in some of these video remixes? i'm just saying. i use content from wherever i can get it, labels, po, dvd movies, etc. i think remixes on crooklyn clan are cool and i'm all for it. i still don't believe it affects po sales. if you compare it to audio, people can't just live off of crooklyn clan remixes (hopefully). you should still have a source for regular versions (digiwaxx/dj city). same applies to videos. having videos at crooklyn clan shouldn't affect subscription base services. vjs need that regardless. just reiterating the same point that's getting old. okay, back to the beach again. south beach miami yeah!

"REITERATING" wow D-Twizzle that's a five dollar word there! :)

Point is water marking the video sucks, and I am sure that there will be video loss as you are re-encoding to add the watermark. . Like said above we might as well download from MTV or BET if we want logos. Sony and other should do there on policing and PO shouldn't even be involved. They can deam very quickly if they allowed any of theses remixes to be sold and if can take the necessary steps to crush them. The only thing this logo will accomplish for VDJ's is for them to look for other sources. Like I said I pay for every PO DVD and water marked or not I could simply download them for free. I choose to do the right thing like many other Dj's and pay PO and now they want to add watermarks with a big asssss PO on it. Come on we advertise your product for free do the right thing and Leave it as is, improve your programing and keep your loyal customers. THE END.

To do the remixes, they're having to re-render the video anyway, which makes this a moot point. If the watermark removal is done in the final render, there would be no quality loss aside from what they usually have.

But even if they choose to remove the watermark before they start working on the remix, they can render to an uncompressed format with no loss of quality.

At the radio stations where I work we have three 42" Sharp LCD screens in the lobby that we use for digital signage. They're fed from 3 DVD players and connected via HDMI. Every few months I update the video loop that is shown on them.

The loop consists of the station logos being manipulated in different ways over ambient videos and short 5-6 second clips of music videos which have been cropped to the 16:9 format and are pan/scanned to focus on the artists.

If there is any quality loss, it's not noticable.

BTW...

I'm definitely not pointing this out to say we should all have to go through this to remove the watermarks. We shouldn't have to. (And I won't bother. If they aren't removed by PO, I'm going Screenplay as well.)

I'm pointing this out to show just how easily they could be removed by the remixers, which is supposedly the reason they've been put there in the first place.

In other words, this protection scheme is a joke that only pisses off the legitimate users of the product and will do nothing to stop the people its intended to stop.

Rob,

There is a big difference in using what most people have (Vegas, Avid Light, FCP) and using a real-time HD editing system (once again certain set-ups for FCP, Discreet, Flame, Smoke systems, High End Avid systems)

For one you a cleaner input/output path and you have better compression algorithms. And just so you know if you started with a brand new DVCAM tape, shot using the best DVCAM camera out there by the 10th generation you have a black blob on the screen. And by the time we start with the MPEG2 file we get the higest bit rate we have is maybe 6-8 mbps.

And by the way, if you stay in the MPEG2 format and just make jump cuts you can save out as MPEG2 and not lose any resolution at all...but that takes a system that I would bet no average person has at home.

And I would guess that Promo Only is getting their videos from D1 or if they are lucky D5 tapes. But more likely they are getting Digibeta and even Beta...post mixed from hell and they are trying to figure that all out in post.

Bad visuals get keep getting worst

The upshot here is that you will see a difference...especially when you start using large screens and HD LCD's

Your dead wrong homie. Not one video! NOT ONE FRAME!! Go & buy them all & put them to the test! :P So please don't speak what you don't know.

The root of this problem is obviously remixes services that rely on PO for their content. This will help TONS! As far as location... bottom right?? c'mon. That will just be cropped off. If they crop the top then you will end up with crap.

Remove logo?? just like Austin said just another gen loss...more crap.

Another thing I would like to throw out their is DJ's aren't PO's highest revenue stream (IMO) So you really don't have that much pull. BE grateful you actually have a real DJ (Scotty B) that cares about what you think, putting much effort in whats going on. Most cases you wouldn't even be heard.

+1^

We can talk offline cause crooklyn clan is a different issue altogether. I know where some of those videos came from.
I can easily name one that came from my library. Some of those videos came from movies, how can that be explained?

Dam!!! I VJ in Japan for 10 days and this is what happens when I get back! WTF! This who shit is crazy!

name it. u will see it taken down along with the artist! they know whats up. anyone trying to test that water will be made an example of.

Movies is the same thing. You must own it same as the music read the terms.

Damn I was getting my popcorn ready.

So I am really not looking to jump on you Twizzle but did you just say that one of Crooklyn Clan's music video came from your library?

Did you give it to them or did they receive it from some other source? And if I may ask...where did you originally get the source video from?

Before jumping to conclusions, I'm sure he meant that they got one of his and tried selling it on their site.(CClan not twizzle)

I'm curious to know what & who twizz thinks. The roster is not that big. If it was a bluff it was a bad one m8. If theirs one up....well we all know already.

See this is why I don't share anything with anyone. . . You guys should really take this offline cause you're not helping anyone out here! Just making sites look bad and it's bad business for everyone. . . Crooklyn Clan was cool b4 for they got a million DJs on there putting up the same BS. . . they should just have a small group of DJs doing remixes. . . It'll help! I don't even look at site anymore. . .

their* sites

Ah. I see that now.

? u mean one of his mixes ? righhhtt nce try

of course marx would know...marx knows all.

marx knows all that marx deals with. so yes i guess i do.

OK before this gets out of hand why don't we let Twizzle answer the question :)

:-) no prob here just miself :p

*being

D-Twizzle for president!!!

I texted Twizz to summons him, standby....

yeah... and palin could be his vice president...

Believe me... I would have like 20 more mixes on Crooklyn Clan's site if I could use Promo Only videos. But I use strickly non-third party videos. No screenplay, promo only, etc... all videos are directly from labels.

... oh and yes... marx knows all!!


marx for president!

So you are saying that you guys have the rights to the Back to Future footage you used in one of your videos because one of you guys owns the video. I never knew it was that easy. Here I was thinking that Robert Zemeckis and Universal would have to sign off on the rights to use their footage.

A marxist for President??? Where have I heard this before?? Hmmmm...it so crazy it just might work. lol

Hmmm... I was going to say something similar...

crooklynclan.net

this is a preview of a discotech edit using the "rick james" parody by dave chapelle. I posted a youtube video where my friend was making fun of dave chapelle in front of a plasma screen playing that same episode, and it got yanked off my youtube for copyright violations, and that was just him standing in front of a plasma making fun of Dave Chapelle.

50 million dollars won't get Dave Chapelle, let alone some Rick James bootleg footage. => I have no clue what that means, just went a little 5150

Well guys, I finally figured it all out.

The smaller companies represented in this thread claim they're using legitimate source material from the record labels. At this point, they probably are.

Some of the major record labels are in the process of raising the rates they charge these companies to receive this source material - substantially.

The smaller companies probably won't be able to afford the new, higher rates.

PO implements the watermark scheme in an effort to prevent the smaller competitors that won't be able to afford the new rates these labels are demanding from borrowing a few from PO's releases.

The smaller companies lose all new releases from these labels and can't compete anymore. They go out of business.

This isn't about remixers, or YouTube distribution. It never was. It's not about record label demands that the videos be protected, because clearly, they allow videos to remain on YouTube when they think it might make them a few bucks on click through ads. It's probably not even about piracy of the videos by VJs, because frankly, we're such a small group that we're not even a blip on their radar (and if you ask the right people, they'll send you the videos for free anyway - for now...)

So what is it about? There are scrappy new competitors that are taking market share away from the big boys and the labels are about to make it impossible for them to buy legitimate source material.

Figure it out...

Regardless if you had the money or or not to pay the new fees I highly doubt that most of the remix and intros that get done on any of the smaller sites would get clearance through the proper legal channels.

Really? I thought everything on CROOKlyn Clan was legal...



HAH!

But that's the label's problem - not PO's problem. Are they really that concerned with label backlash, or with eliminating their small competitors?

I also find it hard to believe that EVERY video done by EVERY video remixer is straight from the label...sounds like an idealized statement to me...

thats what it takes to be a mixer. just like the audio remixers, they have to dig high & low for acapellas.

Yes but it seems like everyone on the site uses the exact same acapellas and most of them aren't that hard to find.

Videos are a lot harder to get than audio tracks. Actually let me rephrase that, untagged videos are a lot harder to get than audio tracks.

And it's quite easy to get ride of the PO tags...

Check your PMs.

thats your opinion...but i have seen many mixes that weren't diy tru studio acapella mixes. but ur entitled to your opinion. I'm glad their is alot to choose from even if its the same track...it might be slightly different but the slight is enough to turn someone on or off.


ehhh yes & no. tru studio acapelas are hard to find if they don't release them. So in reality its harder since it doesn't exsist vs a video where it does.


hence y they started watermarking
So i guess in a month when u see a watermarked PO video & you see that same video on CC not cropped, panned, or anything else hasn't been done to it...then you will know. Again NONE of the stuff comes from PO, SP etc. But some people or companies will have fun these coming months figuring out what they're gonna do because they have no product to work with.

the terms on the cc site are a little suspect. so it's basically saying that if you own the video, then it's okay to download the video remix? what considers owning the video? having a promo only or screenplay dvd subscription? then what about licensing? is that not even mentioned or brought up? i know it's a gray area and all so you can explain it to me and the others who want to buy these videos legally. i don't claim to know everything, but i'd be happy to listen to explanations of how crooklyn clan can distribute videos like this legally.


no, i didn't say mixes. i'm not sure how people thought about that.
it's not a bluff, but i'm not going to rat out one of my friends, i'm sure you can figure out who it is, it's not hard. this isn't stuff i would make up, i have no reason to. i think it's cool you guys are selling stuff on there cause that stuff is in demand. hopefully it continues, but what i was saying is i know that more than one of the video mixes posted from cc originated from a video in my library(a video sent from me).
i get emails and text messages all the time asking me the following (names and songs have been changed)...

a few days later, i get my copy of the remix and then i also see the video is on the cc site. i'm not going to give specific names online, but if you pm i can forward you the email, or we can netmeeting/webex into my email and you can see the emails and links i got as proof. or you can just ask him where he got the video, and i'm sure he'll just tell the truth and say twizzle sent it to me.
that explains that.

Marx: 0 Twizz: 1

Marx,

Did you get permission from Direct TV to use part of their currently-airing commercial in the "Halloween Bitches" party break put out by your "label"? If so, they authorized you to put it on an illegal site and be sold for profit? Thanks you.

Sincerely,

eder

all the CC questions aren't for me to answer.

My response to the mixes wansn't for you. its the tidbit that always comes after. I think you assumed that whoever you gave a video to was gonna be used to distribute on other sites. You can't expect to make a statement like that & not expect to back it up.

So basically what happened here...this remixer asked you for a video...didn't care of the source so they can make a edit...to do what I wonder......maybe to use it in their set. That's obvious what happend. In this case the djs not gonna care if its PO, SP, RA etc. Its for their own set. You assumed that it was for a site & or for CC. Do u or anyone see that video posted on any of the sites?

Eder...ur a funny guy. Try some standup. I'm sure I would find plenty of stuff on your HD m8. Including SV videos.

Twiz u need to understand not trying to bite your head off....I would have said the same thing to any other person...if anything I'm goin light cause we have history.

Again your mistaken. Maybe when some of these projects were originally made for that dj they were from PO etc.....BUT these videos were re-rendered with new sources in its place. I can think of two from "your secret person" that were redone this way. Know of a couple others that just redid their mixes from scratch because their masters were from sources that weren't allowed. You will not find these videos on these sites! If anyone feels like they've found one....by all means please contact us. Scotty B has even been notified about this & also has my personal cell#.

So since I own Back To The Future I can legally purchase the Greg J Run It Back in Black? Sweet. Since I already purchased the movie does that entitle me to a free copy of the video?

i miss lethal weapon records :-(

Thank you OH SO MUCH for answering my question...NOT.

And yes you would find a lot of stuff, and since I used to subscribe to SV, yeah, you would find some SV videos. Doh.

The point being, you made the statement that ALL of the shit on CC and SV is AUTHORIZED and NOT FROM THIRD PARTY SERVICES i.e. PO, etc. So please answer my question: Did DirectTV give you permission to take their commercial, edit it, and resell it? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Thank you.

We are still making them. It's not to late to subscribe. =)

And Marx...I am just busting your balls a little. Freebird has got some sick editing skills. I wish I would have thought of the Michael J Fox thing myself.

Play nice Eder. I have no idea what your talking about buddy. Don't have Direct TV

yup i knows. they implemented cubecart. wonder if videos will be next. just bought "lethalvidz.com" wanna play haha JK.

Yeah Freebird is a dope editor. Your gonna see alot of hot upcomin mixers in the game.

i should of said vinyl. THAT shit was like gold...f the video shit.

Wait so marx basically what you said about everything being a legal source for the video is a lie then?

I don't have direct TV either, but that commercial that you or someone on your fabel ripped for the halloween bitches break is shown on standard TV (antenna on a plasma...I DJ so bad...) like 20 times an hour.

crooklynclan.net

So you're telling me that the part at 1:45 IS NOT from a Direct TV Commercial?

thats from polturguist the movie i think

what from 1:45? i see poltergeist

minutes or seconds?

where the hand comes out of the TV? That's so Direct TV commercial it's not even funny.

u mean direct tv got it from poltergiest buddy. a classic movie. dunno your age but google it

The original is from the movie Poltergeist. Direct TV make their commercials from old movies.

www.imdb.com

National Lampoon's Vacation
Watchwww.youtube.com

Back to the Future
Watchwww.youtube.com

Termninator 2
Watchwww.youtube.com

Misery
Watchwww.youtube.com

Star Trek
Watchwww.youtube.com

Okay...I'm really bored...

guys im sorry..
























i got a fever..












and the only perscription..














is more cowbell!!


Eder thats from Poltergeist my friend

www.funnyhub.com

Rob you are not correct. The labels have MADE IT Promo Only's problem. While I am not involved in this specific issue I have been involved in much bigger digital transfer issues. The labels could care less who and how they affect the people down the line. They have the product...you want the product. You play by their rules.

Trust me, the last thing that a label wants is another logo on top of THEIR product. This is a short term measure to try to fix a long-term problem. (short term is all relative)

funny thing is it will NEVER fix "the" problem...

Eder you must be an eighties baby...lol That was the movie THE POLTERGEIST that was edited by direct t.v. for their commercial as they just did with Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Vacation Movie. But I get your point regardless a scene from a movie was used. Regardless, this is not directed at you or anyone else but everyone should just fall back and watch what happens next. Too much information is being throw around and that should not be. I wish no one ever gets a cease and desist letter(hope i spelled that right) or is threaten by lawsuits etc..., People are trying to eat and I don't care how a website, dj, remixer or anyone does their business it is not for us to police that...let the labels and artist do that if they feel some type of way about it. Youtube is one example of how they feel when the label tags the remix video as theirs then leaves the video up so they can put advertising but guess what, you now have a label approved remix. Not that you can go sell it but it is acknowledged by the label that it does exist and they don't mind. Keep grindin' everyone and see where this ride ends but I tell you this let the label and artist stop it not fellow djs,websites,remixer,editors. :(

Ok man. Maybe I assumed. I'll just drop the subject and move on. it's a dumb argument. Sign me up, I need to put these digibeta tapes to use. :)

Well regarding the movie clip thing, I spoke with DJ Roonie G at the Atlantic City Convention, and also 2nd Nature. My question was how are they getting away with using video clips for their shows. They said Pioneer has alot of lawyers looking into this, that its a gray area. That is one reason they are not selling their content right now, because it's such a gray area. However 2nd Nature indicated that he got picked up by one of the big labels to do a video remix of an upcomming movie because they liked what they saw.
So this is coming from 2 of the TOP guys in our industry, which Pioneer backs up. So they are doing the right thing and not selling their content because, more than likely it would be illegal.
However I read someone's point that it is in demand....Well cocaine is in demand, so you going to sell that to? Even tho its illegal in all 50 states?
I dont see there being anything wrong with making your own remixes to show your skill and creativity. However its another thing to try to sell it because all the footage is not yours and movieclips and such have copyright.

Then explain one thing Justin... Why aren't the labels forcing Screenplay to do the same thing? Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that they're not doing the watermarking? Won't the remixers just change their source material and keep chugging along?

I'm not buying the whole "we're doing this because the labels are forcing us" excuse. If anyone from PO would like to share some documentation from the labels that says otherwise, I'd love to be proven wrong. Until then, I'm not buying the excuse.

why is everyone hating on eachother. this thread is about PO and the watermark. Just move onto another subscription.

Marx...you can still get the vinyl of all new releases.

i was just reminiscing.....not gold I bought by the way :-) I was on radio & was lucky enough to get them serviced to me.

ok.... just got the promo only... that water mark is not that big and almost invisible. Playing in a dark club people are all fucked up and having a good time dancing away are not going to notice it. I know its illegal, but if it really bothered you you could easily remove it...

Personally, I'm gonna leave it alone because it doesn't bother me, and im sure its not gonna bother the drunk people dancing.

It wouldn't bother me if there logo wasn't so wack looking.

Wow.



























She got a donk.

Like i said, if it dont bother the club owners, it wont bother my business, as soon as it bothers my business, then I make changes.

you guys be nice. the labels are only bitter because they got shafted with the online, itunes, bittorrent, mp3 thing. the independent CD & Record store i worked for for years just closed down because there are whole generations of kids that have never bought an actual CD in a store. i see it happening all over again. have fun with that labels...

it's all about evolution

true mp3 have been around since 1992-93 in the underground, didnt get big until the late 90's. Everything is changing and going digital. Business that used to advertise in the paper are now advertising online, must people will google something before they actually go look at it.

So did I! Are u serious, CC is ILLEGAL....HOLD THE PRESS AND CALL THE FEDS

NEXT!

So all this talk about watermarking PO vids. Well I guess some just don't care. What ya gonna do. Link below is a picture that needs no introduction:

www.divshare.com

Ok, I just saw a portion of the November week 1 express video and honestly the watermark is fucking ridiculous. It looks like you've just downloaded some crappy ass bet rip. And it's in the same spot throughout the dvd, so in a few months when you spin all the latest shit you will see that po in the upper left corner the entire time. It will probably burn in on your screen as well.

Sorry to say, but I'd rather spin with ambients than with PO's shit.

does Smash Vidz videos come out faster than PO.? Thinking of joining them they have no logo..

yes and no...both carry different shit...some stuff on PO isn't on SV and vice versa

Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow!!!!!!!! busted.

Damn....are U fucking serious???

8thwonder has been shady from since I first looked at them. Surprised they are still a business.

and surprised they are not removing the logo before they release it...come on do some googling, you can see many ways to remove watermarks from videos.

I believe this is a moot point now...

read the last post on this thread from Glenn from promo only.

club.promoonly.com

If it really was the labels and not them, they would put it on the bottom right where logos normally go. In fact, I probably wouldn't mind it as much in the bottom right, but in the top left is, in my opinion retarded.

Everyone is used to seeing something in the bottom right, so why not keep it that why, by putting it in the top left it makes it look out of place and down right ugly.

What I will miss leaving PO going to Sreenplay is that you got a few oldschool videos,smokebreak mixes not to mention filler videos. Nobody offers anyting close. Move the stupid watermark to the bottom right or even far mid right I would consider staying. I was a little pissed the other day when I went on ebay and found that I could buy 400 videos for less than one hurdered dollars when I paid 40 a disk dating back to 2004. Will this stop that well on ebay it will on torrents hell no, not like they are going to pull over every dj and say some the your orginal PO disk....Anyway this tread was about the watermark and it sucks.

Like everyone said, it won't stop pirating. Now they can prove without a doubt that their shit is on torrents, p2p, or whatever.

or 8thwonder for PROFIT like it has been doing forEVER... shady business is bad business

Yeah, I read glens statement and doesnt make sense. Putting your logo on all the videos is not going to stop the spreading of the MDVDR's. All its going to show the labels is hey this is Promo Onlys and they are not doing a good job enforcing their aggreements....So in essence isnt this going to bite them in the ass? However reading their forum, they decided it would be better to put their logo top left because everyone else puts logos on bottom right or left, so in anotherwords, promo only wants their logo to be seen full time for advertisement, and not a deterrent. I have a feeling that Promo Only will see that this has cost them alot in the long run, have to talk to doug at screen play and ask him how his sales have been this month, i bet it has doubled.
Oh and the only reason your starting to see this stuff on ebay and craigs list now, is that more people are getting into video, its not like how it was 3 years ago. Like anything else the more popular it gets, the more demand, and people start selling it online and offering downloads from sites.
So if Promo Only doesnt like that, than they might as well close doors down for business. Piracy has been around for a long time, and it will not go away. Even tho the stuff is here, look how many of us still keep our subscriptions and stay loyal? Now with the watermark, I think the loyality will dissapear and if we need the video that bad (with the watermark) we will just download it offline someplace. After all we were all paying for a service that put out clean videos with no logos. Not the case anymore.

+100000000

I'm sure that's why they haven't been on here anymore to talk about it.
Why waste the man hours to defend themselves when they are going to stick with it.

I'm sure they have been reading this thread, but neglect to comment anymore.

I hope they realize sooner than later that in the long run, it is hurting them not us. We can jump shit, they have to stick with their product until they close the doors or change it to get dj's and vj's back.

Good luck on that PO.

The first person to get a legit way to sell a ton of clean DRM-free videos by direct download is gonna make so much money.

However long it takes to happen, that will blow PO away. Their style belongs to the past and they're angrily refusing to change, just digging in deeper.

Apple had the stones way back when to push the labels to do the iTunes store the way they wanted, and now they're unbelievable huge. Bring on the company who can do the same for video. The labels have to learn that they need to back off this petty stuff so the money can start rolling in.

When it's easier and higher quality just to pay for something and get it right away, piracy will fall off a little because it will be a pain in the ass by comparison. Right now it's the other way around. You sign an agreement, pay top dollar, live with silly chyrons chumping your style and then PO has the nerve to go and make their product more disappointing.

We'll all be laughing about this in a couple years when everybody's doing video and it's so much easier and no one has even heard of PO anymore.

Maybe we all should get in touch with apple inc.... since they are already have a foot in door with labels tell them they would have a huge market they start doing videos......See it now IVidZ

Watchwww.youtube.com

msfriendly.files.wordpress.com

onfinite.com ???? New video?

what if...

people upload PO stuff cuz PO is the more popular company with more subscribers or has better selections per issue which makes PO the more desired subscription? ppl would love to get their stuff for free for whatever reason....and now they're uploaded or bootlegged everywhere.

now...with all these ppl jumping ship to screenplay, all of a sudden SP gets more popular and nobody wants to use PO....and SP stuff starts getting uploaded everywhere? and what if SP suddenly has to start doing something similar to the watermark? yes, they stated they never would, but what if something down the lines forces them to reconsider and change plans?

what then?

Go back to PO because they will probably remove the watermark due to all the backlash.

^my thoughts exactly

I'd rather see this kind of crap go myself.

Love For Money - DJ Drama Presents Willie The Kid f./LA The Darkman, Gucci Mane, Bun B, Flo Rida, Yung Joc & Trey Songz

Shawty/Get Low - Mike Phillips, Mr. ColliPark, Karen Briggs, Peter Black, Abdul Ra\'Oof & Jimmy Brown

Out Here Grindin - DJ Khaled f./Akon, Rick Ross, Plies, Trick Daddy, Lil\' Boosie & Ace

I'm So Hood - DJ Khaled f./Young Jeezy, Ludacris, Busta Rhymes, Big Boi, Lil Wayne, Fat Joe, Birdman & Rick Ross


And so on....you know what I mean.

hmm

Out Here Grindin - DJ Khaled f./Akon, Rick Ross, Plies, Trick Daddy, Lil\' Boosie & Ace

I'm So Hood - DJ Khaled f./Young Jeezy, Ludacris, Busta Rhymes, Big Boi, Lil Wayne, Fat Joe, Birdman & Rick Ross

these are huge songs. they would be fools not to release it.

I think it depends on where you are playing at, format, etc...
some are huge songs are some are stuff I wouldn't even touch because of the ghetto factor.

but their still hits pursay...so they have a place in express & urban

Some of us are the ghetto factor...

I would personally hunt those responsible down. At least SP lets you get your music delivered in MPG format (no ripping or labeling....wonderful. 3 years, Never looked back)

wasn't trying to offend anyone..

just not my style.

Thats not what I'm getting at its not the songs.
When you put all these credits PLUS the PO text it takes a third of the screen away.
Its just too much and its on each end of the track.
And tagging it is a bitch...

OOOO.....yah gonna have to ask Khaled haha

jk

That's why you just tag it as I'm so hood - Dj Khaled, or even toss on a ft various.

Does it really matter who is on the track for a verse or less?

I'm changing my dj name to DJ PISSED-OFF or PSYC-O or even PUBIC ONION...thank YoU promo only for providing me with a free logo for all of my new videos!!! I swear i will do this and tell everyone i do gigs for that "this is a custom logo put on the video for me because i'm so awesome!!!" And yes i do many many gigs..
thanks again promo only, way lookin out bros :)
Let me say one thing that i know to be true above all else and listen carefully my dear friends...
The days of unbelievably very fast internet connections are imminent. Catalogues of music and video far greater than poor promo only's little collection of video, sound, word all of it. Every single little bit and byte will be accessible at speeds unimaginable by todays standard. imagine the whole PO library being shared in 4 seconds... sonys entire catalogue(video,movies and sound all of it, every single drop) in 70 seconds..
Change is inevitable and unconscionable. Music, Film, Word will once again be like it always was and, was always meant to be. which is free. The artist is as grateful that someone can experience the effort provided as we are of the performance. But it is the dealer and distributor and recording and film rights owners, producers and promoters which, in it's own right of attempted self preservation mind you, has now found itself at odds with the truth. And that truth is, the business model to which you all ascribe is now obsolete. Period. The war is over.
You have lost.
You must all look to that uneasy relationship that must exist between you and other entities of similar needs who would benifit from the artist maybe wearing their shoes or maybe driving their cars or appearing at your social event or endorsing your candidate.
The artist will have to use every available resource to make what he/she does a marketable asset.remember, artists recieve a negligable % income from recording sales from these receptacles of creativity, closed orfices, bastions of repression who have made us shell out $20 bucks for one good song on one crappy album!
You have been overpaid for far too long!

The film industry will continue to make money, the movie theater experience is by and large a truly social human event which will never die. Likewise, the artist will continue to perform and appear and endorse and shine like the star they deserve to be and if we like what they do, we will take part, emulate, download, take apart, mask, cut, edit, remix, share, copy, wear, beg, borrow and steal for our own creative purpose. Your little "water marks" and "sony cease and desist letters" are walking dinosaurs. i don't want your silvery little discs anymore! i dont need them.. please go away.
I am a digvid dj and the stock of said artist will rest heavily on the radio/video/web stations as well as club djs such as myself as a tool of marketing in this business model that is and will continue to evolve around these "files" which we are not "allowed" to share.HA!
The artist will still eat well, so will I, but you my little "sony" "BMI" and "promo only" friend adapt as best you can or you will starve.
PROMO ONLY" is especially in trouble as they have nothing. they are merely selling horse and carriages in a rocket world. Good Bye.


nuff said

The fight must go on.

i92.photobucket.com

does south park have to get saddam hussein or mel gibsons permission when they use their face pictured on a cartoon body???

thought it was relevant...

hay, cmon guy.

not me :P

exactly. I don't like the idea of watermarks but if one HAS to be there... MM does it right... I actually don't mind it THAT much. If PO was doing theres more like that, I think people would be a little less annoyed and a bit more accepting and understanding.

PO, y'all say you want suggestions and answers but a few people have said why don't you make it m ore like Mix Mash and y'all have not said anything in response to that.... what's up?
Make it a little smaller, more opaque and drop it to the bottom right. Make the stores put their logo in the upper left.

I've talked to PO and there will be changes to the logo. It will definitely change, possibly a music note or something other than a po. So expect a different logo coming soon.

3 cheers for Twizz!
Yes we can! hahaha

Do you know if they are gonna move it to a different position or leave it top left (bad choice)

Scott Bucher Said:





I remember them mentioning before they use custom video libraries with THEM placing the logos on the video SPECIFIC for those clients like listed above.

I am pretty sure they don't release the videos we have seen with the current watermark to those avenues of business since it ALREADY has the logo from said company of client.

So for them to put it on the bottom right would make sense considering they have separate divisions that handle retail and custom company logo watermark.

Scott Bucher Said:



Just like us DJ's have had NO logo for years... so if they can change the way our videos are, why can't they change the way those companies videos are? Why not not mess theirs up to. Why should we be the only ones to have our service changed after years of it being one way? I think if they can change ours, they can do the same to them and place their logo somewhere different... that way everybody has to compromise a little.

Because the DJ videos are the ones that get bootlegged and sold on ebay. The DJ videos are the ones that get used to build illegal video remixes and are sold on other sites. You'll never see a Royal Caribbean video being used on SmashVids.

once again... just for the record....

smashvidz doesn't use Promo Only or other unauthorized content as a source for their edits/remixes.

8thwonder on the other hand... well... there is plenty of proof of that.

Hidden logos are best protection but stuff is still gonna be taken you see what the movie industry is going through. But the Feds smash people who get caught bootlegging movies.

I've been watching these forums for several months as I have been interested in getting into video remixing and looking into buying the TTM57 mixer and Serato for this format. I understand that it is very expensive & time consuming as well as learning where to get videos & also how to make my own videos. I will say that I've seen your work and it is impressive.

With that said......

I run a very reputable mobile DJ company and in my town, we all respect each other in the industry and do our best not to talk bad about another competitor. Especially to clients or up & coming new DJs. In the end, it helps us all to get along and co-exist while keeping competition alive.

DJ-Phat-AL & Marx, I don't know how you run your business but I must say that I have really lost respect for you and your company. You seem to be hell bent on "hating" on your competition on an open public forum. You also seem to have this attitude that you are better than them and for that matter, it seems that you act like you are above everyone else on this forum including me. Like you are trying to prove or convince everyone here that you are the only legit source for mash up videos.

I'm new & don't have the experience or skills as anyone here who has been doing it but I do know that I will most likely start doing business with 8thwonder simply because they seem to offer a better product than you with more variety and more frequent updates. They are also not wasting time on this board trying to attack you or anyone else. It seems they are simply trying to do their own thing and from what I've seen & heard, it is working because people are subscribing.

If I were you, I'd quit publicly bashing your competition and make a better product. If people like your work, they'll do business with you. If they like 8thwonder, they'll do business with them. In many cases, someone like me just getting started would have considered doing business with both of you as you both seem to offer different stuff.

This isn't the only post I've seen where you have verbally attacked another company or even other Video DJs just getting started. You seem far too concerned about what other people are doing and trying to prove to everyone how you are so "legit". In the end, you are no different than any of the other mash up & remix sites like Crooklyn Clan, 8thwonder, etc. You are making illegal bootlegged versions of copyrighted songs & videos regardless of the original source. I get service from labels too. Doesn't mean that I have any more authorization to remix them than a person who gets their material from a third party source like Promo Only. We don't mind because it gives us a killer tool to use in our live sets and radio mixshows which the labels & sources like promo only aren't offering and can't offer. Its been like that for decades but I don't see any other services on this site or other sites trying to attack their competition like you have here or trying to belittle up & coming video DJs.

I might be impressed with your video remixing skills but I am not impressed with your attitude or your company. I wish you luck but you won't be getting my business when I do make the jump to video.

Fake DJ-AM says: Watermarks are for homosexuals and so is video deejaying.

This thread is better than The Young & The Restless.

round 3, 4.....

So are you saying you watch it???????????

lol

I can only speak for me. I have only pointed out FACTS. They being 8thwonder (not my competition) have been taking Promo Only videos and re-branding as their own.





I can't think of any instance that I put out an attitude that I am above anyone here or anywhere for that matter. I can't take responsibility for you reading it as such.



I never said that or am trying convince someone of any of that. The only reason 8thwonder was brought up in this whole thread and others is their use of promo only content.



How are they my competition? I am a video dj who remixes videos.

And as a video dj using services like 8thwonder I have found it lacking in certain departments for my show. But that isn't what this is about. It is about promo only watermarking their new videos to prevent sites like 8thwonder, etc. to re-brand or remix videos for profit.

Uh Phat Al...if you get paid by marx for your contributions to SV (which to God I hope you do, although I hear he's not the best at compensating his talent), you technically are working for SV. And when 8th wonder and SV offer the same services, that makes them competitors.

Yes you're a video DJ who remixes videos, but then sells them to SV. If 8thwonder was doing really well and put SV out of business, wouldn't that hurt you as a remix seller? (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is illegal)

Ooooh my All my Childeren are getting old and Restless.

wow. i'll keep it short and sweet.

"Pick_it_UP" your entitled to ur opinion. if thats what u want go ahead & do it. Am I a confident person? very much so. Do I belittle djs? Are you kidding me. New or old tell me who I belittled. Do I defend myself or anyone that is associted with me ...uh OF COURSE. Bashing our competition? Hmmm. I fully support PO & Screenplay, I love competiton it keeps the blood flowing. 8th is not considered to be our competition. Our main focus is quality, so if you don't offer a quality product your not a competitor. I wish 8th & Paul all the best.

I don't get paid for any of my videos on smashvidz. So no... 8thwonder isn't my competition.

just let this thread die...

agreed

But Smashvidz gets paid... hmmm... sounds like good business practices. NOT!

Thread locked

www.urbanhautecouture.net

It will never die as it is now my adopted child and I shall name this thread "Watermark." LOL

even though there are lot of good points being made on this thread, and some are VERY true. let's end this thread. we all know most of you aren't quiting promo only, yor just trying to act like you are. and frankly who cares. and for all who are being haters on other sites, there is enough for everyone. every site offers something different. let the members choose. stop the bashing, it's childish. my 2 cents.

Are you fucking serious??? Dude has to be affiliated with 8th Wonder...

"Pick It Up" joins today and makes comments like, "I will most likely start doing business with 8thwonder simply because they seem to offer a better product than you with more variety and more frequent updates." What the fuck??!!!

First off...how in the fuck can you say they "seem" like they offer a better product if you haven't already started doing business with them to know that???

Second...how can they offer a better product if they are straight ripping off the videos from somebody else???

Third...there's already proof in this thread that shows 8th Wonder is doing some illegal shit and you still rather give them your business??? Sounds like a limewire bearshare type of dude to me fellas...

Fourth...the thread is about fucking watermarks on videos....when we have a thread about ripped off, bootlegged ass services...feel free to comment on what shady services you plan to give your money to.

Getdafucouttahere with that bullshit man....

And I forgot this comments...

"It seems they are simply trying to do their own thing and from what I've seen & heard, it is working because people are subscribing."

How in the fuck do you know people are subscribing to that pool if you are not involved with them???

Tiesto would like to ask matt212 to please relax, there is tooo many swear words in his post. Tiesto suggest matt212 do yoga, so you can last like bull while doing awesome karma sutra.

Tiesto doesn't like watermarks, watermarks stain the front of his pants, turn his underpants yellow and rust his zipper. Water chestnuts on the other hand is very good for Tiesto's diet and keep him in top shape for his 6 hour mix marathons.

Tiesto needs to understand that watermarks don't stain his underwear....pissing your pants do that.


Other than that good post :)

I don't need to relax....I just have a low tolerance with people that say and do stupid shit.

Funny shit for a change, lets hyjack this bitch.

Yes, I am a new member and not even doing video yet. I don't even own Serato yet as it is very expensive and I'm saving up the money. I was sold on the idea of doing video when I was in Vegas and I was at a club where the DJ was doing video mashes. I as amazed and impressed. That was just before summer.

That is when I found this site and started reading various posts & learning. I never posted before because most of my questions were already there from other posts. I finally took the time to register as I felt that it was getting out of hand with one company talking bad about another company.

I've been in this business long enough to know other DJs & VJs and also to know about how these remix sources work. I have crooklyn clan mixes. I have white labels. I have DJ mashes that I got from around. I've already known about 8thwonder and smashvidz by doing internet searches and talking with other VJs & DJs. Its no secret that both are no different than Crooklyn Clan. They are both making bootleg mashes & remixes. Just like the white labels I've been getting for the past 20 years. Just like the Crooklyn Clan, Crack4djs, Yourremix, etc. They are all in the same business doing the same thing but you don't seen any of them here bashing each other.

So what if some of the videos came from a third party source! If Promo Only, Screen Play & others like them could offer the same remixes, extended & mashes, people would be doing business with them and in fact they are. I've purchases DVDs from them and one day when I know how to make my own video remixes, I'll keep buying them as my official source. Who cares that somebody stepped up and is offering us DJs who can't do it yet an ave. to get them at a good price. so what! Again, no different than what has been going on for decades with white labels, etc. I'm pretty sure that within the next few months, there will be several more sites popping up doing the exact same thing and if they offer a really cool remix or extended versions of the new & old stuff, I'd most likely subscribe to them as well unless they start bashing other people. I just don't see that as professional. Says a lot about a person.

All I'm saying is that I've seen 8thwonder videos & I've talked to 8thwonder subscribers. I've seen smashvidz videos as well. All I'm saying is that when the time comes, I think I rather do business with 8thwonder. You are free to do whatever you want but I don't want to do business with someone who spends time & effort trying to bash another company.

BTW - you seem a little high strung. Have a bran muffin.

www.scratchlive.net

Is this true?


Ripping PO to laptop not allowed? If so... 90% of us are doing illegal stuff.

Can anyone from PO confirm this?

Wow...I think you really have things twisted.

So you think it's professional to steal somebody shit and sell it as thier own but not think it's professional for a company to make comments to distance itself from some shady shit??? Wow.....

This is not just about remixed videos...this is about striaght up stealing regular unedited shit.
i78.photobucket.com
As you can see, that is a PO video cropped and then a 8th Wonder title added.

If you think its professional to be part of that type of shit...that says alot about you as a person. I have no problem with 8th Wonder as I was a member until I saw all this shit going on. If you want to do business with them cool...I just don't like when people try to pass shit over on me like I'm some type of fool and I wouldn't notice what the hell is going on. I guess they can pull that shit on some people...you are an example of that.

Do me a favor...send me some remixes or mixtapes you have put together. I will take your name off and put my own on and sell them. Basically you are okay with these guys jacking their stuff from another company but talking shit is wrong. In that case, tell me your address and I will come over and take your equipment but tell you what a great guy you are. I will say it with a smile if it makes you feel better.

I don't think this is the case in the USA.

Haha, at least remove all the frames that have the title and add your own, fonts all different and everything. Obviously they got caught plagiarizing in school as well.

My child Watermark is growing strong and tall!!!!!!

LOL Rebelguy goes hard but oh so real. Come take my shit and we are going to fight,,,my bad I'm to old for that but you will get something compared to some hard core mediaeval shit that you won't like...: ) It was clear that 8th did shady shit on the vid but that may be the very reason it's 10 dollars a month so with that being said you get what you pay for. On the other hand it's really not left up to any of the DJ's, PO was the one violated and should take that up with 8th,,,,,,, if that was the case I am sure we would not be having this discussion. Funny thing about this water marking thing is that it would not effect too many people hell by the time we get the videos they are way played out anyway. I tunes seems to be the direction we all need to be going.The day I see the video on MTV/BET they have it,,,unmarked unlabeled. So we just need to talk with Itunes so that they could make the video playable in VSL then we don't need any of these sources which means we would not have to wait and we get them as they come out as well as pay for only what we want or need no fillers. Now on the editing side of that there is some issues but hey look at what you gain.....Just my 2 cents

if you buy videos from the iTunes Plus they are DRM free & can be played in Serato Video.

How is the quality?

The DRM is what I was talking about if they fixed it where you could play in VSL then they would be the #1 choice. DRM can be removed but I think it sucks that you pay for it but can only view it in iTunes, if they changed that there would be no competitor not to mention it's already set up the right way downloads are easy to find and download. Removing DRM is like doing a Dubb of a tape as I understand it so I will not waste my time to get less quality but damn they have videos as soon as the come out. Now if Apple gave VSL the ability to play the DRM videos within the program everyone would leave all pools. Also in my eyes I think that the labels would be happy as they get a percentage of the money that Apple makes with our without remixes they would make money.

Wow...I just spent an hr reading this thread, what a can or worms this was!

1. PO logo is bad.
2. You technically cant legally add an intro/exit beat to a video??? If you buy the rights to it with PO, I would assume you could edit this. Just take a peek thru youtube, people create non-copywritten videos every 2 seconds on there, music vid or not. If your not selling it, who cares. If you are selling it, where can I sign up?! Cuz its essential for VDJs to have intros, makes for a better show.
3. What about just cutting the talking sections out of music videos? Like TI - Whatever you like, the whole beginning is talking, and the end even...you cant play that in a freaking club. Half the vids produced by artists have this happen along with an ending of a different song or a cut scene in the middle. They arent creating these videos FOR THE PROMOTION FROM VIDEO DEEJAYS, but for mtv etc. So that creates a gap that needs to be filled automatically. We need videos that are club playable???

I think that Twizz and co are providing a service that is needed, Promo Only shouldnt be handling things this way. If the industry is so high strung about I own this, you own that, someone needs to change the structure, and an act from 1998 is far too outdated for all the changes in technology since then.

Im speaking of the video edits mainly and not the remixes, but it sounds like there is legal issues everywhere, guess this is part of the business.

Wow...I just spent an hr reading this thread, what a can or worms this was!

1. PO logo is bad.
2. You technically cant legally add an intro/exit beat to a video??? If you buy the rights to it with PO, I would assume you could edit this. Just take a peek thru youtube, people create non-copywritten videos every 2 seconds on there, music vid or not. If your not selling it, who cares. If you are selling it, where can I sign up?! Cuz its essential for VDJs to have intros, makes for a better show.
3. What about just cutting the talking sections out of music videos? Like TI - Whatever you like, the whole beginning is talking, and the end even...you cant play that in a freaking club. Half the vids produced by artists have this happen along with an ending of a different song or a cut scene in the middle. They arent creating these videos FOR THE PROMOTION FROM VIDEO DEEJAYS, but for mtv etc. So that creates a gap that needs to be filled automatically. We need videos that are club playable???

I think that Twizz and co are providing a service that is needed, Promo Only shouldnt be handling things this way. If the industry is so high strung about I own this, you own that, someone needs to change the structure, and an act from 1998 is far too outdated for all the changes in technology since then.

Im speaking of the video edits mainly and not the remixes, but it sounds like there is legal issues everywhere, guess this is part of the business.

Pick_it_UP, really bad attempt to protect 8thwonder. They are one of the reasons why po is watermarking.

Tell those guys to stick to mp3s.

*bump*

I don't think promo only is reading or responding this thread anymore....

so your *bump* may be useless

the reason they aren't responding anymore is because not enough people left promo. if they would have taken a big hit, they would be on here still trying to plea there case.

A lot of people will leave at the end of the year if they are going to.

I already know many people that have left for others. Good for them bad for PO.

sorry...

have to exploit this is a little more...

Ok...

So I have noticed that NO legal action has been taken with 8thwonder since they clearly have been using Promo Only content and still do even after the newly placed watermark...

Got me wondering if 8thwonder is a domestically run company. They state their offices are in New York. So yes.. they are... but what I thought was funny is on their site they have the page with all the legal jargon:

www.8thwondercdpool.com

if you scroll down to the part titled "Governing Law"

it states the following:

"The laws of the Russian Federation govern these Terms and your use of the Service. Your use of the Service may also be subject to other local, state, national, or international laws. You expressly agree that exclusive jurisdiction for any claim or dispute with 8th wonder or relating in any way to your use of the Service resides in the courts of the Russian Federation."


?
?

Russian Federation ? ?

So...

I found where they COPIED their entire legal jargon page from...

www.legalsounds.com


They changed everything that has the companies name to their own... one oversight was the "Russian Federation" part...

Too funny.... shady business...

somebody is losing sleep over 8th wonder.

zzzz.... what ?

Actually I could care less ... I just thought it was funny how they copied their legal crap from another site that does mp3 sales in Russia.... and you know how legal those are.

thats a little harsh...
but watermarks is not pro



djpuma_gemini

Scott Bucher

Doesnt this mean that it is technically illegal to do any thing like blend, scratch, loop or drop effect on these videos?

"ha" Akiem laughs

Promo Only's defense of the watermark is weak. They may have been forced to add the logo but this here is a fact: I've been paying for promo only since the service was invented, well at least since September 1994. I've been paying for DVDs since they made them available also.

PAYING FOR THEM. That's right, not stealing content and not selling it on any illegal sites.

Now, I'm not anymore. My subscription ran out this month, not to be renewed. Is that what they were expecting to get out of this?

Mine ran out after the Dec issue as well (which is the first to have the damn watermark). I jumped ship already. I spent over $3k with them in buying DVD's and they punish legit users instead of going after the bad apples...

That Watermark is the equvialent of playing a MP3 from franchise with flex screaming over the record

THAT is funny. LOL.

There are supposedly some changes coming with Promo Only in early 2009.
We will see. As far as P.O. deciding what changes they WILL be making;
I just hope they're LISTENING to the most important people... US, and not someone there sitting behind a desk.
WE make THEM possible. IF things don't change soon, I TOO will be leaving AND on top of that; I WILL not recommend them if I am asked by a fellow dj.
(Its a chain reaction/effect P.O.)

I am not and do NOT settle for second best as far as quality of work material, or hardware. Why would I tell someone any different?

Promo Only does NOT offer videos in MPG...
And when converting videos using HandBrake; I have a much easier time working from MPG's than I do with .VOB's.
Output quality is just better with someone else. Not to mention the childish watermark.

My patience is running out. I have found a much better source in regards to quality. I am signing up with them as well.
The Clock is tickin'...



I'm not being mean, I'm just keeping it real.

PO will see when people cancel subscriptions or do not renew. Im sure it's always happening.

+1

It's a shame that the customer has to do it all manual.

On the other hand... it is still not clear whether the license contract allows to rip the content of the DVD.

What's up all my fellow VJ's and Dj's? I will admit I did not read every single post but I did try to read the majority. If I may I would like to add my 2 cents.

As I have told D-Twizzle in the past I have mad respect for him and his VJ remixes. As he admitted with full honesty, he has remixed PO videos; but what is the problem? If he or any vj takes your video and makes it better, then whats the problem? We as DJ's have been doing that for years with your music.

Second, PO, I have been an avid subscriber for years, honestly, you guys are falling behind the curve. You used to be the place for breaking music and video. Now you are the place who follows last weeks top 40 list, and then puts out the music. Slow equals all of us not being happy and I think a lot of these posts have proved that. Whether they were constructive or not constructive comments.

In fairness to PO I have seen some of their Dance Mix Videos with the computerized transitions duplicted on a particular site, I will say that is not right but a video is fair game.

With that said... PO YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT DANCE MIX VIDEOS. The same videos keep reoccurring!!!!!!!!
Examples: My Drug - Feb 08, May 08, Nov 08? Electropop - Feb 08, Apr 08, Mar 08? Don't Forget About Us - Jan 06, Feb 06, Mar 06, Aug 06, May 07? Let me think about it - Jan 08, Feb 08, May 08, June 08, Aug 08? And thats just a few!!!

It seems to me you are getting lazy and saying... well we already have a video for this and a transition; and just adding the same songs but with a different vocal mix (sometimes). That is B.S. and that is why I am not renewing my subscription. I personally think all dance mix subscribers should get a refund for your laziness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a couple more things to add about B.O.

What is up with all the clean edits? I mean, last time I checked, you had to be OVER 18 to get in NightClubs...Sooooo.....
Why all the CLEAN Edit Videos????? Am I suppose to go vj @ nothing but teen clubs?
You guys barely release any Explicit ones.
its not just Family Roller Rinks out here!

One of the biggest things that bother me about P.O. is they say you get ALL the latest videos...and usually before they drop.

This is SOOOO not true. I have P.O. and even with them saying I will get ALL the newest hip hop videos blah blah... I find AND KNOW that I am only getting a small fraction of whats really out there. I mean I understand that the Music Channels get some sort of exclusive deal where they get to play em first???
but hey correct me if I'm wrong here...

A mass majority of people nowadays watch tv right? They listen to music right? Internet? Alot of us do...Whats my point???
Here it is:
If I watch a brand new music video at home on tv, or on my computer...wherever...
and I go out to a Video Club. Don't you think I should be able to catch it there too?..


Don't advertise and preach that you're something you're not.
Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud.
(It IS a crime)
I feel like a certain company has stepped on the border line.

Lastly, I must agree with Nik, who in their right mind owning a Video Record Club would make all their employees do all the work? Why not offer the customer some REALLLLLLLLLLLLL Options? Oh, its probably cuz that means that its less PROFITABLE.
You'd have to hire some extra engineers etc. to redo your catalogs and all the new material coming out.
If you guys need help, just holler, I will gladly drive my happy A%* to wherever you are and lend a helping hand. I would be honored knowing that I was making a difference for all the vjs trying to make a difference and represent themselves as "Cutting Edge"
I could even call the music labels and say "Hi, I'm going to need this video asap, I have this Music Video Promotional Distribution Service and we're really gonna need this trak and that trak"... Our djs/vjs are gonna be requesting these videos any day now. I know there's probably all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo as to why this isn't happening. I don't care. I think this current reality is a joke.
I don't know what label doesn't wanna make money and get their music and ITS videos out on the streets for Exposure...You know...That thing that djs & VJ's exist for???
(DJs AND VJs HELPS THE LABELS AND ARTISTS MAKE SALES)


I'm inspired...
Inspired to start a company and REAL service that buries what little competition exists.

-END-

finally took a look at my dec issue. on some vids, it doesn't always stick out. but it does pop in and out which can get distracting. it's usually not noticeable when there's a lot of things going on. however, when there isn't much on the screen (movement or objects in the corner), that's when it's more noticeable. not sure how long i would be able to endure that.

Check out the (if I was a boy) vid and how they done the watermark.. www.youtube.com. Notice that there is no info typed on the vid and that you can barley see the watermark and it shows up twice almost didn't notice. If they did it like this I would not have an issue with the watermark. I liKe it as there is not titling at the beginning nor the end, which I like the most. I would still like them to do something about their programing but thats another topic...

that isn't even the domestic Promo Only video.
That is from the Promo Only UK division... which has been doing it like that for years.

LOL that was my point Phat-AL that's how it should be done. DANG you go hard : )

My thing is why put the watermark in if you can barely see it anyway. Someone needs to be fired in their promotions department. I would start looking for another pool

dont nock the clean content, i actually like the fact that these video pools release the clean content first, and I have never not once got a complaint from playing clean videos in a club.

Yeah, and if you want to use dirty audio, just edit it yourself.

This thread is no longer about the watermark. It's now a general complain here about everything you don't like about PO thread.

www.geocities.com

Ok bourbon. I'll add some punctuation for you.

This thread is no longer about the watermark. It's now a general, "complain here about everything you don't like about PO" thread.

Now that i've switched, I got issues with some of screenplay's DVDs. Audio isn't great. So watermark or shitty audio which is worest? To most of us audio is more important. So chillax, nothing is perfect.

but you can replace audio not un-watermark video

What about that thread back when that posted up waveform pics of the same song from PO and Screenplay? It looked like PO was compressing the audio while Screenplay was just normalizing it. Is that not true?

I assume they would both have shitty audio for vids made before 2000 or so.

Screenplay's audio is fine, although maybe a tad low; which they have recently increased. Promo Only's audio level is so frickin' loud, it just makes SP look too low. If you look at PO's waveform in an editing suite, you can see how much they compress it to get the volume.

i was talking about their classics series... but, they sent me an email saying that 'a re-master of our Classics is in the works. Perhaps when they are all redone, we can replace them for you.' i love doug.
screenplay 1/promoonly 0

I have to say that I see where Promo Only is coming from... Although I might not like the new watermark logo (something other than PO might have been a little more cleaner) I understand the reasoning for it. With the popularity of VSL and the emergence of Video pools/remix sites, they have to prevent people from taking their videos and taking credit for them. I have yet to see anyone complain about the watermarks on 8thwonder, Smashvidz or Crooklyn videos.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of watermarks, but I understand their purpose and the need for them. Us complaining to PO isn't going to make them take the watermark off. All we can do is hope for a less noticeable one such as the MixMash one.

They don't have watermarks, they have logos for 5 seconds or so and then gone from the rest of the video, not sitting in the corner throughout the entire thing. THat is the problem.

I only have one thing to add to this ridiculous argument from Promo Only...

Do you put a voice at the beginning and ending of every song you put on CD stating who the artist is? No. Do you run a specific frequency in your audio so people know it's yours in the song? No. So why does it need to be in the video?

This is why you and the record companies will continue losing money. As a DJ/VJ the best thing about using video is that we are adding the Artists face to the work. While there are people out there who are reusing your vids for profit, it's not all of us.

We edit, tweak, remix and rework these videos ourselves to use in our sets. If the record companies were smart they would take a cue from the likes of us DJ's and really make things EASIER for us. We dig for the best remixes and content to try and make the best representation of our skills as well as the original artist. When you add that crappy watermark, it looks like YOU are the editor, not us. While you have the legal right to put these out and sell a subscription, your name says it all....PROMO ONLY.

You are releasing promotional material for these artists. By cutting us out you are biting the hand that feeds. We don't want to edit these any more than you want us to, but you guys and the labels don't give us content we can use. Do your vids have DJ friendly intros and outros? No. Do you have a few remixes of the hottest songs on one DVD every month? No. Acapellas? Instrumentals? No, no.

So tell me, if you had to DJ/VJ radio edits all night, do you think you'd have a following? I've seen your vids reworked by "Sponsored" DJ's from you and Pioneer, and honestly, do you think they're gonna be stoked about this too?

Good luck with your lack of customers. Compassion for the artist/dj/vj that pays YOUR bills is obviously something you don't have.

Tripp

how many truly solid sources like promo only are out there?

Seems like the industry has the dj's by the short ones.

and why does the little watermark make such a huge deal for some of you folks?

Because it looks tacky!

How arrogant are you? I really try to stay out of personally attacking anyone but you are the biggest horses ass I have seen on these boards in awhile.

What only those DJ who can mash it up get a following? And they can only have that following if they can mix up un-watermarked videos?

Give me a break. I have been doing strictly videos for over 4 years using 3 DVJ-X1's and the majority of them have been un-altered versions. And my club is packed...packed every night I play.

The equipment and/or the videos make zero difference to a DJ who knows how to read a crowd, play what they want, make the bar owner money, and get everyone laid.

And the fact that you think it's ok to take someone else's work and manipulate it however you want to and then call it your own makes you no better than any other thief out there. You arguments are weak and filled with absolutely zero recognition for the facts of the real world.

I personally think the watermark issue is not the right way to go on this, but I am not Promo Only and it's not my business. But I do know this. Now that the watermark IS on there I have started seeing more Sony releases on video...you think that is just a coincidence? I think that's the way business is in the real world.And I can guarantee that the other companies out there will be seeing their product line dry up if they do not address this issue as well.

It comes down to I own the content.

If I pay for something, i'd like it in it's original form. If the Chyron on the start and finish of the video it there, it's not so bad, but it comes down to advertising. They are going to advertise on the WHOLE video? It's good to stop the piracy, but not for the overall look of the product i'm paying for.

It's like if you take a picture of Disneyland while you're visiting and there is a little DL watermark on all of those pix you took. I know they own the name, park characters etc, but should they be able to print a logo on the pictures you took or own?

I know its a little different, but the general complaint is the same. Anybody that has had a complaint about the vids I play is that they hate the titles on them. I go out of my way to buy as many DVDs directly from the artist because of this.
It's just my preference and that's how I'll base my buying of videos.

Tripp

But that's your problem. You DO NOT own the content. You own the right to USE the content. That's it.

How was I arrogant? I know that when I started doing videos 3 years ago on MY DVJ-X1's That it was a limited market. People would dance, but it never really had a personal feel. Radio edits and "clean" versions don't do well in the club.
[qoute]

What only those DJ who can mash it up get a following? And they can only have that following if they can mix up un-watermarked videos?
I never said that. I don't play a night of mash-ups only. I don't re-edit ONLY mash-ups. I make remixed or extended versions, acapellas etc etc. As a DJ, that's what I do with audio, so for me I like to stay true to what I know.


Good for you! That's how YOUR club works! That's how YOU DJ. But we aren't all the same. My club gets just as packed, but I don't feel like I should have to sacrifice MY artistic preference because the content doesn't exist.


Really? So, you'd trade your DVJ's or Serato Video for two DVD players and a radio shack mixer just to prove a point? Again, you seem to miss the point. MY crowd and MY preference seem to be in line with each other. I have a TON of regulars that give me great feedback that I try to comply with. If the videos make Zero difference then why are you so bent on how I do what I do?


Um, did I say ANYWHERE that it was my own? I didn't direct the video. I didn't write the song. I maybe tweaked it, remixed it, extended it, edited it, but It still belongs to the artist. I'm not reselling my edited videos. I'm playing them for the crowd. And to quote you, "Your arguments are weak and filled with absolutely zero recognition for the facts of the real world."

You need to step back and look how you address people you know nothing about. You have no cause to attack me. Get your flame on somewhere else. (full homo)

You are so right. And I USE it how I like. That's the right that I pay for. To use it for my own personal use.

Tripp, just get Screen Play DVDs. No logos over there and if you tell them d-twizzle sent you, you'll get an extra dvd. A lot of their monthly content comes out faster than PO's weekly express DVDs too.