Talk:Warner Music Group/Archives/2014

Please fix the main image
someone thought it was funny go flip them off. i don't really care but i have no clue how to fix it. (i didn't do this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.102.96 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a mess!
1. List of artists before TOC? 2. What is the mess after the TOC?

Artist updates
Put in a few that weren't listed and tried to do some alphabetizing, the list was a mess. Danypo

Deleted the selection. Hardly needed, I don't see it for other labels. Unless every single act is listed (not just a few chart stars of today), it is not relevant. 74.65.39.59 20:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey who wrote the entry for Warner Music Group??? They obviously have no idea what the company infra-structure looks like. How can you list Ryko as a "label" when it's actually an indie distribution company? Not to mention you left out Alternative Distribution Alliance. Hello, it's only the number one indie distributor in the US right now.

Also the merge with Time Warner/AOL was but a blip in Warner Music Group's history. Do your homework.

Short label descriptions
The big list of labels seemed kind of unhelpful as it was, so I added short descriptions where they seemed warranted. I did check out all the links, and the ones I didn't add anything to seemed less notable. (Clearly, every label was founded by somebody in some year, and has some acts signed to it, and if people are interested in the story behind any of the undescribed ones, they can click on the link.) If I've left out anything important, of course feel free to add it, but I would argue that if we added a description to every label, the list would be too packed with information and would become less helpful again. Nareek 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Machine Shop Recordings
Isn't the label reconizible enough to warrent a metion on the list?--4.157.104.46 15:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is your citation
Hachette, the French publishing company, bought Warner Books from Time Warner in 2006 and will rename itself Grand Central Publishing in the Fall of 2007. On every advertisement that contains the name Warner Books and the logo that Warner Music uses, the following legend is printed: “Warner Books and the ‘W’ logo are trademarks of Time Warner Inc., used under license.” NOWHERE does any variation of this EVER appear on ANY Warner Music release since the investor group bought the company from Time Warner. Therefore, the trademarks are not licensed to Warner Music, which would suggest that Time Warner still has some investment in this company. Peace. (MuzikJunky 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
 * According to the Warner Music Group's most recent annual report filed with the SEC (bolding added by me):
 * "An important part of our business is our trademarks. Our major trademarks are registered in every country where we believe the protection of these trademarks is important for our business. Our major trademarks include Atlantic, Elektra, Sire, Reprise and Warner/Chappell. We use certain trademarks pursuant to royalty-free license agreements. The duration of the license relating to the WARNER and WARNER MUSIC marks and a “W” logo is perpetual. The duration of the license relating to the WARNER BROS. RECORDS mark and WB & Shield designs is fifteen years from February 29, 2004. Each of the licenses may be terminated under certain limited circumstances, which include material breaches of the agreement, certain events of insolvency, and certain change of control events if we were to become controlled by a major filmed entertainment company. We actively monitor and protect against activities that might infringe, dilute, or otherwise harm our trademarks.
 * IANAL, but I believe as long as the trademarks are acknowledged on the packaging, that is sufficient. For example, Warner/Chappell Music, part of WMG, uses the WB shield in its logo. On its website, the page footers read "The name 'Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.' and the shield device are registered trademarks." &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
May I ask why this page is getting so much vandalism? There must be more vandalism on this page than on the articles for the other three major record labels. Why? --  M  (speak/spoken) 14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Recent Youtube deletion and silencing of videos that include their content 75.0.99.163 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been on a spree of deletion. I just had like four videos removed today (Audiosurf screen recordings) because the tracks were under WMG copyright. So far, they're the only label to pull anything I've uploaded. 24.35.121.212 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Audiosurf is for personal use only and all videos containing musical content are clearly illegal. In fact, video game footage is covered by copyright, besides educational videos that do not display large quotas of content. It hasn't been cleared out yet. We need a Federal Court opinion one day. --Gert7 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing labels
I noticed that Sire Records is not on this list of subsidiaries, there may be others missing. I dont know the structure, so I cannot place it properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.62.53 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube, WMG... I think this page needs a semi-protect
POV is going to be a huge issue on this page for as long as youtube videos are getting pulled or muted for using WMG-owned songs / artists. I don't know how one is supposed to request it but I think this page should be semi-protected to keep things from getting out of hand. There are a lot of angry people, I am one of them, having just found out that the youtube channel I assumed was Bjork's official channel has had the audio pulled. But as Mattderojas says, this is not a forum. We must report neutrally or else refrain from reporting until the issue is in the past. I personally am going to post this comment and then stay away from the page because I don't have the right perspective for this. That said, I did find a good coverage of the article from EFF. Certainly they have their own ideological grounds but they're a prominent and relevant source for this sort of issue. Link: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/youtubes-january-fair-use-massacre Good luck with keeping things balanced. 59.167.51.228 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support and thanks also for proposing the semi-protect, which I was going to do if no one else did. Anyway, not only is this not a forum, but too many anons have been taking control of this page by blanking it and replacing it with crap. It just happened not too long ago. I have been monitoring this page long before WMG started to delete/mute videos, and there had been some vandalism to the page then as well, but it was for no apparent reason then and seemed strange because the pages of the other three labels did not have as big a history of vandalism, if any. As I was saying, however, we seriously need to consider semi-protecting to prevent these problems from happening again. It doesn't look like Google and Warner are going to reconcile anytime soon, unfortunately... --  M  (speak/spoken) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The sooner the better CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. WMG are bastards (spoken as a sufferer), but vandalising the Wikipedia page won't do any good, so for the sake of Wikipedia, I support semi-protection. There are far more effective ways to beat the crap out of WMG make the grievances known. Not that the other ways are any more likely to work... Fnlfntsyfn (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Warner Music Group is indeed going way too far, and YouTube should indeed stop the nonsense they are causing. However, the threat of this being vandalized is too great.  People should mail WMG, not hate-edit and mess up Wikipedia. Bowler225 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I know, WMG muted me too. But Wikipedia article is not place for anti WMG. --Love Krittaya (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not limited to YouTube, as EFF reports: --Jack Zhang (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'Against Their not just pulling their own stuff look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdbLEKaO7uo that album was distributed by Nuclear Blast records. So Actually you may want to talk about committing Fraud because isn't that what their doing claiming a song in an album that isn't theres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.241.197 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support look I hate WMG and I've called them some nasty names but we need keep it off Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digifan23 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. I admit to starting this garbage on the talk page, but I look at it now, and I really should not have done that. I support semi-protection.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to the overwhelming support to support semi-protection, I filed the request.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DONE. Page is now protected for 2 weeks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this page needs an indefinite (forever) semi-protect (protect from IP addresses), because of there are many WMG haters. --Love Krittaya (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I filed the request.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It will probably do us better, I also hate WMG. But hasn't this whole YouTube thing turned into a feud between Disney and WMG? 161.130.178.7 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Moved here from top of page.

Not done: The template is used by non-autoconfirmed users to allow them to request changes in semiprotected pages. I think you are trying to request semiprotection for the page. For that, you need to go to Request for page protection and follow the directions. An admin will evaluate the situation and decide whether to protect he page. Celestra (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute and not just vandalism
Last night I looked at the Wikipedia Article. Although we couldn't jump to it yet and call it vandalism, I did see a user add "Copyfraud" and "Copyright misuse" to the See Also list. It will probably be under article history for a while. Mechamind90 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Article history is never deleted if the article is not completely deleted. --Gert7 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Although the majority of the blocked videos are not official content of WMG..."
What exactly does this sentence mean? Does it mean that the clips were unauthorized or that they do not contain WMG content? --Gert7 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WMG key people
The WMG management team in the WMG article should match the management team listed in the WMG web page at. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Back catalogues
The Back catalog section has been deleted because it is uncited and suspected POV and ignores the fact that WMG's Rhino Entertainment unit reissues WMG recordings. Rhino's Rhino Handmade sublabel issues limited releases of lesser known but still significant recordings from the WMG vaults. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WMG gets bought
Recently a Russian businessman has purchased WMG for over 3 billion USD... This is important for the article. --Qhubbles (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information: Big 4 have become Big 3.
Isn't the description "Big 4" outdated now? Universal has taken over EMI, making it one company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.208.238 (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WMG and Bain Capital
From 2003 to 2011, Bain Capital had a 25% stake in Warner Music Group when WMG was a publicly held company. Bain has no financial interest in WMG today and they are not mentioned in the body of this article. So the inclusion of the Bain Capital links in the WMG article is not justified. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)