Jump to content

DJ Maldestra

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DJ Maldestra last won the day on January 7 2023

DJ Maldestra had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About DJ Maldestra

  • Birthday 12/30/1988

Profile Information

  • Geschlecht
  • Ort

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

12,861 profile views

DJ Maldestra's Achievements

GFU Profi

GFU Profi (5/10)



  1. I do understand what you are saying, and agree with the above, and knew that allready. But that was still not my point. But I can clearly not explain it.
  2. I do not think I am misunderstanding. No, I have not said that. I quoted you. What I said, based on your comments is "When it says "gigidagostino (on behalf of LABEL ON THE TABLE)" this means that LABEL ON THE TABLE is a label owned by Gigi. And only Gigi can upload songs that contains "gigidagostino" in the license." To which you answered yes. I later asked "When it under licenses says “gigidagostino”, it means that he personally has uploaded the song in the database (database = not equal to a youtube video). Correct?" Which you also confirm in the very same comment. Whether it is Gigi himself or someone else having access is irrelevant, unless he is being hacked. So your argument is still that because Gigi has supplied Label on the table during uploading to the database, that Label on the table is a label he created. And this is validated because it says gigidagostino under licenses. My point is, there is no proof that label on the table is owned/created/managed/associated with Gigi D'Agostino. You are saying: gigidagostino = uploaded officially by Gigi's official account. And then you jump to the conclusion that: gigidagostino (on behalf of LABEL ON THE TABLE) = Gigi's official account. = label on the table is an official label created by Gigi. But at the same time you are saying: gigidagostino (on behalf of ZYX Music) = ZYX Music is not a label created by Gigi. That is conflicting. I am stopping my contribution now. I see no proofs only circular arguments and conflicting statements.
  3. When it under licenses says “gigidagostino”, it means that he personally has uploaded the song in the database (database = not equal to a youtube video). Correct? When he has uploaded it to the database, he also supplies information like label, e.g. Gigi D’Agostino Planet? Correct? The label does have to be owned/managed by Gigi/the uploader. Correct? Therefore you conclusion is that Label on the table is owned/managed by Gigi. Correct? However. If you agree with all the above, then it logically follows that the label ZYX Music is, at least for the purpose of registering in the Youtube database (again database, not a video), owned/managed by Gigi D’Agostino. And I say, that is simply not true. Therefore. Gigi might be the only that can upload songs to the database as “gigidagostino”, however the tag label is not restricted, and Gigi can write anything, like Gigi D’Agostino Planet or ZYX Music, just to give an example, but it has to be actual label names. So I do not see any proof that Label on the table is owned/managed by Gigi. (I am not saying it is not true).
  4. All that I know allready, and have known for years. You are not answering my questions.
  5. So if there is no correlation with “gigidagostino” and “(behalf of XXXX)” where is the proof that Label on the table is owned, created or managed by Gigi. And if the fact that the “tag” “gigidagostino” means it is official and all, and all. Why is that only the case when it says on behalf of label on the table and Gigi D’Agostino Planet, but when it says “gigidagostino (on behalf of ZYX Music)”, that is not the case? My point is when “gigidagostino (on behalf of ZYX Music)” = Gigi is not involved, then why not “gigidagostino (on behalf of LABEL ON THE TABLE )” = Gigi is not involved? All these statements are conflicting.
  6. Ok, so to summarize. When it says "gigidagostino (on behalf of LABEL ON THE TABLE)" this means that LABEL ON THE TABLE is a label owned by Gigi. And only Gigi can upload songs that contains "gigidagostino" in the license. That is to quote Desper "...the fact!" and "...really not so complicated to understand." So I can deduce and conclude, that since other songs has listed the following under licenses "gigidagostino (on behalf of ZYX Music)", that Gigi is the owner of ZYX.
  7. That I believe. I am sorry for my comments, but I hope you at least somewhat can understand my reaction, when presented with something that seems utterly ridiculous. And it seems ridiculous if you don't know that the passage "gigidagostino (på vegne af LABEL ON THE TABLE)" means that Gigi is actually responsible for the upload. (I doubt I am the only one who didn't know that). På vegne af = danish for on behalf of. By the way, when opening the first one for me there is no banner with automatically registered artist, track name and license. And the text... "Con licencia para YouTube de gigidagostino (en representación de LABEL ON THE TABLE); Warner Chappell, BMI - Broadcast Music Inc. y 9 sociedades de derechos musicales" ... is just manually inserted in the comments. At least when I open it. All of these practices seems incredible devious/malignant, and I find it difficult to keep up. But then what does it mean when under license some songs say "gigidagostino (on behalf of ZYX Music)". How can XYZ Music be governed by Gigi?
  8. Ok, fair enough. So Gigi uploads GDC Band - L'Amour Toujours and a Sandstorm/L'Amour Toujours mashup, and gets royalties when they are recognized. I will ask again. Where is the proof that Gigi has bought anything? Where is the proof that Gigi has payed Darude for the exclusive rights to this mashup, to get royalties? How should it be obvious to anyone, that just because it says "gigidagostino" under licenses, that Gigi has payed for the licenses of these versions, and he alone has the possibility to upload these songs to the database for registry. To me it would make just as much sense that Label on the table has uploaded the song, and registrered Gigi as the licensee, so he is rightfully payed royalty, just as ZYX could have done other places, where you see "gigidagostino (on behalf of ZYX Music)". I am questioning why it is obvious?
  9. I still see no proof, at all, that Gigi has bought anything. And there is no proof either that Gigi is involved at all. Anyone could upload these songs, and they would be recognized as songs by GDC. I wouldn’t put it past ZYX, that they are responsible, and GDC = Golden Dance Classics, their older name for some releases. But they is obviously an undocumented leap, so I will not claim this to be true.
  10. How is that proof that Gigi has bought these songs, or he is behind this in any way? He is the author of L’Amour Toujours. He has the license, that is why he is mentorens. And this brazilian in this version of the song is released by this label. And who creates these remarks? Are they automatically generated, if so why is it written gigidagostino, and not the correct way? I have a million questions, and I feel frustrated lately with all these crazy statements without source/proof? And then after 10 comments, the “proof” is dubious at best. What is happening? Edit: Gigi is also mentioned under licences in this one, so he is responsible for this video as well?
  11. No you are wrong. Gigi is clearly an illusion created by me. I started making music in 1986 when I was -2 years old. I have written it on a german fan forum now, so it is obviously true, and my burden of proof is fulfilled.
  12. Good EP, though I prefer Slowerland 3 (as the only one on the planet apparently).
  13. We were all very happy with the lengths on Tecnotonica. Does that not count? I would also like longer version, but maybe we dont get them… As for limiting the release to 80 min I would do the same. Gigi is clearly nostalgic and some kind of limits makes sense to me. There is nearly 20 min left for the remaining three songs, which might mean extended versionsof some of the songs allready announced?
  14. He has a point. But when we observe things that does not comply with physics, I myself become sure in my beliefs. I might be completely wrong. And that Gigi hasn’t played Trasmission before Again is off course not a proof that Trasmission came after Again, but sure isn’t proving the opposite either 🙂
  • Create New...