wolgangs vault

[pitkin88]

Jeez Mestreech Amuk must be wondering how you sleep at night listening and watching all this stuff that Alice's camp wouldn't release even if they owned it.

[guilty65]

OK I have to ask....
I know this is off topic at wat this general thread happens to be about , But really it is not
Why is there all this attention being paid to such detail. Andy I know you moderate here, and I know you expect the people that post here to keep their facts straight. But doesn't all this " Lets keep the facts straight" go against some of what Alice believes. Even he bends the truth or flat out lies for the sake of entertainment. AND Also remarked in the past that the fans came up with better stories than he or the press did. I don't get such antagonistic approaches. Not Trying to be an A** here, Not trying to be disrespectful
I'm just wondering why .

[Si]

And for Si : I buy a lot from Amazon.ca or amazon.de. But they are not included are they?
I must say that I didn't know that if I use the amazon link from the forum to buy some non-alice cds you also get paid. That is new for me.

No, unfortunatly Amazon have different schemes for each territory. We have the US and UK only.

Yes, pretty much ANYTHING from Amazon counts, from a blank CD for 50p to a computer system for £10,000 and from almost all sources. If's on there we normally get a small percentage. Just put anything into one of the search boxes to get you to Amazon and then carry on as you normally would. Amazon registers where you came from and anything you decide to buy during that visit counts.

[Si]

OK I have to ask....
I know this is off topic at wat this general thread happens to be about , But really it is not
Why is there all this attention being paid to such detail. Andy I know you moderate here, and I know you expect the people that post here to keep their facts straight. But doesn't all this " Lets keep the facts straight" go against some of what Alice believes. Even he bends the truth or flat out lies for the sake of entertainment. AND Also remarked in the past that the fans came up with better stories than he or the press did. I don't get such antagonistic approaches. Not Trying to be an A** here, Not trying to be disrespectful
I'm just wondering why .

Firstly Andy is NOT a moderator of this site.
Secondly, and I'm not trying to speak for Andy here, this site is all ABOUT the facts. It's a constantly changing collection of facts setting out the history of Alice Cooper, updated and corrected as new information comes to light.
You are absolutely right, Alice does make up some fantastic stories to entertain us and the masses, but there is almost always some basis on fact behind them and that bases when compared to his stories is often just as interesting.
An example would be the chicken story. We all know it. Bird appears on stage in Toronto, Alice picks it up, throws it to the audience, Plummets into front rows in wheel chairs. Heard it a million times, so many that we can almost tell it word for word.
But how much of it is true. Actually almost all of it but not quite as Alice tells it. We now know that this wasn't the only time they used a chicken on stage. They brought them themselves to use during a few other shows before Toronto. We also know the wheelchair part is at least partially true, it just wasn't at the Toronto festival but at a show a few weeks later in Canada. We know they got press about it and it's entirely possible the Zappa part is also true. BUT it's the embellishments and the way he tells it that makes it so entertaining, especially for non-fans. He combines related events to make a good story, which is what most entertainers do and lets not forget that is what Alice is.

As to correcting people it is an attempt to educate people in how the whole thing works so they can have a better understanding about WHY some things happen and others don't. You could easily blame Alice for a poor reissue with no bonus tracks etc unless you know that he has no power over it's release and wasn't consulted.

In the case of WV is it not better that people understand what the site is and how it works? I agree Andy goes further and feels stronger about the rights issues then most do but that is his right, and you or anyone has the right to decide whether to take any notice of this information and what you do with it. He wants to stand up for the musicians who created the music and performances and sometimes aren't getting paid for their efforts as is their right. And sometimes this background stuff is just interesting as an insight into how things happen behind the scenes. Whether you care about that is up to you but it's better to base your choices on facts rather then a fiction.
As with anything all we attempt to do is present you with information, correct anything that is incorrect, and explain why what you may think is actually not true. After that it's all up to you.

[A_MichaelUK]

>If they didn't bought them and/or put them on the market we would maybe never seen them. So I am happy.

I understand that. Are you also "happy" that in many cases, the musicians you love so much are not getting paid but sites such as this are?

>For me this is the same as buying bootlegs.

That is exactly what I have been saying.

>but if it's not and only available as bootleg then I buy the bootleg.

That is your choice.

>I must say that I didn't know that if I use the amazon link from the forum to buy some non-alice cds you also get paid. That is new for me.

I think it may have been mentioned.

[guilty65]

Thanks Si.
My apologies for assuming that He was a moderator.
I agree with everything you posted and agree that the artists should be completely compensated for their work no matter what.
My post was mainly geared for past threads that got heated over some details that seemed moot over the arguments made. That all. I agree that this site should be about the Facts.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Jeez Mestreech Amuk must be wondering how you sleep at night listening and watching all this stuff that Alice's camp wouldn't release even if they owned it.

I am beginning to think you may have learning difficulties or something. Show me where anyone has said "that Alice's camp wouldn't release even if they owned it." In fact, JUST YESTERDAY, I said that there are also sorts of plans to release all sorts of things but that it often a slow process. Also, how can ANYONE legally release ANYTHING if they don't own "it"?

[A_MichaelUK]

> But doesn't all this " Lets keep the facts straight" go against some of what Alice believes. Even he bends the truth or flat out lies for the sake of entertainment.

Making up entertaining stories to create myths and legends is rather different to issues concerning people's livelihoods. As I may have said before, I am always amused when people who claim to love these musicians so much are "happy" that their incomes have been reduced as long these people can have whatever they want. I am not saying it is an avoidable situation - it's just interesting that people don't think about it or care. Also, some people seem to think this is just about Alice but it isn't - there are plenty of other people that have a share in those rights.

[A_MichaelUK]

>you or anyone has the right to decide whether to take any notice of this information and what you do with it.

Exactly. I think what happens here quite often is that some people don't like hearing the truth.

>He wants to stand up for the musicians who created the music and performances and sometimes aren't getting paid for their efforts as is their right.

I think more than that, it would be nice if the people who claim to LOVE Alice Cooper, Dennis Dunaway, Neal Smith, Glen Buxton and Michael Bruce SO MUCH (as they keep telling us) would stop and think about the consequences of their actions. Many musicians are struggling financially because too many people prefer to steal. It really is that simple. Not all musicians are rich including those who are famous. The people who steal are to blame, the people who help them steal are to blame and the record companies are to blame (but that would be the subject of a different thread). Again, if anyone doesn't care about this, it tells us what we need to know about that person's values. Sometimes, stealing is unavoidable but there are those who do it without caring. I have no problem with people sharing material for free (even though that is also illegal, so that must mean I can be blamed as well), but when people are "happy" to give their money to someone who is not going to share it with the legal owner, or in the process of sharing that material, revenue is generated which does not go the legal owner, that is stealing. You can try and justify it anyway you like and some of those arguments are compelling and we can all have a nice debate about whether this behaviour actually helps promote the music but the fact remains - if you put "School's Out" onto the internet without permission and it gets listened to millions of times for free, Glen Buxton's estate does not get paid, Neal Smith does not get paid, Alice Cooper does not get paid, Dennis Dunaway does not get paid, Warner Brothers does not get paid (so they eventually have to fire people) and the publishing company doesn't get paid (and they eventually have to fire people as well). However, as we have seen, some people don't care about that as long as they can get what they want when the want it and preferably without paying for it.

[Marcelocooper]

I agree with Andy on this one till a certain point. Most of the fans that buy bootlegs or pay to see and old recording of a show already have all of the bands album/dvds and everything else they ccan get. To the band, it isn't financialy diffferent when I get and old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago then when I get a bootleg of one of their shows. Yet, one is legal and the other isn't. I'm I thinking on the band when I do this? No! I'm thinking about the fact the I do love the band and want to get everything I can about them. As long as I keep buying their original recordings when they come out, I don't see the big demage to the band when I get, also, a recording of a show they were never gonna sell. They have no interest in realesing these recordings, if they did, I'd gladly pay for them.
The real problem, from my point of view, is when people get illegal recordings, download stuff instead of buying the original stuff the band puts up there.
Also there are agravants. For me, in Brazil, there are things I would never be able to get if don't get them illegaly. Specially digital downloads only made avalable to other countries. I have 6 copies of Along Came a Spider, but I can't download the iTunes bonuses legally in my country. The same goes for W2MN. If I did have a way of doing so, I'd gladly do, as my other 6 copies show, but until that happens, If I want those recordings, I need to get illegaly.

That doesn't mean I don't respect the band.

[Toronto Bob]

I agree with you Marcelo.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Most of the fans that buy bootlegs or pay to see and old recording of a show already have all of the bands album/dvds and everything else they ccan get.

What about the ones who don't and never will? I am willing to be there are millions of people around the world who only have illegal downloads in their collections and nothing else.

> To the band, it isn't financialy diffferent when I get and old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago then when I get a bootleg of one of their shows.

That is absolutely and completely wrong. It is absolutely not the same. Many of these bootlegs are produced in high numbers. Each one that is manufactured on any format infringes someone's copyright. Do you know what that word means? It means the right to make copies. Every time this material is manufactured or streamed, it is a breach of copyright. It is completely different to the example you gave.

>Yet, one is legal and the other isn't.

Yes because those are two different things.

>I'm thinking about the fact the I do love the band and want to get everything I can about them.

Nobody is blaming you for that but you are making one very simple mistake. You are assuming this is just about the relationship between the consumer and the artist (or rights - holder) but it is not. The relationship between the seller of these items and the artist is the issue. If you think this is about mestreetch or Toronto Bob then you have not understood the principle under discussion. The issue is that sites such as the one we are discussing are the ones who are exploiting the rights - holders and while I agree that would not be possible without a demand for this material, it is those sites that are making the profits from this activity. That is the key issue. That is why I said I don't have too much of a problem with people just sharing it, but when somewhere along the line, someone is making a huge amount of money from other people's property, that is what I find objectionable. It has nothing to do whether you or anyone else has access to it (although as I said in a previous post that would also be illegal but that's a different discussion).

>As long as I keep buying their original recordings when they come out,

Not everyone is like you though.

>They have no interest in realesing these recordings, if they did, I'd gladly pay for them.

The fact that they have not released this material does not give you the right to obtain it. Does that mean I can just take your stuff if you don't want to sell it?

>The real problem, from my point of view, is when people get illegal recordings, download stuff instead of buying the original stuff the band puts up there.

I appreciate what you are trying to say but you are just trying to justify your moral choice.

>Also there are agravants. For me, in Brazil, there are things I would never be able to get if don't get them illegaly.

I understand and sympathise with that. It is a problem and when people are desperate, they do steal. It is understandable.

[mestreech]

Andy,

I understand your point but I don't like the word STEAL. I think you are completely right to refer to companies who exploit artist and their songs for getting a fast buck but understand that almost everybody on this forum is a big fan of the group or person Alice Cooper and bought almost everything that is out and mostly more copies. So I think Cooper has got his rights and money from me in the last 45 years. Therefore I find the word STEAl too strong for us fans.

We can have a very long debate on what a perfect world would be but we don't live in one and that's a fact.
I'm not a criminal and don't want to be called like that (not that you did).
Ethics / principles and rights are strong words but we all try to live our lifes the best way we can.
Ok I buy bootlegs and download live shows but I don't consider me as a thief or criminal.
As a purist I think you are right but we all have to survive in this world.
There are much worse and important things than buying a bootleg.
This is my opinion and I could have be more precise in writting but I'm not from the UK or US but I think you understand what I mean.
I also know that you have another opinion and that's your right.

[mraliceone101]

if i may i understand fans wanting unreleased alice concerts songs on and on.......how about the fans when they buy these bootleg releases also donate the same to the solid rock foundation.......just a thought........also on some of alices stories i find them amusing entertaining and it is a part of who alice is i compare them to fishermen sitting on the porch at night telling fish stories about who caught the biggest.........no harm no foul.......

[A_MichaelUK]

>I understand your point but I don't like the word STEAL.

How would you describe it? If you buy something without the permission of the owner, what do you call it?

>I think you are completely right to refer to companies who exploit artist and their songs for getting a fast buck

That is a nice try but the consumers have a responsibility as well. If you buy drugs from someone, you are just as responsible for your actions as they are for their actions.

>but understand that almost everybody on this forum is a big fan of the group or person Alice Cooper

I know that. We all know that. I also said that.

>and bought almost everything that is out and mostly more copies.

You are ignoring what I wrote. I am not talking about just the people on "this forum" - there are millions of people who are not "on this forum" who don't own anything (or almost nothing) that was obtained legally.

>So I think Cooper has got his rights and money from me in the last 45 years.

That is a disgraceful attitude. If I steal from a millionaire who owns a local supermarket, is it alright to do that just because I have spent a lot of money in that store?

>We can have a very long debate on what a perfect world would be but we don't live in one and that's a fact.

All of that is true and none of it justifies what is happening. You are doing nothing but explaining what is happening and trying to use those as a justification. Intellectually, that is a shoddy thing to do.

>I'm not a criminal and don't want to be called like that (not that you did).

According to the law, you are. Of course, some criminals are worse than others, but anyone who obtains material from these sites is doing it illegally. That is "a fact". As I said before, don't blame if you don't like the truth.

>Ethics / principles and rights are strong words but we all try to live our lifes the best way we can.

I agree and there are worse crimes that can be committed, but infringing other people's rights is still illegal. Do you know why? It is because it can do real harm.

>Ok I buy bootlegs and download live shows but I don't consider me as a thief or criminal.

Of course you don't, because you don't want it on your conscience.

>As a purist I think you are right but we all have to survive in this world.

That is true. Is it alright to steal food but not music or is it alright to steal music but not food?

>There are much worse and important things than buying a bootleg.

I agree but to the people who's livelihoods are in danger and who have seen their incomes drastically reduced because of piracy it is very, very "important".

>This is my opinion and I could have be more precise in writting but I'm not from the UK or US but I think you understand what I mean.

I did. You explained yourself clearly and in a civil way.

[A_MichaelUK]

>if i may i understand fans wanting unreleased alice concerts songs on and on.......how about the fans when they buy these bootleg releases also donate the same to the solid rock foundation.......

That would be a good way to make amends. How many people will do that, though?

[Daggers & Contracts]

This has been a very interesting read my friends. Let's try & take a breath, stop and ponder if your livelihood was impacted in this way. There are many aging Blues musicians that without help are struggling to pay medical & other expenses. The same is getting very real for some of our Rock performers.

[Crazy Little Child]

The main difference between WV and what you call "bigger, more "respectable" sites" is a) that they DO have the legal right to use SOME of the material, and b) that WV charge money even for stuff they may not have the rights to.

The sites you refer to try to do what they consider the right thing by blocking any officially released material AND material by artists or organizations that have simply asked them not to allow their music. I'm sure WV were onto these sites very quickly to request anything on their site be banned, as so it was, because how are these sites supposed to be able to tell what WV really have the rights to and what they don't.

Well, i would say the MAIN difference is the sites i'm thinking of, live music trading sites, operate for FREE, by & for FANS for the LOVE of the music. WV is clearly all about the cash.

[Si]

Well, i would say the MAIN difference is the sites i'm thinking of, live music trading sites, operate for FREE, by & for FANS for the LOVE of the music. WV is clearly all about the cash.

All true, however consider that even the "free" sites you mention more often then not have adverts on them for which they receive money. Therefore they ARE making money based on other people's properties. You could maybe argue that they are making money out something they created (ie the site itself, forums etc) but the fact is in these cases the site is 90% based around the contents which is the music and performances. Without that content their site wouldn't probably exist to make any revenue.
I'm sure in many cases there revenue is minimal but that isn't the case in all cases.

[Marcelocooper]

What about the ones who don't and never will? I am willing to be there are millions of people around the world who only have illegal downloads in their collections and nothing else.

Thats why I said I agree with you 'till a certain point. There are exceptions, as much as there aer the majority of people. I know many more people who only gets illegal downloads and nothing else. The difference I'm establishing here is exactly this. Those people who only download will never buy a bootleg or pay for a recording of a show. Those who do so are the ones that, most of the time, do pay to have music and wishes to have something more on their collection.

> To the band, it isn't financialy diffferent when I get and old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago then when I get a bootleg of one of their shows.

That is absolutely and completely wrong. It is absolutely not the same. Many of these bootlegs are produced in high numbers. Each one that is manufactured on any format infringes someone's copyright. Do you know what that word means? It means the right to make copies. Every time this material is manufactured or streamed, it is a breach of copyright. It is completely different to the example you gave.

I'm sayng it isn't different to sell it, i'm stating there is no difference for someone to BUY them. There is a huge difference. And i did not say both were legal, I said the band wouldn't get their share of the sell on both cases. There is not much of a hard concept to get.


>Yet, one is legal and the other isn't.

Yes because those are two different things.

Needless point to make as I just had said it. Otherwise I wouldn't have just pointed you the difference.



Nobody is blaming you for that but you are making one very simple mistake. You are assuming this is just about the relationship between the consumer and the artist (or rights - holder) but it is not.

You are making the mistake here. I WAS talking about the relation of the buyer and the band. There are 3 simple relations here. The one between the buyer and the band. The buyer and the seller/manufacturer. And the artist and manufacturer. I was talking about the relation between artist and buyer.


If you think this is about mestreetch or Toronto Bob then you have not understood the principle under discussion.

Read again my post without thinking you're a supirior God and you'll understant what I was talking about.

The issue is that sites such as the one we are discussing are the ones who are exploiting the rights - holders and while I agree that would not be possible without a demand for this material, it is those sites that are making the profits from this activity. That is the key issue.

If the rights-holder isn't interested in going after them, why should I, as a fan and as costumer? I should't need to try to discover if the site ou seller of something das the copyrights to that item, unless it is obvious to anyone. I can't imagine a free download ny torrent is legal, as much as you can't demand someone expects a paid-for, well-know, big website to sell me illegal stuff.


That is why I said I don't have too much of a problem with people just sharing it, but when somewhere along the line, someone is making a huge amount of money from other people's property, that is what I find objectionable. It has nothing to do whether you or anyone else has access to it (although as I said in a previous post that would also be illegal but that's a different discussion).

Illegal downloads are a bigger problem for the industry and is, tecnically, sharing.


Not everyone is like you though.

Its somewhat obvious that anyone willing to pay to see a poor quality recording of a show, a 3 minute footage, or access to a no public released recording are much likely willing to pay for a new recording. Those are the people who I talking about.


>They have no interest in realesing these recordings, if they did, I'd gladly pay for them.

The fact that they have not released this material does not give you the right to obtain it. Does that mean I can just take your stuff if you don't want to sell it?

If i'm a public person who allows people with camere at my concerts I should expect people to be sharing recordings, photos or whaterver. I'm not going into anyone's house and taking things away, i'm just sharing matereal with someone.


>The real problem, from my point of view, is when people get illegal recordings, download stuff instead of buying the original stuff the band puts up there.

I appreciate what you are trying to say but you are just trying to justify your moral choice.

That is illegal by any point of view, which is not the case of someone who buys a bootleg or share without profit or just to known people a recording of a show. It may be illegal for the manufacturer to produce the bootlegs, but the good faith buyer are not commiting any kind of crime,

>Also there are agravants. For me, in Brazil, there are things I would never be able to get if don't get them illegaly.

I understand and sympathise with that. It is a problem and when people are desperate, they do steal. It is understandable.

Stealling is taking away from the other person. I'm not taking anything away. By the way, I paid for all my collection, that includes downloads that aren't made available in my country. I aways find a way.