wolgangs vault

[Crazy Little Child]

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.

Oh i realize lots of the bit torrent sites, like pirate bay, are covered in ads. But there are trader sites (some grew out of networks of people who traded discs by snail mail) that are both free and without ads, i'm thinking of groups like dimeadozen.org who are in it for the love. While lots of stuff trickles out other ways, and ends up on other public trackers, or being sold on ebay, the mother lode is out there free for the taking on these sites.

And most of the big sites honour requests by bands (and venues, festivals) who wish NOT to be traded.

I do understand that lots of artists want to control what is released, but history has shown us that determined fans will do anything to record everything and share it around. The best one can hope for is that no money is being made. To this end, the sharing of this stuff for free tends to eliminate the money market for the same recordings. Which is why i'm annoyed about Wolfgang's Vault....

[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.

[mestreech]

As I started this thread I enjoy reading it but I have to say that it's sometimes VERY hard to follow who is quoting who and who is telling the story in a reply.
I'm not from the UK so maybe I'm the only one??

[A_MichaelUK]

> 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.

As I explained in an earlier post, "Those who do" are in the minority though. If you think they are not, then explain to me why the legal sales of recorded music is going through the floor then.

>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.

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't a problem that has been created ONLY by consumers - it is a problem created by file - sharing sites, torrent sites and by the consumers who enable those sites to operate.

>And i did not say both were legal,

One of them is though. If you buy a legal album that is out of print, then as long as the person who sold it to you obtained it legally, then it is legal for you to buy it. It is called the first sale doctine.

> 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.

The "concept" you don't "get" in your example is that one is legal and on is not. If both were not, then no - one would be able to sell second - hand goods that were obtained legally. It is the origin of those goods that determines this process.

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

You cannot draw a comparison between "and old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago" and "a bootleg of one of their shows." just because the artists doesn't get paid in either sense. You also haven't understood what copyright means. If the "old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago" is an original and not a copy, there is no infringement. Owning a copyright means you are paid for every copy but there is no copying in your example.

>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.

When buying a record, the relationship the consumer has is with the seller, the seller has the relationship with the record label and the record label has the relationship with the artists - this is all simple contract law.

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

That isn't an informative reply.

>If the rights-holder isn't interested in going after them, why should I, as a fan and as costumer?

How do you know they are not "interested"?

>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.

It is pretty obvious if you have been paying attention. This debate has been going on since at least 1999 with the case against Napster and there have been other high profile cases since then as well. There has been action from Led Zeppelin, Santana and The Tubes (who reached a settlement) against the site we are discussing. Just a few weeks ago, Prince took action against file - sharing sites, as well. Obviously, you can't be expected to be aware of all of these instances and while I compliment you on your attempt to justify buying from the site we're discussing because you want to convince yourself that you are not part of the problem, the reality that is too harsh for you to accept is that you are part of the problem albeit in a small way. At no point during this thread have I told anyone not to buy anything from that site (at least I don't think I did). All I did was point out that this site has a dubious status. How you deal with that information is your choice and I think your response shows that there may be just a little bit of a guilty conscience lurking.

> 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.

I don't quite understand what this means. There have indeed been instances of "well-know, big website" selling "illegal stuff".

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

I agree. I just said that and this is what the site we are discussing is doing.

>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.

As I explained to pitkin88, those "people" (you mean collectors, of course) aren't the main problem (although they don't help because they help create a demand) - it is precisely the people are not "likely willing to pay for a new recording", who are the main consumers of illegally obtained material.

>If i'm a public person who allows people with camere at my concerts

Actually, cameras are technically not allowed at concerts. The artist may be happy with it (and often will state this on their riders, although professional equipment is not allowed without permission) but venues, generally are not. That is why it usually says so on the ticket that no cameras or recording equipment are allowed. The venue always takes precedence to the artist on this issue. However, because, everyone now has a camera and it is almost impossible to enforce, the venues allow it (although professional equipment is not allowed).

> I should expect people to be sharing recordings, photos or whaterver.

I agree. As I said before, I personally don't have a problem with short "recordings" (even those are also techincally illegal).

>'m not going into anyone's house and taking things away, i'm just sharing matereal with someone.

Again, you miss not one point but two points - what the site we are discussing is doing is indeed the equivalent "going into anyone's house and taking things away" and when you share "matereal with someone", you are in effect making a copy which means you are infringing the copyright. I already said that I don't have a problem if you do that for free although it is technically illegal. If you read the small print on a record label, it actually states that.

>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.

I agree. I ALREADY said that.

>It may be illegal for the manufacturer to produce the bootlegs, but the good faith buyer are not commiting any kind of crime,

I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE. I said you were enabling "the maufacturer" to exploit the artists you care about.

>Stealling is taking away from the other person. I'm not taking anything away.

No, but you are helping someone take something "away".

>By the way, I paid for all my collection,

I think I know what you're trying to say but that statement doesn't mean anything unless we know if your "collection" contains only legal material. Also, who did you pay? A legal seller or someone who was selling illegally?

[Toronto Bob]

All this back and forth bogus stealing analogy should really not dissuade anyone from watching this concert.

It's a great piece of AC history and offers something rare - an almost complete SF show. Something many of us missed the first time around and for those who saw the tour, a rare chance to relive the experience.

I've watched this a few times already and recommend anyone who like SF era Alice to try and view this anyway possible,

[A_MichaelUK]

>All this back and forth bogus stealing analogy should really not dissuade anyone from watching this concert.

I was never trying to do that. All I was pointing out was that it was a dubious site and that any payment made to it is not going to the rights - holders and nothing more than that.

[Marcelocooper]

As I explained in an earlier post, "Those who do" are in the minority though. If you think they are not, then explain to me why the legal sales of recorded music is going through the floor then.

> You still don't realise I'm not talking about torrent/pirate downloads. Bootlegs have existed since a long time ago, including when the recorded music business was going strong and getting lots of people rich (artists and companys). The whole point of my post was to establish a difference btween illegal downloads, in which you get a legally produced album and rip it off to get it for free, and the never made available recording that someone is selling. Simply because in the first you substitute one for another and, therefore, the band doesn't get paid for something they would otherwise. On the second scenario, the band wouldn't get paid anyway. I'm not saying it is LEGAL to do that by any means, and if that was the impression I gave i expressed myself wrong. I'm just saying there IS a difference btween one and another, and yet you sill confuse them when you talk to me. You pick up a sentence I'm talking about one of those and reply refering to the other.

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't a problem that has been created ONLY by consumers - it is a problem created by file - sharing sites, torrent sites and by the consumers who enable those sites to operate.

> Read above. Don't mix things up. No one buys a torrent.


One of them is though. If you buy a legal album that is out of print, then as long as the person who sold it to you obtained it legally, then it is legal for you to buy it. It is called the first sale doctine.

> I never said the opposite. I really hate to repeat myself, so just look up again what I said on previous posts.

The "concept" you don't "get" in your example is that one is legal and on is not. If both were not, then no - one would be able to sell second - hand goods that were obtained legally. It is the origin of those goods that determines this process.

>If I didn't get the concept the one is legal and the other isn't I wouldn't have said one is legal and the other isn't when I posted that.


You cannot draw a comparison between "and old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago" and "a bootleg of one of their shows." just because the artists doesn't get paid in either sense. You also haven't understood what copyright means. If the "old LP to which they got paid for 30 years ago" is an original and not a copy, there is no infringement. Owning a copyright means you are paid for every copy but there is no copying in your example.

> You don't understand I' talking from a fan/consumer point of view. And even not defending bootlegs. I was just stating that the simply fact that the band is not getting paid shouldn't be the draw line to which someone should obey when they buysomething, as you sugested on your posts.


When buying a record, the relationship the consumer has is with the seller, the seller has the relationship with the record label and the record label has the relationship with the artists - this is all simple contract law.

> Contractually maybe the case, but that's not the point of view I was talking about. And by your logic I shouldn't even care if the band is getting paid or not, if the recording is ilegal or not. My relation on the purshase is finished when I pay for what I got.


How do you know they are not "interested"?

> If the item is still up there for me to get, I, as a costumer, can only assume two things: There's no interest from the artists to do anything about it. Or there's gray areas on the law that permit the content to be available.

It is pretty obvious if you have been paying attention. This debate has been going on since at least 1999 with the case against Napster and there have been other high profile cases since then as well. There has been action from Led Zeppelin, Santana and The Tubes (who reached a settlement) against the site we are discussing. Just a few weeks ago, Prince took action against file - sharing sites, as well. Obviously, you can't be expected to be aware of all of these instances and while I compliment you on your attempt to justify buying from the site we're discussing because you want to convince yourself that you are not part of the problem, the reality that is too harsh for you to accept is that you are part of the problem albeit in a small way. At no point during this thread have I told anyone not to buy anything from that site (at least I don't think I did). All I did was point out that this site has a dubious status. How you deal with that information is your choice and I think your response shows that there may be just a little bit of a guilty conscience lurking.

> I never got anything from that site, or any other by the matter (just from iTunes and sites indicated on the band's website). My conscience is clean as can be.


I don't quite understand what this means. There have indeed been instances of "well-know, big website" selling "illegal stuff".

> yes there were, but as a costumer I shouldn't just assume that every big website on the planet is selling illegal stuff.


As I explained to pitkin88, those "people" (you mean collectors, of course) aren't the main problem (although they don't help because they help create a demand) - it is precisely the people are not "likely willing to pay for a new recording", who are the main consumers of illegally obtained material.

>Again, you mix up torrent with bootlegs. The first one is ilegal and also creating a big problem to the music business. The second ons is, also, ilegal, but has co-existed with the music industry for a very long time.


I agree. As I said before, I personally don't have a problem with short "recordings" (even those are also techincally illegal).


> by using the same logic you were using with me, I would now assume you make short recordings of shows and, by your same logic, is stealling from the artist, and just saying you don't have a problem with it because you have a conscience problem.

Again, you miss not one point but two points - what the site we are discussing is doing is indeed the equivalent "going into anyone's house and taking things away" and when you share "matereal with someone", you are in effect making a copy which means you are infringing the copyright. I already said that I don't have a problem if you do that for free although it is technically illegal. If you read the small print on a record label, it actually states that.

> you missed the point I was making, you actually saind you agree with me bellow.

">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.

I agree. I ALREADY said that."


I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE. I said you were enabling "the maufacturer" to exploit the artists you care about.

> When you say people are stealling you acuse them of committing a crime.
And the manufacturer who exploit the artists aren't much of a exclusivity of the illegal industry. Before you get my point wrong and out of context, I know it's the artists option to sing a contract and I's none of my business, but againg, getting exploited shouldn't be drawn as a rule for buying or not something.

No, but you are helping someone take something "away".

> Probably, but on many cases that't not intentional as it's not so much a of a known fact to the one that's doing it.


I think I know what you're trying to say but that statement doesn't mean anything unless we know if your "collection" contains only legal material. Also, who did you pay? A legal seller or someone who was selling illegally?

> If you didn't take only half my sentence out of context the question should already be answerd. But I do it again: I paid for my collection, never downloading any of the offical albuns, and only trading/getting as a gift bootlegs. By the way, I only have a few amount of those, as I prefer to get official recordings. (I'm guessing that goes on the "trading" gray area of legality, doesn't it? )

[A_MichaelUK]

>You still don't realise I'm not talking about torrent/pirate downloads.

They are part of the same problem though. Also, you're supposed to mark my comments with a '>', not your comments. It makes the thread hard to follow.

> The whole point of my post was to establish a difference btween illegal downloads, in which you get a legally produced album and rip it off to get it for free, and the never made available recording that someone is selling.

No, I understand that but the effect is the same. The law still applies to "the never made available recording that someone is selling." You may think there is a moral difference (I don't see how, as both are depriving rights - holders of their income) but the law doesn't see it that way. Plenty of people have been prosecuted for selling bootlegs as you probably know.

> I'm not saying it is LEGAL to do that by any means, and if that was the impression I gave i expressed myself wrong.

Maybe you did.

> I'm just saying there IS a difference btween one and another,

No there is not. The effects are the same. The law disagrees with you on that.

> Read above. Don't mix things up. No one buys a torrent.

You don't have to buy it. As Si explained, often, the sites that have free torrents have advertising on them and they sometimes charge a subscription as well. I am explaining to you for what I think may be the third time, that the main issue is the relationship between the seller and the rights - holder, not between the consumer and the rights - holder and I really can't explain it more easily than that.

>If I didn't get the concept the one is legal and the other isn't I wouldn't have said one is legal and the other isn't when I posted that.

You are still drawing a moral distinction though. Just because something has never been legally available does not give the seller the right to sell it. That and ONLY THAT is all I have said about the site we are discussing.

> You don't understand I' talking from a fan/consumer point of view.

Actually I do "understand". I "understand" more than you realise because I am a "fan/consumer" as well, but being "fan/consumer" does not mean you are not part of the problem. Is the drug - addict or the drug - dealer to blame for the drug problem? One of them, or both of them, or neither of them and what is the proportion of blame if there even is any blame?

>And even not defending bootlegs. I was just stating that the simply fact that the band is not getting paid shouldn't be the draw line to which someone should obey when they buysomething, as you sugested on your posts.

Really? Are you saying you don't care if the musicians you claim to love so much are not paid but the seller is? Maybe one day, you will make an album on which someone else is illegally making more money on it than you are and maybe then, you will have a different opinion.

>I shouldn't even care if the band is getting paid or not, if the recording is ilegal or not.

I never said anything remotely close to that. I have (all along) said the opposite of that.

> My relation on the purshase is finished when I pay for what I got.

Nobody is talking about the end of the contractual relationship. We are discussing what happens as you enter into it.

> If the item is still up there for me to get, I, as a costumer, can only assume two things: There's no interest from the artists to do anything about it.

You can't "assume" anything. Some people don't have the resources to do anything about it even if they wanted to. If a man on the street sells you a Rolex, are you going to assume it is not a fake?
There are some who don't care (Henry Rollins and David Bowie for example) but there are others that do and it isn't just the musicians who are affected. As I've explained, music publishing companies are affected, record companies are affected (although they have some blame as well) and even studios are affected as recording budgets have been slashed.

>Or there's gray areas on the law that permit the content to be available.

That is a good point. There are a lot of those, but given that you know there are "gray areas", you choose to "assume" something that is to your benefit, rather than choose to "assume" something that is not. Before buying anything, it is very easy to do a little research and even if you don't want to, I ALREADY MADE THAT POINT. THAT was the only purpose of my post - to point out that this is a dubious site. It really does seem as some people around here maybe feel a little guilty and are trying really hard to justify their behaviour.

>I never got anything from that site, or any other by the matter

I didn't say you did, but you have also demonstrated that you have no qualms about obtaining illegal material and that you don't care who the seller is or how the seller acquired it.

> yes there were, but as a costumer I shouldn't just assume that every big website on the planet is selling illegal stuff.

You don't have to. A little research doesn't take much time and in fact, would reveal the "illegal stuff" that "every big website on the planet" is sometimes making available. Nobody is accusing you of a crime, but you do seem very defensive about this.

>The second ons is, also, ilegal, but has co-existed with the music industry for a very long time.

The effect is the same - in fact, by their very nature, file - sharing sites are worse than the bootlegs that were on vinyl as those were harder to manufacture and distribute. That is why there probably a few thousand (at the most) of each vinyl bootleg manufactured. The file - sharing sites have made that problem a billion times worse.

> by using the same logic you were using with me, I would now assume you make short recordings of shows and, by your same logic, is stealling from the artist, and just saying you don't have a problem with it because you have a conscience problem.

That would be an incorrect assumption. Saying I don't see a problem is not the same as saying I do it. How is it even the same?

">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.

How many more times am I going to have to say this?! The problem isn't just "someone who buys a bootleg or share without profit or just to known people a recording of a show." The problem is the kind of site we are discussing in this thread! I don't think I was the one who extended the debate beyond that.

> When you say people are stealling you acuse them of committing a crime.

Yes.

>And the manufacturer who exploit the artists aren't much of a exclusivity of the illegal industry.

That is true. So what? Does that mean that because it is not exclusive it somehow alright to do that?

> you get my point wrong and out of context,

I don't take anything "out of context". I respond directly to what is written.

>I know it's the artists option to sing a contract and I's none of my business, but againg, getting exploited shouldn't be drawn as a rule for buying or not something.

If you are the type of person who doesn't care that their favourtite musicians are being "exploited" then you are correct. Are you definitely saying that you don't care? I am asking because there are a lot of musicians who are struggling financially who do care.

> Probably,

Actually, it's definitely.

>but on many cases that't not intentional as it's not so much a of a known fact to the one that's doing it.

I DID NOT SAY it was "intentional". Leaving aside that ignorance of the law is not a defence, all I did was point out the dubious nature of the site we are discussing. If it reveals something you find inconvenient, that isn't my problem.

>> If you didn't take only half my sentence out of context the question should already be answerd.

I didn't take anything "out of context". You didn't provide any details in that post.

>But I do it again: I paid for my collection, never downloading any of the offical albuns, and only trading/getting as a gift bootlegs.

I don't think you said that in your original post. That is why I asked the question.

> (I'm guessing that goes on the "trading" gray area of legality, doesn't it? )

Yes but as I've said I don't have a problem with that. There are no copies being made, nothing is being streamed a billion times illegally and no revenue is being generated.

[Marcelocooper]

> No, I understand that but the effect is the same. The law still applies to "the never made available recording that someone is selling." You may think there is a moral difference (I don't see how, as both are depriving rights - holders of their income) but the law doesn't see it that way. Plenty of people have been prosecuted for selling bootlegs as you probably know.

And planty have not. Some bootlegs, by the way, were made legally, or wansn't it the case with freak out Alice? Even with Fistful of Alice being released again under another name a few time ago?

> No there is not. The effects are the same. The law disagrees with you on that.

The efects are not the only part of the thing. If it were, selling used LPs would be the same as bootlegs/pirating. The similarity between bootleg and torrents are just the law. The whole thing is different and have different impacts on the business band. When I point out the differences I'm not saying the efects are different, or trying to convince anyone that one is legal. I'm pointing out that there are differents impacts in the music industry, and, from any point of view, one is worst than the other. One is not more legal than the other, but is a smaller problem than the other. Something that even you agree when you say you "I don't have a problem with that. There are no copies being made, nothing is being streamed a billion times illegally and no revenue is being generated."

> You don't have to buy it. As Si explained, often, the sites that have free torrents have advertising on them and they sometimes charge a subscription as well. I am explaining to you for what I think may be the third time, that the main issue is the relationship between the seller and the rights - holder, not between the consumer and the rights - holder and I really can't explain it more easily than that.

I know you're talking about the seller and rights holder, As much as should know by now I'm talkins about the consumer.

> You are still drawing a moral distinction though. Just because something has never been legally available does not give the seller the right to sell it. That and ONLY THAT is all I have said about the site we are discussing.

I'm just saying one is a bigger problem than the other.

> Actually I do "understand". I "understand" more than you realise because I am a "fan/consumer" as well, but being "fan/consumer" does not mean you are not part of the problem. Is the drug - addict or the drug - dealer to blame for the drug problem? One of them, or both of them, or neither of them and what is the proportion of blame if there even is any blame?

You can't possible begin to compare what I'm saying to a drug problem. From the first place, I'm talking about something that has a similar product being made available legaly. The only situation I'm deffending here is when someone on good faith and expeting to be paying for a legal recording are actually paying for a illegal one. That's the only scenario that I deffend the consumer, even if I still thing buying bootlegs aren't by far the same problem as downloading a released album.
You can't confuse yourself by thinking a drug is legal. You can't go walking to a dealer without knowing it is wrong.


> Really? Are you saying you don't care if the musicians you claim to love so much are not paid but the seller is? Maybe one day, you will make an album on which someone else is illegally making more money on it than you are and maybe then, you will have a different opinion.

Never said that. But now tell me, would you buy a used vinyl/dvd/cd/whatever, since the seller are the only one beeing paid? Would you still be buying, v. g., School's Out, sold by warner the same way, with a contract to be the rights holder, if Alice got foolled and didn't get paid for it? It would still be legal, but the paid isn't getting paid.

On some countries, realeasing an unauthorized biography is legal, on some other is illegal. Where it is legal, the artist doesn't get paid for that. Do you think it's allright? Do you draw a line on the legality of something or on the "who is getting paid"?

> Nobody is talking about the end of the contractual relationship. We are discussing what happens as you enter into it.

And I'm saying there are different consequences when someone buys a bootleg and download a CD for free.

> You can't "assume" anything. Some people don't have the resources to do anything about it even if they wanted to. If a man on the street sells you a Rolex, are you going to assume it is not a fake?

Your exemple is terrible. It just proves my point. Wouldn't anyone assume it is fake/stollen? But you just said I can't assume anything! The same goes the other way arrond. You wouldn't expect/assume a rolex to be the real deal when you go to a big well know and with a good reputation store?

> There are some who don't care (Henry Rollins and David Bowie for example) but there are others that do and it isn't just the musicians who are affected. As I've explained, music publishing companies are affected, record companies are affected (although they have some blame as well) and even studios are affected as recording budgets have been slashed.

Agree. Never said the opposite, actually aways said that in my entire life. But you cannot desagree that downloads made that, not bootlegs, which is why I'm saying one is a bigger problem.

> That is a good point. There are a lot of those, but given that you know there are "gray areas", you choose to "assume" something that is to your benefit, rather than choose to "assume" something that is not. Before buying anything, it is very easy to do a little research and even if you don't want to, I ALREADY MADE THAT POINT. THAT was the only purpose of my post - to point out that this is a dubious site. It really does seem as some people around here maybe feel a little guilty and are trying really hard to justify their behaviour.

It certainly is. But as you said before, there were cases of big, well known websites that sold illegal stuff. Did they all looked dubious? If they didn't would you also expect people to not buy from them? What if they sold legal and illegal stuff all mixed up, someone who did a research and got a positive feedback would be obligated to reaserch the same website everytime they get something?

>I didn't say you did, but you have also demonstrated that you have no qualms about obtaining illegal material and that you don't care who the seller is or how the seller acquired it.

Again, never said that. The only few illegal material on my 250+ Alice collection (still growing), plus 300+ other bands material, are the ones I got when I was 14+- and didn't know they weren't legal. I hardly spoke english and got those thinking they were legit. Also, all my recordings were made by myself, friends or givem to my by friends who got them from a collector/friend outside Brazil that never made money with them. Something that even the law doesn't classify as ilegal, since no comercial use were being made, as you should know.


> The effect is the same - in fact, by their very nature, file - sharing sites are worse than the bootlegs that were on vinyl as those were harder to manufacture and distribute. That is why there probably a few thousand (at the most) of each vinyl bootleg manufactured. The file - sharing sites have made that problem a billion times worse.

That was my point the whole time.


> That would be an incorrect assumption. Saying I don't see a problem is not the same as saying I do it. How is it even the same?

I only said I think downloading is a bigger problem and the good faith consumer isn't stealling anything and you assumed I was the bootleg king. Why shouldn't I do the same.

> How many more times am I going to have to say this?! The problem isn't just "someone who buys a bootleg or share without profit or just to known people a recording of a show." The problem is the kind of site we are discussing in this thread! I don't think I was the one who extended the debate beyond that.

I did. If you don't want to talk about it feel free to not reply.

> That is true. So what? Does that mean that because it is not exclusive it somehow alright to do that?

Is it just because it is legal you would contribute to that?

I don't take anything "out of context". I respond directly to what is written.

When you cut in half something I said you are taking it out of context.

> If you are the type of person who doesn't care that their favourtite musicians are being "exploited" then you are correct. Are you definitely saying that you don't care? I am asking because there are a lot of musicians who are struggling financially who do care.

You know that even with legal recording sales people are getting exploited and still defend buying legal albums? Shouldn't you see the contract the recording company have with their artist befor buying something?

>but on many cases that't not intentional as it's not so much a of a known fact to the one that's doing it.

> Leaving aside that ignorance of the law is not a defence,

Ignorance of the law is very different from ignorance of the fact that you are buying something ilegal. Since you are on a position where the normal citzen would assume to be right, you are not commiting a crime. Here in Brazil it's called "error of type", but since the UK have a, in my opinion more advanced sistem, commum law structure, I think it's called something else there. Probably the concept of a "type" doesn't even exist there.

> Yes but as I've said I don't have a problem with that. There are no copies being made, nothing is being streamed a billion times illegally and no revenue is being generated.

Here in Brazil it isn't even ilegal. Probably in UK also, but I don't know.
The point I was making this entire time is exactly what you said. Some forms of ilegal sharing aren't a problem to the artists or the recording companies. Some, on the other hand, are.

[Daggers & Contracts]

Does anyone here have an International Law Degree & can explain this Pro Bono???? Keep in mind we still need the explanation in laymen's terms

[A_MichaelUK]

>And planty have not.

SO WHAT?! Some people get away with murder too?! What is your point?!

>Some bootlegs, by the way, were made legally, or

If they are legal, they cannot be "bootlegs" - think about what you are writing.
>wansn't it the case with freak out Alice?

That is not a "bootleg", though.

> Even with Fistful of Alice being released again under another name a few time ago?

That is NOT a "bootleg" - once it has been licensed, the people who have licensed it can change the name if they want to.

>The efects are not the only part of the thing. If it were, selling used LPs would be the same as bootlegs/pirating.

Are you the same Marcello who I know has had legal training? If you are, you are making some elementary mistakes. I have said this twice now - "selling used LPs" is covered by the 'first sale' doctrine. Anything that was legally acquired can be sold again under that doctrine. Look at the words you just used ("bootlegs/pirating") they define the kind of activity. For someone who tells us he has only ever paid for legal material, you seem awfully keen to defend piracy.

> The similarity between bootleg and torrents are just the law. The whole thing is different and have different impacts on the business band.

That is nonsense. Try and explain that to the musicians (some of whom you know) who normally could expect to receive, say, $30,000 a year in royalties and who now receive maybe a quarter of that. Explain to them how it is "different".

>When I point out the differences I'm not saying the efects are different,

You said in the sentence above "The whole thing is different and have different impacts on the business band. " so you're not making a lot of sense.

>or trying to convince anyone that one is legal. I'm pointing out that there are differents impacts in the music industry, and, from any point of view, one is worst than the other. One is not more legal than the other, but is a smaller problem than the other.
Even if that was true (and I don't think it is) the effect are the same. The people you claim to love so much have seen their incomes reduced and other people have lost their jobs. Why don't you speak to a musician who is having his work stolen and convince him that it "is a smaller problem"?

>Something that even you agree when you say you "I don't have a problem with that. There are no copies being made, nothing is being streamed a billion times illegally and no revenue is being generated."

Yes, the reason I don't have a problem is because I am talking about fans sharing stuff amongst themselves for free with nobody making any money from it. This is not the situation with the site we are discussing.

>I know you're talking about the seller and rights holder, As much as should know by now I'm talkins about the consumer.

I know and you're trying to absolve the consumer of any responsibility.

>You can't possible begin to compare what I'm saying to a drug problem.

Why not? It is an accurate analogy. There is a problem and there are participants involved.

> From the first place, I'm talking about something that has a similar product being made available legaly.

What about people who buy a fake Rolex watch then?

>The only situation I'm deffending here is when someone on good faith and expeting to be paying for a legal recording are actually paying for a illegal one. That's the only scenario that I deffend the consumer,

ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION?! Did I or did I not say that that is why I explained how that sites operates?! With that information, the consumer can decide what to do!

>You can't confuse yourself by thinking a drug is legal. You can't go walking to a dealer without knowing it is wrong.

What about when you are told "it is wrong" but you still do it. What about that?

>Never said that. But now tell me, would you buy a used vinyl/dvd/cd/whatever, since the seller are the only one beeing paid?

For possible the fourth time, you don't seem to know what 'first sale' is.

>Would you still be buying, v. g., School's Out, sold by warner the same way, with a contract to be the rights holder, if Alice got foolled and didn't get paid for it? It would still be legal, but the paid isn't getting paid.

You have no idea what you are saying. I thought you had legal training assuming you are who I think you are. Under the 'first sale' doctrine, the seller and the consumer that have the relationship.

>On some countries, realeasing an unauthorized biography is legal, on some other is illegal. Where it is legal, the artist doesn't get paid for that. Do you think it's allright? Do you draw a line on the legality of something or on the "who is getting paid"?

The law isn't standard across the world, so that is certainly a huge issue but that is a wider issue that the internet has made more complicated. If something is illegal in America but legal in Brazil and someone in Brazil buys it from an American site, that is a much more complicated situation.

>Your exemple is terrible. It just proves my point. Wouldn't anyone assume it is fake/stollen?

Why would you? How do you know it wasn't acquired legally? According to you, nobody would even ask the question. Now you are saying that they should assume there is something wrong! That is hilarious!
>You wouldn't expect/assume a rolex to be the real deal when you go to a big well know and with a good reputation store?

FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME, THAT IS WHY I TOLD PEOPLE HERE THAT THE SITE IS DUBIOUS!

>Agree. Never said the opposite, actually aways said that in my entire life. But you cannot desagree that downloads made that, not bootlegs, which is why I'm saying one is a bigger problem.

Pay attention. I said that as well. You are the one who has wasted time by bringing "bootlegs" into discussion and making comparisons.

> certainly is. But as you said before, there were cases of big, well known websites that sold illegal stuff. Did they all looked dubious?

NO. THAT IS WHY I WARNED PEOPLE ABOUT THE SITE WE ARE DISCUSSING.
>If they didn't would you also expect people to not buy from them?
NOT AFTER THE WARNING.

>What if they sold legal and illegal stuff all mixed up, someone who did a research and got a positive feedback would be obligated to reaserch the same website everytime they get something?

I wish I could be everywhere to warn people but unfortunately that isn't possible.

>Again, never said that.

You did. You wrote: "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."

>The only few illegal material on my 250+ Alice collection (still growing), plus 300+ other bands material, are the ones I got when I was 14+- and didn't know they weren't legal.

Are you insane? I am not talking about however many years ago that was. I am talking about the situation now and the site we are discussing. I known some things can get lost in translation, but this seems to be going beyond that.

> Also, all my recordings were made by myself, friends or givem to my by friends who got them from a collector/friend outside Brazil that never made money with them. Something that even the law doesn't classify as ilegal, since no comercial use were being made, as you should know.

You are very confused. If you are making copies, it is illegal. I explained that yesterday and I also said I have no problem with "friends" doing that and sharing the material for free, just as you say you did.

>I only said I think downloading is a bigger problem and the good faith consumer isn't stealling anything and you assumed I was the bootleg king. Why shouldn't I do the same.

I didn't assume anything. You were the one who was trying to make comparisons and in doings so changed the thread from being a discussion of the status of the footage and site under discussion into a wider debate on piracy and ownership.

>I did. If you don't want to talk about it feel free to not reply.
Thanks for wasting everyone's time then.

>Is it just because it is legal you would contribute to that?

I don't understand what that means.

>When you cut in half something I said you are taking it out of context.

The quote is still there in your original post for anyone to check the "context". If posts are referred to in full, every reply would be longer and harder to follow.

>You know that even with legal recording sales people are getting exploited and still defend buying legal albums?

I would advise you not to patronise me - I was aware of these issues possibly before you were even born and I already said at least once that record companies have a lot to answer for as well. The point is, it's one thing for musicians to be exploited by record companies and quite another for them to be exploited by their own audience as well.

>Shouldn't you see the contract the recording company have with their artist befor buying something?

There is a saying: 'two wrongs don't make a right' - think about it.

>Ignorance of the law is very different from ignorance of the fact that you are buying something ilegal.

Not according to the law. That is why people are still charged with handling stolen goods.

>Since you are on a position where the normal citzen would assume to be right, you are not commiting a crime. Here in Brazil it's called "error of type", but since the UK have a, in my opinion more advanced sistem, commum law structure, I think it's called something else there. Probably the concept of a "type" doesn't even exist there.
All of that is true, but at no point was this discussion about regional variations until YOU sought to attempt to justify behaviour that is acceptable according to how your country operates. On reflection, in relation to this thread, that is almost irrelevant.

>Here in Brazil it isn't even ilegal. Probably in UK also, but I don't know.

Exactly but again, we're not discussing a Brazilian site or a British site, so I don't know how relevant it is for you to have even mentioned it.

>The point I was making this entire time is exactly what you said. Some forms of ilegal sharing aren't a problem to the artists or the recording companies. Some, on the other hand, are.

Actually, you have tried to defend almost all "ilegal sharing" not just the type between "friends", which we both agree on. I am happy to discuss this further in private if you want.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Does anyone here have an International Law Degree & can explain this Pro Bono???? Keep in mind we still need the explanation in laymen's terms

That would be almost impossible to do but there are basically two different international agreements but even within those, there are regional variations and that's before you even take into account the fact that that they can be difficult to enforce and that the internet has made the problem of piracy a billion times worse than it might have been.

[Crazy Little Child]

Again, you're missing the point. This isn't a problem that has been created ONLY by consumers - it is a problem created by file - sharing sites, torrent sites and by the consumers who enable those sites to operate.

Well, to be fair, it's also a problem created by the record industry, who have been very, very slow to adjust to changing technology & consumer trends (heck, Steve Jobs stepped in and did it for them, overnight convincing millions to pay for MP3s they HAD been getting for free), and also by screwing over bands with royalties from digital sales (why both Def Leppard and AC have done their own "best of" covers, to sell themselves digitally, and why lots of stuff is not yet legal to buy digitally).

Many of us were a bit happy to see these giant music conglomerates topple under their own weight after decades spent exploiting and ripping off both artists and fans and making millions and millions of dollars.

That said, we don't want to see the artists themselves go out of business. To that end, while Wolfgang's Vault is clearly stealing some money out of artists' pockets, money these artists need even more perhaps today, they're not the root problem here.

On a related note, never pay for a bootleg! And if you must, share it around! There are so many great, ad-free, subscription-free music trading sites on line, and the best way to drive shyster bootleg sellers out of business is to share it all for free on line. And they generally provide it in much better quality than WV & Co.

[Marcelocooper]

Actually, you have tried to defend almost all "ilegal sharing" not just the type between "friends", which we both agree on. I am happy to discuss this further in private if you want.

No need to keep going on with this discussion, but I never defended almost all ilegal sharing. I AM against it. I just defended the good faith of the good intended. And the sharing between friends, that, as you said, we both agree on.

[A_MichaelUK]

>That said, we don't want to see the artists themselves go out of business. To that end, while Wolfgang's Vault is clearly stealing some money out of artists' pockets, money these artists need even more perhaps today, they're not the root problem here.

Exactly and nobody said that it was.

[A_MichaelUK]

>No need to keep going on with this discussion, but I never defended almost all ilegal sharing. I AM against it. I just defended the good faith of the good intended.

I didn't deny there was "good faith" - all I said was that even those with "good faith" are contributing to the problem. That is why I said earlier that there is no easy solution

[Mr. Skull]

Here in the Netherlands there's a levy on everything that has a harddisk : computer, tablets, smartphones, cameras and also on empty cd's, usb sticks , memory cards etc etc. This levy is to compansate the musical industry for the missing incomes because of illegal downloading. That's nice but on the other hand everybody here now think that it's their right to make those kind of downloads since they "paid" for it.

[wind_up_toy]

You can't win can you!

[Toronto Bob]

At the end of the day, if something has never been issued how can someone have money stolen from them? That's why pirating and bootlegging arevery different issues. A company making unauthorized dvds of The Nightmare Returns is a far cry from making available free for viewing a concert from Passaic 1981. Want to make money from that? Secure the video and issue it yourself. Don't want to do that? Perhaps strike a deal wtih WV. Offer them another video to stream on their site for a fee. This idea that someone should earn an income in perpetuity for a musical performance sounds like the ultimate in entitlement. If I'm a furniture maker and I made and sold a sofa in 1981 does someone in 2014 is sitting on that sofa have to ask my permission and pay me? Of course not - these arguements are bogus. The Capitol Theatre clearly had some sort of unique set up and arrangement. The performers were aware that their performance was to be video taped, and either there was compensation at the time specific for that or it was part of the "if you're gonna play here - know that it will be recorded by an in house video system - take it or leave it." Whatever was the case it was not a clandestine affair and either business managers didn't secure the recording by perhaps buying and then erasing the tapes or they overlooked it and didn't foresee the potential income that could have been derived from these tapes. Either way no one is homeless because these tapes exist and are able to be viewed by the public. Any claims that a site like WV is keeping someone in the poorhouse is beyond hyperbole and is pure fabrication on the indignant party's part.


Someone wants to earn $$ for old performances? Release them yourself. Do it! My interest in hearing and seeing this crap is fading and before long you won't be able to get another dollar from me because the interest will be gone. We are firmly in the internet age. Complete control is not possible, either you adapt or you become irrelevant. Things change whether want them to or not.

I don't demand anything and certainly not for free but I do have the freedom to consume as I want - this is not under the control of anyone but me. I decide what I buy and what I don't. Offer the goods - I will likely buy (although still not obligated). I've bought many subpar releases in the hopes that they would be great. But cry because you think someone is making a nickle and you feel that it's YOUR nickle? Cry me a river and GTFO.

[A_MichaelUK]

>At the end of the day, if something has never been issued how can someone have money stolen from them?

You know the answer to that.

>I don't demand anything and certainly not for free but I do have the freedom to consume as I want

We know that and that includes something "for free" even if it means someone who acquired it illegally is the person you are getting it from. We know exactly what your position is. If you can't acquire it legally, you will take it anyway.