FWIW, I can't stand the guy (or whatever it is) and I dislike him even more since he broke that guy's guitar on Fallon last year.
 
http://www.epiphone.com/N...piphone-Interview.aspx

Rain ...
The law is the law - it's not for one to decide when or to who it should apply, even though there is room for discussion and improvement. But for as long as it is in place, distributing copyrighted material without permission is theft, plain and simple.
...

I will NEVER disagree with that, specially when I had a screenplay stolen!
 
When I look back at bootlegs in the late 60's and 70's, they told us who and what the bands really were. In those days, Bob Dylan, Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd were the big ones in the bootleg thing, and there was one very important part to these, that no one wants to discuss.
 
The work they did in there was completely different than any album. And it was nice. I love the 20 versions of "Echoes", or the 15 versions of "Atom Heart Mother", and the 9 versions of "Ramble On", and the different versions of Led Zeppelin's first big hit, that always had something different in the middle of it. None of this EVER came to an album, until 40 years later, when Roger Waters gave in, and let fans have a copy of the original material that became known as "Animals" 3 years later! No one would have given a damn about Led Zeppelin as the best live band ever, with insane energy and total dedication and care to the material at hand, even with mistakes and such ... to the point that when Jimmy tried to clean it up for "How the West Was Won", he plainly ruined the energy and the feeling that was there already! No one will EVER complaint about the "Basement Tapes" that were, probably the biggest and most sold bootleg of all time. Why? Everything in it was different and it was like Bob to do that in concert because he thinks it gets boring after 3 times!
 
There is only so much "teasing" you can do, before you will get taken and such. Why are you ****ing and complaining? You don't have enough?
 
The Mettalica case was stupid, and them going after Napster, only made the mp3 thing even bigger. It was a perfect time to show that their value as a band had gone from the music to the ripoff side of things.
 
And lastly. The one band that NEVER/EVER complained about bootlegs, has its history in the annals of rock music. The Grateful Dead never cared if anyone taped it or not, and not many bands will ever be remembered as fondly and caring as that band ... and perhaps you should take notice, that GREED, should not be the issue behind copyright, but protection of the work. I'm OK with that, but the folks that stole my screenplay, are waiting for me to die, so they can use the script, and not pay me a dime.  Well, it won't work, and if they try, they will be cursed with the biggest loser that will hurt a few folks along the way, and besides, regardless of what happens, I won't be around ... and they ARE NOT ME, and they can not DUPLICATE ME, and what I wrote and what it meant and how it was to be presented that I saw. So the best they will do is come up with some calamity that will have everyone confused. ****'EM. Good luck, but the curse and the pox is on them, not me!
 
 As for Prince, he has lost his ability and his creativity because of his ego, and maybe one day he will get humble enough to learn something and bring us something of better value than more paperwork.
 
Rain, for crying out loud ... why are you "protecting" people that don't need it, when you yourself are fighting like crazy to make it with your own abilities? You need the fans ... you need what they provide. Even if they do something like that, but in the end, very few of them are making money off it ... they are just sharing your talent, and that is something that is much more precious to you in the long run, than any money you can collect.
 
My work was stolen, but I am not worried about it. It was "ME" in that work, and no one else can do "ME". Bootlegs just showed you at noon, or 6PM in the house. There is no fan out there that doesn't want to meet "you" and that is another inch for a bootleg! AND, sometimes, the bootleg is a lot better than the fan showing up at your house, and saying hello the wife and the children ... I'm sure you would love that!
 
Look at the bigger picture.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you, just helping you and others protect something else that is much more valuable than a frivolusly stupid and selfish lawsuit that will only accomplish more anger from people that once liked his work, and now know who the real mother**** behind it really is like. Maybe you should watch "Purple Rain", and find that there is a possibility that Wendy and Lisa were far better and more important to the whole thing that they will EVER get credit for. It's hard to think/say that Morris was right in laughing, but all of a sudden that part in the movie takes another dimention that ... you know what? ... makes damn good sense!
 
You can't be that selfish! And not appreciate your "fame", to the point that you have to go after someone who doesn't ahve anything anyway, for a dollar that you will never get! It's bizarre, stupid, and if I were the judge, I would throw it out as court abuse. Sir, you are rich and fat and you are abusing the court for your priviledge! Your case is meritless and did not hurt anyone, except your ego! Have a nice day, sir. Hammer on the table!
 

Moshkaie... I was thinking about the Dead and about mentioning them when I read your post. Well said! Fans taping every concert has not hurt them at all it has in fact... been a huge help to them. Artists who sue fans almost always come out looking like a jackass. As long as the bootlegs aren't being marketed and sold they really should be encouraged, IMO. It would be much better to work with fans instead of against them. It looks petty and small... and I think it is.
 
J

Rain
FWIW, I can't stand the guy (or whatever it is) and I dislike him even more since he broke that guy's guitar on Fallon last year.
 
http://www.epiphone.com/N...piphone-Interview.aspx

That was really a horrible thing to do. I am surprised he didn't get smacked on the nose for that. I went from not caring to active dislike after that too.
 
J

Moshkiae
 
Rain, for crying out loud ... why are you "protecting" people that don't need it, when you yourself are fighting like crazy to make it with your own abilities? You need the fans ... you need what they provide. Even if they do something like that, but in the end, very few of them are making money off it ... they are just sharing your talent, and that is something that is much more precious to you in the long run, than any money you can collect.
 
My work was stolen, but I am not worried about it. It was "ME" in that work, and no one else can do "ME". Bootlegs just showed you at noon, or 6PM in the house. There is no fan out there that doesn't want to meet "you" and that is another inch for a bootleg! AND, sometimes, the bootleg is a lot better than the fan showing up at your house, and saying hello the wife and the children ... I'm sure you would love that!
 
Look at the bigger picture.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you, just helping you and others protect something else that is much more valuable than a frivolusly stupid and selfish lawsuit that will only accomplish more anger from people that once liked his work, and now know who the real mother**** behind it really is like. Maybe you should watch "Purple Rain", and find that there is a possibility that Wendy and Lisa were far better and more important to the whole thing that they will EVER get credit for. It's hard to think/say that Morris was right in laughing, but all of a sudden that part in the movie takes another dimention that ... you know what? ... makes damn good sense!
 
You can't be that selfish! And not appreciate your "fame", to the point that you have to go after someone who doesn't ahve anything anyway, for a dollar that you will never get! It's bizarre, stupid, and if I were the judge, I would throw it out as court abuse. Sir, you are rich and fat and you are abusing the court for your priviledge! Your case is meritless and did not hurt anyone, except your ego! Have a nice day, sir. Hammer on the table!
 

If I cared about myself only, I'd be doing exactly what you accuse those rich musicians of doing. 
 
I'd also be doing the exact same thing as the people who steal their music : deciding for myself who deserve to be paid for their music.
 
Besides, I'm not defending Price or Metallica, but rather stating a very simple fact. The same principle applies, whether we're talking about Celine Dion or Hocico. 
 
As for fans sharing my talent, that is utter rubbish. When I go to the grocery store, showing that fans are enjoying my work is not going to pay the bill. 
 
Or maybe I should just tell the cashier: give me the food, and I'll go on the internet and tell everyone how much I love your food. And if you don't, I'll blackmail you guys.
 
Most artists these days put out free samplers. If you want to "promote" them, promote that. Sharing their entire body of work is NOT promoting. I can't believe how far into delusion we've come...
 
A price tag on a CD is an indication of the price one must pay for that CD.


It's not a survey asking you how much you think you should pay for it, based on the artist's wealth.
It's not a request for a lesson in economy and media distribution.
It's not an invitation to debate.
It is not a request for "free promotion" via illegal distribution.
It's not a mandate to go out on the internet and contribute to the illusion of legitimacy of illegal downloads.
 
It's a frickin' price tag. Period. There's no trying to turn this into a debate. 
 
In spite of all the noise, there is no debate. The only people who want to debate are the ones who steal but refuse to be called thieves. They're the ones generating this controversy, and honestly, I am ashamed to think that we live in a world where what those ****s have to say is actually taken into consideration. They're frickin' thieves. They don't have a leg to stand on. It's not because they have access to a tribune (internet) that what they have to say should be taken in account.
 
I cannot believe how twisted we've gotten to rationalize theft, accusing the abused! But that's what we systematically do with criminals these days uh? Victimize them.
 
 
 

Actually, I believe what we do with many of the criminals these days is elect them to office.

At the risk of making Rain spit his drink over his screen and keyboard I think there are times when an artist actually benefits from copyright infringement.
 
Examples ?
 
Has no-one ever seen a cover version, good or bad, by some you boober and then remembered how much they liked that band an subsequently ended up re-buying one of their albums ? I have.
 
Seen a covers band in a pub who almost certainly don't have permission to play the songs they are performing and heard a tune that you always liked but don't own and then subsequently bought it ? I have.
 
A friend of mine once sent me a link to an unofficial you tube upload of a Blackfield song. Based on that I went on Amazon and bought two of their albums. Wouldn't have done that if it weren't for the initial copyright abuse. Also wouldn't have done it if I'd listened to them first, but that's another issue. ;)
 
Don't get me wrong, if it were me who was having his lovingly crafted official cd's duplicated and sold at car boot sales or whatever, I'd be mightily pissed off, that is just plain wrong, but a bootleg recording of some performance somewhere that isn't going to be offically released anyway, wouldn't acutally bother me. Ony a die hard fan who has probably bought everything you have ever done is going to buy stuff like that anyway and who doesn't want a few of them ?I guess for me it's a question of the type of infringement that would make me want to take action or not.
 
 

paulo
At the risk of making Rain spit his drink over his screen and keyboard I think there are times when an artist actually benefits from copyright infringement.
 
Examples ?
 
Has no-one ever seen a cover version, good or bad, by some you boober and then remembered how much they liked that band an subsequently ended up re-buying one of their albums ? I have.
 
Seen a covers band in a pub who almost certainly don't have permission to play the songs they are performing and heard a tune that you always liked but don't own and then subsequently bought it ? I have.
 
A friend of mine once sent me a link to an unofficial you tube upload of a Blackfield song. Based on that I went on Amazon and bought two of their albums. Wouldn't have done that if it weren't for the initial copyright abuse. Also wouldn't have done it if I'd listened to them first, but that's another issue. ;)
 
Don't get me wrong, if it were me who was having his lovingly crafted official cd's duplicated and sold at car boot sales or whatever, I'd be mightily pissed off, that is just plain wrong, but a bootleg recording of some performance somewhere that isn't going to be offically released anyway, wouldn't acutally bother me. Ony a die hard fan who has probably bought everything you have ever done is going to buy stuff like that anyway and who doesn't want a few of them ?I guess for me it's a question of the type of infringement that would make me want to take action or not.
 
 

I don't know how things work here, but I think that back home, any place that has people playing live music pays a licence and some of that license money is redistributed among songwriters/right holders. Just like it used to be for tapes and other means of reproduction. I'll have to verify. My wife knows a thousand times more than I do about that. She still get checks from la Socan every years for an arrangement of a song she made years ago.

Playing a song live is one issue. Making a recording out of it is another. In most cases, it really isn't all that hard to get the authorization, anyways, so why not be legit? Back in the days, it might have been a hassle, but with internet nowadays, it's actually very easy to get in touch with all the right people.
 
I think it's a weird debate, really. It's not up to me to determine when or why it's ok. I don't feel I have a say in this. I don't have the legal expertise and I think that 99% of the people who make arguments in favour or against don't. Which is why my point is - there is no debating. Trying to put the emphasis on the grey areas only serves to provide thieves with more arguments.


As for bootlegs, I myself find that they no longer have a reason to be in a lot of the cases. Back in the days, they were relevant, but nowadays, most artists regularly put out live DVDs. Many artists have understood that they can capitalize on it and sell recordings of a bunch of different shows from the same tour. I think it's the best approach. Beat the Boots, as Zappa said...
 
For me, the core issue is the sense of self-entitlement. When I go to a Cirque show and see someone take a flash photography despite the very clear announcement that photography is forbidden and that flash photography can be dangerous for the acrobats, it's that very same attitude that's at work. The notion that I can decide for myself whether or not the rule is justified and should be observed or when it should be observed. That an exception needs to be made for me.

And many people seem to think that that security warning is BS - though I assure you the danger is very real. But since we live in a world where everyone think he's an expert who gets to call what's relevant or not, flash goes on. They could probably go on and justify their action if you asked them to. 

It's the same attitude. And I have no tolerance for it.

I should also mention that at this point, I'm not making money with music. Quite the opposite - I am actually spending quite a bit buying CDs, lots of which I used to own back home or that I bought on Itunes while we were on the road...

Rain

paulo
At the risk of making Rain spit his drink over his screen and keyboard I think there are times when an artist actually benefits from copyright infringement.
 
Examples ?
 
Has no-one ever seen a cover version, good or bad, by some you boober and then remembered how much they liked that band an subsequently ended up re-buying one of their albums ? I have.
 
Seen a covers band in a pub who almost certainly don't have permission to play the songs they are performing and heard a tune that you always liked but don't own and then subsequently bought it ? I have.
 
A friend of mine once sent me a link to an unofficial you tube upload of a Blackfield song. Based on that I went on Amazon and bought two of their albums. Wouldn't have done that if it weren't for the initial copyright abuse. Also wouldn't have done it if I'd listened to them first, but that's another issue. ;)
 
Don't get me wrong, if it were me who was having his lovingly crafted official cd's duplicated and sold at car boot sales or whatever, I'd be mightily pissed off, that is just plain wrong, but a bootleg recording of some performance somewhere that isn't going to be offically released anyway, wouldn't acutally bother me. Ony a die hard fan who has probably bought everything you have ever done is going to buy stuff like that anyway and who doesn't want a few of them ?I guess for me it's a question of the type of infringement that would make me want to take action or not.
 
 

I don't know how things work here, but I think that back home, any place that has people playing live music pays a licence and some of that license money is redistributed among songwriters/right holders. Just like it used to be for tapes and other means of reproduction. I'll have to verify. My wife knows a thousand times more than I do about that. She still get checks from la Socan every years for an arrangement of a song she made years ago.

Playing a song live is one issue. Making a recording out of it is another. In most cases, it really isn't all that hard to get the authorization, anyways, so why not be legit? Back in the days, it might have been a hassle, but with internet nowadays, it's actually very easy to get in touch with all the right people.
 
I think it's a weird debate, really. It's not up to me to determine when or why it's ok. I don't feel I have a say in this. I don't have the legal expertise and I think that 99% of the people who make arguments in favour or against don't. Which is why my point is - there is no debating. Trying to put the emphasis on the grey areas only serves to provide thieves with more arguments.


As for bootlegs, I myself find that they no longer have a reason to be in a lot of the cases. Back in the days, they were relevant, but nowadays, most artists regularly put out live DVDs. Many artists have understood that they can capitalize on it and sell recordings of a bunch of different shows from the same tour. I think it's the best approach. Beat the Boots, as Zappa said...
 
For me, the core issue is the sense of self-entitlement. When I go to a Cirque show and see someone take a flash photography despite the very clear announcement that photography is forbidden and that flash photography can be dangerous for the acrobats, it's that very same attitude that's at work. The notion that I can decide for myself whether or not the rule is justified and should be observed or when it should be observed. That an exception needs to be made for me.

And many people seem to think that that security warning is BS - though I assure you the danger is very real. But since we live in a world where everyone think he's an expert who gets to call what's relevant or not, flash goes on. They could probably go on and justify their action if you asked them to. 

It's the same attitude. And I have no tolerance for it.

I should also mention that at this point, I'm not making money with music. Quite the opposite - I am actually spending quite a bit buying CDs, lots of which I used to own back home or that I bought on Itunes while we were on the road...

I'm not really arguing with your basic principle that the law isn't for people to interpret for themselves or trying to provide excuses to steal. I was really just expressing how I would feel about taking action if I were the artist in question. Some things just wouldn't bother me really.

paulo
 
I'm not really arguing with your basic principle that the law isn't for people to interpret for themselves or trying to provide excuses to steal. I was really just expressing how I would feel about taking action if I were the artist in question. Some things just wouldn't bother me really.

I get that my friend. :)

My replies tend to go on forever as I've been involved in a few arguments about that elsewhere since yesterday. But I understand your point.