yes! hehe i've got a couple bootlegs that i didnt know were bootlegs at the time...and two that i absolutely did (the one with shari vari, cellophane, charlie, patrick richard, and the cloud one album bootleg from a few years back)...boots are never really excusable, but it is at least slightly more respectable when somebody tosses out a boot and doesnt disguise it as a boot (white labels, little or no info..ghetTTttoo stylez)...rather than tossing it out and presenting it like the genuine article as htfr (thats not just bootlegging, that's fraud/counterfeiting!!), or as some sort of official product (automan, etc). my explanation for occasionally buying a boot: none, i am BAD...cloud one bootleg, ohhh i couldnt resist, i am weak....but surely the bootleggers are more to blame than the consumers...it's just all these twisted ethics people are trying to excuse themselves with, or as kamal eloquently put it, these feelings of ENTITLEMENT to somebody else's property, that are shocking....face it you are bad...very naughty...but yes, nowhere near as criminal as the bootleggers.
i consider illegal re-edits/remixes a slightly different animal...it still aint right, but it's a little less wrong... i still cant get over the price of ugly edits...or understand it... -----Original Message----- From: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jun 4, 2005 10:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: (313) virtual sex lp repressed! ACTUALLY IT'S BEEN BOOTLEGGED,BURN THE BOOTLEGGERS i know for a fact that people on here who own small electronic labels have bought bootlegs. how do you explain that? are they just assh*les? tom ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Klaas-Jan Jongsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:54:40 +0200 >No it's not... it is not OK to bootleg records in the first place. >The music is the intellectual property of the writer/producer, they >have the rights to decide what is going to happen with there music, >not someone who has absolutely no involvement in his music whatsoever. > >Excuses like 'well he released the record once but i can't find it so >bootlegs are ok' are not valid...ever. All of the artists on Virtual >Sex are still very much alive but guess what... no one asked them and >no-one will pay them sh*t. If you think you want to release a track >from an artist go and ask his permission to do so, if he says no, >respect that choice because it is his music, he made it and it is not >some public property. But guess what bootleggers don't do that >because a) they are way to lazy for this or b) to greedy or probably >a combination of these 2. > >Also don't come-up with excuses like well they should have taken care >that there records are still available but apparentlyyou never tried >to run a small independent record label. Most record labels are very >short on cash, and taking a gamble on releasing a record is a big >one, they might loose lots of money if they sell just 200 instead of >500 or whatever you invested. So picture this you are an artist and >you have to choose between releasing some exciting new material or >some classic you made 10 years ago... what would you do? > >So now can we quit this discussion on bootlegs and stop making up >excuses to tell that bootlegs are good because they aren't. >Bootlegging it just greedy... if you really want to buy them that is >fine but don't come to me telling me that bootlegging is a good thing. > >KJ > > > >On 4-jun-2005, at 13:26, Annie Wiggins wrote: > > > >> Hi >> >> This is my first message so go easy on me ;) >> >> I think its ok to bootleg tunes as long as they are sold as >> bootlegs are not >> made to look like the originals. Supplying to demand is fine - >> many people >> didn�t get or weren�t around when gems like virtual sex was released. >> Therefore giving people the chance to hear / play some of these >> tracks is >> fine by me - but blatantly ripping off the artwork or label is >> wrong. The >> 'new' pheerce citi 004 which htfr have been selling on their site >> is one of >> the examples where bootlegging has gone to new extremes - putting out >> releases on labels that don�t even exist. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: z66 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 04 June 2005 03:05 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: (313) virtual sex lp repressed! ACTUALLY IT'S BEEN >> BOOTLEGGED,BURN THE BOOTLEGGERS >> >> >> different musik, different qualities.. >> >> well, at least it makes these producers even with other producers of >> today [who might not been around that time]. in any case, i'm still >> being amazed, how much of good musik is being released every year.. >> just >> like others, i use labels and names as a reference point, but it >> always >> leads me to new, unknown names + every year i keep discovering gems >> i've >> missed >> >> i can well understand hunting classics which are unique for both that >> and this time, yet what i'm trying to say is: there's a supply but the >> demand seems to be lost in time >> >> >> ///Z >> >> >> >> Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote: >> >> >> >>> ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >>> From: z66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> ..and maybe they want *you* to move forward too:: to catch more new >>>> musik rather than being stick to your defined classics >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> if thats the case, maybe they should work on making better new music! >>> >>> tom >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________ >>> andythepooh.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 03/06/2005 >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 03/06/2005 >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________ andythepooh.com
