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
