Author Topic: Bootleg Question  (Read 10544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Domenico of Lovetown

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,883
Bootleg Question
« on: January 02, 2010, 06:36:02 PM »
I'm still fairly new here in the forum.  I understand that the trading/offering of bootlegs is not allowed.  I've noticed very little discussion of bootleg recordings - is that allowed?



Offline m2

  • Administrator
  • Desert Rose
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,144
  • I love the smell of fresh forum killspam.
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2010, 07:41:48 PM »
Sure, talk about them all you want. :)

Offline nowurtalkin

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • music speaks & moves more than money talks & walks
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2010, 08:21:59 PM »
well, i wish i didn't find this 6 mo later...but i'd like to jump in anyway...m2...

and ask you...since you had that response for the questioner...

well...i have seen in the rules where it says no "file sharing" (can't recall at the moment, but it may have had added a couple more "qualifying" words, but i think i "get" the basic idea of "no file-sharing...ok...and i think the impetus behind the rules intentions, may or may not be debatable, depending on mods attitudes....but THAT is NOT my point or question here.....(at least not directly)...so at this time, i only ask (you, please) to say or interpret or define "file sharing". i.e., if u go to a file sharing site, file sharing is what takes place, but if you or i or anyone REFERENCES such a site, in a post here, as a place where a certain, special song or show, (legal & sanctioned only, of course), resides, or is hosted, well as far as i'm concerned THAT is not "file sharing" proper, or file sharing directly, but only pointing someone in the direction of where something resides. this is not to "split hairs". this is, imho, a major & important DISTINCTION, on several important levels. so that is my question to you, m2...do you consider the above described scenario as the same as (since it obviously is not directly itself) "file-sharing"? yes or no. and if so, why so....because would that not then mean...that anyone who ever makes a reference to almost anything (when you really think about it) or "any place" that might possibly contain illegal or questionable material or activity (of any sort or kind), and make mention or reference, on this site, to it....just talk about it, or mention the name of, or location of a song or concert, even if (in fact, esp. if..) it is perfectly legal in everyway....would be in violation, yes/no? is that what you are saying? is that the spirit of the rules that the author or yourself wishes to effect?

appreciate your time & answer...and i chose you, because the poster put his question up & you answered by saying to go right ahead and discuss away. i like that attitude, so i hope ur here.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 08:29:39 PM by nowurtalkin »

Offline m2

  • Administrator
  • Desert Rose
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,144
  • I love the smell of fresh forum killspam.
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2010, 11:36:09 PM »
Hi nowurtalkin --

Our moderators have already answered this question for you privately, but okay ... I'll play along and give you a public answer. Our forum rules state:

No trading, selling, or helping to distribute any songs, concerts, videos, etc.

If you reference sites where that kind of material is available, you are helping to distribute the material.

Hope that's clear.

Thx,
m2

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,730
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2010, 11:58:57 PM »
It's unclear m2.

You used too many paragraphs, and too much punctuation.

Offline nowurtalkin

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • music speaks & moves more than money talks & walks
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2010, 03:09:27 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi nowurtalkin --

Our moderators have already answered this question for you privately, but okay ... I'll play along and give you a public answer. Our forum rules state:

No trading, selling, or helping to distribute any songs, concerts, videos, etc.

If you reference sites where that kind of material is available, you are helping to distribute the material.

Hope that's clear.


Thx,
m2

i am completely failing to understand your (and other moderators) attitude. such as:  "...ok, but i'll play along & give u a public answer..." what is that supposed to mean? i'm not "playing any games here...not w/you or the other mod or anybody. i explained to you that i asked u this question because i came across that old question that you gave a decent answer on the subject, so i thought i would try w/you to get across certain elements that i had felt were getting missed. i had composed a post detailing what i meant, but felt really putoff & the attitude, etc., w/other mod. i also feel i was misled & outright lied to about something...plus, when i pointed the "inconsistency" out, the response was in effect, to ignore it & brush it off by telling me "how i should think" (as though there was something wrong w/my thinking), by telling me instead, that "i should just move on". i don't go for that at all. i came here by accident & then when i saw what the thread was about (october worship) i was astonished, because i had been trying elsewhere to see where u2 fans would have that exact same sort of sentiment (i could show you the posts i made, that ear this out), about the tunes from that era. as i had gone to the trouble to explain (so any readers would understand how i got there & what i saw, which was ironic & seemed "synchronistic" (octo-worship), so only at that point (of course since i didn't yet know u had any problem w/it) that i naturally couldn't wait...and THOUGHT i was generously bringing a gift TO JUST THE RIGHT PEOPLE!  i had no clue it was a violation, nor ever dreamed it would be. i also explained why i hadn't read the rules. all that explanations that i 1st included in my initial post, that y'all removed, was intended to let whoever...know that how the whole thing happened...as opposed to "a file sharer guy"....come here to do that. yes, i was informed right away about the rules & as soon as i got the chance i used the provided link & saw the reference to file sharing. but as i've tried to show, i thought it to be different, in some aspects, to what i had done, plus i had really good intentions, so i didn't take very well at all to the attitude, cold treatment & lack of even so much as a thankyou or to recognize those good intentions & the "circumstances" that brought me to your site. it just didn't "seem right", ya know?

and then i also saw somewhere in there, something to the effect of: "if u disagree w/rules, whatever...don't say so publically...only by private message." that, made me even more frustrated at you, as all this seemed to go against the basic tenets of free speech & openess (within reason). i always feel that when the peeps who are "running things" try to stifle disagreement, stop openess, not allow dissent, keep stuff private, etc., that it is dictatorial & needlessly "controlling".

that said, it is not missed on me that it is your forum & your rules & that you can do whatever you wish, but....1) i did not see the wording of the rules, such as you posted above in your reply. there is no mistaking what is meant in those words & i don't know why i read it differently, when i used the provided link. i still disagree w/it, on certain levels, but i see it & understand it now. but it's so hard to understand how/why you can have such a stance, while at the same time, seemingly contradict yourself, by not only allowing tons of direct links to youtube video/audio, as well as other links to content. (the fact that many of those youtube videos are technically illegal, according to youtube rules, is another issue, but not what i am talking about) i am talking about above where you clearly state:   "...to distribute any songs, concerts, videos, etc....", when all those links you have all over your site, are direct links to THOSE VERY THINGS! while i never gave any links to anything. i simply couldn't wait to tell octo worshippers about my 1 & only u2 recording of those very songs that i just accidently landed (by being linked to) in the middle of all the "worship"....TO MY UTTER ASTONISHMENT! and ironically the recording had sat w/me for 27 years, unshared EVER! until i also accidently discovered that it was a rare & prized possesion, for u2 fans. how can you ignore & fail to recognize these very important, special factors of the story. i could only think, with the answers & treatment i rcv'd right off the bat, that it was a matter of i was not being believed maybe...

again, i gave no links. i just said where to look. anybody can & does so everyday. obviously many folks here must go to these file sharing sites to get that which has very carefully been checked & handled & vetted...to be of a legal, non-released nature...and that which comes with the expressed blessing of bono & the band. yes, i saw the mention of "we cannot be the police of the 'bad stuff', but the 2 sites i mentioned are quite well known to only allow perfectly legal & acceptable files & you should know that. so with all the trouble they go to, to ensure that only allowable files are there, it is hard to understand why you would not be accepting of that. but ok, whatever your reasons...that's the tack you took....but for cryin-out-loud...in this case, you should have at the very least, recognized the good intention & the rare value. to just let them know where to look, from my heart, was not "file sharing" per se', regardless of you putting it in that characterization.

also....very important...i was told that my post was "modified" to remove the offensive (to you) part. i replied i was fine with that, but that i wanted to (on the side) discuss the finer definitions of what constitutes "file sharing" (because as i said, when i read what it said, at the provided link, i did not see it worded as clearly & definitively, as i see you put above). however when i went to look/see the "changes made", i saw none...so i thought he just "let it be"...but then later, the entire post was gone, so i asked him about it & he said that it was not him that did so, but that "another mod" saw that i had re-posted, or re-added that which the 1st mod had changed, and therefore removed my entire post. i replied that this was untrue...that i did no such thing & requested my "moderator modified" post be reposted. his reply was that it can't be done & that it's all my misunderstanding of things & that "i should just move on"...

well, it is wrong that he brushed over the fact that i said i did not change or undue anything, as i was accused of. that, should've been addressed, because it ain't true. it also ain't true that the 1st mod "fixed my post" & re-posted it, which is what he said he did. but that never occurred. all that actually did occur, was that it was there, in its orig state, then it was removed. those other things are not true. they appear...to a reasonable person....when hearing the facts that i just stated....to be a set of lies. i'm not categorically saying they are, but it sure reads that way. and the blatant refusal to explain those elements, when i brought them up, by telling me its all my fault & "to move on"....is the "cement" that makes it quite easily be seen as a set of lies. but why? i can only see it as that "control trip" that i spoke of earlier. OTHERWISE, MY POINTS WERE VALID...and deserved to be fairly addressed....that is, unless yours, and his, and (the mysterious) other mod (the one who supposedly removed my post) have another agenda.

the 1st mod, did also mention something about "Principle Management", and the assurance of "being shut down", if allowing what i said in my post. well, i certainly would not want that to happen, nor do i disrespect the fact of that, but i didn't know who or what principle management was. i cannot remember at the moment if i actually included that question in my last post to him, or if it was in the post i had composed earlier, but had never sent. in any event, i wanted to know, as a perfectly valid question, who that is, so that maybe i could pursue that angle more to get a better understanding for what is the problem with simple reference to legal, band sanctioned material. you see, while i realize fully, that this your site & your rules & all that...still...it is  also seen as a public forum & while it is not a problem for me to understand concepts of certain things are harmful, detrimental, unreasonable...(you can't yell fire in a crowded theater..) ...still....this question here that we are "discussing" (i know..i say "discussing"...you say "we rule", so get over it buddy), is to me...a very, very, important thing...involving freedom of speech & expression. you don't need to remind it's your site...i "get that"....but isn't it really ours? if something is not harmful in any way to anybody, but rather is very rewarding & happy bringing, and is an unusual set of circumstances, that someone (as i orig explained) went to alot of trouble, for the expressed purpose of a gift, to octo-song lovers, of an "out of the blue" recording, that no one had ever heard before, because i was the only one who had.....WELL...I SAY THAT IS DIFFERENT....than the what you have portrayed & characterized me as having done. sure, 'no file sharing' is a simple enough idea to understand, but this is not that simple.

now, i'm quite certain that you will not allow this post. but you will show what you, as an individual, and collectively (mods, management, whatever..) are made of, by either not allowing...or on the other hand...if you are SO RIGHT & RIGHTEOUS in what you're saying, and in making me out as just wrong, then what have you got to lose (hmmmm)? if the ppl agree w/your sentiments, then after all my long on & on post, i will only be ridiculed and thus go away, right? and i also still say my orig post should be treated as it was stated by the mod in the 1st place, where he said he was taking out non allowed part & that's all. but instead it was removed (after the lie that i "redid it". you should not, esp not as a moderator or administrator or official of any kind, fail to give the due importance deserved to someone who has been accused of undo-ing an officially made change, if they say it is not the case. blowing that off, is a serious breach of basic rights, regardless if you choose to characterize me in some other way. you would not like it, would you?

i think you might be paranoid & not post this. but i also think you likely have plenty of loyal subjects, so you should allow this, so i can get laughed at. don't forget...all the youtube DIRECT LINKS to all kinds of material, mostly "released material"; no link of or address of any kind was given by me. everybody here is fully aware of those 2 sites & free to go there & get stuff, legally, anytime they wish, so what's the (real) problem?....and what about the lies & the post removal?....and how about a bit of consideration for someone who stumbled here w/a great story & had the heart to give something.

rant over.

(the preceeding was brought to you by the "peace-o-my-mind" production co., inc.)

nowurtalkin   


p.s.   oh, or on 2nd thought, better yet, 4get this post & instead, repost the orig, w/the offending references removed & then see what is the reaction to.
====================================================================================================

decided to add this:

while i'm at it...i would still reinterate 1 or 2 points. one, as i had mentioned, i directed my questions/comments at you & here, where you find it necessary to point out that it's public, and put it in the context of "you'll play along"...that it was a response, my response, to you having had just finished stating (regardless 6 mo ago) to "go ahead, talk about it all you want!!"....so i thought "cool...perfect place & person to whom i might try to get another opinion on, that which i still felt unsettled on as not necessarily as cut & dry, in this case, as was being stated. i have no problem understanding it, or having clarity on what you 2 mods have said. it is the policy as stated in the rules, and the interpretation of it, as well as what's "behind it", that i take issue with. beyond that, the way it was "handled", as i have pointed out, i.e., what i was told was done, was not & how i was accused of doing something wrong to usurp the action of the mod (which never happened) & when i pointed that out, it was ignored & i was told to move along. you or he may think that is good & proper "moderation", but i do not see it as such. and i figuring that based on that style of "moderation", if "projected out", you will likely cut me off or ban me or some excercise of power...because you can. you know, i went back to look at the rule in question, because i thought at 1st, that it was actually more clearly specific about "file sharing" per se', but saw your reference to, above, which was less specific, so i went back to check & sure enough, just the 3 points: "no trading, no selling & no helping to distribute. well, obviously the 1st 2are not at issue here, so only the 3rd one. i posit that it is ambiguous in exactly what it means. sure, it's worded simple enough, but i truly find it "gray" in certain aspects. i know how you 2 mods love to jump in & say how simple it is what it says, but the truth is that on ea occasion that either of you have referenced it, you used you own, differently crafted way of conveying what it means, rather than the actual words it says. you did this time though & really it depends on the angle you take. you can say, "hey, it's simple" and indeed it can look that way, but honestly, the phrase "help to distibute", which is as far as i can see, are the only 3 words that apply in any way, shape or form to any of this, can easily be interpreted in more than one way. it would depend on what the author specifically had in mind, when he wrote it. for example, you mods have specifically stated to other forum members that it is fine to insert links to audio & video performances from other sites, youtube and otherwise. that is what was stated, simple as that. yet what that means, in effect, is that the material will be either copyrighted, protected, material, that is not supposed to, in many if not most cases, be even posted on youtube or other such sites, in the 1st place, because permission was not granted to do so, or, it is unofficial bootlegged material, which in that case, now it dependson various factors, as to whether it's ok to post on those sites or not, but regardless, still "boots", which clearly is 100% against your own rules, but seemingly depends on what you want to pick or choose to be "outside" of that "clear rule! i think you would be hard pressed to dispute what i just quite clearly laid out, unless of course you get your "helper" brisco, to put it in the "right word phrasing".  now, everything i just stated is my honest, objective, non-agendized, non-attitude containing, truthful view of this issue. so if you can at least momentarily give me the benefit of your doubt, perhaps you can see...where the whole thing is not necessarily w/o other interpretations. i am not trying to play a game. that is honest & it is a valid argument, as i see it. furthermore, please don't forget that i explained that i arrived at this site entirely & randomly by accident, as a result of a search about the flute sound, that someone had asked me about & i didn't know, nor did anyone else have an answer to, so i tried to help get the answer & the link plopped me smack down in the middle of "october worship"!!!! after having just spent several days begging people at other site to please commemt specifically about the unreal beauty & ethereal, dreamy sounds of "october/tomorrow", that was on my recording, but i had never before "discovered those 2 tunes & i was blown away by them, so i was begging those peeps to feedback on this specific thing, totally new to me....and then boom!....i'm get "transported" into the middle of "octo-worship". what a story! how can you fail to see the irony & the seeming synchronicity of it? and then i had to fight my way into "regis problems", which i only did out of pure amazment that i would now blow these people's minds with an extremely rare event! and if i was here to "file share", as in the "usual sense", i would have pasted in direct links to the material (you know, like the way you do here, all over the site). 

the point is yes, rules are rules, sometimes good, sometimes not so good, sometimes clear, sometimes gray or open for interpretation. but more importantly, and ver "real-life"...is the fact that sometimes there are real, true-blue, deserving of consideration, EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.  the whole story of what happened is just a really unusual one. a very special set of events. you didn't even get to hear the amazing "sub-story", where one of the 1st people to hear about the unearthing of my tape after all these years, posted that he was about to have his 1st wedding anniv w/a women who 27 yrs earlier had attended this show & had been pulled up on stage by bono & bono announced & intoduced her to the crowd, loud & clear, by name!....and within minutes of me upping the show, this guy, just by coincidence he stated, happened to take a look on the site & saw the show listed & he knew the story of what had happened to his now wife, because she had told him all about it, but no recording had ever been known to exist, so it was just "a story"...and she did not see this, only he did...so he posted this little story & then the guy who helped me get the show upped there, is a major war tour fanatic & he happened to see that guy's post & he had already been listening to the show over & over & had heard bono announce this girl on the tape, so he messaged back to the guy, asking him if by any chance was her name "so & so"....and i read that & i said to myself: "NO FREAKING WAY!!!" this could not be happening, it must be a joke... and then the guy posts back that indeed her name is the same. his new wife is that girl & i remember seeing this. and she has no idea about this recording and he told us that he has already made a cd & used the great artwork cover that the guy who helped me get the show up is a graphic designer & i obtained & sent him a pic of the inside of the actual gym where they played & that is incorporated into the cover. and he has wrapped it up & kept his mouth shut & said that it will be presented to her as "the best 1st anniv gift ever! and that it will blow her mind & he promised to post back about how all that goes. plus they are taking a trip to the area where the show happened & he said they might stop to check out the gym & i suggested he get a better hi rez pic than mine was & to bring in a port cd player into that gym & put on the song that ends with bono introducing his now wife, and to have a dance to it! what a story is that?

jeff         
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 10:23:32 AM by nowurtalkin »

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,730
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 03:55:02 AM »
Seriously dude, are you any chance to use the enter key, punctuation, or some form of comprehensibility?

You can argue the semantics of 'bootlegs' and 'trading', but you can't argue the semantics of the rules.

The key is not getting caught when you break them.


Offline nowurtalkin

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • music speaks & moves more than money talks & walks
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2010, 08:34:10 AM »
"Seriously dude, are you any chance to use the enter key, punctuation, or some form of comprehensibility?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's the 2nd time now, that you butt in to insert some snide and/or sarcastic remark to me. almost seems like you have adopted such behavior as "your job" or your 'nothing better to do' hobby. in either event, i'd say you may have found your calling. also, maybe i should apologize ahead of time about characterizing your remarks as i did, because in trying to read your comments, it looks like either 1) your 1st language may not be english, in which case i can't be sure enough of whatever that is up there, that you tried to say, but i may not follow your wrong grammar. i remember thinking the same thing about your 1st comment, but was left not able to figure exactly where you're coming from (or came from). the irony is that looking at your several comments this time, it appears as though you are critisizing my writing skills or english. i find that slightly amusing, when considering your absolutely nonsensical statement i pasted above, that...haha...ends with "comprehensibility"!!! that needs to go into ripley's believe it or not. thanks so much for your positive support & help.

nowurtalkin 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:04:43 PM by nowurtalkin »

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,730
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2010, 09:14:24 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Seriously dude, are you any chance to use the enter key, punctuation, or some form of comprehensibility?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's the 2nd time now, that you but in to insert some snide and/or sarcastic remark to me. almost seems like you have adopted such behavior as "your job" or your 'nothing better to do' hobby. in either event, i'd say you may have found your calling. also, maybe i should apologize ahead of time about characterizing your remarks as i did, because in trying to read your comments, it looks like either 1) your 1st language may not be english, in which case i can't be sure enough of whatever that is up there, that you tried to say, but i may not follow your wrong grammar. i remember thinking the same thing about your 1st comment, but was left not able to figure exactly where you're coming from (or came from). the irony is that looking at your several comments this time, it appears as though you are critisizing my writing skills or english. i find that slightly amusing, when considering your absolutely nonsensical statement i pasted above, that...haha...ends with "comprehensibility"!!! that needs to go into ripley's believe it or not. thanks so much for your positive support & help.

nowurtalkin 


Irony. Irony.

It's a members forum. I'm a member. i had my say.

You don't want input from others, PM the mods.

Sounds like you did, yet you still want a public fight or discussion. So I'm playing too. Coz it's fun!

Plenty of places to trade bootlegs if you look around, daughter.




InThisHeartland

  • Guest
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2010, 11:36:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi nowurtalkin --

Our moderators have already answered this question for you privately, but okay ... I'll play along and give you a public answer. Our forum rules state:

No trading, selling, or helping to distribute any songs, concerts, videos, etc.

If you reference sites where that kind of material is available, you are helping to distribute the material.

Hope that's clear.


Thx,
m2

i am completely failing to understand your (and other moderators) attitude. such as:  "...ok, but i'll play along & give u a public answer..." what is that supposed to mean? i'm not "playing any games here...not w/you or the other mod or anybody. i explained to you that i asked u this question because i came across that old question that you gave a decent answer on the subject, so i thought i would try w/you to get across certain elements that i had felt were getting missed. i had composed a post detailing what i meant, but felt really putoff & the attitude, etc., w/other mod. i also feel i was misled & outright lied to about something...plus, when i pointed the "inconsistency" out, the response was in effect, to ignore it & brush it off by telling me "how i should think" (as though there was something wrong w/my thinking), by telling me instead, that "i should just move on". i don't go for that at all. i came here by accident & then when i saw what the thread was about (october worship) i was astonished, because i had been trying elsewhere to see where u2 fans would have that exact same sort of sentiment (i could show you the posts i made, that ear this out), about the tunes from that era. as i had gone to the trouble to explain (so any readers would understand how i got there & what i saw, which was ironic & seemed "synchronistic" (octo-worship), so only at that point (of course since i didn't yet know u had any problem w/it) that i naturally couldn't wait...and THOUGHT i was generously bringing a gift TO JUST THE RIGHT PEOPLE!  i had no clue it was a violation, nor ever dreamed it would be. i also explained why i hadn't read the rules. all that explanations that i 1st included in my initial post, that y'all removed, was intended to let whoever...know that how the whole thing happened...as opposed to "a file sharer guy"....come here to do that. yes, i was informed right away about the rules & as soon as i got the chance i used the provided link & saw the reference to file sharing. but as i've tried to show, i thought it to be different, in some aspects, to what i had done, plus i had really good intentions, so i didn't take very well at all to the attitude, cold treatment & lack of even so much as a thankyou or to recognize those good intentions & the "circumstances" that brought me to your site. it just didn't "seem right", ya know?

and then i also saw somewhere in there, something to the effect of: "if u disagree w/rules, whatever...don't say so publically...only by private message." that, made me even more frustrated at you, as all this seemed to go against the basic tenets of free speech & openess (within reason). i always feel that when the peeps who are "running things" try to stifle disagreement, stop openess, not allow dissent, keep stuff private, etc., that it is dictatorial & needlessly "controlling".

that said, it is not missed on me that it is your forum & your rules & that you can do whatever you wish, but....1) i did not see the wording of the rules, such as you posted above in your reply. there is no mistaking what is meant in those words & i don't know why i read it differently, when i used the provided link. i still disagree w/it, on certain levels, but i see it & understand it now. but it's so hard to understand how/why you can have such a stance, while at the same time, seemingly contradict yourself, by not only allowing tons of direct links to youtube video/audio, as well as other links to content. (the fact that many of those youtube videos are technically illegal, according to youtube rules, is another issue, but not what i am talking about) i am talking about above where you clearly state:   "...to distribute any songs, concerts, videos, etc....", when all those links you have all over your site, are direct links to THOSE VERY THINGS! while i never gave any links to anything. i simply couldn't wait to tell octo worshippers about my 1 & only u2 recording of those very songs that i just accidently landed (by being linked to) in the middle of all the "worship"....TO MY UTTER ASTONISHMENT! and ironically the recording had sat w/me for 27 years, unshared EVER! until i also accidently discovered that it was a rare & prized possesion, for u2 fans. how can you ignore & fail to recognize these very important, special factors of the story. i could only think, with the answers & treatment i rcv'd right off the bat, that it was a matter of i was not being believed maybe...

again, i gave no links. i just said where to look. anybody can & does so everyday. obviously many folks here must go to these file sharing sites to get that which has very carefully been checked & handled & vetted...to be of a legal, non-released nature...and that which comes with the expressed blessing of bono & the band. yes, i saw the mention of "we cannot be the police of the 'bad stuff', but the 2 sites i mentioned are quite well known to only allow perfectly legal & acceptable files & you should know that. so with all the trouble they go to, to ensure that only allowable files are there, it is hard to understand why you would not be accepting of that. but ok, whatever your reasons...that's the tack you took....but for cryin-out-loud...in this case, you should have at the very least, recognized the good intention & the rare value. to just let them know where to look, from my heart, was not "file sharing" per se', regardless of you putting it in that characterization.

also....very important...i was told that my post was "modified" to remove the offensive (to you) part. i replied i was fine with that, but that i wanted to (on the side) discuss the finer definitions of what constitutes "file sharing" (because as i said, when i read what it said, at the provided link, i did not see it worded as clearly & definitively, as i see you put above). however when i went to look/see the "changes made", i saw none...so i thought he just "let it be"...but then later, the entire post was gone, so i asked him about it & he said that it was not him that did so, but that "another mod" saw that i had re-posted, or re-added that which the 1st mod had changed, and therefore removed my entire post. i replied that this was untrue...that i did no such thing & requested my "moderator modified" post be reposted. his reply was that it can't be done & that it's all my misunderstanding of things & that "i should just move on"...

well, it is wrong that he brushed over the fact that i said i did not change or undue anything, as i was accused of. that, should've been addressed, because it ain't true. it also ain't true that the 1st mod "fixed my post" & re-posted it, which is what he said he did. but that never occurred. all that actually did occur, was that it was there, in its orig state, then it was removed. those other things are not true. they appear...to a reasonable person....when hearing the facts that i just stated....to be a set of lies. i'm not categorically saying they are, but it sure reads that way. and the blatant refusal to explain those elements, when i brought them up, by telling me its all my fault & "to move on"....is the "cement" that makes it quite easily be seen as a set of lies. but why? i can only see it as that "control trip" that i spoke of earlier. OTHERWISE, MY POINTS WERE VALID...and deserved to be fairly addressed....that is, unless yours, and his, and (the mysterious) other mod (the one who supposedly removed my post) have another agenda.

the 1st mod, did also mention something about "Principle Management", and the assurance of "being shut down", if allowing what i said in my post. well, i certainly would not want that to happen, nor do i disrespect the fact of that, but i didn't know who or what principle management was. i cannot remember at the moment if i actually included that question in my last post to him, or if it was in the post i had composed earlier, but had never sent. in any event, i wanted to know, as a perfectly valid question, who that is, so that maybe i could pursue that angle more to get a better understanding for what is the problem with simple reference to legal, band sanctioned material. you see, while i realize fully, that this your site & your rules & all that...still...it is  also seen as a public forum & while it is not a problem for me to understand concepts of certain things are harmful, detrimental, unreasonable...(you can't yell fire in a crowded theater..) ...still....this question here that we are "discussing" (i know..i say "discussing"...you say "we rule", so get over it buddy), is to me...a very, very, important thing...involving freedom of speech & expression. you don't need to remind it's your site...i "get that"....but isn't it really ours? if something is not harmful in any way to anybody, but rather is very rewarding & happy bringing, and is an unusual set of circumstances, that someone (as i orig explained) went to alot of trouble, for the expressed purpose of a gift, to octo-song lovers, of an "out of the blue" recording, that no one had ever heard before, because i was the only one who had.....WELL...I SAY THAT IS DIFFERENT....than the what you have portrayed & characterized me as having done. sure, 'no file sharing' is a simple enough idea to understand, but this is not that simple.

now, i'm quite certain that you will not allow this post. but you will show what you, as an individual, and collectively (mods, management, whatever..) are made of, by either not allowing...or on the other hand...if you are SO RIGHT & RIGHTEOUS in what you're saying, and in making me out as just wrong, then what have you got to lose (hmmmm)? if the ppl agree w/your sentiments, then after all my long on & on post, i will only be ridiculed and thus go away, right? and i also still say my orig post should be treated as it was stated by the mod in the 1st place, where he said he was taking out non allowed part & that's all. but instead it was removed (after the lie that i "redid it". you should not, esp not as a moderator or administrator or official of any kind, fail to give the due importance deserved to someone who has been accused of undo-ing an officially made change, if they say it is not the case. blowing that off, is a serious breach of basic rights, regardless if you choose to characterize me in some other way. you would not like it, would you?

i think you might be paranoid & not post this. but i also think you likely have plenty of loyal subjects, so you should allow this, so i can get laughed at. don't forget...all the youtube DIRECT LINKS to all kinds of material, mostly "released material"; no link of or address of any kind was given by me. everybody here is fully aware of those 2 sites & free to go there & get stuff, legally, anytime they wish, so what's the (real) problem?....and what about the lies & the post removal?....and how about a bit of consideration for someone who stumbled here w/a great story & had the heart to give something.

rant over.

(the preceeding was brought to you by the "peace-o-my-mind" production co., inc.)

nowurtalkin   


p.s.   oh, or on 2nd thought, better yet, 4get this post & instead, repost the orig, w/the offending references removed & then see what is the reaction to.
====================================================================================================

decided to add this:

while i'm at it...i would still reinterate 1 or 2 points. one, as i had mentioned, i directed my questions/comments at you & here, where you find it necessary to point out that it's public, and put it in the context of "you'll play along"...that it was a response, my response, to you having had just finished stating (regardless 6 mo ago) to "go ahead, talk about it all you want!!"....so i thought "cool...perfect place & person to whom i might try to get another opinion on, that which i still felt unsettled on as not necessarily as cut & dry, in this case, as was being stated. i have no problem understanding it, or having clarity on what you 2 mods have said. it is the policy as stated in the rules, and the interpretation of it, as well as what's "behind it", that i take issue with. beyond that, the way it was "handled", as i have pointed out, i.e., what i was told was done, was not & how i was accused of doing something wrong to usurp the action of the mod (which never happened) & when i pointed that out, it was ignored & i was told to move along. you or he may think that is good & proper "moderation", but i do not see it as such. and i figuring that based on that style of "moderation", if "projected out", you will likely cut me off or ban me or some excercise of power...because you can. you know, i went back to look at the rule in question, because i thought at 1st, that it was actually more clearly specific about "file sharing" per se', but saw your reference to, above, which was less specific, so i went back to check & sure enough, just the 3 points: "no trading, no selling & no helping to distribute. well, obviously the 1st 2are not at issue here, so only the 3rd one. i posit that it is ambiguous in exactly what it means. sure, it's worded simple enough, but i truly find it "gray" in certain aspects. i know how you 2 mods love to jump in & say how simple it is what it says, but the truth is that on ea occasion that either of you have referenced it, you used you own, differently crafted way of conveying what it means, rather than the actual words it says. you did this time though & really it depends on the angle you take. you can say, "hey, it's simple" and indeed it can look that way, but honestly, the phrase "help to distibute", which is as far as i can see, are the only 3 words that apply in any way, shape or form to any of this, can easily be interpreted in more than one way. it would depend on what the author specifically had in mind, when he wrote it. for example, you mods have specifically stated to other forum members that it is fine to insert links to audio & video performances from other sites, youtube and otherwise. that is what was stated, simple as that. yet what that means, in effect, is that the material will be either copyrighted, protected, material, that is not supposed to, in many if not most cases, be even posted on youtube or other such sites, in the 1st place, because permission was not granted to do so, or, it is unofficial bootlegged material, which in that case, now it dependson various factors, as to whether it's ok to post on those sites or not, but regardless, still "boots", which clearly is 100% against your own rules, but seemingly depends on what you want to pick or choose to be "outside" of that "clear rule! i think you would be hard pressed to dispute what i just quite clearly laid out, unless of course you get your "helper" brisco, to put it in the "right word phrasing".  now, everything i just stated is my honest, objective, non-agendized, non-attitude containing, truthful view of this issue. so if you can at least momentarily give me the benefit of your doubt, perhaps you can see...where the whole thing is not necessarily w/o other interpretations. i am not trying to play a game. that is honest & it is a valid argument, as i see it. furthermore, please don't forget that i explained that i arrived at this site entirely & randomly by accident, as a result of a search about the flute sound, that someone had asked me about & i didn't know, nor did anyone else have an answer to, so i tried to help get the answer & the link plopped me smack down in the middle of "october worship"!!!! after having just spent several days begging people at other site to please commemt specifically about the unreal beauty & ethereal, dreamy sounds of "october/tomorrow", that was on my recording, but i had never before "discovered those 2 tunes & i was blown away by them, so i was begging those peeps to feedback on this specific thing, totally new to me....and then boom!....i'm get "transported" into the middle of "octo-worship". what a story! how can you fail to see the irony & the seeming synchronicity of it? and then i had to fight my way into "regis problems", which i only did out of pure amazment that i would now blow these people's minds with an extremely rare event! and if i was here to "file share", as in the "usual sense", i would have pasted in direct links to the material (you know, like the way you do here, all over the site). 

the point is yes, rules are rules, sometimes good, sometimes not so good, sometimes clear, sometimes gray or open for interpretation. but more importantly, and ver "real-life"...is the fact that sometimes there are real, true-blue, deserving of consideration, EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.  the whole story of what happened is just a really unusual one. a very special set of events. you didn't even get to hear the amazing "sub-story", where one of the 1st people to hear about the unearthing of my tape after all these years, posted that he was about to have his 1st wedding anniv w/a women who 27 yrs earlier had attended this show & had been pulled up on stage by bono & bono announced & intoduced her to the crowd, loud & clear, by name!....and within minutes of me upping the show, this guy, just by coincidence he stated, happened to take a look on the site & saw the show listed & he knew the story of what had happened to his now wife, because she had told him all about it, but no recording had ever been known to exist, so it was just "a story"...and she did not see this, only he did...so he posted this little story & then the guy who helped me get the show upped there, is a major war tour fanatic & he happened to see that guy's post & he had already been listening to the show over & over & had heard bono announce this girl on the tape, so he messaged back to the guy, asking him if by any chance was her name "so & so"....and i read that & i said to myself: "NO FREAKING WAY!!!" this could not be happening, it must be a joke... and then the guy posts back that indeed her name is the same. his new wife is that girl & i remember seeing this. and she has no idea about this recording and he told us that he has already made a cd & used the great artwork cover that the guy who helped me get the show up is a graphic designer & i obtained & sent him a pic of the inside of the actual gym where they played & that is incorporated into the cover. and he has wrapped it up & kept his mouth shut & said that it will be presented to her as "the best 1st anniv gift ever! and that it will blow her mind & he promised to post back about how all that goes. plus they are taking a trip to the area where the show happened & he said they might stop to check out the gym & i suggested he get a better hi rez pic than mine was & to bring in a port cd player into that gym & put on the song that ends with bono introducing his now wife, and to have a dance to it! what a story is that?

jeff         

"Biggest quote ever!" award goes to me.

 :D :D :D

Offline JoshuaTree94

  • Deep In the Heart
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,822
  • You bury your treasure where it can't be found
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2010, 12:35:28 PM »
nowurtalkin, Briscoe's just being briscoe. :D

Offline nowurtalkin

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • music speaks & moves more than money talks & walks
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2010, 02:57:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Seriously dude, are you any chance to use the enter key, punctuation, or some form of comprehensibility?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that's the 2nd time now, that you but in to insert some snide and/or sarcastic remark to me. almost seems like you have adopted such behavior as "your job" or your 'nothing better to do' hobby. in either event, i'd say you may have found your calling. also, maybe i should apologize ahead of time about characterizing your remarks as i did, because in trying to read your comments, it looks like either 1) your 1st language may not be english, in which case i can't be sure enough of whatever that is up there, that you tried to say, but i may not follow your wrong grammar. i remember thinking the same thing about your 1st comment, but was left not able to figure exactly where you're coming from (or came from). the irony is that looking at your several comments this time, it appears as though you are critisizing my writing skills or english. i find that slightly amusing, when considering your absolutely nonsensical statement i pasted above, that...haha...ends with "comprehensibility"!!! that needs to go into ripley's believe it or not. thanks so much for your positive support & help.

nowurtalkin 


Irony. Irony.

It's a members forum. I'm a member. i had my say.

You don't want input from others, PM the mods.

Sounds like you did, yet you still want a public fight or discussion. So I'm playing too. Coz it's fun!

Plenty of places to trade bootlegs if you look around, daughter.





disco, you are so helpful & informative. how lucky they are (and i) to have you on the standby & ready! thankyou for informing me that this is a public forum. who knows how long i may have helplessly floundered around, not ever realizing that, without you? however, it might also be said, if one were me, and guess what? ..i am!...that i fully recognize you are a member, and have every right to jump in any to you please (which i bet is often, huh?). if i were paying as good attention to the proceedings, as you are, i might also add that 1) you're right, i specifically chose in this case to say what i had to say, publically, and, as a matter of fact, i went to the trouble of explaining why i did. normally, there would be no reason to explain this, you just say it, because there is nothing to hide, which is usually my case, but i felt the need to explain it, since the "comment had been made by mod to point out that i chose public, so he would "play along" (even though it not a game i play), so the point is that it is obvious that it was my choice, yet you try to make it sound as though it was my mistake. sorry, i have this delusion that i know exactly what i'm doing & saying.

also, i said nothing about not wanting any input, except in my initial post here, i wanted specifically to ask & rx answer from the gentleman who had answerec the orig question, from 6 mo ago, that i had noticed at the top of the list, and that the mod said "go right ahead and say what you want", but then that guy disappeared. i liked the reply, so i reopened the thread. so i requested an answer just from him at 1st, realizing about how lurkers love to jump in. so i fully expected someone, much like yourself, would do so, but made the request only to get his attention. if i didn't want anybody to see nor could handle anyone else replying, then i would have to be prettttyyyyy durn dumb...to not have simply made it a pm, now wouldn't i? but again, so indebted to you, for your knowledge. i guess you musta realized pretty quick that i just got off the boat 2 days ago. very intuitive!

"so now you want a public fight or discussion"

uhhhh....that's an interesting way to put it...i'm not trying to fight w/anyone. i don't see the point or purpose of this forum as a place to fight, but i guess you see it that way from your point of view, which is strange, because i'm normally respetful towards ppl, and live by the g-rule. but as to "public discussion"....well you see...if you had read the entire of everything i'd posted so far, about the entire matter, you would know that it was my point & my wish...to make this whole question public, but in a nice way. of course you could not possibly have read ALL of it, because my orig post was deleted. you never got to even see it. it explained everything. it wasn't supposed to be deleted. the mod had a problem w/it because i offered something up innocently & in violation of his opinion,  but i was told that only the offending part was trimmed out from my post. i thought under the circumstances, that was quite fair & i stated as much, and said i would take up the question of "sharing" in a seperate way, because my orig post was much more than just that. but when i looked, my entire post had been removed, contrary to what the mod had said. so when i asked about that, he told me that he didn't do it & some "other" mod had done it, supposedly because i had put back into my post what the 1st mod took out...but that isn't true, as i never did any such thing, nor was my post ever put in (with the trim-out) so it was not true. when i stated that part, it was ignored & i was advised to "move on".

now, that is what happened. and that is not right. if you would find it ok to have yourself treated in that manner, well that would be the difference between us.

as to you wanting to "play" & that you are "having fun"....please do...and please continue to. it is a good thing, to be so easily amused. in fact, i should apologize to you now, while i have the opportunity...they likely will boot me outta here sooner than later, and i think it's good that you found me to follow around and keep me in line & so informed as to "the way it is"...but after they boot me, you will find someone else very quickly, i trust, to help.

as to trading bootlegs, i did not come here to trade bootlegs. of course you already knew that, because i'm sure you did your himework on me, right? it just turned out as "one a dem things"...but i will tell you that until i came here, in the accidental way that i wound up offering a "gift" (actually, just where to find it, which everybody already knows anyway, so what a waste of time, one could surmise), but before that, i never traded a tape or a show in my life. never. not one. and that should help to show & prove that in this case, it was a "different kind of thing, but really, really, "worth it", thus my diligence. and of course there are many sites to share music. i know all about them & have used them, but never traded anything until now. i had already done so w/my show. i didn't come here for that at all. 

as to your comment: "...look around daughter, well i have no clue as to your meaning, but again tells me english is not your best language. but it reminds me...i raised 2 daughters, by myself, to adulthood & you are reminding me of some of the scenarios that arose.

keep up the good work!

nowurtalkin   
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 09:02:26 PM by nowurtalkin »

Offline nowurtalkin

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • music speaks & moves more than money talks & walks
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2010, 03:06:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
nowurtalkin, Briscoe's just being briscoe. :D

hello joshua tree. there's a few of them out here in the desert of az (that was orig gonna be a movie, but they changed it to "the wizard of oz", at the last minute. so you say that disco is not imitating someone else, nor has "other personalities"...he is being his own real self...yeah well i thought it was no act either. i like disco...he is there for me!!!....and there for me to bounce my thoughts off, so people don't think i'm just talking to myself. we all have purpose, but sometimes not on purpose. (did i say that?)

Offline Sledge

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 683
  • There's a place i go high and far away
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2010, 03:10:19 PM »
And you know it's time to go

Offline Joe90usa

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,570
  • Dragons Rule! Catfish Drool.
Re: Bootleg Question
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2010, 03:13:37 PM »
1) Principle Management Limited is the company that manages U2, the legal side of the band. If you want to put a face and name to that organization, think Paul McGuinness. While the band itself is fine with boots and distribution of those boots within certain parameters, Principle Management is not. The PM side of the issue carries more weight with us for a multitude of reasons and so we have rules in place to support that point of view.

2) Your argument on why you should be able to post about the show you have seems to come down to "it's a gift" as opposed to you being "just a file sharer." The intent does not change action itself. It's clearly file sharing and not allowed.

3) The reason I recommended you "just move forward" on this issue is our stance is not going to change. You may feel you have been called to fight this battle for the common good, but there is no battle to be fought. I tried to save you some time and the construction of a post that visits and revisits the same points. See Point 1 above for more details as to why we won't be changing our view at this point in time.

We appreciate your point of view and good intentions, but we can't allow the sharing of the concert you recorded on this board. Numerous moderators have made this clear to you and after having made your case, we won't be changing our stance on the issue and we've explained why (again) in this post.