@U2 Forum

@U2 HQ => Feedback, Suggestions and Help Desk => Topic started by: Domenico of Lovetown on January 02, 2010, 06:36:02 PM

Title: Bootleg Question
Post by: Domenico of Lovetown 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?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: m2 on January 02, 2010, 07:41:48 PM
Sure, talk about them all you want. :)
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin 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.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: m2 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
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 03, 2010, 11:58:57 PM
It's unclear m2.

You used too many paragraphs, and too much punctuation.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin 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         
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque 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.

Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin 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 
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque 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.



Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: InThisHeartland 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
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: JoshuaTree94 on August 04, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
nowurtalkin, Briscoe's just being briscoe. :D
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin 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   
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin 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?)
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Sledge on August 04, 2010, 03:10:19 PM
And you know it's time to go
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Joe90usa 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.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 04, 2010, 04:15:54 PM
do you breathe when you talk, darling?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 04, 2010, 08:55:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 04, 2010, 09:13:11 PM
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band. do i have that correct? i will wait to make sure i do. but quickly, if so, i find thay way interesting. i could certainly understand the basic idea that a mngmt co might have a prob w/free "trading" of live stuff, but the rub is that if said company works directly for an employer who states differently, i would like to know how in the heck such a scenario can be a "workable" thing between them?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 04, 2010, 09:16:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
do you breathe when you talk, darling?

no, do you when you....nevermind. 
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: InThisHeartland on August 04, 2010, 09:40:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?

It's a U2 lyric and the poster probably is commenting on how he/she doesn't want to get involved in this discussion. Probably not directed at anyone at all.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 04, 2010, 09:57:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band.

The band can change management at any time.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Joe90usa on August 04, 2010, 09:59:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band. do i have that correct? i will wait to make sure i do. but quickly, if so, i find thay way interesting. i could certainly understand the basic idea that a mngmt co might have a prob w/free "trading" of live stuff, but the rub is that if said company works directly for an employer who states differently, i would like to know how in the heck such a scenario can be a "workable" thing between them?

You are correct in stating the band and PM have different opinions on protecting the band's performances. Keep in mind that they have different goals. The band's job is to win as many fans to influence sales as best they can via recordings, concerts and other public appearances. PM's job is to protect those earnings and promote the band as best they can by insuring that legalities are in place to ensure that these things happen as best the market can bare. PM works under the guidance of the band in matters that pertain to the band (PM has other clients as well but it was created to be the legal arm of U2 initially).

Taking into account these two divergent purposes, which side of the fence (on bootlegs) should the band come down on if they are doing their job? Which side of the fence should PM come down on if they are doing their job? In this configuration on this issue, does the band maximize itself in the eyes of their fans while being able to point their finger at PM for not giving fans what they want...even though PM is working for the band and doing what they are told to do?

Image is everything.  8)
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 04, 2010, 10:11:41 PM
OK, vitriol aside...nowurtalkin, the reasons for this site not allowing bootleg trading have been described you don't have to agree with them but you have to accept that they are not going to change as they are the rules of the site, there are so many sites out there that allow you to trade bootlegs, U2 and otherwise, so, y'know, head over to them and trade to your heart's content and get all of the stuff that U2 want you to have but PM don't want you to have. That sounds quite easy and would be a good approach to growing your collection of brilliant live recordings (as I have) and you'll find (that many others have) as well so that they can have access to some amazing live (and unreleased) recordings to listen to.

I've formatted my response so it's easier to comprehend.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 04, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?

And, yep, give the guy a prize...
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 04, 2010, 10:17:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?

It's a U2 lyric and the poster probably is commenting on how he/she doesn't want to get involved in this discussion. Probably not directed at anyone at all.
thanx inthis...funny, but like 2 sec b4 i read ur reply. that thought occurred to me, but since i didn't recognize for that, i reverted to "it must be a comment (neg) to me, because as brisco will tell u i can be easily recognized as a darling...
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Midnight is Where the Day Begins on August 04, 2010, 10:17:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?

I think you're overreacting a bit.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 04, 2010, 10:21:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band.

The band can change management at any time.

and your point is...? i mean obviously the richest band in the world can do pretty much what they want. how does that apply to any of my questions?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 04, 2010, 10:28:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band.

The band can change management at any time.

and your point is...? i mean obviously the richest band in the world can do pretty much what they want. how does that apply to any of my questions?

It applies to your point about the feelings of the band being in direct conflict with the responsibilities of the management.

i agree with you that there is a gulf between 'we don't care about people sharing live recordings' from the band, and the more heavy handed approach taken by record companies and management.

But my point about them being able to change at any time...

Well, if the philosophy IS at odds with what U2 want, there are many things they can do.

Change management companies, to one that will allow free live recordings being traded by fans
Change record companies (though this would be trickier) to one that won't pursue any piracy suits in exchange for having U2 on the books

What I'm saying is clear, though I can see why the paragraphing and punctuation has thrown you somewhat.

If U2 - the band - are so fundamentally opposed to Principle Mgmt - their agents - pursuing piracy proliferators , they can change management companies.

So from this we can conclude that they're really not too fussed about what PM do, so long as their commercial interests are protected. And that's well and good for a commercial entity, which is what U2 are.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 04, 2010, 11:20:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band. do i have that correct? i will wait to make sure i do. but quickly, if so, i find thay way interesting. i could certainly understand the basic idea that a mngmt co might have a prob w/free "trading" of live stuff, but the rub is that if said company works directly for an employer who states differently, i would like to know how in the heck such a scenario can be a "workable" thing between them?

You are correct in stating the band and PM have different opinions on protecting the band's performances. Keep in mind that they have different goals. The band's job is to win as many fans to influence sales as best they can via recordings, concerts and other public appearances. PM's job is to protect those earnings and promote the band as best they can by insuring that legalities are in place to ensure that these things happen as best the market can bare. PM works under the guidance of the band in matters that pertain to the band (PM has other clients as well but it was created to be the legal arm of U2 initially).

Taking into account these two divergent purposes, which side of the fence (on bootlegs) should the band come down on if they are doing their job? Which side of the fence should PM come down on if they are doing their job? In this configuration on this issue, does the band maximize itself in the eyes of their fans while being able to point their finger at PM for not giving fans what they want...even though PM is working for the band and doing what they are told to do?

Image is everything.  8)

joe, i understand the workings of business & mngmt & the obvious goals. those points don't really speak much to the question of a "compatable working relationship", esp w/such a non-trivial issue. i mean when u think about it, that is a huge conflict, with the irony that they both have the same ultimate common goal. i can see right off, that it cannot be as simple as what has so far been said about it here. there is gauranteed much more to it than meets the eye, in terms of how such a basic conflict could be "a workable" situation when relating it to what you have said about how they (would like automatically shut you down) in other words, i cannot envision how the band & the mgmt could sit down for a meeting & bono says...well, what he's said about it, and then mgmt speaks up & says: "hey guess what...there's that @u2 site (or whoever...) and they are allowing posters to tell other forum members where they can find unreleased audience boots, so sorry boss, but in spite of your opinion on the matter & regardless that you are the richest band in the world, we are shutting them down tomorrow, followed by all the rest". <bono/band> "oh...uh...ok...dang it!

i am not seeing that as a viable scenario. the only way i could see that to actually be the case, is if indeed it was the mgmt team that was "leaving" in the morning, or even if this was a very new and/or short lived situation.

this idea reminds me of a defendant/lawyer thing, where the court demands the defendant have a lawyer, but the defendant wants to represent himself & this irks the lawyer to no end, but the end is that one of them has to give in to the other, in order for the case to proceed, because the conflict is simplt too fundimental & they can't both do what they want. it must be one or the other. (by the way, pardon me if you went on to cover any of that in ur reply. i see an idea & i get immed provoked to say what i think...perhaps b4 alzeimers or something sets in)

what you have described as "different goals", i see as more in the big picture, as the same goal, which the best marketing is the ultimate goal. now, while their ideas on a common aspect, such as the boots, there is no way i believe it can coexist on the level you say it is. i believe there must be different reality than that. in fact if based on the garcia-esque reasoning that bono see this question as, and his apparent strong convictions about things, i'm not buying that right now he would say "go right ahead...it is fine with me...you have my blessing....and i am flattered & humbled by your adoration...and there's no more room in my bank anyways.....but....sorry, mgmt will be busting you forthwith. nah...can't see that...

and by the way, your initial (one of them) explanation of this conflict w/you, joe, in your capacity, and using the forum rules section as your reference, stated that the reason for the forum's problem, was you didn't have the time to police what's ok & not. that is a completely different reason, with seemingly nothing to do with this PM reason thing. joe, has anybody ever accused you of being a little slippery? just sayin...

oh, i just read your last paragraph. that is a very good observation of the whole, that (tip o the hat..) does indeed seem to sorta "tie it all together" and provide a plausable answer to how this major conflict could keep breating.  (even if you next post has a whole new one..), but...it also is to me, undeniably hypocritical. how can the band sign off on their (mgmt) checks, with the knowledge that in effect, in the end, what bono is saying is a lie, because it is.

hang on, i have to catch my breath now....    

p.s. oh, and i 4got, if this is true...how could sites the torrent sites be able to go on, for years, with no problem (as to u2)???
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 05, 2010, 12:10:14 AM
Has anyone accused you, nowurtalking, of having a serious nerve coming to a forum and using every post you've made to basically attack moderators and accuse them of being 'slippery' and duplicitous? Just sayin...

I don't know if this phrase is comprehensible in your part of the world, but pull your head in sweetheart.

You've got to earn the right to fight with the mods you know  ;D
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Joe90usa on August 05, 2010, 12:39:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band. do i have that correct? i will wait to make sure i do. but quickly, if so, i find thay way interesting. i could certainly understand the basic idea that a mngmt co might have a prob w/free "trading" of live stuff, but the rub is that if said company works directly for an employer who states differently, i would like to know how in the heck such a scenario can be a "workable" thing between them?

You are correct in stating the band and PM have different opinions on protecting the band's performances. Keep in mind that they have different goals. The band's job is to win as many fans to influence sales as best they can via recordings, concerts and other public appearances. PM's job is to protect those earnings and promote the band as best they can by insuring that legalities are in place to ensure that these things happen as best the market can bare. PM works under the guidance of the band in matters that pertain to the band (PM has other clients as well but it was created to be the legal arm of U2 initially).

Taking into account these two divergent purposes, which side of the fence (on bootlegs) should the band come down on if they are doing their job? Which side of the fence should PM come down on if they are doing their job? In this configuration on this issue, does the band maximize itself in the eyes of their fans while being able to point their finger at PM for not giving fans what they want...even though PM is working for the band and doing what they are told to do?

Image is everything.  8)

joe, i understand the workings of business & mngmt & the obvious goals. those points don't really speak much to the question of a "compatable working relationship", esp w/such a non-trivial issue. i mean when u think about it, that is a huge conflict, with the irony that they both have the same ultimate common goal. i can see right off, that it cannot be as simple as what has so far been said about it here. there is gauranteed much more to it than meets the eye, in terms of how such a basic conflict could be "a workable" situation when relating it to what you have said about how they (would like automatically shut you down) in other words, i cannot envision how the band & the mgmt could sit down for a meeting & bono says...well, what he's said about it, and then mgmt speaks up & says: "hey guess what...there's that @u2 site (or whoever...) and they are allowing posters to tell other forum members where they can find unreleased audience boots, so sorry boss, but in spite of your opinion on the matter & regardless that you are the richest band in the world, we are shutting them down tomorrow, followed by all the rest". <bono/band> "oh...uh...ok...dang it!

i am not seeing that as a viable scenario. the only way i could see that to actually be the case, is if indeed it was the mgmt team that was "leaving" in the morning, or even if this was a very new and/or short lived situation.

this idea reminds me of a defendant/lawyer thing, where the court demands the defendant have a lawyer, but the defendant wants to represent himself & this irks the lawyer to no end, but the end is that one of them has to give in to the other, in order for the case to proceed, because the conflict is simplt too fundimental & they can't both do what they want. it must be one or the other. (by the way, pardon me if you went on to cover any of that in ur reply. i see an idea & i get immed provoked to say what i think...perhaps b4 alzeimers or something sets in)

what you have described as "different goals", i see as more in the big picture, as the same goal, which the best marketing is the ultimate goal. now, while their ideas on a common aspect, such as the boots, there is no way i believe it can coexist on the level you say it is. i believe there must be different reality than that. in fact if based on the garcia-esque reasoning that bono see this question as, and his apparent strong convictions about things, i'm not buying that right now he would say "go right ahead...it is fine with me...you have my blessing....and i am flattered & humbled by your adoration...and there's no more room in my bank anyways.....but....sorry, mgmt will be busting you forthwith. nah...can't see that...

and by the way, your initial (one of them) explanation of this conflict w/you, joe, in your capacity, and using the forum rules section as your reference, stated that the reason for the forum's problem, was you didn't have the time to police what's ok & not. that is a completely different reason, with seemingly nothing to do with this PM reason thing. joe, has anybody ever accused you of being a little slippery? just sayin...

oh, i just read your last paragraph. that is a very good observation of the whole, that (tip o the hat..) does indeed seem to sorta "tie it all together" and provide a plausable answer to how this major conflict could keep breating.  (even if you next post has a whole new one..), but...it also is to me, undeniably hypocritical. how can the band sign off on their (mgmt) checks, with the knowledge that in effect, in the end, what bono is saying is a lie, because it is.

hang on, i have to catch my breath now....    

p.s. oh, and i 4got, if this is true...how could sites the torrent sites be able to go on, for years, with no problem (as to u2)???

You totally missed my point about how U2 and PM interact on this issue and how they are working to achieve the same goal if you think the band and PM are not on the same page on bootlegs, so no, I don't believe you understand how business and management are working towards the same goal and have a compatible working relationship. How much more plainly do I need to state that the band will say what fans want to hear (go ahead and tape our shows and share them) while PM does what the band needs to have done to protect their interests (we will try to prevent shows from being taped and are against the sharing of these shows if they are taped)? This is what happens...do you understand what I'm saying and how those seemingly opposite points of view on the surface are indeed the same point of view at the core - which is making the band successful? It's exactly as I laid out for you in my last post. Read it again if it helps or you can read this summary:

Fact - Bono says he is good with fans taping shows.
Fact - Principle Management is against this practice and will prosecute to protect its rights as they see fit.
Fact - Principle Management works for U2 and does what they are directed to by them (from a high level).

If you can't connect the dots I just laid out that the band says one thing to remain popular with fans while doing the opposite under the guise of PM to protect its interests, I'm sorry if you can't or won't believe that this is how it works within the U2 organization. Perhaps it ties in with your statement that seems to indicate that you feel Bono is incapable of lying. There's nothing I can do to change the facts which are out there for you to discover. Please take the time to discover those facts as well rather than to rebut with what "feels" correct but has no factual support.

I do think part of the problem with your responses is you don't read the entire post you are responding to which gets us off on a myriad of tangential topics that just muddy the waters. This issue should have been resolved a long time ago but red herrings and other issues have it still being discussed.

It's my belief that you now understand that we don't allow bootlegs to be posted here and that we have given you a very in-depth explanation of why that is. I think that we have discussed everything necessary for you to understand how things work here. Hopefully you'll find this forum has more value than just discussing this issue and if you do, I hope you enjoy your time here. If the inability to share your "gift" precludes you from staying, we understand and hope you find another forum where you feel welcome. I say this while ignoring the verbal jabs you have taken at me with each of your posts, but don't think I missed them in any way or appreciated them.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 01:18:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK, vitriol aside...nowurtalkin, the reasons for this site not allowing bootleg trading have been described you don't have to agree with them but you have to accept that they are not going to change as they are the rules of the site, there are so many sites out there that allow you to trade bootlegs, U2 and otherwise, so, y'know, head over to them and trade to your heart's content and get all of the stuff that U2 want you to have but PM don't want you to have. That sounds quite easy and would be a good approach to growing your collection of brilliant live recordings (as I have) and you'll find (that many others have) as well so that they can have access to some amazing live (and unreleased) recordings to listen to.

I've formatted my response so it's easier to comprehend.

brisco...you're sooo there for me aren't ya (mom?). i'm fairly sure though that i understand the reasons (i understand they are mixed up, in flux, and ond on a "which explanation do i give this time" basis). i also am equipped enough to normally figure out what i can, or will, or should, or should not accept. you should always remember: "screw authority"...that is if you can juggle the checks & balances enough to gain on them, w/o cutting your nose to spite your face. if you have not seen the validity in my views, you have to read more than 1 out of 10 words. given that i may write twice as many as might be necessary, that still leaves you having to increase your rate by 4. may i suggest....nahhh...nevermind....i was gonna say it might be nicer to hear your personal viewpoints on things other than your need to explain to me the way i should operate my thought processes...but on 2nd thought, as someone suggested, this IS what you do, but i must warn you (shouldn't have to though) that the more you try to splain to me what i should do to conduct myself, the more of THIS you will get, so rock on!

it all sounds so simple to you, because you simply don't know what brought me here in the 1st place, or the turn of events that had me unknowingly, unwittingly, but with very good reason. so you are making all kinds of assumptions & you know how THAT often works out??!! one big reason for that lack of understanding on your part, and your apparent belief that all this is, is about me coming here trying to trade boots. that is NOT the case. you don't know THE CASE because THE CASE (my initial post) was deleted almost immed. even tho my inadvertant breakage of rule was really only a small part of why i came here. in fact it was no part at 1st, then kind of evolved into it, unexpectedly. that is why i've been complaining to get my that post re-posted. complaining, because i was 1st told of the violation & told the offending portion had been removed, which means the remnant gets posted, but that is not what happened. i would like to say what actually occured, but i won't because slippery joe might just slip me out of here, b4 i'm ready to go.

suffice it to say that i have & had no need or desire whatsoever, to come hear for trading/sharing/ purposes. why would someone come to a discussion/info only site, for filesharing purposes? it doesn't eeven make sense. i am not new to this scene. i know the sites, just the same as any fan would, which by the way, was one of my points...that if someone just point to a location where something special can be found, that is much different that posting links to torrents, etc., which is what i did, due to a very special circumstance. i believe most reasonable, objective minded people could understand & agree that is a big distinction to make.

i did not come here. i did a search about a flute sound question (the flute sound in certain versions of old "tomorrow" versions. i was only trying to help someone who had asked the question after listening to a war tour show that i recorded. i had never traded or shared the recording with anyone & it is the only u2 live recording i have. i did not have any clue about its rarity or how prized it was by the community. when i recently found this out, a fanatical u2'er said it would be so well rcvd that it would turn the community on its ear. so i allowed it to go up. the guy who asked about the flute came about accidently. i happened to come across a post where someone had posted a sample of a war tour version of tomorrow. before that, i had newly discovered the 2 songs medley of oct/tomorrow on my recording & was absolutely enamored, hammered, amazed, and so totally blown away by this treasure that i didn't even know was on the tape, that i had taken to begging the fans to please give me their feedback about the 2 tunes after donning headphones & cranking. i also could not stop listening to these 2 songs. this went on foe approx 2 wks like that. for some reason, there were many great thanks & comments but mot specifically about my request for feedback on those 2 songs. then i came across that sample. i was reluctant to even listen any other live version from that era (rare) because i was convinced that that performance (not necessarily the recording quality) was too good to be bettered by any other version. that guy had left a comment to the sample poster, that he found the song so beautiful & spooky & ethereal. that was how i felt! i messaged him to ask his opinion on my version, but he had spaced it & couldn't believe he had missed it. when he finally did, he loved it, but he asked about the flute being synth or not. i didn't know. only guessed. no one else commented on the question for days, so i googled & that search landed me smack in the middle OF GUESS WHERE????.....the OCTOBER WORSHIPPERS THREAD, HERE ON @U2!!! i started reading the thread, looking for any discussion of the flute....but instead...what did i find myself right in the middle of, totally unexpectedly...but real, bonafide, true blue u2 bible believin october songs fanatics. fanatics fanatics. so all this happens, out of the blue, after nearly 3 decades of "no idea" & then BOOM...nonstop thanks & praise that i never expected or knew would happen. and then, just by virtue of trying to help w/a flute question, am suddenly surrounded ny folks who eat, think, sleep & nonstop adoration of october songery, which of course is what my show covers. oh & i 4got to mention, it turn out that i had the only recording in the world! so of course my next impulse was to tell these folks my story...and then, in the end, give them a great surprise & gift of just letting them know it was available (esp after i heard with my own ears from bono that it was good w/him). i was so excited about making that post here & giving the best targeted audience you could find, a rarest gift. never in my wildest dreams did i suspect that it would get me into hot water. i didn't even wish to register, because i only came to look at forum for flute info, but after i realized where i was & knew what i had to & was the natural sharing spirit, i then found that i would have to register 1st. i tried ut had tech difficulties for a half-hour. finally got in & was in no mood to start reading any TOS's. i just wanted to tell this amazing story & then "bombshell them with the news of avail.

so that's what i did & the rest is history. ain't i terrible? excuuuuuuuuse me!!!

then when i was told it was a violation....i'm like no way...u must be kiddin...but was told my post would only get trimmed for the bad. but when it was pulled & i protested....i didn't and still don't like the answers i got, so i have defended myself against what i thought was a somewhat cold, non appreciative, non "understanding" attitude, that i fely i did not deserve for vone thing & for abother thing pi**ed post was pulled & conflicting reasons, etc.

so THERE!   sue me. and i must tell you this, not for any other reason that it is such a great part of story. a guy sees my show posted by accident. he is about to celebrate his 1st anniv with his wife who almost 3 decades earlier attended the show & during the show bono pulled her up on stage, announced her name & they danced. 3 decades later she tells her new husband this story, which she had cherished the memory for all these years. are you listening to me? he sees the show posted just moments after it went up. he posts a message that tells this story. i see it. i am amazed & in awe. i cannot believe. the friend who helped me to get the show up, is a fanatic to the core, focusing on war tour. he ses the husbands post w/this story from his now wife. my friend had already listened about 10 times to show. he heard the intro of the girl by bono. he posts back to the husband asking himif her name is so & so. i see this post. i tell myself NO FREAKING WAY!!! shortly thereafter the husband posts back that indeed that is her name. i see this & i flipped out! can you imagine? the husband reports that their 1st anniv is just about 3 weeks away & she has no clue this exists & he keeps his mouth shut. he makes a cd, gets the amazing cover made with a picture of the inside of the place that i obtained & wraps it. he then reports that they will e going on a trip to the very area where the show was, because its her hometown. he has never been there & just so happens to be one of the most beautiful areas in the country. he said they might even visit the site of the show. he reported that he will give her this as "the best 1st anniversary present ever"!!! and said that she will absolutely flip out & that he will report how it all went. the whole thing started because i saw a post where the guy that wound up helping me do this had seen a different new tapr from that era posted & replied to the poster that it was his area of interest. it got my attention as i had this 1 & only tape for all these years. so i sent him a message informing him that i would send it to him to hear. the rest is the this great story that at least i think it is.

ok, it's off my chest now. sheeeesh. stanby brisco will be here shortly. he will have all the answers & will reformat for your more better comprehensive reading pleasure.

jeff  

 
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 01:21:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?

I think you're overreacting a bit.
to what? it's just a joke son :D
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 01:32:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
very surprised (thankyou) to find out who PM is. the surprise is actually confusion, because if i understand correctly, u r saying that the mgmt co of the band is in direct conflict w/the expressed feelings of the band.

The band can change management at any time.

and your point is...? i mean obviously the richest band in the world can do pretty much what they want. how does that apply to any of my questions?

It applies to your point about the feelings of the band being in direct conflict with the responsibilities of the management.

i agree with you that there is a gulf between 'we don't care about people sharing live recordings' from the band, and the more heavy handed approach taken by record companies and management.

But my point about them being able to change at any time...

Well, if the philosophy IS at odds with what U2 want, there are many things they can do.

Change management companies, to one that will allow free live recordings being traded by fans
Change record companies (though this would be trickier) to one that won't pursue any piracy suits in exchange for having U2 on the books

What I'm saying is clear, though I can see why the paragraphing and punctuation has thrown you somewhat.

If U2 - the band - are so fundamentally opposed to Principle Mgmt - their agents - pursuing piracy proliferators , they can change management companies.

So from this we can conclude that they're really not too fussed about what PM do, so long as their commercial interests are protected. And that's well and good for a commercial entity, which is what U2 are.

all of what you say above is common knowledge, in terms of how business works. no lack of understanding there...or any failure to comprehend on my part. my earlier comments about honestly thinking english may not be your 1st language, was based on the fact if you go back & look at the what i referenced when i said it....you must have just really messed up or something because it wasn't simple typos it was completely nonsensensical.  consequently there was no "reformatting" or whsatever necessary. it was incomprehensible, that's all. i wasn't saying it to be smart. you took over that dept. w/no delay & are better at it anyway.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 01:56:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Has anyone accused you, nowurtalking, of having a serious nerve coming to a forum and using every post you've made to basically attack moderators and accuse them of being 'slippery' and duplicitous? Just sayin...

I don't know if this phrase is comprehensible in your part of the world, but pull your head in sweetheart.

You've got to earn the right to fight with the mods you know  ;D

yes, you just now. it is nowurtalkin, no g. if you think i have nerve, thankyou. i can fog a mirror too. and i did not attack moderators. everthing i said was fully backed up and vetted, as is always the case with me. i generally never speak unless i know what i'm talking about & have examples to back up everything i say. that is very close to always. you, on the other hand have demonstrated that you pften say things that include major assumptions. and you were not (at least you're not supposed to be) privvy to the numerous PM's between myself and joe, yet you think you know all of what you speak, but it took me but 5 minutes, then someone else to realize this is what you do. i accept you are what you are. i have also been very respectful in my protests, even within ny complaints, etc. as i said, all things i reported were backed up with proof and either truly did occur just as i reported it, with no additions, no enhancements, no lies, no invalid reasoning. and if something appeared as an untoward occurance, that i had no proof of, i said so but presented the logic to back it. and some of my well put questions were not answered. i would even venture to go out as far on a limb to say that joe would tend to agree w/the majority of what i just said, but t ask for that would potentially be asking for a wedge to be set, so i won't ask for that, but he is experienced enough to know better anyway.

on the other hand, you my friend, choose from the beginning and throughout to insert your colorful & provacative attitudes, which is your right, so you get what you ask for, and feel you are the spokesperson and the teacher. and so prolific! going on 3,000 posts in a bit over a year. yeah, buddy.! you go g...g...gg....keep up the good work!   
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 02:47:11 AM

You totally missed my point about how U2 and PM interact on this issue and how they are working to achieve the same goal if you think the band and PM are not on the same page on bootlegs, so no, I don't believe you understand how business and management are working towards the same goal and have a compatible working relationship. How much more plainly do I need to state that the band will say what fans want to hear (go ahead and tape our shows and share them) while PM does what the band needs to have done to protect their interests (we will try to prevent shows from being taped and are against the sharing of these shows if they are taped)? This is what happens...do you understand what I'm saying and how those seemingly opposite points of view on the surface are indeed the same point of view at the core - which is making the band successful? It's exactly as I laid out for you in my last post. Read it again if it helps or you can read this summary:

Fact - Bono says he is good with fans taping shows.
Fact - Principle Management is against this practice and will prosecute to protect its rights as they see fit.
Fact - Principle Management works for U2 and does what they are directed to by them (from a high level).

If you can't connect the dots I just laid out that the band says one thing to remain popular with fans while doing the opposite under the guise of PM to protect its interests, I'm sorry if you can't or won't believe that this is how it works within the U2 organization. Perhaps it ties in with your statement that seems to indicate that you feel Bono is incapable of lying. There's nothing I can do to change the facts which are out there for you to discover. Please take the time to discover those facts as well rather than to rebut with what "feels" correct but has no factual support.

I do think part of the problem with your responses is you don't read the entire post you are responding to which gets us off on a myriad of tangential topics that just muddy the waters. This issue should have been resolved a long time ago but red herrings and other issues have it still being discussed.

It's my belief that you now understand that we don't allow bootlegs to be posted here and that we have given you a very in-depth explanation of why that is. I think that we have discussed everything necessary for you to understand how things work here. Hopefully you'll find this forum has more value than just discussing this issue and if you do, I hope you enjoy your time here. If the inability to share your "gift" precludes you from staying, we understand and hope you find another forum where you feel welcome. I say this while ignoring the verbal jabs you have taken at me with each of your posts, but don't think I missed them in any way or appreciated them.
[/quote]

well joe, you have now done this at lear 4 times that i can document, where it is you, not i, who has not read my words very well or carefully & apparently as a result, have posted an incorrect assessment of what i've said or think. i have gone to the trouble of posting 3 past examples, but either you ignore after i do so, or show that you misunderstand or misread nthe words. in this case, i totally got what you said, but i also told you where i disagreed with your take in certain areas. if you feel your takes on it are carved in stone and unassailable & that i don't know what i'm talking about that's fine. i have no real problem with that. i have been in the music business before. i have played in a band. i have performed on tv & had a managerg who was in the business enough to be able to get us gigs that we weren't really good enough for. plus run my own businesses for a long time, so i'm not ignorant of business entirely. you read my post and came up with thinking i had said i thought both band and mgmt were on the same page as to bootlegs, when if you would reread my post, i said nothing of the kind. i made it clear that business wise (not to do with boots) while there were the obvious and understood differences in the job or area of interest between them, that still, even tho that was true, that in the bigger picture, the main concern of both sides was being sucssessful & making money. i said nothing at all (unless there's some typo) about common feelings towards bootlegging between band & mgmt. you just made that up up out of nowhere. and as i say, i can show where you have done exactly the same 4 times at least now. i don;t wish to belabor or go round w/it anymore. i even saw your last paragraph where you tied together the missing piece of the puzzle that made the seeming impossible to maintain conflict between them, to show how it could indeed be maintained, and i told you how i understood it & congratulated you for your insight on that particlar point, yet you still tell me i don't get. so i will drop that part of this.

it would have been better though, for you to have replied to or answered to the specific things i brought up about inconsistencies in what was said by you early on, vs what actually occurred. i stated my cases w/respect & i backed up what i said with either an indisputable fact or a good valid logical look at. and in more than one case, i did so more than once, yet you ignored. i gave good support for my claims & i also made it clear why i felt those particular pts were important enough to go over, rather than them being just trivial issues.

i still think they deserve answers. but if you choose not to, so be it. it will not harm me. i also intend to look into the validity of the claims about PM because for one thing, some of it doesn't add up for me. my instincts and intuitiveness have always proven to be pretty good about these sorts of things so i will chck into it & 2ndly because it concerns me in other areas. such as why is there no apparent problem with the sites that do allow u2 boots, for a long time as well? that does not appear at least, to jive with what you say. that is quite a reasonable viewpoint, is it not?

anyway, i told the story i wanted to be known, which was my priority all along. i cannot see why you would not let it stay as i was careful to not cross lines. but if you removed it as well, it only takes away from a good story, but nothing away from me. i came here 1st for info on flute, then as a giver not a taker. this is all silliness anyway, as these folks here all know and go to these sites anyway & download shows to there hearts content. this is pure silliness to e so had on this particular case of pointing ppl that way. they don't need me anyway, bnor do i believe for a second that it would have caused anything but joy & 0 problems to come from PM or anyone else. i have nothing else to say on the matter unless someone asks me a valid question to respond to. if y'all are gonna continue to be so bent on telling i'm wrong about this and wrong about that & you need to be a cop about it & insist it is only you who have the facts & i am wrong about everything, plus ignore good backed up points about apparent lies or inconsistencies in how you handled, then i get it. more power to ya! i think my attitude has been fair & you refused to even so much as recognize that i was only trying to be nice here, regardless of missing something due to circumstances. that's how you operate here & i get it. i feel no further need to defend myself. i sure hope the story got left in and gets enjoyed. 
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 02:51:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you know it's time to go

i don't know who that comment is directed at, but if to me, no clue what it means. unless you're suggesting i leave?

I think you're overreacting a bit.

that's ridiculous. somebody posts a line to me, i'm not familiar with, nor makes any sense to me, so i say i don't understand except for a guess at face value of words....and you call that "overreacting". that's plain silly.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 05, 2010, 03:13:08 AM
I've read every word you've written, sure, my eyes are bleeding, but I've read them all...

are you really dustin hoffman from rainman honey?

You're quite possibly the most incomprehensible poster I've read on any forum anywhere. If there is a point in there, as you claim, it's a warning to kids to stay in school.

So your post got removed. Join the club mate. I'd have 6000 posts if there was no moderation, and as we know, more posts = better person. Shall you and I start a support group?

I'll buy you a beer though. No hard feelings cobber.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Hawkmoon2e on August 05, 2010, 03:35:23 AM
Well, 'mysterious' Mod chiming in here...

In regards to our forum rules: That's been covered by Joe and m2. So no need to go any further with that.

But something I will speak up about, is  when other Mods are referred to as liars.
I zapped your thread into cyberspace oblivion (gone for good) because of what I read in it. And while I was doing that, Joe was taking the time to edit the post because he has more patience than I do. Two Moderator actions can actually happen at the same time around here.

And one more thing...

Wasn't it an Uilleann pipe?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 04:54:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, 'mysterious' Mod chiming in here...

In regards to our forum rules: That's been covered by Joe and m2. So no need to go any further with that.

But something I will speak up about, is  when other Mods are referred to as liars.
I zapped your thread into cyberspace oblivion (gone for good) because of what I read in it. And while I was doing that, Joe was taking the time to edit the post because he has more patience than I do. Two actions can actually happen at the same time around here.

Oh, and one more thing...


Weren't they Uilleann pipes?

well, well, i finally suceeded in drawing you out. when the story from joe, did not add up (as it did not) i knew either he was lying (i could see a possible reasom for that) or someone else was stealthing & either joe knew, but felt some need to keep your identity secret, or possibly he didn't know. but the point is the story didn't add up & when i asked for clarification, on several occasions he ignored me kind of blatantny & out of character, from what i observed in my time here. so i had no choice (if i was to find out what gives, but to use tactics. i consciously tried to draw you out on the possibility that this is what occurred.

in my opinion, you should have spoken up & stated what & why the action you were taking, if indeed that is what occurred. after all it's a well known fact, therefore fair for me to say, that cops or managers or controllers (whatever term you like, but you know what i mean, those in the position of control over what other people do and say) that are part of a group of those in control of others, always, naturally stick together in benefit and in protection of ea other, often though, outside of or in spite of plain truth. so who knows? is all i'm sayin. i'm not accusing you of being a liar, and i'm pretty sure, knowing myself & how i operate, that i did not flat out call joe a liar. i am very honest by nature. it is very difficult for me to lie. i believe i was straight up to joe, with what i thought, based on what was happening & being said. some of it clearly was not consistent. so i told him, i'm pretty sure, that what he was saying or by virtue of him ignoring certain questions, that it gave at least the appearance of lying. pretty sure i also said that it could be something else, as well. i would never call somebody a liar w/o believing i had direct, solid proof. so i think i made it clear that it was looking that way, in lieu of another explanation of the inconsistencies. that is fair & reasonable, in my book. however, now you surface with this "admission", and you give as your reason that you are basically defending joe from me calling him a liar. well, i deal in the truth, and i have now observed a pattern here (not surprising, human nature i groups like this, esp w/the hierarrchal (sp) structure) where now you have manipulated the facts to "suit your clothes". the pattern is stating that i have said or done things that i have not. there is after all, a difference between calling somebody a liar vs stating it looks that way & backing that up with some beef, while reserving with all due respect, that it could be explained some other way...if someone please would! another part of the pattern here, which is pretty transparnt to me, is how you mods have "learned" to "work it"...learned to "use" windows of opportunity, whereby you lurk & if you see there is enough apparent support for you (i'll bet you have a brisco type also, that hangs with you?) or the "weather is right", you jump in to excercise your authority & to defend your fellow mods. it is well known to happen this way. just the way it is. the brisco comment is not meant maliciously, but there is a vacuum, then a structure (a forum & mods) gets set up & if its a forum with alot of rules and control & very active "moddness" or "moddage", so the vacuum gets filled with the necesarry & fitting elements, that makes it all works & self support. enough of that...the point is, the fact that you acted invisibly (if so) rarher than up front, speaks volumes to me (i know, i know, you have other explanations on the ready..)

by the way, i get lost, i think we're in public mode presently right?...so let me insert that i am not wanting to fight or have confrontation (although i think it's quite healthy & beneficial, so long as it keeps above a certain level of decency, right?). i am not purposely breaking any of your rules, such as discussing such stuff publicly. (before you decide to throw that one in..) you folks have chosen to discuss this stuff here. there is nothing wrong with that, that i can see. but the rules that state these kinds of issues are not allowed to be discussed publicly, are another example of what i mean. that is seen by me as a tool for protecting yourselves from dissent. that's bs. dissent is good 7 healthy. not allowed suggests forms of tyranny.

and not that it has happened, but if you're gonna allow ppl to act and say some of the stuff like what brisco is free to say, by never-ending, trolling, laying in wait, ready to pounce on ea & every post, by the literal thousands, which i would fight for his right to do, and if he has that much time on his hands, more power to his flaky self. but that being the case, i hope you keep that leeway as wide as possible.

now, regards your comment on forum rules, where you found it necessary to mention once again, to state "it's been covered, so no need to go into", i say it would've been better then to not even bring it up, but you had to throw it in anyway. "no need to go into" then no need to mention in the 1st place.

regards your admission of zapping my thread (i think it was a post, not a thread, one post, my 1st), i think you were very wrong to do so. i don't think it was so necessary to take such a big step as that. obviously you think lightly of the value of someones free speech. before you jump all over that, let me qualify. i'm pretty sure my initial post had much more in it, as per "the story" of how i landed here & about the u2 show & tape, vs the amt of content that WAS NOT FILESHARING in my definition, but admittedly & completely innocently & ignorantly, i sure did tell ppl it was avail & where it could be found. i don't think anyone contends that i knew better. it was an honest lack of knowing. and i have never heard of such a thing as that anywhere before. imagine not being able to go to a fan site and telling fans where they can find perfecly legal files. i never heard of such a thing. and i would love to know how these PM guys can get enforcement from whoever, to force you to shut down, simply if references to where files could be located are mentioned on this site. this not nitpicking. these are good questions for a thinking mind. who would enforce this or how could they if bono sanctions at the same time? (and by the way, don't think it is lost on me that you might not want to be caught in the middle of this. i happen to be an extremely fair person and sensitive to all valid points, but that is not the point here). that in itself seems ludicrous, but when you add the non-trivial fact that it is not actual file sharing, such as what goes on, on a file sharing site, nor even the linking to the files, but the question i raise, is about the simple mention or pointing to direction of a show. there is a huge difference between those items & that deserves to be recognized, unless some official body has ruled or deemed that there is no distinction. in lieu of that, it is very reasonable for me to call that distinction.

i am not trying to be beligerant or hijack your rules or disrespect your site. you should clearly hear that in my words. i'm not here tryin to bust up the place or flame you you. i have demonstrated myself to be a reasonable & intelligent person with a reasonably presented disagreement about the terms or definitions of certain aspects, as at least appearing to not necessarily be cut & dry or non grey area. i'm well spoken & pretty fair & reasonable & call nobody names & have interesting angles & takes on certain things, that i happen to feel are worth the effort to look into or clear up. just because you are mod, doesn't make you god, or infallible. on the other hand, when i see i'm wrong or a good reason for something, i admit it and accept it. there are examples of that which could be shown. so you mods don't need to be treating me like a jerk, because i am not a jerk. i'm sure you've had your share of jerks to contend with. i speak respectfully to you & what i say is not nonsense.

is it wrong for me to ask you to tell me or anyone else here who might be interested to know, what exactly made you feel you had to delete my entire heartfelt, good natured, post? rather than for example, putting on hold & showing some respect to me & alerting me to the fact of the violation and ask me to please remove the offending part(s) first, or even to say ahead of time that you are gonna do so? what is so difficult about that? according to you & joe, that is exactly what he was doing, and if that's true, thast is not only much fairer & much more in line w/the concept of "moderation", than secretly "blasting it to oblivion, which is a telling" choice of words for you to use. it was and is a power trip it seems....and furthermore, you yourself just admitted, proudly, i might add,  that you have no patience compared to joe. that is not a good thing for someone in charge of or in control over, peoples speech & their posted thoughts. i.e., to boldly, proudly, indiscriminately, w/o the necessary patience, to just butcher the whole thing w/one fell swoop, is irresponsible. that's what it was...and inconsiderate & irresponsible act by a self-admitted no patience mod. there is no contention by me that according to you mods, you find my pointing in the direction of where to find my show, is in violation of this forums rule (there is only 3 words there that applies to this case). i have made it clear that i don't agree w/the rule, nor the mods interpretation of my act being a violation, but that is a seperate bone of contention. i never tried to do anything to usurp the action or go against it. i accept it as done.

and you come on here, in pseudo defense of joe, explaining that the discrepancy about what he said/what occurred, was due to 2 mods can be taking 2 diff actions at same time. great system, but you have noticably left out an important element. joe said that the reason you did it was because after he trimmed out the offensive part(s), you found that i went and re-added what he had removed, so you saw that (apparently getting mad about it) and consequently deleted the entire post. i have stated this several times now. it has been 100% ignored ea time. it is, as far as i'm concerened, a big deal, because supposedly, you weilded your power to do this, based on my undoing of a moderators modifying my post. that is a very important point & if it is not based on truth, which it most certainly is not, is a very important thing to me me & hopefully, one would think, to other forum goers (at least those who give a damn about how their freedom of speech is handled by those of you charged w/moderating). it is not necessary for you to jump in at this point (as i know you want to) to remind me that we don't have the same free speech rights, within this forum, as anywhere else. i'm not stupid. i know exactly how it works. that said, it is indeed much the same as anywhere else, in terms of free speech 1st, then controls & rules, whatever, applied as necessary, depending on which forum is used. i have no problem or misunderstanding of your right or your need to moderate & i recognize about the "trading" rule. this is about your heavy-handed leveling of that power, mis-use, in my view, under the partic circumstances. what are the circumstances. well, for one thing, there was no "re-adding" or undoing, or changing of joe's actions, as he reported that you contended. that is either a lie or a mistake, but the important part is that i was accuse of doing so & since have stated several times that it is not so, but that has gone ignored. that is wrong, unfair & lacks the diligence that such a situation calls for, from a moderator. you need to "clear that up". if i said you did something wrong that you did not, you wouldn't hesitate to be "all over it"!

further, the explanation of the circumstances that surrounded what brought me to that part of this forum, unexpectedly, and the parts in there that showed why i had not yet  seen the rules, et al, plus the basic obvious flavor of the post that showed my good intentions....all of that...should have been considered & used by you to vet me out as someone not here to break rules/cause trouble, etc., thus be fair & understanding, esp after my work to put it together, not for my own benefit.

i have had to be the one therefore, to advocate for myself, because inadvertant breaking of rule or not, you guys have been cold. i don't need you. i don't need this forum. i didn't even seek you out. i was linked into the middle of that thread, from the flute question search. so i have rightfully advocated for myself, after this very bad reaction from you guys. all these reasons....are good ones...to have not done what you did. there is no point to you attempting to further advocate for your actions. you have already said what & why & now i have as well. the only thing necessary for you to add, should you choose to, is to clear up the false accusation leveled at me of tampering with joe's adjustments, which supposedly gave you cause to delete my post. that's all. i didn't come here needing anything nor wanting anything from this forum. just to let a target audience that i unexpectedly got plopped into the middle of, quite irinically, know anout a unique, very rare, blast from the past. what the heck is the matter w/you? don't you realize the simple fact that w/o me letting u know of the existence of it, you would never have the chance or privilege to hear the gem, never b4 avail. a unique, unusual, special situation. and if you cannot or refuse to recognize those important facts, it is you w/the problem, not me.

it is my intention to contact PM & tell them this story & ask them outright if indeed it is a true fact that they would have any issue or problem with the fact that i just discovered this tape to be a sought after thing & that i told a forum where they could find it. remember, if it wasn't for me, no one would have ever been able to hear this treasure. nor do i believe that none of you are not interested in hearing the show.

i would also be interested in, and if it exists, i posit that you mods should have said so or posted it before...any literature that backs up your claim that if my post, that pointed ppl where my show could be found, was allowed it could & would result in this forum being shut down by those pm guys. that is exactly what joe said. and i retorted that if....that indeed was the case, that i certainly could understand you guys having a rule against it (no helping distribute), and respected it based on that. but with the knowledge & considerations gained since, i don't believe it because it doesn't make much sense to me. so i am asking, rightfully so, for you to offer some verification of this point. i'm not trying to say you are required to, i'm just saying why not provide this for the sake of clarification. but i will contact them & simply ask, if i can find my way to them. there is nothing wrong with or untoward of anything i am saying or doing here. everything on the up & up. everything reasonable & fair. no disrespect intended. no harm intended. it is all a matter of principles. not due to anything i need from this site. and i would add that aside from you 2 (3) mods that have made clear your tack on this so far, and besides brisco, who is a whole nuther story what motivates his posts, i would say to the rest of you forum-goers, reading these proceedings, if these mods continue to allow this discussion to take place here, publicly, which is the right thing & the best thing they can do, in this case, in support of reasonable free speech & some reasonable bones of contention, on my part (important ones), that you should speak up on this, in agreement or against me. i have detected, i think, an instance or 2, where someone wanted to speak their mind, but were mindful of having problems if they did so. and i can truthfully say that i have definitely & unmistakenly seen that occur in some other locations on this forum site. at least 2-3 times i saw such a sentiment expressed, where the poster lamented that he wished he might be free-er to speak his protests, as much as on the old version. if all this is allowed on, then i say thankyou for allowing me my say. my intentions are all positve & unselfish ones.

*and brisco, b4 u jump in w/more of your epithets & critisisms of me & likening me to a idiot-sevant (which you did) and dumbly trying to portray me as uneducated, or whatever comes after "honey" & "sweetie" & "darling" & "daughter??", and b4 you complain of your "eyes bleeding", remember: you are not forced to read. you read because you want to & find interest. even my longest rants still only take a good reader, no more than 5-10 minutes to read. when ppl characerize long posts as a bad thing or "eye-bleeding", i find that laughale. how do ever deal w/reading a book, or reading the average lenghth newspaper article, or magazine article or whatever. my post do contain valid point, points of interest, truth, backed up facts, fairness, and reasonale logic, so the read is not exactly a bunch of trash. i try to be shorter, but i have an "issue" with that. i admit it. i recognize it. i apologize for it (not really though, because there is nothing to apologize for). if i stay & find that you ppl wish to continue to have me here to chat, i always try to work on cutting the size down. u cam see that in some cases, i am capable of short & sweet posts. but when i am on a "driven" topic, that i consider real important, i'm hard to stop. but i am not abusive. i hate being abusive or corrosive.

rant over
    
p.s. i forgot. as to the uilleann pipes, it's my understanding that different instuments were used on different version. i am knowing about those pipes & about the reference to "a whistle". on my recording, it sounds like a flute. i am thinking there's a poosibility that the reference to "a whisle" could maybe be what was used (i think by the edge) that sounds to me like a flute. i know "of" those u pipes, but i don't really know what they are. all i know is what's on m tape is extremely beautiful sounding.
      
   
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: Sledge on August 05, 2010, 04:58:17 PM
Holy crap so many letters, your fingers must hurt really..

ANyway and you know it's time to go refers to the fact that this subject should be dead already. But enjoy fame  ;)
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: nowurtalkin on August 05, 2010, 05:04:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've read every word you've written, sure, my eyes are bleeding, but I've read them all...

are you really dustin hoffman from rainman honey?

You're quite possibly the most incomprehensible poster I've read on any forum anywhere. If there is a point in there, as you claim, it's a warning to kids to stay in school.

So your post got removed. Join the club mate. I'd have 6000 posts if there was no moderation, and as we know, more posts = better person. Shall you and I start a support group?

I'll buy you a beer though. No hard feelings cobber.

u won't be buying me a beer cuz i don't drink, although i suppose i would have a beer w/u or whoever anyway.

not familiar w/term "cobber" (coming from you, it must be nice..)

you throw negative ideas around very easily. i challenge you to choose (one at a time please) any instances that exemplify your charge of me being so "incomprehensible" (the "most you ever saw"). so i can see where i either wrote incorrectly or where i might enlighten you to comprehend. i welcome you to please do so & the opportunity to clear out your synapses. maybe i'll learn something from you?
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 05, 2010, 05:10:00 PM
My eyes bleed not because of your long posts, but because they're so poorly written, repetitive and grandstanding.

Tip, coz I know you like advice.

You want get a point out there, make it clear what that point is.

I could take a stab at what your points are (as I HAVE read them all) but they're so swamped in noise that it's impossible.

So let me try to make it simpler for myself and other readers. You don't have to answer of course, but it will make it easier for people who aren't rainman to understand:

Are you annoyed that your post was deleted?

Do you think that the moderators have lied and/or behaved in a duplicitous manner?

What would you actually like the outcome of this to be?

Now, as I said you're absolutely not obliged to answer those, I'm not the boss of anyone. But with every good academic paper (which your thoughts are, don't get me wrong) there is a highly effective executive summary.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: briscoetheque on August 05, 2010, 05:17:55 PM
Cobber. Australian term for mate.

So yes, it is endearing, cobber.
Title: Re: Bootleg Question
Post by: m2 on August 05, 2010, 06:15:33 PM
nowurtalkin,

If your original post was anything at all like the ones you've put in this thread, it makes perfect sense to me that the moderators would run out of patience with you. I certainly have.

Let's get some facts straight:

1. You joined this forum.

2. You failed to read the forum rules that are presented to you BEFORE you can even finish creating an account.

3. You posted something that was in violation of those rules.

4. You were told privately why your post violated the rules and why it was moderated.

5. Despite that, you came to this thread and asked again.

6. Despite having received replies from us both privately and publicly, you continue to argue now onto Page 3 of a completely unnecessary thread.

Whether or not you agree with or feel hurt by how the moderators responded, those are the facts. If you enter someone's house and immediately begin doing things that are unacceptable, the homeowners will respond. If the moderators were short or abrupt with you, it's because we've been dealing for years now with people saying, "Oh, sorry, I didn't read the rules." Go ahead and try that in court or with a police officer. Not knowing the rules isn't a viable defense when you've done something wrong. We're all tired of hearing it.

A few other things you need to know:

7. @U2 has been around for 15 years. We have been recognized worldwide and won awards as a trusted and valuable resource for U2 fans. That's not to brag -- it's to point out that web sites don't survive that long with that much success if they're run by liars and unscrupulous individuals. It's also to point out that, because we're large and well known, we have a different set of rules to play by. Smaller sites can get away with a lot more stuff. There's a gal who podcasts from South America and regularly plays copyrighted U2 songs in her podcast. But years ago, when we put ONE U2 song in one of our podcasts, Universal Music forced Apple to remove us from the iTunes Music Store. It was only after we removed the podcast and apologized to them with our tails between our legs that they put us back in.

8. There's pretty much nothing I dislike more than having anyone on this staff called a liar. You call them a liar, you're calling me a liar. I take that very personally.

9. Every person on this staff -- forum, blog, web site, photographers, you name it -- works on @U2 on a volunteer basis. They give their time, energy, heart, and brainpower and get absolutely nothing of physical value in return. I'd love to be able to pay them, but our readers have made it clear that they don't want ads on @U2. Have you seen the other U2 forums, blogs, and sites? Quite different from how we do things. If we ran half as many ads, there'd be plenty of money to pay my staff. But all they get is the respect of our readers and my undying appreciation.

10. Because they're volunteers, they don't have time to sit and watch the forum all day long. They have lives to live, families to feed, spend time with, etc. Sometimes they may not be able to reply to you or any other user as quickly as you'd like, or be as detailed as you'd like in replying.

11. We have been dealing with Principle Management since February 5, 1999. That's the date I received my first email from them, and it was a  fairly stern warning about something on the site that they found objectionable. We are on good terms with them today, I believe, but I can tell you that running a U2 fan site can be a tricky proposition. Our first responsibility and loyalty is to our readers, but the fact is that U2 could shut us down tomorrow if they wanted. We violate their trademark by using "U2" in the name of our web site and in our web site address. We violate copyright by using their image on our site. We've had our Lyrics section taken down for several months (years ago) because of copyright violations, and received court orders from Universal Music's lawyers in Italy to repay what they perceived to be lost wages due to our posting of lyrics. Those and other incidents, thankfully, are all matters of the past. But they continue to influence how we run @U2 in general and this forum specifically. I have no time or desire to get into any more legal wrangles with high-powered attorneys in foreign lands with financial backing from Universal Music or the band itself. Hopefully you can respect that.

12. If you'd like to get in touch with Principle Management to ask them if it's okay for you to spread a torrent on @U2 (or any other site), go for it. But, a couple things you should know:

a) They're kinda busy right now with a tour starting tomorrow. Th main office only has a skeleton staff because most everyone is on the road.

b) They have about a thousand more important things to worry about than your recording of a 27-year-old concert. Things like Bono's health, and whether or not they'll be able to tour Australia and New Zealand this year, not to mention South America and other areas.

c) This is important... Even if Principle Management says it's okay for you to post about your torrent here in our forum, it's still not okay. Principle Management doesn't make our forum rules. We make them. I've been running U2 forums for about 12 years now and have run forums where filesharing, trading, song swapping, CD burning, etc., was allowed. It sucks the life out of a forum. Too many posts/threads become crap like "Does anyone have such-and-such show?" or "Oh, man, I downloaded this show but the description was wrong. I'm so pi**ed!" YAWN. Who cares? That's not the kind of forum we want here.

13. Paul McGuinness has hinted several times in the last 5-6 years that the band would like to make its shows available for purchase/download online. U2 being U2, they haven't quite jumped through that technological hoop just yet. But for all we know, they could announce something tomorrow. Let's pretend we allowed filesharing, trading, etc., here on the forum. Let's say it's been that way for a year or two now. Let's say we have 300 threads talking about trading/downloading 300 unique shows. If U2 puts its touring history on sale tomorrow, we're suddenly in an ENORMOUS violation of copyright because we're assisting fans in downloading material that is available for sale. And in doing so, we'd be having a direct and negative impact on their ability to make money from the shows they're selling. As I said in #11 above, I'm not in the mood to deal with lawyers. If they sue, the entire financial burden is on me individually. @U2 doesn't have any money. The web site is in my name. I don't need the financial risk. If other sites are willing to take it on, good for them.

14. Several messages ago, you wrote: you should always remember: "screw authority" If that's your attitude toward joining a community of fellow U2 fans, you're not welcome around here. There are many other forums online for U2 fans; I'd recommend you go find them. Perhaps you'll like the moderators better.

End of discussion.