Regardless of Brussells or whatever stolen concert or out-takes it is simply wrong. What if someone took your paycheck? It is not like the Stones just had given music. They worked just as hard as anyone else. Remember? they were broke for ions! I pay for my music via Amazon or any other outlet.

I rather die than cheat my favorite group!

Brussels is a bad example because it was public KBFH broadcast so Stones obviously could expect a wide availability. and recordings like this helped to found Stones legacy as greatest live band, a legacy they continuously cash in until the very present. so whats wrong?

Eh, what ?

If it is public...fine...you can justify anything...I don't care if the Stones make a zillion dollars...However, when other great legendary musicians are walking the streets, you have to rethink what life endures...

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless of Brussells or whatever stolen concert
> or out-takes it is simply wrong. What if someone
> took your paycheck? It is not like the Stones just
> had given music. They worked just as hard as
> anyone else. Remember? they were broke for ions! I
> pay for my music via Amazon or any other outlet.
>
> I rather die than cheat my favorite group!


Stealing to me means downloading and burning their official stuff,
regardless if it´s common (Start Me Up) or rare (Dance
instrumental). As a fan I really think it´s like betraying them.

When you have everything you can get in official shops, you want more.
There is fantastic stuff (outtakes and live) from several decades. And
as long a s the Stones don´t open the vaults, I have to get it elsewhere.
So I bought fantastic bootlegs and outtakes over the years, which even
made me more fanatic about this band.

So I´m not feeling guilty, I´m just keeping it up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 17:04 by TooTough.

When you are talking about music thats not officially available than its not taken any money from Mick & Co. Pirate CDs and downloads of official albums is another thing entirly. The most bootleged artists are also the most succesful, the rise in number of bootlesgs often mirrors ris of the band.

Try buying Brussels at amazon and get back to us.

Have you ever listened to Mick's opinion about bootlegs on "Static In The Attic"? Of course if you don't listen to bootlegs I guess not. And Keith is notorious for "losing" tapes!! The fact is boots just wets the appetite of the dedicated fan and doesnt affect the casual fan at all. There have been some labels(like Swingin' Pig) who were paying performer royalties as required by the country they were in at the time until the labels got pissed for not receiving their cut and caused law changes! Any coincidence the Pig always had the best source material? I don't know. Of course this all speculation, I suppose. The Stones and others are not like all the blues cats of old who were getting screwed out of every penny by "legal" means!

There's been a discussion about this before on this board and someone (I think it was Eric Snow, sorry if I'm wrong, can't be arsed to look it up now) said something very lovely: "Bootlegging is one of the most noble things a person can do in music; it's preserving for the future." totally agree with that.

And besides Chris, you ignore the fact, that NO act nowadays, not even the stones or U" or maybe robbie williams makes the big money out of records they sell. So if you copy them or not is becoming totally irrelevant. the big bucks come from touring these days and it's way harder to copy or bootleg concert tickets thatn recordings ...

The bootlegers doesn't steal Rolling Stones' work, they are stealing the work of the tapers and the fans...with a couple of exceptions.

therollingmanu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's been a discussion about this before on
> this board and someone (I think it was Eric Snow,
> sorry if I'm wrong, can't be arsed to look it up
> now) said something very lovely: "Bootlegging is
> one of the most noble things a person can do in
> music; it's preserving for the future." totally
> agree with that.

Thanks for remembering, Manu

Allthough it was "Taping" instead of "bootleging"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 17:58 by Erik_Snow.

TooTough, Nanker...No offense,

Suppose if you were an artist yourself. Remember when Keith (paraphrasing) said "There is Muddy Waters painting walls (Chicago)". "The King of Blues painting walls?" So a concert ensued.

Just because you download music in disrepect is, still wrong. I'm not a Judge...because I make mistakes all the time as well. But i do not steal. It is piracy no shape or form how you interpret downloading on others' work.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TooTough, Nanker...No offense,
>
> Suppose if you were an artist yourself. Remember
> when Keith (paraphrasing) said "There is Muddy
> Waters painting walls (Chicago)". "The King of
> Blues painting walls?" So a concert ensued.
>
> Just because you download music in disrepect is,
> still wrong. I'm not a Judge...because I make
> mistakes all the time as well. But i do not steal.
> It is piracy no shape or form how you interpret
> downloading on others' work.
Funny you should mention the "Muddy Waters painting the walls" quote. Bill Wyman and other Stones along with Marshall Chess and Muddy's biography refers to this as another "Keithism" that occurred only in Keiths memory!! Muddy stayed a working paid musician until his death!

Scott, No offense...but this was illlustrated in a documentary aired by VH1 before the Voodoo Lounge Tour....

If you want to recant Keith's words as "Keithism" then yours are just the same.

Don't worry, he doesn't read this thread.

it's good to think about these issues sometimes, so: thanks Chris Fountain.
i'm always glad when the artists give me a chance to pay them for what they do -
i would never dream of owning an illegal copy of an official release.
as for bootlegs (by which i mean stuff that hasn't been officially released) ... sigh!
humans' ability to justify practically anything we feel like doing is truly amazing:
i try to comfort myself with the thought that the artists have "okayed" the circulation
of at least some bootlegged material, but at the same time i know i own & love stuff
that they definitely didn't want in circulation (for example all those Voodoo Lounge sessions).

it's good too to hear that someone still thinks about artists' right to decide for themselves what to release -
i believe in that too, which means i'm in violation of my own ethics on this score, which is just ... bad. :[



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 18:09 by with sssoul.

My desire to hear officially unreleased stuff overpowers any moral guilt I may feel about buying such things.

The problem with unofficial bootlegs is that they often contain some officially released material in amongst the unreleased gems.

Hmmm...

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scott, No offense...but this was illlustrated in
> a documentary aired by VH1 before the Voodoo
> Lounge Tour....
>
> If you want to recant Keith's words as "Keithism"
> then yours are just the same.
>
> Don't worry, he doesn't read this thread.
No offense taken, chris. These discussions are very informative and makes one think. Heaven knows we can all learn something. But I stand by my position and this story has nearly become a "Keith legend". I don't think Keith would hold this against me anymore than the other people who's different memories I based my reponse on. I thouroughly enjoyed our conversation, old bean! (please see "Rolling With The Stones" by Bill Wyman page 129)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 19:22 by scottkeef.

His Majesty,

Shouldn't the Stones decide what needs to be released? They made the music and it is their property. I just can't go out that way.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His Majesty,
>
> Shouldn't the Stones decide what needs to be
> released? They made the music and it is their
> property. I just can't go out that way.

Your points are all morally and legally 100% right, but the reality is that some people put these things aside mainly due to the fact some of us want to hear as much music from our favourite bands as possible. Plus, it's really really interesting to hear how songs have developed etc.

His Majesty,

I agree the Stones should release 'the vault" and their creative magic.



If everyone in this forum, can't appreciate everything they have done thus fara nd want more and more and complain and steal tracks then there is no peace within.

I refuse to steal from the greatest band in the world. They have given me more than money can buy. Priceless.

This a general comment not directed towards anyone.

I'm glad this came up because I've been downloading some stuff lately, and I've been wondering where it comes from, whether it is material the arists would like to protect. I'm technologically declined, so really don't understand the process. There are so many soundboard recordings out there, from concerts and rehearsals - who makes them? And if they are from where I think they are from, wouldn't the band stop the practice if they didn't want the stuff out there?

Seriously, please educate me, I'm mystified by this one. Thanks.

STG

I doubt if the Stones upload soundboards on the net. What person would take from the Stones should be brought in front of a Judge.

Chris Fountain,just wondering. Are you telling us that you have never done anything morally wrong or questionable in your entire life and that you live your every day life by these same high moral principles?

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Chris, you tend think in very moral terms, but truth is that the music business in general was never exactly a home of morality. contracts are often lousy to start with, only when you become a famous "brand name" and a guaranteed money machine record companies offer better contracts because they want to pay as much as possible to keep you or others pay as much as possible to add you to their artist rosters. in the 50s or 60s, many artists, and this includes many famous blues and rock and roll acts, were paid a flat fee for a single or an album. means that you received lets say 1000 dollars for an album and thats it -even if it turned into a million seller album the 1000 dollars were all you ever received from recording the album. and that was common practice back then. of course, if you became famous you could make better deals. royalties per sold album etc. but thats basically why so many wellknown names from 50 or 60s had to earn their living through live shows.

Sweet Charmed and Alimente;

With respect please read from an earlier post....start with I'm not a Judge....



Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TooTough, Nanker...No offense,
>
> Suppose if you were an artist yourself. Remember
> when Keith (paraphrasing) said "There is Muddy
> Waters painting walls (Chicago)". "The King of
> Blues painting walls?" So a concert ensued.
>
> Just because you download music in disrepect is,
> still wrong. I'm not a Judge...because I make
> mistakes all the time as well. But i do not steal.
> It is piracy no shape or form how you interpret
> downloading on others' work.

Hardwork ????? Charlies quote after 25 years Stones......."5 years working and 20 years hanging arround"

Go check Alimente's ....... music business that's the one are stealing

__________________________

NICOS,

Don't Worry,

If the music recording industry is manipulating musicians, their fate will be met in time such as Enron, Chinese Trade, etc......

At $450 a ticket plus whatever for Tee Shirts I don't feel quilty at all.
If they don't want us to download it then release it. A Lot of us would gladyly buy it. And besides that. You are you to be making a statement like that. Climb back from whatever rock you came out of and mind your own buisness. I don't think the Stones need you as a spokesman. And one last thing. I read on one of these threads that theStones THEMSELVES buy some boots.

>> truth is that the music business in general was never exactly a home of morality.
contracts are often lousy to start with <<

right alimente - and i know people who use the points you're making to justify their decision
to download official releases illegally, but i just can't see why record companies' long tradition
of ripping off artists makes it okay for their fans to join in. especially since it's not just money
that artists lose through illegal downloading - it's status & leverage in "the industry" as well.
and lest we forget: artists gaining a bit of status & leverage (for a change!) was a *huge* part
of what allowed that "golden age" in the 60s/70s that so many of us recall so fondly.

but this is all a somewhat different issue than what i think Chris Fountain is trying to address - sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 19:23 by with sssoul.

I think the author of this thread needs to get a life.

Chris Fountain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sweet Charmed and Alimente;
>
> With respect please read from an earlier
> post....start with I'm not a Judge....
>
> Chris Fountain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a Judge...(..) But i do not
> steal.

So you're "no judge", yet you say WE are "stealing" by sharing concert-recordings...
Most contradictory poster here since JaggerFan, based on the Scandinavian thread and this one



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-04 19:27 by Erik_Snow.