Greg Lake’s rant against bootlegs and piracy.

Hmmm...I would think, at this point in his career, that Greg Lake should consider himself lucky that fans even attend his shows. And I certainly hope there are reinforced trusses under the stage to support his tremendous girth.

moodyxadi wrote: Putin' aside the anal-copyrights' defenders, bootleging without profit is a valuable exercise. The greatest shows I've ever heard from my favorite bands weren't recorded or released and without the bootlegs we can't even know about them. How can we know what was the Pink Floyd's 'The Man & The Journey" concerts without the bootlegs? Reading the description of the concert "(The show starts with what would become Grantchester Meadows, then...") can't lead me any closer of the full piece.

Putin' aside the anal-copyrights' defenders, bootleging without profit is a valuable exercise. The greatest shows I've ever heard from my favorite bands weren't recorded or released and without the bootlegs we can't even know about them.

How can we know what was the Pink Floyd's 'The Man & The Journey" concerts without the bootlegs? Reading the description of the concert "(The show starts with what would become Grantchester Meadows, then...") can't lead me any closer of the full piece.

I really love the web and the dozens of great guys that share for free their bootlegs. I'm not a fan of selling boots; I didn't qualify it as illegal but I think it is unfair. Take the example of the wondeful Progressive Rock Remasters Project (PRRP) and their incredible work in mixing classic bootlegs the best way they can: They do this for free, earning the love and respect from their fellow music lovers, that appreciate music in the first place.

And the cultural industry was really affected by the downloading but I never know about tours and/or shows being
negativelly affected by this. And that is the main source of income to the artists (at least those in activity).

BTW: After hearing a lot of boots I can't listen to an official show the same way as when I had innocent ears. If you want to know how our fav band is/was alive, listen to a good boot. End of story.

BTW 2: Now that my boy is 2 I just read topics one day or another. But the way this Moshkito (or whatever) guy was bashed for his writing and opinions (a little hard for the common viewer, but very realistic when talkin' about the regular prog lover and his superiority complex ) shows that for a lot of people what we, non-English speakers, are in their views: rude barbarians that dare to talk to their wise lords.

Sorry for the bad English, Buana.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   There are no grey areas, it's pristine clear that the author or copyright holder own the EXCLUSIVE right to tape, film or photograph a performance, they are free to allow third parties to do the same or not. Iván

 

Well said Ivan.

That fat futhermucker has some nerve.....he and E and P have stolen dollars from my pocket and hours from my life with that pompous drivel they've put out over the years.  Those "Beat the Bootleggers" boxes they've put out sound like they were recorded underwater but they still charge full boar for them.

Kojak wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Nice try Lemming. Not sure I could be bothered to decode and answer one Moshkito post. I know, I don't even bother reading them..

Padraic wrote: Evolver wrote: There's not much any official authority can do to stop illegal downloading. Maybe more unofficial channels would be more effective. I suggest that Greg Lake take it up with a mafia kingpin. Which begs the question: Mr. Lake, has the Don ever seen your eyes?

Epignosis wrote: Evolver wrote: There's not much any official authority can do to stop illegal downloading. Maybe more unofficial channels would be more effective. I suggest that Greg Lake take it up with a mafia kingpin. Which begs the question: Mr. Lake, has the Don ever seen your eyes?

rogerthat wrote:   On a detour, what is the legal position on photographs shot during the concert?  I think that they too are not allowed. Normally, cameras are frisked away at concerts these days, at least the ones that take place at arenas/stadia.  However, I have seen bands calling for fans to send across photos on facebook and I am talking really big bands here, not obscure artists who wouldn't mind souvenirs.  I have heard of musicians signing photographs taken by fans during concerts.  That's a choice of the band, they can resign to it when they want, or as King Crimson repeatedly did, suspend the show until the photos stop. It's their right and property they can do whatever they want with. I will also give you a hypothetical scenario:  let's say there's this band with a wonderful guitarist and on a particular concert night, he performs an incredible on the spot improv which gets much appreciated by the crowd but is not recorded by the band for subsequent distribution.  If somebody shot this improv on mobile camera and showed him the video, would he not feel glad and maybe even ask the fan to share it? There's no point in pretending that he will scowl, because most people won't.  Again...it's the artist's call, he may be happy and support it, he may not be pleased and sue you, in both cases I would support his call because he's the owner of the copyright.  Fripp probably would, but he is not "most people".  As is typical in most of these debates, the legal position is crystal clear but there is a grey area of emotions outside it and the fact that the grey area has no legal locus standi does not mean bands or artists will be able to wish it away and nor do I believe most of them do anyway.   There are no grey areas, it's pristine clear that the author or copyright holder own the EXCLUSIVE right to tape, film or photograph a performance, they are free to allow third parties to do the same or not. Iván