1. Originally posted by felix2:hoserama:
    Maybe it's a strange trick by Mr. Vetri, because the name Achtung Baby is protected by U2, so the letters were simply swapped. Therefore the documentary film can never have anything to do with U2, because the title plays something wrong "Acthung Baby" (Vetri 2012, 2021) Let's say Vetri gets something from U2 because of the copyright, Vetri can talk his way out of it simply cannot find the title correctly, although U2 and Achtung Baby were meant.
    Yeah most probably, because he has cared a lot about copyright infringement in the past
  2. Call it a hunch, but I don't think there was some clever reason behind the typo. Especially since it was correctly spelled in plenty of other places.

    Again, typos happen to the best of us. I won't fault that too harshly. It's just funny that there's such a prominent typo, which only emphasizes the shitty quality controls in Vetri's past and present projects.
  3. hoserama:
    It would be worth knowing if Mr. Vetri would leave the title "Acthung Baby" (Vetri 2012, 2021) like that and U2 would also be shown in the film. With pictures that we don't know yet. In its Zoo station part there are already original recordings of U2, that suggests that the apple does not fall far from the trunk. Then Vetri says it's not about Achtung Baby, but about Acthung Baby! Crazy.
  4. I somehow think you little girls are in the minority here, oh and by the way i appreciate all efforts of material, since we have to wait years for official stuff!




  5. bazza1:
    Vetri's thumb print was unfortunately stolen from U2 as well. Compare.
  6. I think it is actually U2's decision to make.
  7. Girls crying over someone using audio etc that was pirately recorded in the first place, go figure
  8. bazzza1:
    There is no legal term for pirated copies, but pirated copies are allowed in the private sphere.
  9. I don’t agree with your mindset at all. A taper goes to the effort of recording a show and based on what I’ve seen and read it’s a fair effort required, they then mix that recording work on it until they’re satisfied. They have no obligation at that point to share it with anyone, absolutely no obligation, but they decide to do so anyway and just ask not to use that recording for projects without their permission and you’re calling them out for that? You’ve probably watched videos that include Hoserama’s recordings in them, got the enjoyment out of them for nothing. I would have thought the least thanks you could pay a taper is to respect their wishes.
  10. Like i say appreciate all efforts, great work all around, btw who gets U2's permission???.......
  11. You obviously don’t appreciate Hoserama’s efforts or you would respect his wishes. You’re just happy to take the enjoyment out of his recordings without giving that little bit back that he’s requested. Nobody has U2’s permission, what’s that got to do with being grateful enough to respect a tapers wishes? I’m grateful for the efforts of all tapers, editors etc that follow good etiquette towards others. In the long run we all benefit more from people just doing what they’re asked, it would encourage tapers to share a bit more I’m sure and even if it didn’t it’s just decency to the work someone has put into something by respecting their wishes.
  12. you obviously don't understand trading/sharing/reuse etiquette or U2's position on recording of shows🤣🤣