1. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]
    It might sound all nice and generous with them sharing music for the fans blah blah blah but in the end what they are doing is illegal and try using your argument in court and see how far it gets you ,GnR have pursued bootleggers who have shared live audio and studio recordings as have many other artists such as Metallica and Prince ,the band might turn a blind eye and say they've no problem with it but it's the management and record company who are the ones who do.


    well can i just point you to youtube and see 99% of bootleg recordings happily being shared and people not being sued

    also the band in question here - U2 okay their management - have never pursued anyone!

    so with your evidence i'd say that that occurrence is very very very extremely rare and not relevant at all regarding U2's music

    we can have another debate about the other 3 artists you mentioned but they're still in a very very very extremely small minority to the point of being irrelevant and out-dated in this modern era of sharing
  2. Originally posted by TheRealEdge:[..]


    well can i just point you to youtube and see 99% of bootleg recordings happily being shared and people not being sued

    also the band in question here - U2 okay their management - have never pursued anyone!

    so with your evidence i'd say that that occurrence is very very very extremely rare and not relevant at all regarding U2's music

    we can have another debate about the other 3 artists you mentioned but they're still in a very very very extremely small minority to the point of being irrelevant and out-dated in this modern era of sharing
    Can I just point out YouTube remove videos all the time a lot of stuff gets removed including U2 content which has happened to a lot of folks round here .
  3. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]
    Can I just point out YouTube remove videos all the time a lot of stuff gets removed including U2 content which has happened to a lot of folks round here .


    again - small percentages

    suing bootleggers who are like factories and charging money is one thing

    pursuing small frys is exactly that - and not worth their legal fees to do so

    now and again something will happen and something will make the news and someone will have a video removed but the majority of time nothing happens

    anyhoo we don't want to hijack this thread with the legalities - we want to see a reasoned argument between hoserama and vetri

    ...and you obviously like POP so i can't really have any beef with a fellow POP fan
  4. I think Prince's argument is that the quality of the bootlegs of him was always sub-standard. He didn't direct a video of him that was sub-standard. He had a really strong point.
  5. Originally posted by miryclay:I think Prince's argument is that the quality of the bootlegs of him was always sub-standard. He didn't direct a video of him that was sub-standard. He had a really strong point.
    As the resident Prince expert, or at least so called Prince expert, who not only talked to Prince a few times, and went to over 50 Prince shows, he did TONS of things Sub Standard. I love Prince more than myself and U2 combined, and that's a lot. But I'll be the first to point out numerous inconsistencies with him and his work. Not only did Prince record the Las Vegas DVD on poor equipment that may have been half of uh P when it could have been 1080 P, some of his bootlegs sound and look better than released projects, where cutting costs was more important to him.
    Now as far as this battle between tapers? I'm too old to care anymore. I mean, I'm grateful for the hard work some do to get us IEM, IBM, and those who skillfully create Matrix of them splicing the inner ear monitor with some audience recording that sounds like crap, making it into a release worthy thing...yeah, that is great... that I never would've been able to do, but this debate probably won't change much. I probably lean towards respecting the wishes of the taper, but I'm still respecting the wishes of someone using content they don't own, so there's always a slippery slope here. So I'm on everybody's side. Let's all be happy and hope we get another tour, and I hope somebody can record it on a potato so I can enjoy a show I attended!
  6. In fact, the only traders I no longer respect, are the so called "Elite Traders." The ones who have studio outtakes nobody else has, the ones who have soundboard recordings nobody else has, and especially the ones who brag about how they have them and YOU don't. I suppose I have more animosity for the ones in Prince world than U2 world, but both are a rare breed of human. Many of these people would rather take a gunshot to the head rather than share these recordings that they have sworn to the grave to not release. Sure, I can sorta understand way back when you did not want some band member or some hanger on to get in trouble, but once a recording is over 20 years old, just forget it. It's not that serious. Sure there may be someone worried about losing their job, or whatever, but 99.999999% of the time, it's simply just to be able to die knowing you kept another fan from enjoying something that you enjoy. Sick.
  7. Yeah but if folks don't release stuff then Vetri can't use without permission!
  8. Hoserama:
    Vetri fell into the trap because he stole the original U2 songs here too. From the ground up was released by U2 for subscribers. But write in it: "Do not use this video for another edition or multicam!" (Vetri 2013), but what about the sound, what about the sound, where we all don't have the copyright but U2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iPNL1_fBq0U

  9. hoserama:

    Something is wrong with Mr. Vetri as we can all read. He simply told the U2 community the untruth here in the forum.
  10. Grow up ffs!

  11. I'll try to be a bit fair and understand that things might have evolved in 8 years.

    Vetri actually PM'd me back then to use some of my mixes in projects. So once upon a time he made the effort. Most likely he got tired of asking and took the opinion to do a free for all. Hard to say, I can't read his mind. All I can comment is his conduct in the last 5 years and poor quality projects.

    Again, if folks want to collaborate with him, go right ahead. Just know the history and character.
  12. hoserama:

    It's about the contradiction with Mr. Vetri. On the one hand, he writes that you shouldn't take your things under any circumstances. But on the other he steals and copies the audio, whatever it is. So also the original, protected songs, things released by U2. In principle, with him neither knows what the one hand or the other hand is doing. Not to mention the Berlin Zoo Station. There he stole the original video from U2 and changed it. Is he allowed to do that? I don't think so.