Still have'nt got any, but......as i was at the Newcastle '79 gig, i would be grateful if anyone could let me know where i could get a cd of this.
Master marathon runner
master marathon runner
Thread
Posts in chronological order
guild93
The first bootleg I got was actually a CD in 1990 ....... got it from a guy I worked with who was a dealer, he offered it to me for $55 and had to explain to me what a bootleg WAS as I was just out of school and never heard if one. The CD was Hammy XMAS 1975, sound quality is decent but had a few vinyl crackles which I thought was a bit crappy but I know better now!
léolacet
Mine was call, Tokyo Rampage, and it began with cue tacking on a board and a voice saying: ladies and gentlemen, a night at the opera, and then the whole operatic segment of bohemian rhapsody came on and the show started with the heavy movement of bohemian, 1975 recorded, i think, and i received it in 1977, i was already magic
rhyeking
Sir GH wrote: rhyeking wrote:
I think we're hair-splitting on the definition of bootleg.
===================
Yes, because it's very necessary.
Wikipedia and the dictionary are not written by collectors of music recordings. The definition of the word 'bootleg' I have given is that according to most COLLECTORS who have come to use the word to differentiate company-pressed unofficial releases from everything else. Language evolves. It's a reality of our very existence.
If someone records a show from the tenth row and shares it online, it's just a recording. When it is bootlegged, that taper has thereby been ripped off, because now some company is making money off something that was intended to be shared freely. These days some collectors go to extraordinary lengths to transfer old tapes preserving otherwise unheard pieces of music history and circulate them in the best quality possible. It is an insult to refer to their work as bootlegging.
As you know, there is a Queen bootleg from the 70s called "Sheetkeeckers." There is no bootleg called "Rocking at the Rainbow." If I choose to share that same recording online with a cover that is entitled "Rocking at the Rainbow," it won't suddenly be added to the canon of Queen bootlegs of that show. A couple years back someone anonymously posted what is presumably a stolen soundboard recording of one of the Sun City '84 shows. That doesn't suddenly make them a bootlegger. The word bootleg was never once used. It's just an old tape.
Yes, we are splitting hairs, but it is a very necessary exercise. The dictionary says what it does, but most collectors would disagree, since terminology for unreleased recordings has evolved greatly in the last 20 years. It's not collectors who write the dictionary.
Look at the replies in this thread - people are referring to bootlegs exactly as I'm describing them. They are mentioning vinyl and silver bootlegs from the 70s through the 90s. They're talking about the physical product, not the music.
Go to any forum where people collect unreleased music on a semi-serious level and the overwhelming majority will agree. Or go to Dime and start this thread. You won't last an hour.
*******************************************
The old tape is a bootleg recording, no matter what you do with it. The person who made it is a bootlegger, as is anyone who continues to copy and distribute it.
If some bootleggers don't know what to properly identify themselves and their product as, that's just sad.
Since you mentioned what bootleggers refer to themselves as, I decided to look for myself and see. I found a Bootlegging site called Bob's Boots, which deals with the trading of bootleg recordings and features an informative essay on what a bootleg is, compared to a Pirate or Counterfeit copy. It's from 1996, so it predates the advent of YouTube and file-sharing, but the principal is clearly expressed, where the creation and distribution is key, rather than the medium itself:
"A bootleg album, cassette, or CD is one that has been created completely from material (songs, spoken word, etc.) that is not commercially available. The material might be from an interview, radio broadcast, recording from a live concert, studio outtake tapes etc. etc."
Here are the links:
Full Essay:
http://www.bobsboots.com/boot.html
Site Information Page:
http://www.bobsboots.com/info.html
Written for and by bootleggers, saying essentially the same thing as I and others did.
I think we're hair-splitting on the definition of bootleg.
===================
Yes, because it's very necessary.
Wikipedia and the dictionary are not written by collectors of music recordings. The definition of the word 'bootleg' I have given is that according to most COLLECTORS who have come to use the word to differentiate company-pressed unofficial releases from everything else. Language evolves. It's a reality of our very existence.
If someone records a show from the tenth row and shares it online, it's just a recording. When it is bootlegged, that taper has thereby been ripped off, because now some company is making money off something that was intended to be shared freely. These days some collectors go to extraordinary lengths to transfer old tapes preserving otherwise unheard pieces of music history and circulate them in the best quality possible. It is an insult to refer to their work as bootlegging.
As you know, there is a Queen bootleg from the 70s called "Sheetkeeckers." There is no bootleg called "Rocking at the Rainbow." If I choose to share that same recording online with a cover that is entitled "Rocking at the Rainbow," it won't suddenly be added to the canon of Queen bootlegs of that show. A couple years back someone anonymously posted what is presumably a stolen soundboard recording of one of the Sun City '84 shows. That doesn't suddenly make them a bootlegger. The word bootleg was never once used. It's just an old tape.
Yes, we are splitting hairs, but it is a very necessary exercise. The dictionary says what it does, but most collectors would disagree, since terminology for unreleased recordings has evolved greatly in the last 20 years. It's not collectors who write the dictionary.
Look at the replies in this thread - people are referring to bootlegs exactly as I'm describing them. They are mentioning vinyl and silver bootlegs from the 70s through the 90s. They're talking about the physical product, not the music.
Go to any forum where people collect unreleased music on a semi-serious level and the overwhelming majority will agree. Or go to Dime and start this thread. You won't last an hour.
*******************************************
The old tape is a bootleg recording, no matter what you do with it. The person who made it is a bootlegger, as is anyone who continues to copy and distribute it.
If some bootleggers don't know what to properly identify themselves and their product as, that's just sad.
Since you mentioned what bootleggers refer to themselves as, I decided to look for myself and see. I found a Bootlegging site called Bob's Boots, which deals with the trading of bootleg recordings and features an informative essay on what a bootleg is, compared to a Pirate or Counterfeit copy. It's from 1996, so it predates the advent of YouTube and file-sharing, but the principal is clearly expressed, where the creation and distribution is key, rather than the medium itself:
"A bootleg album, cassette, or CD is one that has been created completely from material (songs, spoken word, etc.) that is not commercially available. The material might be from an interview, radio broadcast, recording from a live concert, studio outtake tapes etc. etc."
Here are the links:
Full Essay:
http://www.bobsboots.com/boot.html
Site Information Page:
http://www.bobsboots.com/info.html
Written for and by bootleggers, saying essentially the same thing as I and others did.
The Real Wizard
That website is horribly outdated. It's like referencing a text book from 2003 and insisting that Pluto is still a planet.
GratefulFan
People are fighting and they're not me! Yay!
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw :)
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw :)
rhyeking
Sir GH wrote: That website is horribly outdated. It's like referencing a text book from 2003 and insisting that Pluto is still a planet.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Honestly, I've stopped caring, so I'll end with the fact that I cited three sources to support my point of view, representing a cross-section of the population, including bootleggers themselves. The argument against consists of entirely that both myself and these sources are wrong because...well, they just are...apparently, since they aren't the people on the bootleg sites the poster uses, which amounts to nothing more than "No, you're wrong, because I said so," which is pretty thin.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Honestly, I've stopped caring, so I'll end with the fact that I cited three sources to support my point of view, representing a cross-section of the population, including bootleggers themselves. The argument against consists of entirely that both myself and these sources are wrong because...well, they just are...apparently, since they aren't the people on the bootleg sites the poster uses, which amounts to nothing more than "No, you're wrong, because I said so," which is pretty thin.
people on streets
There is a huge difference between a bootlegger and a live concert taper.
Taping + sharing = free
bootlegging + selling = money
Is that really so hard to understand?
Most tapers would be offended to be called bootleggers.
Go to www.taperssection.com and say that tapers are bootleggers.
Taping + sharing = free
bootlegging + selling = money
Is that really so hard to understand?
Most tapers would be offended to be called bootleggers.
Go to www.taperssection.com and say that tapers are bootleggers.
queenboot
Hi,
The first bootleg I ever bought was the Dynasty LP in the mid 80'.
Cheers
Norbert.
The first bootleg I ever bought was the Dynasty LP in the mid 80'.
Cheers
Norbert.
Bad Seed
First bootleg was 'Live in Cologne' 1979. Bought it in the early 90's from HMV in Sunderland. Quite odd that HMV were selling audience recorded bootlegs back then!
Double-U
On Vinyl I bought a horrible recording from Bradford 1974.
The splattered clear Vinyl was limited to 75 copies with a hand made cover (even ALF the alien is on it) and is called "Fairytales Of Yesterday" I paid 75 deutch marks for it and it was send to me after I started a request at the "Rock Hard" magazine in the mid 90's.
I'm not that old, I think
W.
The splattered clear Vinyl was limited to 75 copies with a hand made cover (even ALF the alien is on it) and is called "Fairytales Of Yesterday" I paid 75 deutch marks for it and it was send to me after I started a request at the "Rock Hard" magazine in the mid 90's.
I'm not that old, I think
W.
rhyeking
people on streets wrote: There is a huge difference between a bootlegger and a live concert taper.
Taping + sharing = free
bootlegging + selling = money
Is that really so hard to understand?
Most tapers would be offended to be called bootleggers.
Go to www.taperssection.com and say that tapers are bootleggers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently I'm stubborn, even by my own standards.
I'm personally not applying a higher moral judgement on the act of bootlegging. I own bootleg recordings. I've posted a bootleg recording in its entirety on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNTMeBq9Mfs
By my own definition (and Miriam Webster, the people whose job it is to define words), I'm a bootlegger.
I'm perfectly fine with the people doing it and hope the copyright holders don't care enough to cry 'foul!' Bootleg recordings are important archival recordings in a lot of cases.
That the bootleggers themselves don't like the word, the label and don't consider themselves "bootleggers" doesn't change the meaning of the word.
I thumbed through TapersSection.com and read their Legal thread, where the Original Poster attached links to the US Federal Laws which cover this issue. He summarized it thusly:
"Briefly, recording and trading without the artist's consent is a violation of Federal law and brings with it the penalties that come from copyright infringement (actual damages and profits, or statutory damages between $200 and $150,000 plus possible additional damages as well as legal/court fees).
HOWEVER, the very last part of section 1101 says that state laws are not pre-empted. Whether this means that federal laws do not apply if there's a state law, or if they apply in ADDITION to the states' laws, is not clear. Hence my hope that lawyers will help us out here.
The general state party line is, if the artist says it's ok, you're not breaking the law. If the artist doesn't say it's ok, you're usually not breaking the law as long as it's for non-commercial use. Some states go so far as to say that distributing it isn't ok but owning it for personal use is permissible; these are noted in the posts for that particular state."
Here's the topic thread:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=23206.0
Legalese doesn't tend to use the word "bootleg," despite authoritative sources applying it as I have done.
Basically, "We don't like being called that" is hardly an argument.
Okay, now I'm done...I hope.
Taping + sharing = free
bootlegging + selling = money
Is that really so hard to understand?
Most tapers would be offended to be called bootleggers.
Go to www.taperssection.com and say that tapers are bootleggers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently I'm stubborn, even by my own standards.
I'm personally not applying a higher moral judgement on the act of bootlegging. I own bootleg recordings. I've posted a bootleg recording in its entirety on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNTMeBq9Mfs
By my own definition (and Miriam Webster, the people whose job it is to define words), I'm a bootlegger.
I'm perfectly fine with the people doing it and hope the copyright holders don't care enough to cry 'foul!' Bootleg recordings are important archival recordings in a lot of cases.
That the bootleggers themselves don't like the word, the label and don't consider themselves "bootleggers" doesn't change the meaning of the word.
I thumbed through TapersSection.com and read their Legal thread, where the Original Poster attached links to the US Federal Laws which cover this issue. He summarized it thusly:
"Briefly, recording and trading without the artist's consent is a violation of Federal law and brings with it the penalties that come from copyright infringement (actual damages and profits, or statutory damages between $200 and $150,000 plus possible additional damages as well as legal/court fees).
HOWEVER, the very last part of section 1101 says that state laws are not pre-empted. Whether this means that federal laws do not apply if there's a state law, or if they apply in ADDITION to the states' laws, is not clear. Hence my hope that lawyers will help us out here.
The general state party line is, if the artist says it's ok, you're not breaking the law. If the artist doesn't say it's ok, you're usually not breaking the law as long as it's for non-commercial use. Some states go so far as to say that distributing it isn't ok but owning it for personal use is permissible; these are noted in the posts for that particular state."
Here's the topic thread:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=23206.0
Legalese doesn't tend to use the word "bootleg," despite authoritative sources applying it as I have done.
Basically, "We don't like being called that" is hardly an argument.
Okay, now I'm done...I hope.
people on streets
Dude... you read the topic right?
This was posted in the topic you are referring to:
BIG EDIT: The original information (that not between these two lines) may no longer apply. A new statute was passed in 2006 that appears to supersede the code below. The full code can be seen here now:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319---A000-.html
The upshot is that penalties are MUCH worse...but now the all-important clause about "commercial advantage or private financial gain" has been inserted, and the clause about state laws having precedence over federal law has been removed.
So bottom line - it appears that not-for-profit recording is technically legal even if not authorized by the artist, though you may have difficulty proving that you have no financial motives in a timely fashion that will enable you to continue your recording if the authorities decide to stop you.
________________________________________________________________
Other word for creating private financial gain with copyright protected material : bootlegging
Other word for making not-for-profit recordings: taping.
This was posted in the topic you are referring to:
BIG EDIT: The original information (that not between these two lines) may no longer apply. A new statute was passed in 2006 that appears to supersede the code below. The full code can be seen here now:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319---A000-.html
The upshot is that penalties are MUCH worse...but now the all-important clause about "commercial advantage or private financial gain" has been inserted, and the clause about state laws having precedence over federal law has been removed.
So bottom line - it appears that not-for-profit recording is technically legal even if not authorized by the artist, though you may have difficulty proving that you have no financial motives in a timely fashion that will enable you to continue your recording if the authorities decide to stop you.
________________________________________________________________
Other word for creating private financial gain with copyright protected material : bootlegging
Other word for making not-for-profit recordings: taping.
reeddr
Mine was a 2 album package called "Queen Live" and it had the Hammersmith 75 concert and an earlier one that was from the Killer Queen tour.
This was around 1977 and I remember how I loved Brians guitar solo on "Brighton Rock".
This was around 1977 and I remember how I loved Brians guitar solo on "Brighton Rock".
paulosham
Unauthorised Release = Bootleg