The Divine Comedy Forum Index The Divine Comedy

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups     
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

bootleg / ripped DC tracks

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Divine Comedy Forum Index -> Live
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
HollyDC
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 2994

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:49 pm    Post subject: bootleg / ripped DC tracks Reply with quote

[Repost]

There has been something of a resurgence regarding interest in illegal bootleg recordings of DC material and ripped versions of official releases. We are tolerant of these discussions as we are aware they are generally fuelled by genuine fan interest to get hold of rare material without a desire to benefit commercially. However, limits must be drawn, especially here on the official site as this activity does affect Neil's commercial standing. As I have said before, any posts containing uploaded bootleg material, or ripped versions of official releases will be removed. Similarly, posts with links to other sites featuring such files will be removed. BB users who persist in uploading material will be contacted and may have their posting rights removed.

We want to encourage a community that chats about stuff and can pass on information to others, and this includes interest in Neil's releases. We just ask for a bit of commonsense and consideration when venturing into this territory on this official website!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Otis



Joined: 18 Nov 2012
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure it affects Neil's commercial bloody standing. It makes people more interested in acquiring his music, and therefore will lead directly to sales.

What kind of absurd nonsense is this? Turn a blind eye to it, nobody anywhere cares two hoots about trading of supposedly 'illegal' bootlegs. Only the violation of commercially available material is of any consequence to anyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Greenthumb



Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 112
Location: Nowhere, England

PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Otis

I think the concern here, as emphasised in the original post, is ripped off commercial material, rather than anything else.

For a fan discussion of these issues you might try this thread
http://forums.thedivinecomedy.com/viewtopic.php?p=511283#511283

Otherwise - this is a DCHQ space, so I guess it's a case of 'their house, their rules'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Otis



Joined: 18 Nov 2012
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My focus, explicitly stated in my post, was regarding 'illegal bootlegs', citing the original post, which emphasises these as much as official releases, if not moreso by citing it first. I also explicitly refer to the violation of commercial material as being of consequence, so your take on my comments and reference to a discussion on ASAAL bonus tracks was not relevant to my point.

The background to this was I posted a new thread asking if anyone had a recording of Neil doing his gorgeous rendition of I Only have Eyes For You with Cathy Davey. The thread was deleted and I was sent a PM from a moderator citing these house rules. They seem absurd to me, or at least the merging of the view on bootlegs and ripping off commercial material, which are two very different things. I cite the wonderful Dimeadozen website which has c. 52,000 torrents running, and yet enforce an absolutely strict policy of no commercial material at all. They even get uploaders to remove individual tracks from a bootleg because, for example, they appeared as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album. This is a sensible approach to legal/illegal file sharing. Readily available bootlegs means no-one makes money out of them. The twin stipulations you will always see people cite on Dimeadozen are a) don't downgrade from lossless quality files and b) share freely, don't sell.

Sure, their house rules, but it's a public community, and I am very keen to point out the false premise that the one regarding bootlegs is based on, and I do inisist fully on the notion that bootleg sharers are encouraging fan obsessiveness and therefore an increased likelihood of sales. Hence my criticism of the point re the commercial standing of an artist.

With a bit more searching, I found a fairly poor quality MP3 of the track, still good to have it. Not sure if it's the same version from Manchester that appears on YouTube. I'm very happy to share it with anyone who like me wanted to relive the moment of hearing it live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Greenthumb



Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Posts: 112
Location: Nowhere, England

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, I wasn't aware of the background - didn't see the thread. Hence the reference to the other discussion. No need to be short with me - I meant no offence.

However I guess there is another aspect to this - doesn't the artist have some say in how they are recorded/presented?

I can see the argument that live fan recordings may encourage interest, but ultimately if something is 'preserved' on line, shouldn't the artist have a say? For quality control purposes if nothing else?

One of the things that irritates me is the release of unreleased material, frequently (though not always) sub-standard, by the estates of dead singers. Stuff that was never intended for release or never finished, now out and diluting the considered, truly finished, work.

It must be pretty irritating, to say the least, if that sort of thing happens whilst you're still walking around!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Metroland



Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Otis wrote:
The background to this was I posted a new thread asking if anyone had a recording of Neil doing his gorgeous rendition of I Only have Eyes For You with Cathy Davey. The thread was deleted and I was sent a PM from a moderator citing these house rules.



*cough*
People sharing Neil Hannon and Cathy Davey duet on the DC board: http://forums.thedivinecomedy.com/viewtopic.php?t=15199

2009 and never got deleted (rules are from 2008)... You are reallly an unlucky man, or were very nasty when linking the youtube recording!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Otis



Joined: 18 Nov 2012
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't link to YouTube, just asked if anyone could share. Thanks for pointing out that thread. Megaupload has gone west and the other links also don't work.

Greenthumb: the background cited wasn't necessary to know to understand what I was saying. No offence meant through any perceived shortness, but if I write something clear and unambiguous and have it misinterpreted, as was very unambiguously the case here, I need to make the correction clear. I would also state that no artist is ever going to have nor has ever had any control over bootlegs. This point goes back to my original point: there's a significant moral/legal/artistic difference between the commercially released and that which is just harmless money-free sharing of non-commercial content. Any artist (at least with anything resembling a brain, patently the case with our Neil) can only be happy to know people love their work enough to know they want to share live recordings with others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Divine Comedy Forum Index -> Live All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group