The Medusa Fora

You know - if you want to hear it and stuff.

I haven't downloaded it. I don't know if it's worth the effort or not.

http://sverch.silvernet.ru/reunion.html

That show is also up on Kufen's ftp.
No great sound quality but listenable if you wasn't there and is curious about the way The Pogues sound nowadays (atleast you get a hum about it).

Umm, haven't listened to it yet, but if it's from 17 Dec 04, it must be the Birmingham gig, not Brixton.

firehazard wrote:Umm, haven't listened to it yet, but if it's from 17 Dec 04, it must be the Birmingham gig, not Brixton.

Oh yeah. Fixed.

have you heard it?
or is it Brixton youre waiting for like me?
if its Birmingham i can send you an mp3 sampler i converted the one off er...torrentingummy

sorry i just clicked the link ,....
they are mp3 s!doh i dont know

and the recording is shit
fuck these shitty recordings ,im loking forward to the 2001 gig on cd
form the soujnd board hopefully

duncan disorderly wrote:and the recording is shit
fuck these shitty recordings ,im loking forward to the 2001 gig on cd
form the soujnd board hopefully

You have stumbled across one of the two basic reasons I don't bother with boots.

that is the 2 basic reasons i dont bother with boots

bootlegs only rarely capture the spirit of the gig and the quality

DzM wrote:You have stumbled across one of the two basic reasons I don't bother with boots.

And number 2 is...

padraig wrote:And number 2 is...

I find the idea of bootlegs to be morally dubious (at best), and the behavior of many boot collectors distasteful (and in many cases downright repugnant).

Given that I rarely find the audio quality of boots worth listening to, I see no reason to subject myself to the other issues I point out.

DzM wrote:I find the idea of bootlegs to be morally dubious (at best), and the behavior of many boot collectors distasteful (and in many cases downright repugnant)

What specifically do you regard as dubious concerning "the idea of bootlegs?" Surely, "the idea" alone isn't dubious. Many notable bands consider bootlegs an acceptable part of the concert "experience," as it were. Why shouldn't an audience member be able to bring home a boot as a memory of the show like a t-shirt? In any case, it seems that the individual bands' policy regarding taping is worth investigating before downloading any bootleg and would determine the dubiousness of the recording(it would be interesting to hear what the Pogues' policy on bootlegs is/was).

With that said, there are some serious moral issues regarding the distributing of boots (selling). Obviously, people who make a profit from distributing bootlegs are infringing on the bands' rights to sell their own work but honest trading (bootleg for bootleg, boot for poster etc.) seems like a great way to spread one's love of music. One possible way to combat the illegal sale of boots is to adopt a recording policy similar to Pearl Jam or The Dead. Pearl Jam offered an 'Authorized" boot of every performance of their big tours in recent years. More interestingly, The Dead have taken to making authorized boots available hours after a show - with the increased capabilities to burn CDs at a phenomenal rate (and cheaply) it amazes that me more groups don't do this.

On the more technical side, it seems odd that though you have moral qualms regarding bootlegs you deemed it appropriate to link to one even though it might increase the "distasteful and even morally repugnant" behaviour you abhor.

padraig wrote:What specifically do you regard as dubious concerning "the idea of bootlegs?" Surely, "the idea" alone isn't dubious.

A very good point. I find the morality of bootlegs to be dubious. The idea is simply a fact that exists and is as incabable of being "dubious" as a hammer or a glass of water.

padraig wrote:Many notable bands consider bootlegs an acceptable part of the concert "experience," as it were. Why shouldn't an audience member be able to bring home a boot as a memory of the show like a t-shirt? In any case, it seems that the individual bands' policy regarding taping is worth investigating before downloading any bootleg and would determine the dubiousness of the recording(it would be interesting to hear what the Pogues' policy on bootlegs is/was).

And this is what I find morally dubious. Some bands (as you mention later) accept that bootlegs will happen and have business models in place that allow the artists to be compensated for the permanant record of their performance, and to benefit their fans by offering quality copies of the show. Many other artists choose not to do this and their fans choose not to respect the artist's (or their labels, or whoever the "official decision maker" for the band is) wishes. I object to a thriving black market economy based upon an action that violates the wishes and trust of the performers.

padraig wrote:Obviously, people who make a profit from distributing bootlegs are infringing on the bands' rights to sell their own work but honest trading (bootleg for bootleg, boot for poster etc.) seems like a great way to spread one's love of music.

How does a gift/swap/barter based economy for bootlegs undermine the band's rights any less than a monetary based economy transferring the same material?

padraig wrote:One possible way to combat the illegal sale of boots is to adopt a recording policy similar to Pearl Jam or The Dead. Pearl Jam offered an 'Authorized" boot of every performance of their big tours in recent years. More interestingly, The Dead have taken to making authorized boots available hours after a show - with the increased capabilities to burn CDs at a phenomenal rate (and cheaply) it amazes that me more groups don't do this.

I have absolutely no problem with a band choosing to do this. Unfortunately in many cases the band is not able to make that decision - it's up to their record label, their management, etc. A lot of bands enter into really horrible contracts that basically abdicate all control of their music to the company on the other side of the contact. Trading/selling bootlegs in these cases isn't a way of "sticking it to the label," it's a way of getting the band unemployed due to lack of demand for the officially sanctioned offerings.

padraig wrote:On the more technical side, it seems odd that though you have moral qualms regarding bootlegs you deemed it appropriate to link to one even though it might increase the "distasteful and even morally repugnant" behaviour you abhor.

I never made claims to abhor the behavior. I understand why people do it. I even understand the completist drive that compells them to want to do it (or the memento drive). I've even said quite publicly in the past that I would kill for a good quality copy of The Pogues and Joe Strummer performing "Straight To Hell."

But all that is besides the point. It's not up to me to pass moral judgement on how fans choose to express their fandom. If they want to download poor quality bootlegs of a live show (regardless of what the band's wishes may or may not be), it's not for me to say that they can't. I'm perfectly happy to give them the tools they need - it's up to them to decide where they draw the moral line that turns "right" into "wrong" (or the other way around).

Some good points made above, I'd like to try to extract a few more.

DzM wrote: The idea is simply a fact that exists and is as incabable of being "dubious" as a hammer or a glass of water.

I'll assume you are just being sarcastic and leave it at that.

DzM wrote:...it's a way of getting the band unemployed due to lack of demand for the officially sanctioned offerings.

I'm not sold on the assertion that increased bootleg trading is causally connected to decreased profit from official offerings. If these shows are not being offered on a mass scale by the band then the illegal boots are not competing with anything. I'd also suggest that those people who are willing to suffer through a bootleg already have the official offerings such that a concern with demand for the product is less than one would imagine.

DzM wrote:How does a gift/swap/barter based economy for bootlegs undermine the band's rights any less than a monetary based economy transferring the same material...

Well I won't claim to know everything about what bands' rights are and I'm also confused as to how you are using the term 'rights.' Is it in the sense of how the laws of the specific country dictate the transmission of a bands' or in a more metaphysical sense suggesting that the band ought to be able to determine how their material is disseminated? It seems unlikely that you mean both because as you note bands are forced into ugly contract arrangements that they probably regret later on. Anyway, when someone doesn't reap a monetary profit off their swapping of a bootleg I'm not sure how this does infringe a bands' rights. Maybe you could explicate this further.

DzM wrote:I never maid claims to abhor the behavior

I infer from the posts in the Fora that you are a relatively rational person and meet most of the standard criteria for "normal" personhood. Most normal people abhor things that they find distasteful and "morally repugnant." By disassociating yourself from this are you suggesting that you are in fact in favor of morally repugnant things or merely neutral?

DzM wrote:It's not up to me to pass moral judgement on how fans choose to express their fandom. If they want to download poor quality bootlegs of a live show (regardless of what the band's wishes may or may not be), it's not for me to say that they can't. I'm perfectly happy to give them the tools they need - it's up to them to decide where they draw the moral line that turns "right" into "wrong" (or the other way around).

You are the administrator of this website and regularly make judgments regarding the moral/ethical content of a persons post on this site. You decide what content is appropriate in light of the guidelines you have posted in the Announcements section. If a person were to express their fandom while simultaneously espousing bigoted epithets you would (I assume) remove their post). Furthermore, (I will apologize in advance for the example I am about to use, its the best I've got right now.) the logic you use when you say "I'm perfectly happy to give them the tools they need - it's up to them to decide where they draw the moral line that turns "right" into "wrong" (or the other way around)" is disturbing. Because I only told that terrorist where they could get a nuclear bomb, it was up to them to decide whether or not to use it. (Yeah that was bad, I'm sorry and please don't think that I am comparing you with a terrorist) Finally, I would appreciate it if you told us the bands policy on taping - you thank a number of the Pogues for their input on this site and you represent them to a certain extent (or not?) and for you to provide a link to a bootleg (made illegally and against the bands wishes?) seems to betray their trust and (possibly) harm them in the ways you suggested above. God I used a lot of parentheses, don't know what came over me.

Padraig wrote:Some good points made above, I'd like to try to extract a few more.

I'll respond where I can, and then I'm done. This is an old argument, and one that will not be resolved by you and me.

Let me preface by saying that I find the morality of bootlegs to be dubious. Not repugnant. Not anethema. Just dubious. I would rate them somewhere between exceeding the speed limit and cutting in line at the bank. This should be translated loosely as "not worth getting into a fight over."

Padraig wrote:I'm not sold on the assertion that increased bootleg trading is causally connected to decreased profit from official offerings. If these shows are not being offered on a mass scale by the band then the illegal boots are not competing with anything. I'd also suggest that those people who are willing to suffer through a bootleg already have the official offerings such that a concern with demand for the product is less than one would imagine.

Quite so. One could also argue that these are a brilliant opportunity for a band (or their label) to judge relative demand for new offerings, etc. One could also make the argument that allowing for legal free downloads of tracks provides the same service - a trackable way to judge interest in the material, and to help "prime" the market for a real release.

It's difficult to determine where the hand-waving "The Internet/Bootlegs are destroying the creative industries" and the "technology and fan demand are forcing innovation onto a stale and stagnant business model" hysteria have valid points or are instead spinning fiction as fact.

It is my belief, however, that the creative industries don't care about the market data to be gained from trading of bootlegs, and instead simply persecute (and prosecute) the traders, and the band often gets screwed.

Padraig wrote:Well I won't claim to know everything about what bands' rights are and I'm also confused as to how you are using the term 'rights.'

You had said<blockquote><blockquote type=cite>Obviously, people who make a profit from distributing bootlegs are infringing on the bands' rights to sell their own work</blockquote></blockquote>I had thought I was referring to their "rights" in the same way. I had understood this use of "rights" to mean "the band's ability to choose how their work will be consumed"

Padraig wrote:Is it in the sense of how the laws of the specific country dictate the transmission of a bands' or in a more metaphysical sense suggesting that the band ought to be able to determine how their material is disseminated?

The latter.

Padraig wrote:It seems unlikely that you mean both because as you note bands are forced into ugly contract arrangements that they probably regret later on. Anyway, when someone doesn't reap a monetary profit off their swapping of a bootleg I'm not sure how this does infringe a bands' rights. Maybe you could explicate this further.

That's the same argument people often use to trade out-of-print albums, etc. It may be valid, but I tend to disagree with it.

I think that people deserve to be paid for their work. I work in the software industry and believe that people should pay for software that I work on. If I choose to create software and give it away (which I often do) then that is <i>me</i> making a conscious choice about how a product of my creativity will be consumed - not a consumer of it deciding what is right for my work.

I am also a photographer. I make money selling photographs of things (one of them was just used on the cover of Nature Genetics ... Cool!). Sometimes I choose to let a person (or an organization) use one of my photographs free of charge; sometimes I charge people for them. If my photographs are reproduced and given away, they are directly impacting my ability to earn a living by deciding how my work should be dissiminated regardless of what my own wishes are.

I think that bootlegging concerts, albums, movies, etc falls into the same bucket - the artists should have the right to decide how their work will be consumed.

Padraig wrote:I infer from the posts in the Fora that you are a relatively rational person and meet most of the standard criteria for "normal" personhood.

You flatter me.

Padraig wrote:Most normal people abhor things that they find distasteful and "morally repugnant." By disassociating yourself from this are you suggesting that you are in fact in favor of morally repugnant things or merely neutral?

You're trying to draw me into large blanket statements (much more so than I've already made). That's not playing fair.

As I said previously - I find bootlegging to be morally dubious. I am ambivilant to it. In my record and CD collection there are even a few bootlegs present.

I do not condemn bootlegs as a scourge, nor do I condone them. They simply are.

Padraig wrote:

DzM wrote:It's not up to me to pass moral judgement on how fans choose to express their fandom.

You are the administrator of this website and regularly make judgments regarding the moral/ethical content of a persons post on this site. You decide what content is appropriate in light of the guidelines you have posted in the Announcements section. If a person were to express their fandom while simultaneously espousing bigoted epithets you would (I assume) remove their post.

It would depend a great deal on the context of their post.

You'll notice that I specifcally try to avoid passing moral judgement on people's posts. Instead I've set (and try to maintain) a certain community standard of behavior that makes the largest number of people feel welcome. I rely on the community at large to let me or the moderators know when these standards are being violated.

What you're describing is widely out of context for this discussion though. Any moderator or administrator of any forum will have to make a choice at some point - govern the users and content and risk becoming a tyrant, or release the controls and wait for chaos to slowly take over. It's rare that the moderation or administration has anything to do with morality or ethics. It's usually enforicing civic standards and little else.

Padraig wrote:Furthermore, (I will apologize in advance for the example I am about to use, its the best I've got right now.) the logic you use when you say "I'm perfectly happy to give them the tools they need - it's up to them to decide where they draw the moral line that turns "right" into "wrong" (or the other way around)" is disturbing. Because I only told that terrorist where they could get a nuclear bomb, it was up to them to decide whether or not to use it. (Yeah that was bad, I'm sorry and please don't think that I am comparing you with a terrorist)

That's a completely contemptable argument, but at least you already have acknowledged it as such.

You're taking a statement and using it out of context, exagerating it to the point of breaking. Fine. It's not worth responding to any more than this.

Padraig wrote:Finally, I would appreciate it if you told us the bands policy on taping - you thank a number of the Pogues for their input on this site and you represent them to a certain extent (or not?) and for you to provide a link to a bootleg (made illegally and against the bands wishes?) seems to betray their trust and (possibly) harm them in the ways you suggested above.

I have never made any claim to being a representative of The Pogues, or to being privy to their wishes and desires regarding bootlegs. The only participant in these fora capable of addressing the band's collective attitude toward taping, and how it may (or may not) affect the band is Mr. Chevron.