squirrelgrease said:

BartVanHemelen said:

That loophole was closed long ago. Same for the German loophole.

Gotcha. I remember that a lot of my bootlegs I collected over the years were made in Italy. They weren't supposed to be inported to the US, but the mailorders always came through without a hitch.

Luxembourg seems to have been a haven for bootlegers at one point, although the Yellow Dog Records label that produced a lot of Beatles bootlegs apparently was not based there as has been claimed:

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/yd.htm

Some of this may have been addressed by subsequent European treaties and ECJ decisions. I don't know.

[Edited 10/31/11 20:21pm]

jimbobcoo34 said:

I can't seem to get aan answer if i download a prince concert bootleg is ite legal YES OR NO

Bootlegs legal??? Funny Question, where have you been, on the moon or somewhere else:

Remember the threats against fansites, Princefamily, Uptown, Housequake..... maybe more.

those cases were all about ownership and copyrights.

Why would you think bootlegs are legal + +

.

[Edited 10/31/11 23:29pm]

electricberet said:

I'd like to see what would happen if WMG decided to release the original Crystal Ball triple album that Prince wanted them to release instead of SOTT. I'm sure Prince would try to sue them, but on what grounds? He gave them permission at the time.

[Edited 10/30/11 20:22pm]

I thought Warners didn't want the financial risk of releasing Crystal Ball 3 disc set, so Prince had to chop it down to what is now SOTT.

In addition, there has been some debate to what level, if any, of ownership Warners may have in regards to Vault material.

I feel a bootleg is a bootleg, you can pursue it but it's best to be safe than sorry if you know what I mean. Good luck on that and yeah don't try to sell 'em.

[Edited 11/1/11 18:04pm]

It's illegal so is music sharing and downloading. Yet millions of people do it everyday so I doubt they'll arrest you. Just don't make a website or program like Limewire and you'll be fine

aardvark15 said:

Just don't make a website or program like Limewire and you'll be fine

Yeah. Don't set yourself up for a 5-year bid.

squirrelgrease said:

You guys is crazy.

Two things...

1) Never pay for bootlegs.

2) "He's a chronic litigator." - Jellybean Johnson recently describing Prince

When/where did he say that?

squirrelgrease said:

BartVanHemelen said:

That loophole was closed long ago. Same for the German loophole.

Gotcha. I remember that a lot of my bootlegs I collected over the years were made in Italy. They weren't supposed to be inported to the US, but the mailorders always came through without a hitch.

Ah yeah, I remember seeing ads in Rolling Stone etc. advertising "imports" etcetera.

Italy's were semi-legal because supposedly they'd set aside money to pay the artists, but whether that was true was doubtful, and in any case the companies (like KTS) didn't have the okay from the rights holders anyway.

Germany's loophole was something like "you can sell it if it is recorded here" or something like that, which caused a ton of seriously crappy boots like these ones: http://www.discogs.com/Pr...se/3174040 . Bad sound and crappy material (one of the few CDs I've ever seen "go bad") but also very cheap IIRC.

Someone "in the know" once told me that Japan used to allow people to print a small run (like 500 copies) of whatever you'd want, but I'm not sure you were allowed to sell it or sell it outside of Japan (and I recall that this was said at a time when a lot of boots originated from there, a lot of them Beatles stuff that hadn't been widely bootlegged before).

But record companies et al take quick action in those kind of loopholes -- though Italy's stayed "open" for quite some time, until they ratified a Europe-wide copyright law.

And yes, you could see plenty of those in real record stores (evenc hain stores!), because they did get picked up by legit distributors at the time and plenty of record shop owners didn't know what those really were. And there were plenty of (independent) record stores that sold boots knowing fully well what they were.

Hell, I know at least one shop that sold Prince boots to the rep from WEA: the guy passed every couple of weeks to pimp the upcoming releases, and while he was there he bought a couple of Prince boots for himself. I was actually there at one time when this happened: I was reading the promo sheet for an upcoming Prince album he'd handed me while the guy had a stack of boots he was paying for.

But then in the mid/late-1990s copyright enforcement got tougher, and one of the stores was raided -- although they failed to recognize about half the CD boots he had on public display, and completely ignored all of the vinyl boots. They gave him more of a hard time about him advertising that he'd lowered his prices during a period that he wasn't allowed to do so.

And then it went kinda underground, and record shops didn't have a regular supply of boots and and then it became necessary to have a "contact" that could provide you. And then people started doing the "free boot" thing.

Boots used to be rare and very expensive in the early 1990s (€25/€30 at a time when regular CDs were €18), then they went sorta mainstream and cost about as much as a regular CD (€18/€20, €25 for a 2-CD set). (That was my experience.)

dalsh327 said:

It's a grey area. Songs are copyrighted work, but there's the general line of thought that people who are seeking bootlegs have bought the back catalog or seeking the out of print stuff.

It's when people were buying bootlegs that got artists upset. Even Jimmy Page has quietly allowed a bunch of soundboard tapes to be downloaded,because he has no plans to officially release any of them. It's def. possible they're his tapes because they started popping up out of nowhere.

Isn't the Led Zep live DVD from a couple of years ago compiled from film made by fans because they didn't archive anything themselves?

There are some legendary bootleggers because those guys taped just about every band that came through town and did it in a semi-professional way, and those are the guys that ended up having decent live recordings from bands that otherwise never bothered to record anything.

REM are rumored to be behind the "Bingo Hand Job" boot, since the same tape seems to have been used for B-Sides at the time -- IIRC.

BartVanHemelen said:

squirrelgrease said:

Gotcha. I remember that a lot of my bootlegs I collected over the years were made in Italy. They weren't supposed to be inported to the US, but the mailorders always came through without a hitch.

Ah yeah, I remember seeing ads in Rolling Stone etc. advertising "imports" etcetera.

Italy's were semi-legal because supposedly they'd set aside money to pay the artists, but whether that was true was doubtful, and in any case the companies (like KTS) didn't have the okay from the rights holders anyway.

Germany's loophole was something like "you can sell it if it is recorded here" or something like that, which caused a ton of seriously crappy boots like these ones: http://www.discogs.com/Pr...se/3174040 . Bad sound and crappy material (one of the few CDs I've ever seen "go bad") but also very cheap IIRC.

Someone "in the know" once told me that Japan used to allow people to print a small run (like 500 copies) of whatever you'd want, but I'm not sure you were allowed to sell it or sell it outside of Japan (and I recall that this was said at a time when a lot of boots originated from there, a lot of them Beatles stuff that hadn't been widely bootlegged before).

But record companies et al take quick action in those kind of loopholes -- though Italy's stayed "open" for quite some time, until they ratified a Europe-wide copyright law.

And yes, you could see plenty of those in real record stores (evenc hain stores!), because they did get picked up by legit distributors at the time and plenty of record shop owners didn't know what those really were. And there were plenty of (independent) record stores that sold boots knowing fully well what they were.

Hell, I know at least one shop that sold Prince boots to the rep from WEA: the guy passed every couple of weeks to pimp the upcoming releases, and while he was there he bought a couple of Prince boots for himself. I was actually there at one time when this happened: I was reading the promo sheet for an upcoming Prince album he'd handed me while the guy had a stack of boots he was paying for.

But then in the mid/late-1990s copyright enforcement got tougher, and one of the stores was raided -- although they failed to recognize about half the CD boots he had on public display, and completely ignored all of the vinyl boots. They gave him more of a hard time about him advertising that he'd lowered his prices during a period that he wasn't allowed to do so.

And then it went kinda underground, and record shops didn't have a regular supply of boots and and then it became necessary to have a "contact" that could provide you. And then people started doing the "free boot" thing.

Boots used to be rare and very expensive in the early 1990s (€25/€30 at a time when regular CDs were €18), then they went sorta mainstream and cost about as much as a regular CD (€18/€20, €25 for a 2-CD set). (That was my experience.)

I remember reading about those laws regarding Italian bootleg labels and that they were actually paying the artists the royalties in exchange for the ability to press and sell their wares. Like you note though, it's highly suspect that any bookkeeping was on the up and up. I certainly have my fair share of Kiss The Stone boots and I never for one minute thought Guns & Roses, Lenny Kravitz or Prince would see any of my money when I purchased those.

Bootleg: The Secret History of the Other Recording Industry is a fascinating read. Anyone at least a little curious about boots and how they came about during the 90s heyday should check it out. It was written before the advent of broadband internet, which of course killed the boot labels (the majors should have been paying attention and spotted the pattern), but it probably still stands as a good source for insider info. http://www.amazon.com/Boo...amp;sr=1-1

That's a funny story about the Warner Bros rep buying those boots.

I once received a hand written note in the mail along with a Prince CD boot titled Shockadelica telling me that it was from his personal stash as he was raided by the authorities and they confiscated all of his other copies - my copy was only the pressed disc and some color copies of the artwork, so he was sort of apologising for that. This particular boot had some vinyl-only at the time songs on it, so it fell into the pirate/counterfeit category allowing the law to take action.

Needless to say, there are plenty of little anecdotes like that many of us can probably share. I recall talking to a record store owner who recounted Prince and crew coming in, grabbing all the CD boots with his name on them, exchanging very few words and leaving with the goods.

squirrelgrease said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Ah yeah, I remember seeing ads in Rolling Stone etc. advertising "imports" etcetera.

Italy's were semi-legal because supposedly they'd set aside money to pay the artists, but whether that was true was doubtful, and in any case the companies (like KTS) didn't have the okay from the rights holders anyway.

Germany's loophole was something like "you can sell it if it is recorded here" or something like that, which caused a ton of seriously crappy boots like these ones: http://www.discogs.com/Pr...se/3174040 . Bad sound and crappy material (one of the few CDs I've ever seen "go bad") but also very cheap IIRC.

Someone "in the know" once told me that Japan used to allow people to print a small run (like 500 copies) of whatever you'd want, but I'm not sure you were allowed to sell it or sell it outside of Japan (and I recall that this was said at a time when a lot of boots originated from there, a lot of them Beatles stuff that hadn't been widely bootlegged before).

But record companies et al take quick action in those kind of loopholes -- though Italy's stayed "open" for quite some time, until they ratified a Europe-wide copyright law.

And yes, you could see plenty of those in real record stores (evenc hain stores!), because they did get picked up by legit distributors at the time and plenty of record shop owners didn't know what those really were. And there were plenty of (independent) record stores that sold boots knowing fully well what they were.

Hell, I know at least one shop that sold Prince boots to the rep from WEA: the guy passed every couple of weeks to pimp the upcoming releases, and while he was there he bought a couple of Prince boots for himself. I was actually there at one time when this happened: I was reading the promo sheet for an upcoming Prince album he'd handed me while the guy had a stack of boots he was paying for.

But then in the mid/late-1990s copyright enforcement got tougher, and one of the stores was raided -- although they failed to recognize about half the CD boots he had on public display, and completely ignored all of the vinyl boots. They gave him more of a hard time about him advertising that he'd lowered his prices during a period that he wasn't allowed to do so.

And then it went kinda underground, and record shops didn't have a regular supply of boots and and then it became necessary to have a "contact" that could provide you. And then people started doing the "free boot" thing.

Boots used to be rare and very expensive in the early 1990s (€25/€30 at a time when regular CDs were €18), then they went sorta mainstream and cost about as much as a regular CD (€18/€20, €25 for a 2-CD set). (That was my experience.)

I remember reading about those laws regarding Italian bootleg labels and that they were actually paying the artists the royalties in exchange for the ability to press and sell their wares. Like you note though, it's highly suspect that any bookkeeping was on the up and up. I certainly have my fair share of Kiss The Stone boots and I never for one minute thought Guns & Roses, Lenny Kravitz or Prince would see any of my money when I purchased those.

Bootleg: The Secret History of the Other Recording Industry is a fascinating read. Anyone at least a little curious about boots and how they came about during the 90s heyday should check it out. It was written before the advent of broadband internet, which of course killed the boot labels (the majors should have been paying attention and spotted the pattern), but it probably still stands as a good source for insider info. http://www.amazon.com/Boo...amp;sr=1-1

That's a funny story about the Warner Bros rep buying those boots.

I once received a hand written note in the mail along with a Prince CD boot titled Shockadelica telling me that it was from his personal stash as he was raided by the authorities and they confiscated all of his other copies - my copy was only the pressed disc and some color copies of the artwork, so he was sort of apologising for that. This particular boot had some vinyl-only at the time songs on it, so it fell into the pirate/counterfeit category allowing the law to take action.

Needless to say, there are plenty of little anecdotes like that many of us can probably share. I recall talking to a record store owner who recounted Prince and crew coming in, grabbing all the CD boots with his name on them, exchanging very few words and leaving with the goods.

was schockadelica the cd that had fake stuff on it too, or was that rudeboy? i think i have both of them

Put it this way, legal or not, you aren't gonna get in a whole lot of trouble for owning a few Prince bootlegs baby! If it's a question of morality, then only you can answer your question.

In my opinion, enjoy yourself and get some in your life. But, as squirrel said, don't ever part with money for them under any circumstances. That's just people robbing you!

My boots have become my favourite part of my collection.

Plus, as an aside, Prince actually smiled at my mate on the opening night of the O2 when he was recording him from about 10 feet away on his phone (he was singing sometimes it snows in his final encore). Even Prince has good nights when he doesn't care quite so much. Plus, plus, plus: that boy knows which side his bread is soya buttered.

JT

I am sorry guys, but those who tried to give serious answers, are not always correct.

The general definition of a music "bootleg" is an unauthorised copy of a live or studio recording. When it concerns unauthorised copies of officially released material, it's usually referred to as "counterfeiting".

When you are in the US, then it's NOT legal to record a live performance without the consent of the performer(s), nor to copy it, nor to distribute or (offer) to sell copies of it, nor to publicly perform or traffic copies, nor otherwise publically communicate the work. Moreover, when there is also commercial intent involved, criminal charges may be brought against the infringer too, on top of civil remedies. So no consent? Then in theory at least, you are potentially in a lot of trouble. See also below: chapter 11 of the US Copyight Statute.

However, when it comes to solely listening, owning, buying or otherwise obtaining a copy of a bootleg for purely personal, non commercial use, without copying it yourself, you are not committing any act of copyright infringement, because these kind of actions do not fall under the stautory scope of copyright protection. Nevertheless, the owner of the copyright is not without remedy against people who simply own copies of bootlegs either. Any bootleg copies he may find of the work he owns, he has the authority to forfeit and/or destroy them.

In most countries in the world the rules are more or less the same, because most countries are part of the WTO and WIPO treaties regarding the global protection of intellectual property rights, that demand certain minimum standards of copyright protection, including against bootlegs. There used be some loopholes in Italy for example, which had a sort of compulsory license scheme for bootleg recordings, but like bart said, those are pretty much all closed by now.

In my own country however, the Netherlands, you can still legally get away with copying bootlegs, as long as your copies are for private, personal use only. The scope of copyright in the Netherlands does not include making those kind of copies. That's the same reason why we in the Netherlands can also still legally download copyright protected music from the internet for personal use only. Sadly tho, they are going to put an end to that too.

Chapter 11

Sound Recordings and Music Videos

§

1101 · Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings

and music videos

(a)

Unauthorized Acts.

—Anyone who, without the consent of the performer

or performers involved—

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance

in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a

performance from an unauthorized fixation,

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds

and images of a live musical performance, or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to

rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1),

regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,

shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same

extent as an infringer of copyright.

(b)

Definition.

—As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport,

transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value,

or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

(c)

Applicability.

—This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on

or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

(d)

State Law Not Preempted.

—Nothing in this section may be construed

to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of

any State.

Chapter 11 · Note

1. In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act added chapter 11, entitled “Sound Recordings

and Music Videos,” to title 17. Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4974.

[Edited 11/2/11 11:18am]

unique said:

squirrelgrease said:

I remember reading about those laws regarding Italian bootleg labels and that they were actually paying the artists the royalties in exchange for the ability to press and sell their wares. Like you note though, it's highly suspect that any bookkeeping was on the up and up. I certainly have my fair share of Kiss The Stone boots and I never for one minute thought Guns & Roses, Lenny Kravitz or Prince would see any of my money when I purchased those.

Bootleg: The Secret History of the Other Recording Industry is a fascinating read. Anyone at least a little curious about boots and how they came about during the 90s heyday should check it out. It was written before the advent of broadband internet, which of course killed the boot labels (the majors should have been paying attention and spotted the pattern), but it probably still stands as a good source for insider info. http://www.amazon.com/Boo...amp;sr=1-1

That's a funny story about the Warner Bros rep buying those boots.

I once received a hand written note in the mail along with a Prince CD boot titled Shockadelica telling me that it was from his personal stash as he was raided by the authorities and they confiscated all of his other copies - my copy was only the pressed disc and some color copies of the artwork, so he was sort of apologising for that. This particular boot had some vinyl-only at the time songs on it, so it fell into the pirate/counterfeit category allowing the law to take action.

Needless to say, there are plenty of little anecdotes like that many of us can probably share. I recall talking to a record store owner who recounted Prince and crew coming in, grabbing all the CD boots with his name on them, exchanging very few words and leaving with the goods.

was schockadelica the cd that had fake stuff on it too, or was that rudeboy? i think i have both of them

It had all legit Prince stuff, but the quality has since been far surpassed. Rudeboy had the "outfakes".

Shockadelica

1 CD

Catalogue: #SSCD 001

Source : Released / Outtakes

1. Horny Toad

2. Another Lonely Christmas

3. She's Always In My Hair

4. 4 The Tears In Your Eyes

5. Hello

6. Shockadelica

7. La, La, La, He, He, Hee

8. Love Or $

9. 17 Days

10. God

Studio Outtakes

11. Do Yourself A Favor

12. The Ball

BartVanHemelen said:

dalsh327 said:

It's a grey area. Songs are copyrighted work, but there's the general line of thought that people who are seeking bootlegs have bought the back catalog or seeking the out of print stuff.

It's when people were buying bootlegs that got artists upset. Even Jimmy Page has quietly allowed a bunch of soundboard tapes to be downloaded,because he has no plans to officially release any of them. It's def. possible they're his tapes because they started popping up out of nowhere.

Isn't the Led Zep live DVD from a couple of years ago compiled from film made by fans because they didn't archive anything themselves?

There are some legendary bootleggers because those guys taped just about every band that came through town and did it in a semi-professional way, and those are the guys that ended up having decent live recordings from bands that otherwise never bothered to record anything.

REM are rumored to be behind the "Bingo Hand Job" boot, since the same tape seems to have been used for B-Sides at the time -- IIRC.

They had some shows videotaped and filmed but he said he didn't include the Seattle concert from 1977 because he didn't find the multitack tapes, but it wound up being on their You Tube channel.

We have no idea what the Stones have, if they did or didn't record the Prince concerts, but Mick Jagger's on Facebook so maybe he'll have the answer to that question.

Tremolina said:

[legal stuff]

Thanks Tremolina. I was wondering if you would see this thread and lend some expertise. The OP seemed a little frustrated, but they came to a Prince forum and asked things that could have been easier answered in a legal forum. I know you're a lawyer, though I wasn't sure what the bulk of your legal practice was. I hope the OP understands that most of us are just fans of the music with a little bit of knowledge of the peripheral facts.

Unless the person is giving it away, the only legal way to get their copyrighted stuff is to buy it!

lets put it this way .. prince writes music for you to hear .. he wants to share it right ... he doesn't really want only wealthy people to hear it right? .. he wants EVERYONE to hear it .. thats what I would think .. so is prince poor? does prince not get compensated for his songs .. does he live like a spoiled king? .. yes he does .. he has everything .. so why shouldn't people hear his music .. even if its an officially released record .. it should be free .. prince is not poor .. what is the problem here .. i cant imagine why prince would not want people to hear his live shows even if they cant fly all over the world to do so .. most people have paid to see prince a few times .. bought the same record a few times over .. shouldnt it be free after the first time you buy it? .. like a warranty or somthing if ur tape breaks or suddenly they change the formats on all music again and try to get you to re buy everything .. seems like prince owes us some money if anything .. especially after paying for some half ass records he put out .. its like .. why are we paying this guys mortgage when we fork over our had earned money and he gives us lazy half assed music

Tremolina said:

...

In my own country however, the Netherlands, you can still legally get away with copying bootlegs, as long as your copies are for private, personal use only. The scope of copyright in the Netherlands does not include making those kind of copies. That's the same reason why we in the Netherlands can also still legally download copyright protected music from the internet for personal use only. Sadly tho, they are going to put an end to that too.

In other words, it's legal, but it ain't 100% legal, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

TrevorAyer said:

lets put it this way .. prince writes music for you to hear .. he wants to share it right ... he doesn't really want only wealthy people to hear it right? .. he wants EVERYONE to hear it .. thats what I would think .. so is prince poor? does prince not get compensated for his songs .. does he live like a spoiled king? .. yes he does .. he has everything .. so why shouldn't people hear his music .. even if its an officially released record .. it should be free .. prince is not poor .. what is the problem here .. i cant imagine why prince would not want people to hear his live shows even if they cant fly all over the world to do so .. most people have paid to see prince a few times .. bought the same record a few times over .. shouldnt it be free after the first time you buy it? .. like a warranty or somthing if ur tape breaks or suddenly they change the formats on all music again and try to get you to re buy everything .. seems like prince owes us some money if anything .. especially after paying for some half ass records he put out .. its like .. why are we paying this guys mortgage when we fork over our had earned money and he gives us lazy half assed music

McDonalds is rich and wants everyone to eat their fries, but you still have to buy them every time you want some new ones.

If we all got his music for free, Prince would not be rich he would be broke.

jimbobcoo34 said:

I can't seem to get an exact answer

Yes, Play these on fm radio.

squirrelgrease said:

Tremolina said:

[legal stuff]

Thanks Tremolina. I was wondering if you would see this thread and lend some expertise. The OP seemed a little frustrated, but they came to a Prince forum and asked things that could have been easier answered in a legal forum. I know you're a lawyer, though I wasn't sure what the bulk of your legal practice was. I hope the OP understands that most of us are just fans of the music with a little bit of knowledge of the peripheral facts.

What's up squirrelgrease, good to see you. No, this is not the most ideal forum to ask this question, but it is relevant to Prince and the OP seems to be kinda newbie, so I can get with that, it's all cool.

It's a tricky and very important subject, copyright. Everybody deals with it on a daily basis, even tho' we are usually not aware of it. We are all affected by it, as well as all benefit from it, even tho' we are usually not aware of that either. And it's of course a controversial topic, especially with the global communication machine called the internet. So many people have questions and so many people have a different opinion, but there are only so many facts.

I used to deal a lot with these type of cases, but these days not so much anymore. It's still a sort of passion however for me. Whenever something is going on in this field, or I see people debating it, for example on here, I am all ears and willing to help out where needed.

[Edited 11/2/11 17:51pm]

electricberet said:

Tremolina said:

...

In my own country however, the Netherlands, you can still legally get away with copying bootlegs, as long as your copies are for private, personal use only. The scope of copyright in the Netherlands does not include making those kind of copies. That's the same reason why we in the Netherlands can also still legally download copyright protected music from the internet for personal use only. Sadly tho, they are going to put an end to that too.

In other words, it's legal, but it ain't 100% legal, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Pretty good analogy!

Like with weed, it's legal here to buy a bootleg, own it and smoke it/listen to it, even to make a couple of copies of it (grow your own plants) for personal use, but it's not legal to sell it, distribute it or traffic in it.

In the case of weed tho', we 'tolerate' the sale of weed in these "certain designated places". Yes those "hashbars" or better "coffeeshops"as we call them here. But that is not the case for bootlegs. Which of course is ridiculous, because bootlegs are not bad for your health. Or are they?

There is only ONE piece of wrong information btw in that scene, which is that cops here can't search you. That is not true. They most certainly can.

[Edited 11/2/11 17:49pm]

Tremolina said:

electricberet said:

In other words, it's legal, but it ain't 100% legal, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

Pretty good analogy!

Like with weed, it's legal here to buy a bootleg, own it and smoke it/listen to it, even to make a couple of copies of it (grow your own plants) for personal use, but it's not legal to sell it, distribute it or traffic in it.

In the case of weed tho', we 'tolerate' the sale of weed in these "certain designated places". Yes those "hashbars" or better "coffeeshops"as we call them here. But that is not the case for bootlegs. Which of course is ridiculous, because bootlegs are not bad for your health. Or are they?

There is only ONE piece of wrong information btw in that scene, which is that cops here can't search you. That is not true. They most certainly can.

[Edited 11/2/11 17:49pm]

They are if you smoke them.

dalsh327 said:

We have no idea what the Stones have, if they did or didn't record the Prince concerts, but Mick Jagger's on Facebook so maybe he'll have the answer to that question.

Wyman is the Stones' archivist, but when it comes to tapes of shows, that's probably another matter.

NDRU said:

McDonalds is rich and wants everyone to eat their fries, but you still have to buy them every time you want some new ones.

If we all got his music for free, Prince would not be rich he would be broke.

Prince doesn't sell live recordings or outtakes. Everything he officially releases, you can be sure that 99% of people big on trading bootlegs will buy.

If he released live concert recordings, they'd buy those too. He doesn't.

And as long as the money is in touring, he'll never be broke. Well, unless he continues to not pay people for their services and gets sued into poverty.

And describing Prince's music using a consumable fast-food, probably isn't the greatest analogy.

rap said:

squirrelgrease said:

You guys is crazy.

Two things...

1) Never pay for bootlegs.

2) "He's a chronic litigator." - Jellybean Johnson recently describing Prince

When/where did he say that?

Sorry, I forgot to give you the link. Here's the Strib interview: http://prince.org/msg/5/369828