BartVanHemelen said:

CoolMF said:

True indeed but the Family joint was well worth the $8 paid to iTunes in terms of sound quality and having the cover art in my device.

.

Meanwhile the rest of us have been listening to it in CD quality for nearly 20 years for free. Oh, and the artwork is fake. And you've given money to a lazy bootlegger.

The cover on iTunes is the real deal but I doubt there's more than the front cover, and anyway both the cover and inside booklet can be found on Discogs. As for the quality, I indeed fail to see how the version on iTunes could possibly be better than any mp3 320, let alone Flac rip available for free download all over the internet, ripped from the official CD.

.

Like TheBigBang said, in the end ,except feeding lazy crooks and possibly encouraging those people to make a mess of official sites by uploading more pirate copies on them, you don't do much harm by purchasing pirate copies of official products or bootlegs, but you're basically throwing your money out the window by:

- paying for something you could get for free in comparable and possibly even superior quality

- giving money to people that are neither the artist nor the label

.

I'm sorry guys but I fail to see how this could be beneficial in any way to the customer, save maybe by avoiding them the (minimal) effort of looking for a free copy online.

.

@ everyone justifying why they bought a digital copy of a bootleg, in no better quality than has previously been available for 2 decades.

databank said:

droppingdishes said:

databank said:

It has nothing to do with Tidal, really. When an artist or label uploads a song to streaming services such as Tidal and online stores such as iTunes, they don't do it site by site (unless you're a major or an artist as big as Prince and you sign a specific deal with each or some specific site, but not generally speaking).

Regular users (indie artists, small labels) are actually not allowed to upload their material on the site themselves (you will note that there's no "login and upload your music" page on those sites). They must use a third party called an agregattor who, for a fee, will allow you to upload your material then automatically redistribute it to all those streaming sites and online stores.

This is not 100% true. Both iTunes and Amazon offer direct agreements with (indie, small) artists allowing you to sell (and upload) directly.

I wasn't aware of this, thx for the correction. My colleague whom I do music with and who's more used to that than I had told me the agregator was the only option to be on both those and Spotify and Deezer (alongside Tidal and a dozen others), those 4 sites being my main preoccupation. In any case, however, those sites probably receive dozens of submissions every day, either directly or through agregators, and it's easily understandable that certain things can slip through the cracks. It's reasonable to assume that the intern at Tidal in charge of reviewing submissions (since, contrarily to what was suggested above, Jay-Z does not do this himself between an awards ceremony and a photoshoot) has never heard of The Family or Madhouse. It's also likely anywaythat they have a "no complaint = not our problem" policy, which would explain how even Prince bootlegs have ended on Deezer 2 years ago. If I was running such a site, my policy, like YT's, would be that it's the copyright's owners' responsibility to assess fraud and send me a complaint, or then they would need a hundred interns to verify the legitimacy of each upload. For one, even though me and my colleague have just uploaded our own album on an agregator, who, after all, is to say that we are us? We could just as well have stolen someone else's record.

droppingdishes said:

databank said:

databank said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Meanwhile the rest of us have been listening to it in CD quality for nearly 20 years for free. Oh, and the artwork is fake. And you've given money to a lazy bootlegger.

The cover on iTunes is the real deal but I doubt there's more than the front cover, ...

The cover on other sites is clearly fake like Bart says.

The photo is from this web site taken presumably in 2015:

http://thenbacircus.blogspot.com.ng/2012/05/keyshia-dior-john-wall.html

Chastity said:

databank said:

The cover on iTunes is the real deal but I doubt there's more than the front cover, ...

The cover on other sites is clearly fake like Bart says.

The photo is from this web site taken presumably in 2015:

http://thenbacircus.blogspot.com.ng/2012/05/keyshia-dior-john-wall.html

Yeah, only Bart, CoolMF and I were discussing the Family cover on iTunes, not the Madhouse one.

.

Good catch though, I'd tried a google image search to no avail yesterday, to try and find where the pic had been stolen. You're better at that than I it seems

databank said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Meanwhile the rest of us have been listening to it in CD quality for nearly 20 years for free. Oh, and the artwork is fake. And you've given money to a lazy bootlegger.

The cover on iTunes is the real deal but I doubt there's more than the front cover, and anyway both the cover and inside booklet can be found on Discogs. As for the quality, I indeed fail to see how the version on iTunes could possibly be better than any mp3 320, let alone Flac rip available for free download all over the internet, ripped from the official CD.

.

Like TheBigBang said, in the end ,except feeding lazy crooks and possibly encouraging those people to make a mess of official sites by uploading more pirate copies on them, you don't do much harm by purchasing pirate copies of official products or bootlegs, but you're basically throwing your money out the window by:

- paying for something you could get for free in comparable and possibly even superior quality

- giving money to people that are neither the artist nor the label

.

I'm sorry guys but I fail to see how this could be beneficial in any way to the customer, save maybe by avoiding them the (minimal) effort of looking for a free copy online.

And my point once again is that those of you who download the boots for FREE are not giving any money to the artists either. So who's in the wrong here? Y'all need to stop jumping all over those of us who pay for it when you haven't given one penny to the people who wrote, sang, performed, recorded the music. You guys think that you're better than those of us who paid but you're not.

kingricefan said:

And my point once again is that those of you who download the boots for FREE are not giving any money to the artists either. So who's in the wrong here? Y'all need to stop jumping all over those of us who pay for it when you haven't given one penny to the people who wrote, sang, performed, recorded the music. You guys think that you're better than those of us who paid but you're not.

The difference is simple. When fans share for free, nobody makes money. It's done for the love of the music. When people pay for bootlegs, someone profits financially. Some of us believe it is better for no one (other than the artist or other rightsholders) to make a profit. Some don't care.

When a fan chooses to pay for official product (that let's face it, anyone can find for free) they are choosing to financially support the artist (or rightsholder). When one pays for a bootleg, they are financially supporting a criminal enterprise. Sharing fincancially supports no one.

[Edited 10/24/17 8:29am]

kingricefan said:

databank said:

The cover on iTunes is the real deal but I doubt there's more than the front cover, and anyway both the cover and inside booklet can be found on Discogs. As for the quality, I indeed fail to see how the version on iTunes could possibly be better than any mp3 320, let alone Flac rip available for free download all over the internet, ripped from the official CD.

.

Like TheBigBang said, in the end ,except feeding lazy crooks and possibly encouraging those people to make a mess of official sites by uploading more pirate copies on them, you don't do much harm by purchasing pirate copies of official products or bootlegs, but you're basically throwing your money out the window by:

- paying for something you could get for free in comparable and possibly even superior quality

- giving money to people that are neither the artist nor the label

.

I'm sorry guys but I fail to see how this could be beneficial in any way to the customer, save maybe by avoiding them the (minimal) effort of looking for a free copy online.

And my point once again is that those of you who download the boots for FREE are not giving any money to the artists either. So who's in the wrong here? Y'all need to stop jumping all over those of us who pay for it when you haven't given one penny to the people who wrote, sang, performed, recorded the music. You guys think that you're better than those of us who paid but you're not.

Jeez, dude, chill out!

For one thing no one talked about right or wrong. Why does every bloody thing in this world always have to either be "right" or "wrong"? I'm talking about "rational" and "irrational" in the context of your own, selfish satisfaction, not the artists' or labels'.

.

Many a music fan I know, including on this board, feel satisfaction with the knowledge that purchasing music (released music, not boots) supports artists and labels. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong to dowload music illegally, certain people prefer to support artists and labels. Those who don't may choose to download the music illegally. Both is a matter of personal ethics, but both are rational.

.

Regarding bootlegs, certain fans have expressed the desire to possess a real CD with a real booklet. Regardless of the fact than a bootleg, being unofficial, is no more "real" than a burned CD from Flac, they still prefer to pay for boots so they have a real-looking physical object, hopefully a beautiful one. That is also rational.

.

Now what I cannot understand is why would anyone pay for either a digital download of a bootleg (like Madhouse 24) or a pirtate digital download of an out of print album (as in The Family) when they can have it for free? By doing so, you cannot possibly find either the satisfaction of possessing a "real" physical objet, or the satisfaction of supporting the artist. And on top of it all you don't get the satisfaction of getting the best available sound quality either since you get it with a lower sound quality than you would get by downloading a Flac file for free (iTunes files are lossy).

.

So basically, you are choosing to PAY for a digital download of inferior quality that doesn't benefit either the artist or label, when you could get the exact same product, or even a better sounding version of it, for FREE. That, in my book, looks very much irrational.

.

So as I said, the only rational explaination I can find for doing this is being either too busy or too lazy to look for an illegal version, and being wealthy enough to choose spending 8 bucks (which, I'll give you that, isn't an extravagant amount) instead. If it's that then please just say it. It's as acceptable a reason as any other because at least it does make sense.

But if it's not the reason you've purchased it, then just admit you've acted completely irrationally instead of pointing a finger at us, rational people who do rational things. It's OK, we'll still love you, everyone is entitled to act crazy every once in a while. But just admit it and let's get it over with!

maybe "someone" is testing the waters and see what they can get away with ??? and then try to sell other bottlegs

luvsexy4all said:

maybe "someone" is testing the waters and see what they can get away with ??? and then try to sell other bottlegs

Could be this will get taken down but the bootlegger will have some data on how many times it was streamed.

AnnaSantana said:

laurarichardson said:

Unless you can prove that these releases are from a bootlegger you have no idea. Funny coincidence that Spectrum is s real label that reissues older material. Got to the belief in coincidence on this board.

All collectors know for a fact that Madhouse 24 is a bootleg. Just take your L and keep it moving.

Is L for lithium? I need to brush up on the periodic table of elements!