Introducing MSPpedia.org - Manics WIKI and SETLISTS

[Charlie Spotted]

I must say I'm pretty chuffed with how this is going - 26 people have signed up since launch yesterday and 11 of those people counting myself have made significant contributions to the site.

Really very encouraging, keep it up everyone!

[Daniel]

nice work

[TheSilentMan]

Originally Posted by Takk

Would rar/torrent links not attract the wrong sort of attention from sony?

No. Bootlegs are legal.

They're not on DIME's share-ban list - http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php...ists_and_Bands , so they don't care to stop people sharing bootlegs of MSP, therefrore they can be shared.

Putting links to megaupload.com and torrents of live recordings would be a good, legal idea.

[Charlie Spotted]

"Bootlegs are legal"? Are you sure?

Surely the list on dimeadozen only represents bands that they have got in trouble over so far? There's nothing to say that a particular band's lawyers won't be on them, or anyone else, in the future surely?

[TheSilentMan]

Originally Posted by Charlie Spotted

Surely the list on dimeadozen only represents bands that they have got in trouble over so far? There's nothing to say that a particular band's lawyers won't be on them, or anyone else, in the future surely?

If material is not officially released and it's non-profit, then the record labels aren't losing anything. If the record companies want to inhibit bootlegging then they should take the initiative and release more official live recordings. The vast majority of bands will never prevent their loyal fans distributing bootlegs as it'll make them look like dicks. It's generally accepted nowadays that unless a band issues a specific statement in which they purport to be anti-bootlegging (usually because they sell their own bootlegs, sometimes because they're dicks), then it is acceptable to share their bootleg audience recordings.

Why don't you read about bootlegs on Wiki and dimeadozen?


On another note, the vast majority of MSP live recordings are of such crappy lossy quality that the only reason Sony are ever going to want to stop people sharing them is simply because they're embarrassing as they make the band sound like shit most of the time.

[Finn]

The whole legal/illegal issue is a moot point, the deciding factor is what K prefers to do, surely?

[Charlie Spotted]

To clarify, my position remains that I don't intend to put myself or the site under unnecessary legal risk at the moment. Distribution of bootlegs is not the current focus of the project. This may change in the future, or it might not, but it's not a key subject area right now.

I have received a number of messages in support of this stance.

As you have pointed out, other sites have policies that do not explicitly ban the trading of Manic Street Preachers bootlegs (seemingly solely because Sony haven't got to them just yet). I'd suggest that you use those sites for the time being.

[TheSilentMan]

Originally Posted by Charlie Spotted

As you have pointed out, other sites have policies that do not explicitly ban the trading of Manic Street Preachers bootlegs (seemingly solely because Sony haven't got to them just yet). I'd suggest that you use those sites for the time being.

Sony don't get to anyone. They have no policy regarding bootlegs, and in this day and age they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court because there is no chance in hell they could ever persuade anyone that MSP bootlegs are making them lose money from official MSP live albums that don't exist. Particularly as the vast vast majority of MSP bootleggers are the big fans who'd buy all official releases anyway. DIME are well-known, and I'm pretty damn sure Sony are aware of it's existance. If they wanted to stop trading of their bands all they'd need do is fire off one email and Dime would ban their bootlegs immediately. Besides, it'd be pretty fucking retarded for MSP bootlegs to be made illegal considering as Sony (or their subsidary Columbia) are a label who often take fan bootlegs and issue them as official recordings (see Bob Dylan Bootleg Series 1-7 for example, which existed as fan boots for 30 years before Columbia found them and released them en-masse), thus if such recordings weren't distributed among fans, then there is no way they could release such albums, and thus they must be perfectly happy about the existence of bootlegs for non-profit as long as they don't infringe on official material. Sony and bootlegs have a peaceful co-existance and they're not going to fuck that up by going around banning bootlegs.

FD shares b-sides etc - that is technically illegal. Non-profit audience recordings are generally accepted as legal. The only active legislation is in reference to the sale of bootlegs for profit. I don't want MSP bootlegs, I'm just debating an issue you seem confused/paranoid about. If someone edits in a megaupload.com link to an audience recorded bootleg that is legal onto the MSPpedia, then are you going to remove it? How can you justify the removal of something that is legal? For example I can post this here right now - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AAORQ4GG - which is a 3 CD Dream Theater bootleg, and I know that it's perfectly legal and would quite happily post that link in a government website's forum or whatever. I'm not making a profit from people downloading that, so therefore it's a non-issue.



The following is some law regarding bootlegs, the final quote is Dime's acceptable share rules which are used to keep the site within the law:

Originally Posted by US Code 17, Section 1101.

* It is NOT illegal to own bootlegs. The US Code does not prohibit the ownership of any live recording, even if it does infringe on the copyright-holder's rights.

* It IS illegal to sell bootlegs. This law applies equally to all private individuals. Selling bootlegs for any profit what-so-ever, be it in the form of cash currency or bananas is illegal according to US Code 17, Section 1101. It used to be legal to sell bootlegs in Italy, but since the implementation of the European Union laws, this is now a thing of the past. Bootlegs were also legal in Australia for a period of time, although that time has long since past.

* It is NOT illegal to purchase bootlegs. This is not mentioned anywhere in US Law. You can walk down to your local record store, and purchase a bootleg without having to worry about the cops breaking your door down.

* The US Government WILL seize shipments of bootlegs intended for sale in the US. This is why bootleg companies tend to keep the packages they ship small. This is also the reason the cost of bootlegs is so high in the United States.

Originally Posted by dimeadozen

# No torrent may distribute any official material. That term includes:

* All official releases, whether in print or out of print;
* Upcoming official releases announced by the artist or the label;
* The separated audio part of official VHS, Laserdisc, or DVD videos - even if the recording is from a different source from that of the officially available material;
* Alternate recording sources of any officially released performance, unless specifically permitted by the artist's published policy for trading;
* Video material whose audio portion has officially released content (for one example, music videos: even if the video footage is unreleased, almost all of them use an edit of the official audio for their sound);
* Remixes, remasters, alternate mixes, and alternate edits of any officially available material;
* Older official material that may have lapsed into public domain just by passage of time: copyright durations vary from country to country and are frequently extended by new legislation, so on DIME the only safe rule is once official, forever official;
* Recordings (audio or video) of shows produced by or for subscription cable/satellite/broadcast channels or premium cable/satellite channels (such as, but not limited to, HBO, Showtime, XM Radio, SIRIUS, Canal+, Wowow, and Mezzo -- such stations and assert and enforce copyrights on all their content, even that which airs unencrypted): in the absence of contrary evidence, we will infer that broadcast material was produced for the channel that aired it;
* Material that has aired in a pay-per-view event on any station or channel, even if recorded from another source;
* Content transmitted to or replayed for a paying audience at another time or another location than those of the live performance;
* Material distributed to fan club members as part of the membership package included in their club dues;
* So called "bastard" mixes and DJ sets.

# No torrent may distribute any material of artists, either individuals or bands, who do not agree to the electronic distribution of their unofficially recorded live shows. For a list of bands/artists see article Not Allowed Artists and Bands.
# No torrent may distribute recordings made at the venues or events listed in the article Not Allowed Venues/Events.

Read the whole post. As I said, I don't want MSP bootlegs, I'm just suprised you want to ban bootlegs on the site on legal grounds, as there are no legal reasons to do this as you're not making a profit, so I don't understand your reasoning.

[looke]

Originally Posted by TheSilentMan

I don't understand your reasoning.

Kev's site, Kev's decision. The reasoning is pretty easy isn't it?

[TheSilentMan]

Originally Posted by klan

Kev's site, Kev's decision. The reasoning is pretty easy isn't it?

Did you read the entire post, or just want to try and dispute what I was saying?

It's a Wiki site - it can be edited by anyone in the world - even Osama Bin Laden. However, as non-profit audience live recordings are legal, then I don't understand how he can justify banning something legal from the site. If the Wiki users want bootlegs there - they can put them there - does he really want to have to remove them on 'I'm paranoid' grounds when FD have been sharing bootlegs AND illegal material for years quite happily.

[looke]

Is that the FD that's been threatened by Sony on numerous occasions or someother site I've not heard of?

[Charlie Spotted]

Originally Posted by TheSilentMan

It's a Wiki site - it can be edited by anyone in the world - even Osama Bin Laden. However, as non-profit audience live recordings are legal, then I don't understand how he can justify banning something legal from the site.

It is a Wiki site, it is not wikipedia. Registration is required to edit MSPpedia and registrations can be revoked. It is not a completely open democracy, in my opinion that is no way to run any site. I don't necessarily need to "justify" any decisions, neither do the mods of this forum or any other such facility.

Incidentally, as you have said you're not interested in Manics bootlegs, and none of the Wiki users have attempted to post bootlegs or contacted me about doing so, isn't this argument becoming rather irrelevant?

[looke]

Originally Posted by Charlie Spotted

isn't this argument becoming rather irrelevant?

You obviosusly haven't heard his reasoning that he is doing a History degree and he often argues view points he doesn't agree with....it always come out of the bag when he realises he is wrong

[TheSilentMan]

Originally Posted by klan

Is that the FD that's been threatened by Sony on numerous occasions or someother site I've not heard of?

Over non-commerically available non-profit audience recordings, or over the fact full leaks of commercial albums and b-sides and other illegal material has been shared?

Originally Posted by Charlie Spotted

Incidentally, as you have said you're not interested in Manics bootlegs, and none of the Wiki users have attempted to post bootlegs or contacted me about doing so, isn't this argument becoming rather irrelevant?

'irrelevant' in the way that you can't actually refute what I've said and you don't agree with me? I only asked you to reasonably explain your irrational response to the prospect of sharing legal recordings on a site that is designed to catagorise MSP gig setlists, and it would make the entire MSP bootleg community a lot more organised, and as it's all user-controlled, would involve less effort for you than having to mod the place and remove any bootleg links.

Originally Posted by klan

You obviosusly haven't heard his reasoning that he is doing a History degree and he often argues view points he doesn't agree with....it always come out of the bag when he realises he is wrong

Or I could just point out that you solely resort to Ad Hominem responses when you can't form a logical response?

edit: actually, that post of yours is a complete load of bollocks. I've never done that before in my life. I've played Devil's Advocate in debates before and said I study History when people threw a hissy fit at the fact I'd dare argue something I didn't beleive in and they asked why I'd dare do such a kerrraaazzy thing. It doesn't make me 'wrong' at all, it just means you mis-read my posts. You can't attack someone for being 'wrong' when they're playing Devil's Advocate unless their argument is technically unsound - you can't attack them just because you disagree or it they're arguing something that is morally 'wrong'. Debating skillz ++

[Abstract Unknown Girl]

Originally Posted by TheSilentMan

I only asked you to reasonably explain your irrational response to the prospect of sharing legal recordings on a site that is designed to catagorise MSP gig setlists

He doesn't have to 'reasonably explain' himself to anyone. Kev has done this off his own back, we all may be able to upload things to the site but if he's not happy with something that's been put on there, he's quite within his right to remove it. The issue here isn't really whether bootlegs are legal or not, Kev's made it clear bootlegs aren't the key focus of the site. If you or anyone else wants to make a bootlegging site, then go for it, but you can't force someone else into doing what you want them to do.