Holy sheet...I want this!!!

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by David

Most of us are probably somewhat split on this whole issue, which is really a couple of issues all in one: Should you infringe on an artist's copyright? Should you buy unreleased material that you yourself get for free? What if you pay some source for it ... is it ethical to recoup your outlay?

I hope everyone would at least agree that you're a big jerk & of no use to anyone if you just download stuff that's free online (file-sharing or Web sites) & then turn around & start burning products out of it just to make some fast money on eBay. That's the absolute lowest of the barrel, & it includes scum who swipe photos off Web sites & then sell cheaply copied photo-paper duplications as "real" photos.

With the sheer volume of Mac bootlegs out there, they must be aware it goes on and turn a blind eye to it. Of course it's not right, it's their property but in the scheme of things I don't think it's hurting Lindsey, it just helps keep his fanbase more dedicated. Maybe that's a screwed up way to look at it, I don't know.

But yeah, fans who get stuff from the net just to sell it are the lowest of the low. It doesn't just happen in Mac world either, it happens with lots of artists.
Even with the demo thing. I know The Jayhawks (a band I love) are well aware of the fact their demos are bootlegs and shared on the internet and they just accept it. Apparently they even call certain collections of their songs by the titles fans have given them. Not every band or artist is against this stuff. Some, like Wilco for instance, even embrace it.

[face of glass]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I'm well aware that you're saying that fans should take responsibility, however how do you know it was directly against his wishes? Is there an interview in which he says this?

I once chatted about this with the second owner of Lindsey's official website, they had been talking to Lindsey's management about the GOS leak and had heard from those people that it had not been Lindsey's intention for GOS to be leaked. That's all I know about this though.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by David

Lux, some people probably feel that they're being lectured to. I think it's fine to have one's own convictions on these issues -- we all do, probably -- but those convictions are going to vary, maybe widely in some cases. I think it's a good idea for this message board to remain a safe place for people to feel they can post about bootlegs & demos & similar stuff.

I don't feel lectured to and I think it's Lux's right to bring it up.
I think it's a good thing to discuss these things really.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by face of glass

I once chatted about this with the second owner of Lindsey's official website, they had been talking to Lindsey's management about the GOS leak and had heard from those people that it had not been Lindsey's intention for GOS to be leaked. That's all I know about this though.

Thanks for that. It may not have been his intention but I wonder if he thinks it's a bad thing?
I know that Juliana Hatfield has an unreleased album (God's Foot - Warner refused to release it) and unlike Fiona Apple, she put a halt to things right away when it reached the internet because she was so unhappy about it. Hatfield is a tiny artist with not much money and she was able to do that. I can't see why Lindsey couldn't.

As for the eBay thing. If Lindsey's management contacted eBay and said a seller was auctioning a illegal bootleg of his, eBay would take it down right away. That's been my past experience anyway.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by Lux

He does not have the power to prevent a private sale and as for the question relating to whether or not he perceieved the sale of his demos as a bad thing, I can assure you he did. If those responsible for that sale and purchase had any respect for him we would never have heard the demos. Perhaps that's not the case now, but until we know it's not, I don't think we should run the risk of screwing him over again.

I think you're wrong there. I'm pretty sure eBay says you're not allowed to sell bootlegs and that they will take them down if they are notified. In fact I've seen eBay stop auctions because of that. Often people selling illegal stuff only put them up for a day or two, so they won't be up long enough for eBay to realise.

As for Lindsey perceiving the sale of his demos as a bad thing: I'm sure he did think that was a bad thing. What I meant was, did he think fans freely distributing them was a bad thing?
Has he ever said this?

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by Lux

He does not have the power to prevent a private sale and as for the question relating to whether or not he perceieved the sale of his demos as a bad thing, I can assure you he did. If those responsible for that sale and purchase had any respect for him we would never have heard the demos. Perhaps that's not the case now, but until we know it's not, I don't think we should run the risk of screwing him over again.

I respect your concern for Lindsey, but he's got more money than all of us combined. If he wanted to stop it he could. What, is he sitting at home right now trying to figure out if he can scrape together the $200 bucks to win this auction? That is, if it's important to him to keep it out of the hands of the public. Those GOS MP3s David was talking about were up for a long time as she cycled through them!

If I was close to Lindsey and I had access to his tapes, would I make a copy and sell them? Probably not. But if it's not important enough to him to stop the sale, it's not going to be more important to me.

Not that I'm coughing up $200 bucks for this CD! They'll come around. Patience is a virtue.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by Lux

The fact that the last demos sold is evidence that he does not have the power to prevent the sale, regardless of ebay. It was deviant.

As for the distribution, that is exactly my point. We don't know if he approves of the distribution so an effort should be made to determine this before they are freely distributed. If he does not mind then this is all fine of course, but until then it shouldn't occur.

Well ultimately we all have to make our own decisions. I will be downloading these tracks when they become available because, like I said before, I believe that Lindsey does in fact turn a blind eye to it all otherwise they wouldn't be out there (again other less prominent artists manage to keep the net free of their bootlegs). As Sugar said, if his management is worried that this seller is just going to attempt to sell the CD again if eBay take it down, $200 is nothing to him to buy it outright.
I'm sure many other fans such as yourself (I know John aka Wetcamelfood doesn't believe in the bootleg or unofficial release thing and I respect his opinion), will also do what they think is best.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by Lux

Ok but just know that he did not turn a blind eye to it. You are mistaken if you think that the stealing and private sale of his demos was not a concern of his.

I'm not saying that anyone has the right to SELL his demos. I've never said that.
In fact didn't I say it's wrong for this seller to profit from Lindsey's work without his permission?
I feel like you're attributing things to me that I've never said!

How do you know he didn't turn a blind eye to it btw (meaning the free distribution of his tracks on fans sites rather than the illegal sale of them on eBay which obviously is a concern for any artist)? Sounds like you know something.

I still don't get why you're so against all this when you yourself downloaded the GOS demos. Seems weird. John at least stays away from all that stuff.
Plus, you never said any of this stuff to me when I made you that video tape of Lindsey stuff and none of that was official. I'm truly baffled I must say.

[AliP]

Originally Posted by Lux

Ok but just know that he did not turn a blind eye to it. You are mistaken if you think that the stealing and private sale of his demos was not a concern of his.

I agree that it is a concern of his, but if it really was a top priority, he would make it so. It would not be hard for him to instruct management (or whoever) to scan ebay etc and put stops on such things. He has the money and the power to do so.

[GardenStateGirlie]

I do apologize for not being as acutely aware of Lindsey's thoughts, feelings, and wishes as you apparently are. I have no problem with people thinking that this isn't the right thing to do. Much like trackaghost, I respect everyone’s opinion regardless of whether or not it's that of my own and whether or not you choose to believe it, I did debate whether or not to go in on the purchase. What I don't respect nor appreciate is you telling me as well as others that wish to purchase this demo (many of whom I'm sure don't want to touch this thread with a ten foot pole) that we don't regard him as a human being which translates into you indirectly professing to be a better fan than everyone else because you won't take part. Considering how much you adore GOS, that smacks of hypocrisy. I find that to be incredibly condescending and flat out rude. You're a much better person than that, Lux.

This isn't an entire album. It's one song we haven't heard, two songs that were released, and one song we have yet to hear in its entirity but have heard on the documentary. If this was an entire album, perhaps I'd feel differently but at present, I do not.

That being said, I've e-mailed the seller and he responded rather quickly. To his knowledge, it came from either the promotions department or a journalist (he wasn't sure which). This tells me one of two things...it was either being distributed by East End Management to people in the business for reasons unbeknownst to us and was more than likely to be part of SYW but did not make the cut when the album did not become a double (the two unreleased songs, that is). It has apparently been listened to several times before it was sold to this seller. That's all the information I could get out of the guy right now.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by GardenStateGirlie

That being said, I've e-mailed the seller and he responded rather quickly. To his knowledge, it came from either the promotions department or a journalist (he wasn't sure which). This tells me one of two things...it was either being distributed by East End Management to people in the business for reasons unbeknownst to us and was more than likely to be part of SYW but did not make the cut when the album did not become a double (the two unreleased songs, that is). It has apparently been listened to several times before it was sold to this seller. That's all the information I could get out of the guy right now.

If that's true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, then Lindsey obviously gave permission for it to be distributed to the press etc and is not against people hearing it.

Maybe I'm fooling myself, in order to justify all this to myself I don't know anymore. Anyway I'm off to bed.

[DownOnRodeo]

Like you say Lux, 'once they're out, they're out'. No matter who buys this, the person who sold it would have another copy to possibly sell again (especially with this one fetching such a good price), and if one person has this 4-track CD, surely others do. 'Once it's out, it's out'.

When we met Lindsey in the lobby in Brisbane, and someone mentioned SGCYM, he looked at us a bit stranegly and asked, "Where did you hear that? The internet?"

I thought that his response meant he wasn't happy with the whole internet, GOS thing. But you insisted afterwards that he actually seemed fine about it.

[wondergirl9847]

SGCYM was released through that GLAAD CD. Somebody posted on the Ledge that they got the CD by filling out some form on the Reprise (Warners?) website and they got it free. Then, it circulated that way. That's how I got mine too. I'm not sure why he would be surprised about folks knowing that song, but perhaps he forgot about that.

[DownOnRodeo]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

SGCYM was released through that GLAAD CD. Somebody posted on the Ledge that they got the CD by filling out some form on the Reprise (Warners?) website and they got it free. Then, it circulated that way. That's how I got mine too. I'm not sure why he would be surprised about folks knowing that song, but perhaps he forgot about that.

Hmm, good point. But from the tone of his voice and the way he said 'internet', you could tell that this guy KNOWS about the GOS circulation etc. Does he really care that his biggest fans have this stuff? It didn't seem to bother him, according to Lux. I wasn't sure, but still I'm gonna listen to any demos that are leaked, and I don't see much point making each other feel guilty about it.

Lux, what would you do if you had the chance to buy an unheard Lennon tape - send it back to Yoko without a listen?

[christinaliz]

Although I don’t normally participate in discussions here, after being led to this one, I feel compelled to say a little something.

To say that I’m passionate about this sort of thing would be an understatement. Copyright infringement is serious business, in whatever form it may take. Legally, obviously. There’s another issue to be considered though, and that would be the moral. The latter frequently gets overlooked. The internet is a wonderful invention, but has made it extremely difficult for artists to keep their property their property. That’s right. It’s their property. If their property is sold, traded, transferred or copied without the intellectual property rights owner’s permission, it is stolen property.

Let’s run this back for a moment to previous sales of the artist’s property that have been solicited and ultimately spread over the internet. The unreleased demos you’re speaking of? Try to imagine working diligently for ten years and not being paid for that work, as well as being virtually powerless to stop the sale or transfer of that work by an unscrupulous third party. I realize the people here have said that they would ultimately purchase the released product, even after downloading for free, but not all would. That isn’t even the issue. Money isn’t the issue. The issue is, once again, stolen property.

As a writer, much of my work is unfinished. Some of it is published. The published material, I willingly and knowingly submitted for publication. I wanted it to be read. Would I feel the same about the unfinished portions of my work? Of course not. However, all of it is my intellectual property and I own the rights. What I choose to share and put out there should be my decision and done in my own time, when I’m ready. It may take me one year or twenty to get it out there. It's my property, my business, and my right. The artist you’re speaking of in this discussion is entitled to those same rights and that same privacy. When someone crosses over to ‘celebrity’ (and I dislike that word passionately), their work isn’t up for grabs, nor is their privacy, regardless of what their net worth amounts to in buying it back. They are entitled to the same freedoms.

The moral obligation now exists between seller and buyer. If the intellectual property rights owner does not authorize the sale, it should be terminated. In the case of the internet, that isn’t always possible, nor enforced. Even if removed, the seller has several high bidders to email for private sale. So, it goes back to being a moral issue. The seller may be unscrupulous, but does the buyer have to be? No bids equal no sale. The questions to be asked are these: Do you feel the artist and the owner of this material would sanction such a sale of his unedited, alternate or unreleased work? If so, would he promote it on a site such as eBay? Do you feel he would support or approve of the material being traded, exchanged, transferred, copied or sold without his consent over the internet?

One more thing to consider. There are cases in which the intellectual property rights owner and the artist are not one in the same. The artist may not sanction the transfer of said material, but through various sticky legal channels and rights being handed over, may not have as much power to stop it as you think.

Just points to ponder..