independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Past, Present, Future sites > NPGMC eMail: "Bootleggers R Not Fans" - What about those that never sell or share the recordings?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/28/02 1:12am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

NPGMC eMail: "Bootleggers R Not Fans" - What about those that never sell or share the recordings?

.

Latest NPGMC email recieved (I think because of that lawsuit against Freemyheart.com):

BOOTLEGGERS R NOT FANS. THEY SELL UNAUTHORIZED STOLEN PROPERTY 2 FANS. There r numerous posts throut Paisley Park that in4m guests of their policies regarding illegally recording the events that r staged there. This policy applies as well 2 PRINCE and the NPG concerts thruout the world. MESSAGE 2 BOOTLEGGERS: LEAVE UR RECORDING EQUIPMENT AT HOME. ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED. PEACE



~*~

Now one question and one SOLUTION arose from this:
What about those fans that never sell, trade or share the recordings they make?

Like for a private personal archive collection? They make no copies and/or resell them because they really understand that reselling such a recording is just WRONG.

I know of course that there may be some issues with even recording in the first place.

There's something to be said about the ASSUMPTION that ALL FANS would or have sold their tapings and recordings.

Okay here's the solution Prince.

The Who.

Yes, the legendary rock group The Who HAVE THE SOLUTION!

They are offering LIVE CD's of EVERY SHOW for latest tour just weeks after they play!

Wow. A no brainer really.

I have a thread on this: http://www.prince.org/msg...&tid=22975

Here's what The Who have to say about BOOTLEG RECORDERS:
""The band is aware that many of the shows on this tour will be sold as bootleg recordings and to satisfy this demand they have agreed to release their own official recordings to benefit worthy causes.

Recorded and mixed live from the sound board, these CDs are as close as you will get, and as quick as you will get, to reliving the experience. By this process you will be provided with a good recording at a reasonable price just as soon as we can make them.

Whether it is because you enjoyed the show you attended so much, or whether you could not make a particular venue but want to enjoy it anyway, you will be interested in this Encore series of CDs.

We anticipate each double CD will be available within three weeks of each show. All profits from the sale of these CDs will go to young peoples' charities supported by The Who. "

http://www.themusic.com/t...EN=1152392

Amazing isn't it.

Oh and that terrible updated Princely "RESPELLING" is really getting annoying isn't it. Remember when it was just U, 2 and 4 for you to and for?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/28/02 1:19am

KeithyT

avatar

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

What about those fans that never sell, trade or share the recordings they make?

Like for a private personal archive collection? They make no copies and/or resell them because they really understand that reselling such a recording is just WRONG.

I know of course that there may be some issues with even recording in the first place.


NPGMC's and Prince's view is clearly stated - ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED. I don't think this part is trying to make a distinction as to whether or not you then sell it. To merely reproduce it is wrong in their opinion.
Just somewhere in the middle,
Not too good and not too bad.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/28/02 1:20am

suomynona

.
[This message was edited Wed Oct 2 3:16:36 PDT 2002 by suomynona]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/28/02 1:31am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

KeithyT said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

What about those fans that never sell, trade or share the recordings they make?

Like for a private personal archive collection? They make no copies and/or resell them because they really understand that reselling such a recording is just WRONG.

I know of course that there may be some issues with even recording in the first place.


NPGMC's and Prince's view is clearly stated - ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED. I don't think this part is trying to make a distinction as to whether or not you then sell it. To merely reproduce it is wrong in their opinion.


Yeah, you're right. It is wrong. But at the end of the email it's clearly stated "MESSAGE 2 BOOTLEGGERS" which what a bootlegger is, an illegal re-producer of performances/recording FOR PROFIT.

A fan who just tapes a show for private use, is he/her a "Bootlegger"? No because they are NOT reselling it out of the trunks of their cars (which by the way, was how the first actual bootleg was RESOLD, an unreleased Bob Dylan album in the 60's).

I may be argueing the label, but questions should be asked, even if they may expose the negative to reach a solution. Which is really needed here.





///
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 1:32:48 PDT 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/28/02 1:34am

savoirfaire

avatar

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

KeithyT said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

What about those fans that never sell, trade or share the recordings they make?

Like for a private personal archive collection? They make no copies and/or resell them because they really understand that reselling such a recording is just WRONG.

I know of course that there may be some issues with even recording in the first place.


NPGMC's and Prince's view is clearly stated - ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED. I don't think this part is trying to make a distinction as to whether or not you then sell it. To merely reproduce it is wrong in their opinion.


Yeah, you're right. It is wrong. But at the end of the email it's clearly stated "MESSAGE 2 BOOTLEGGERS" which what a bootlegger is, an illegal re-producer of performances/recording FOR PROFIT.

A fan who just tapes a show for private use, is he/her a "Bootlegger"? No because they are NOT reselling it out of the trunks of their cars (which by the way, was how the first actual bootleg was RESOLD, an unreleased Bob Dylan album in the 60's).

I may be argueing the label, but questions should be asked, even if they may expose the negative to reach a solution. Which is really needed here.





///
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 1:32:48 PDT 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]



Fact of the matter is, whether or not bootlegging is illegal, those who bootleg almost certainly are fans. They're confusing legality with "fandom"
"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/28/02 1:39am

joeycoco

KeithyT said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

What about those fans that never sell, trade or share the recordings they make?

Like for a private personal archive collection? They make no copies and/or resell them because they really understand that reselling such a recording is just WRONG.

I know of course that there may be some issues with even recording in the first place.


NPGMC's and Prince's view is clearly stated - ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED. I don't think this part is trying to make a distinction as to whether or not you then sell it. To merely reproduce it is wrong in their opinion.


I could care less what their interpretation of the law is and if it was up to them possession of such material would be illegal as well...

Prince always finds someone to blame for his less than successful ventures. I wonder what he'll do if one on one CD-R trading/file sharing of unreleased material will take over. Is he going to sue each and every one of us? Will the disloyal fans be banned from the music club? I'm sure he'll try...sad bitter midget.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/28/02 1:40am

Supernova

avatar

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?
This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/28/02 1:43am

Bladerunner

joeycoco said:

I could care less what their interpretation of the law is and if it was up to them possession of such material would be illegal as well...

Prince always finds someone to blame for his less than successful ventures. I wonder what he'll do if one on one CD-R trading/file sharing of unreleased material will take over. Is he going to sue each and every one of us? Will the disloyal fans be banned from the music club? I'm sure he'll try...sad bitter midget.


We know you could care less. You like to steal property from Paisley Park. Sad bitter thief.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/28/02 1:50am

joeycoco

Bladerunner said:

joeycoco said:

I could care less what their interpretation of the law is and if it was up to them possession of such material would be illegal as well...

Prince always finds someone to blame for his less than successful ventures. I wonder what he'll do if one on one CD-R trading/file sharing of unreleased material will take over. Is he going to sue each and every one of us? Will the disloyal fans be banned from the music club? I'm sure he'll try...sad bitter midget.


We know you could care less. You like to steal property from Paisley Park. Sad bitter thief.


Why would I be bitter when I have all this stuff which you will most likely never be able to enjoy and have no problem getting back into Paisley? You're not too bright, are ya?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/28/02 1:50am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

suomynona said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

(I think because of that lawsuit against Freemyheart.com)
i think the email has less to do with www.freemyheart.com than it does with his fear that his european shows will began circulating on the net within days following each performance...

everytime he goes to europe, he not only gives his best performances, but they are announced to soon be available via bootleg companies within weeks of the performances...

if i'm being sued for millions, just imagine what jerry will do to them...



Yeah man, I feel you with this problem. It's like a hierarchal domino effect. The big record company abuses it's artist, the artist goes after the little guy.

I don't think you got money out of sharing that. I see no banners on your site (other than the Me'Shell ones, but that SUPPORTS THE ARTIST!)

I think he should go after the RESELLERS on eBay, wherever.

I think he's just trying to send a message to others who would post the music.

That's a big problem over there in Europe. But he's just got to beat the bootleggers as best he can. And one way you do that is by doing something very similar to what The Who is doing.

Another solution,
Dave Mathews and other bands actually let fans record their shows, and encourage them to share it. That draws the fans closer and appreciative enough to realize that yeah, let's share or trade. That kills the bootlegging entities. Fans already traded the show that was just performed. Bam! THat cuts into THEIR profits.


About your situation, I wonder how Me'Shell feels about posting a song or two hers on your site?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/28/02 1:53am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

FlyingCloudPassenger said:[quote]

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! Not many but some People do!
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 2:07:21 PDT 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/28/02 1:54am

Bladerunner

joeycoco said:

Bladerunner said:

joeycoco said:

I could care less what their interpretation of the law is and if it was up to them possession of such material would be illegal as well...

Prince always finds someone to blame for his less than successful ventures. I wonder what he'll do if one on one CD-R trading/file sharing of unreleased material will take over. Is he going to sue each and every one of us? Will the disloyal fans be banned from the music club? I'm sure he'll try...sad bitter midget.


We know you could care less. You like to steal property from Paisley Park. Sad bitter thief.


Why would I be bitter when I have all this stuff which you will most likely never be able to enjoy and have no problem getting back into Paisley? You're not too bright, are ya?

You have no idea what I'm able to 'enjoy' and I'm not interested in what you have. Being a convicted theif doesn't exactly make you too bright either, does it smart boy?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/28/02 1:56am

lovebird

I don't understand why Prince would take the time
to worry about this.Bootlegs are out there and everybody
knows it. I e-mailed them several weeks ago that the solution to this was to sell the bootlegs himself.
If a fan offers another fan a bootleg that they have
how does this hurt Prince financially or any other way?

I can understand why he would be bothered about someone
selling them for profit, but most of the fans just trade,
right?

Did everybody get this e-mail? I didn't.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/28/02 1:57am

Supernova

avatar

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! People do!

I didn't say people didn't, I asked how many actually do. The vast majority don't.
This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/28/02 2:05am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

Supernova said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! People do!

I didn't say people didn't, I asked how many actually do. The vast majority don't.


Okay, I fixed my initial response! See above.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 2:08:17 PDT 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/28/02 2:07am

4LOVE

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! Not many but some People do!


But isn't it still illegal to have a recording without his permission?And i think the worst fans are the ones who try to hoard all the material for themselves like they made the songs and are the only ones that deserve to hear them biggrin .The least you could do is share it with another and get them into the scene.Some of those early bootlegged tracks got prince many a new fan.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 2:15:13 PDT 2002 by 4LOVE]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/28/02 2:09am

joeycoco

FlyingCloudPassenger said:


I think he's just trying to send a message to others who would post the music.

That's a big problem over there in Europe. But he's just got to beat the bootleggers as best he can. And one way you do that is by doing something very similar to what The Who is doing.


Again he's trying to fight a battle he cannot win. I think he gets a kick out of it. Regardless of his most recent actions the European shows will circulate within days.

To me it looks like he's trying to clean up his act to please a record company. Look at situation a couple years ago and the current situation. See the similarities?

Careful, I'm not saying he has been ok with the whole bootlegging thing in the past. Obviously he hasn't been. But there's a difference between voicing your opinion on the matter and taking action.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 09/28/02 2:13am

dennisversteeg

avatar

I think that in my life I actually bought 3Prince bootlegs and the last one was over 10 years ago.. Since then I've only traded and recently downloaded stuff.
No money involved and I never sold a bootleg recording.

Now I wonder what Prince's sand would be on that.

And then there's indeed artists who allow (or even encourage) taping. Mike Keneally is a great example. His stand on audience recordings is that it's great promotion for him, he asks that there's no money made and that he gets a copy of each recording! I actually taped a show of his last July and gave the recording to him personally.
Another example: Dutch group The Nits, which are my favorite band, gave me a box containing 70 tapes with live recordings from their earliest concerts straight from their archive. They told me I could transfer them to CD and then give them back and I can freely trade them with other fans. Now that's cool!
-dennis-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 09/28/02 2:15am

BlaqueKnight

avatar


Bootlegging is one thing, but "unlawful reproduction of intellectual property" is for asskissing SUCKERS. The whole arguement is control issue. $$$ control. Fact of the matter is, if I buy a CD, tape, 8-track, album, mini-disc, floppy disc, mp3, DVD, beta, lazer disc, or a quill-penned copy of lyrics written on a scroll of toilet paper, once I buy it, ITS MINE! Not Prince, the government or my momma can tell me what I can do with it. If I want to make copies for ALL of my friends, I will do so without a second thought. I'm NOT going to SELL copies to people. That's an ethical choice. If I were to record a show, I would treat it JUST LIKE AN ACTUAL RECORDING. If I want to make copies, I WILL. Phuck intellectual property laws. The biz tries to treat the public like they do their artists. The music business is the only one that still owns the house after the mortgage has been paid by the customer. WTF? Don't copy yo sheeiiittt 4 my friends? PHUCK U. That little tyrant needs to understand HOW he gets NEW FANS and stop actin' a phool about his little albumz. Would you rather someone have a copy of your CD that will one day get scratched and have to be replaced by a legitimate copy at SOME POINT, who becomes a bigger fan and buys your next 2 or 3 CDs, or someone who just says "phuck it" and passes your shyt by because he/she only knows you from your last hit...which in P's case, was a while back by today's standards. That lil' man betta get a grip and stop trying to control what's beyond the walls of Paisley Park. He aleady messed up once when he sued the fansites. People WILL "bootleg", and fans WILL buy them. How do you beat it? See the above solution from The Who. They DO have the answer. As for fans SHARING, NO ARTISTS SHOULD HAVE SAY-SO IN THAT AREA. If you don't want people to hear it, don't play it...EVER. If you think your shyt is too good for people to hear without paying an abhorently high price; don't play it. Simple.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 09/28/02 2:17am

joeycoco

Bladerunner said:


You have no idea what I'm able to 'enjoy' and I'm not interested in what you have. Being a convicted theif doesn't exactly make you too bright either, does it smart boy?


Uhm, if there's only one copy of a certain item and I have one, there's no way you or anyone else can have it as well. Never said you're interested in what I have, nor do I care whether or not you are.

BTW are you implying you have unauthorized material from Paisley? no no no! lol

As for being a convicted thief, I'm not. Not to mention that it would no make me any more or less intelligent.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 2:20:32 PDT 2002 by joeycoco]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 09/28/02 2:18am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

4LOVE said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! Not many but some People do!


But isn't it still wrong to have a recording without his permission?


Well, here's ANOTHER question(s) on our journey to a solution...

Is it wrong to be recorded in public by camera's? Without your permission? Is it wrong then if when (if ever) those photos or videotapes are SOLD?

Also, if you record a show for personal private use, the recording device is yours. The recording media is yours. The sound waves...could those sound waves actually be free.

Your memory is yours, you're not selling it. It's not as accurate as hardware/electronic recording technology...so that's why you want a recording.

Are we talking when it's on recorded recordable media to be SOLD in an unauthorized manner that it's bad?

In essence, I think it's a lack of supply and demand from Paisley Park really.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 09/28/02 2:19am

joeycoco

BlaqueKnight said:

[color=blue:967af20670]
Bootlegging is one thing, but "unlawful reproduction of intellectual property" is for asskissing SUCKERS. The whole arguement is control issue. $$$ control. Fact of the matter is, if I buy a CD, tape, 8-track, album, mini-disc, floppy disc, mp3, DVD, beta, lazer disc, or a quill-penned copy of lyrics written on a scroll of toilet paper, once I buy it, ITS MINE! Not Prince, the government or my momma can tell me what I can do with it.


That's where you're wrong. For example, it is prohibited to circumvent copy protection.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 09/28/02 2:22am

4LOVE

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

4LOVE said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! Not many but some People do!


But isn't it still wrong to have a recording without his permission?


Well, here's ANOTHER question(s) on our journey to a solution...

Is it wrong to be recorded in public by camera's? Without your permission? Is it wrong then if when (if ever) those photos or videotapes are SOLD?

Also, if you record a show for personal private use, the recording device is yours. The recording media is yours. The sound waves...could those sound waves actually be free.

Your memory is yours, you're not selling it. It's not as accurate as hardware/electronic recording technology...so that's why you want a recording.

Are we talking when it's on recorded recordable media to be SOLD in an unauthorized manner that it's bad?

In essence, I think it's a lack of supply and demand from Paisley Park really.


True but when you take that recording material into a concert with signs posted that forbid it i think it becomes illegal.If the artist says to bring your recorder to the show you have every right to do what ever you want with the recording.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 09/28/02 2:24am

Wolf

FlyingCloudPassenger said:


Is it wrong to be recorded in public by camera's? Without your permission? Is it wrong then if when (if ever) those photos or videotapes are SOLD?


I think Soulpower knows the answer to that.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 09/28/02 2:31am

Bladerunner

joeycoco said:

Bladerunner said:


You have no idea what I'm able to 'enjoy' and I'm not interested in what you have. Being a convicted theif doesn't exactly make you too bright either, does it smart boy?


Uhm, if there's only one copy of a certain item and I have one, there's no way you or anyone else can have it as well.


And there's no way you know for a fact about whether or not there is only one copy of a particular recording.

Never said you're interested in what I have, nor do I care whether or not you are.


You obviously care because

you said:

Why would I be bitter when I have all this stuff which you will most likely never be able to enjoy


If that isn't a childish nana than nothing is.

As for being a convicted thief, I'm not. Not to mention that it would no make me any more or less intelligent.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 2:20:32 PDT 2002 by joeycoco]

yes, it makes you less intelligent because you got CAUGHT and BANNED.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 09/28/02 2:33am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

Wolf said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:


Is it wrong to be recorded in public by camera's? Without your permission? Is it wrong then if when (if ever) those photos or videotapes are SOLD?


I think Soulpower knows the answer to that.


What you mean Soulpower knows...was dat?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 09/28/02 2:35am

Supernova

avatar

FlyingCloudPassenger said:[quote]

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! Not many

Which was my point.
This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 09/28/02 2:39am

Wolf

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Wolf said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:


Is it wrong to be recorded in public by camera's? Without your permission? Is it wrong then if when (if ever) those photos or videotapes are SOLD?


I think Soulpower knows the answer to that.


What you mean Soulpower knows...was dat?


In another thread yesterday Soulpower said something about certain photos being copyrighted. I can't remember the name of the thread or all the particulars tho.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 09/28/02 2:56am

FlyingCloudPas
senger

Supernova said:[quote]

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

FlyingCloudPassenger said:

Supernova said:

I doubt he believes that people are taping for their own listening without sharing with others in some way shape or form. How many people actually do that?


Suprise! Not many

Which was my point.


Okay, okay. This one question journey isn't going anywhere.

But not many, is some. Which was my point too.

But whatever. Let's just try to come up with solutions.

Pas! (Spanish for Peace. And hey, I took the time to edit my post for you!)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 09/28/02 3:01am

joeycoco

Where should I start? One, I do know what I have and whether or not there are multiple copies. Org note if you want to discuss further.

Two, Why would I be bitter when I have all this stuff which you will most likely never be able to enjoy was said to show you I have absolutely no reason to be bitter and the second part of that sentence is essential.

Last thing I have to say is that (most) skills are for the most part improved by trial and error. How quick someone learns and how far they're able to plan ahead and foresee obstacles says something about the level of intelligence. Which means that you're wrong if you say that a skilled person is more intelligent than someone who is less skilled.

That's pretty much it, if this went over your head again, feel free to org-note me. I'm sure people aren't particularly interested in this conversation. Anything else you post here in reponse to this post will be ignored. Don't mistake that for a "victory" of any kind though. Just think that we're going a little off topic.
[This message was edited Sat Sep 28 3:03:28 PDT 2002 by joeycoco]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Past, Present, Future sites > NPGMC eMail: "Bootleggers R Not Fans" - What about those that never sell or share the recordings?