What do you think about Commercial bootleg?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, you can also have your iTunes songs bought, converted to MP3 (or burned on CD), etc. Same story, different medium to me.

:)

Marty
 
ponkine said:
Another example of what I´m talking about. I´m not against U2 music, but I´m really against all this unfair commercial attitude just for first world countries:(

What happened with than band who said "we invite people to bootleg our shows and share the music... " ? :sad:

First, I never viewed Chile as a second or third world country - so those are your words, keep that in mind.

Second, iTunes was develooped in the U.S. first simply because Apple is based in the U.S. However, they continue to grow and expand.

Third, part of the reason Chile and other countries don't have iTunes is NOT because they are second or third world countries. It has to do with the record labels IN YOUR HOME COUNTRY not allowing iTunes in just yet. There are record associations in every country. The RIAA is here in the U.S. Arrangements were worked out with the RIAA to allow the creation of iTunes in the U.S. iTunes is now currently doing that with countries around the world. As those negotiations continue, iTunes has expanded. So you may very well get iTunes in the coming year.

But if not, why worry? Chances are you'll still be able to download the songs from some website somewhere.

Seems like you are complaining for the sake of complaining and attacking U2 for the sake of attacking U2 - without looking at the reasons behind everything. Don't you think iTunes would LOVE to be in your country and Australia and every other country in the world? That means more business for them. But things don't work this way. It's not all about U2, so stop trying to blame them constantly.
 
Last edited:
Popmartijn said:
Well, you can also have your iTunes songs bought, converted to MP3 (or burned on CD), etc. Same story, different medium to me.

:)

Marty

As is happening already, it'll be all too easy for her to acquire the .mp3's from iTunes on other websites. Yes, it's illegal, but then, if she has no choice.... :wink:
 
doctorwho said:


Third, part of the reason Chile and other countries don't have iTunes is ........ It has to do with the record labels IN YOUR HOME COUNTRY not allowing iTunes in just yet. There are record associations in every country. The RIAA is here in the U.S. Arrangements were worked out with the RIAA to allow the creation of iTunes in the U.S.

Thats actually incorrect. Australia has two other download stores who successfully negotiated with the local record labels. These stores are up and running.

There is some pretty nasty gossip as to why Itunes arent in Australia.

My issue is why dont U2 negotiate with other download stores in countries that dont have Itunes. I know, they probably have a global exclusive contract with Itunes even though Itunes are no where near a global company.

Im trying not to whinge. Honestly I am trying.

The original question - I think legal bootlegs will take over for people who have only a couple of bootlegs downloaded from the internet . But Im sure the audiophiles will keep trading.
 
beli said:


Thats actually incorrect. Australia has two other download stores who successfully negotiated with the local record labels. These stores are up and running.

There is some pretty nasty gossip as to why Itunes arent in Australia.

My issue is why dont U2 negotiate with other download stores in countries that dont have Itunes. I know, they probably have a global exclusive contract with Itunes even though Itunes are no where near a global company.

Im trying not to whinge. Honestly I am trying.

The original question - I think legal bootlegs will take over for people who have only a couple of bootlegs downloaded from the internet . But Im sure the audiophiles will keep trading.

Those OTHER companies have successfully negotiated with the labels in Australia. iTunes clearly hasn't succeeded yet. It could be cost, it could be what iTunes wants to offer, it could be that iTunes is an American company - it could be many things. Right now, I highly doubt iTunes would let a country like Australia slip through its grip. ;)

As for U2 negotiating with non-iTunes stores... I don't know. My guess is that they do have a contract in place that prohibits this. It's a standard industry contract.

And you aren't whining at all. :)
 
doctorwho said:


As is happening already, it'll be all too easy for her to acquire the _mp3's from iTunes on other websites. Yes, it's illegal, but then, if she has no choice.... :wink:

lol. See thats my issue. Thats precisely how I think. Well, I do have a choice, I can not listen.

Yes, it did use to be easier to do things legally. :huh:
 
doctorwho said:


Those OTHER companies have successfully negotiated with the labels in Australia. iTunes clearly hasn't succeeded yet. It could be cost, it could be what iTunes wants to offer, it could be that iTunes is an American company - it could be many things. Right now, I highly doubt iTunes would let a country like Australia slip through its grip. ;)

The other two download companies here are msn, who I believe is a USA company :wink: , and Destra (sp?) who I believe are a huge Euro company.

It could be many things. Could be that Itunes are greedy bastards? :wink:
 
yertle-the-turtle said:
That said the Pearl Jam approach will not work with U2. I find Pearl Jam a bit more spontaneous with their setlists (ie. they play almost completely different sets at each performance) whereas with U2 they tend to stick a regular setlist and play more or less the same one throughout the entire tour.


Not true. The Who had the exact same setlist every single night on their last tour and released every single show on CD and did quite well. Even U2 mixes it up more than that. U2 would clean up if they elected to go the CD format also.

My primary beef with Itunes is two fold. Those of us on dial up, downloading isnt an option. Plus its lossy mp3 material, I want it to be in the highest quality possible and mp3 is nowhere near it. Now if they offer a FLAC or SHN download then those will get out in lossless quality, works for me then. I will just have to get them through other means then because I'm not being given a choice. I wouldnt feel bad about it at all because I would actually love to be able to purchase a CD version legally.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom