Old Tunes and BOC Maxima cassettes for sale on ebay
Moderators: Aesthetics, Drones, Hexagon Sun
-
CedeSylphic
- Friendly Stranger
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:26 pm
It depends heavily on Mike P's relationship to the band... but i see what Joyrex is saying.MrMessiah wrote:I'm sort of with Joyrex on this... the normal rules of what's cool and what's not with trading unreleased bootleg stuff kinda goes out the window when
a) you run a record label and it's not someone on your roster
b) you price them to gouge (they came down from £999 each)
c) there's rumours they're due for some kind of legitimate release
Joe Schmoe selling his copy most people probably wouldn't bat an eyelid.
Edit: the inter forum drama though is super fucking obnoxious
-
thepastinsidepressant
- Sherbet Head
- Posts: 957
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:39 am
- Location: the past
i think it would be the opposite to that but hey aint it M Paradinas, seems he can do whatever the fuck he likes, the unscrupulous but untouchable - THATS THE HYPOCRISY.MrMessiah wrote:Joe Schmoe selling his copy most people probably wouldn't bat an eyelid.
the next 6 days will tell us if theres one law for one and another for the other.
the greedy £999 intro didn't go down too well - aww they dropped it, how kind but the guilt is bleedin obvious.
-
WeHadNormality
- Dayvan Cowboy
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:02 am
- Location: Pareidolia
-
thinkdontpray
- Eagle Minded
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:03 am
- Location: Toronto
-
MindElevation
- Sherbet Head
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:55 pm
- Location: UK
-
BunnyRabbit
- Sherbet Head
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: West Yorkshire, UK
I just can't see the problem with this sale.
The content is already in the public domain and the objects were given away as far as I know. Apart from unsubstantiated suspicisions and very general points about economics i don't see a reasonable (and i mean within the norms for this kind of thing) argument against it. can one or all of the naysayers lay out their objections? There too much confusion and the debate is stuck in a loop.
The content is already in the public domain and the objects were given away as far as I know. Apart from unsubstantiated suspicisions and very general points about economics i don't see a reasonable (and i mean within the norms for this kind of thing) argument against it. can one or all of the naysayers lay out their objections? There too much confusion and the debate is stuck in a loop.
-
WeHadNormality
- Dayvan Cowboy
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:02 am
- Location: Pareidolia
-
Aesthetics
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5446
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:59 am
- Location: Lowlands
- Contact:
BunnyRabbit wrote:I just can't see the problem with this sale.
The content is already in the public domain and the objects were given away as far as I know. Apart from unsubstantiated suspicisions and very general points about economics i don't see a reasonable (and i mean within the norms for this kind of thing) argument against it. can one or all of the naysayers lay out their objections? There too much confusion and the debate is stuck in a loop.
There is no rational or legal argument against the sale. It's all just insane fanboys projecting their creepy emotional attachments onto the tapes and developing a warped sense of ethics about selling them. There is nothing wrong with selling them. Ironically, ripping the tapes and distributing them as mp3's, which many are calling for, is a copyright violation.
Opothecary claims to care about what the band wants, yet has a hard drive full of illegally downloaded mp3s containing their unreleased material. What you're witnessing is the angry backlash of people who are completely irrational and clouded by their own strange emotions than any actual understanding of what's appropriate.
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format ... 2138909666
Last edited by Alzado on Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
MindElevation
- Sherbet Head
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:55 pm
- Location: UK
-
Opothecary
- Dayvan Cowboy
- Posts: 1751
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:51 pm
Are all these posts hype for the TH stream tomorrow? - because it sounds like you're melting down like Chernobyl over there. It's just the internet brotherman...hang in there!Alzado wrote: Opothecary claims to care about what the band wants, yet has a hard drive full of illegally downloaded mp3s containing their unreleased material. What you're witnessing is the angry backlash of people who are completely irrational and clouded by their own strange emotions than any actual understanding of what's appropriate.
-
johnson1234
- New Seed
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:13 pm
I will organize my thoughts now.
First off, things got off to a "questionable" start when the record was posted at $999 dollars with a prominent musician's wife and also musician-in-itself claimed that the item needed to be sold to help pay for pregnancy. To some, such as my lowly self, this just screams "laughable," or at the very least, "questionable." So, that set off some minor fireworks for me and I basically just sat back and started enjoying the show as fanboys rolled in, people argued, and both sides (if it can even be reduced to that: what side am I on?) felt with total certainty that they were correct about the legality of the transaction, whatever that was anyway. Facts remained unknown, the illustrious details of IDM's creme de la crepe. And thus, it was seen that such movements could only be leading toward a sort of double-retardation with members rolling in claiming that "everyone except for me is retarded" and "they are wrong."
Such a weepy sort of crybaby style makes poverty stricken pieces of shit like myself feel a bit annoyed. Who are these illustrious friends of the great BoC? And why do they deserve 999$! GOD DAMMIT!
In the end though that is all just backstory, completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. See, we don't need the details of the relationship between the seller and the artist. We don't need to know anything about whether it was the fanboys defending BoC from "posers." We don't need to know if any single anybody involved was a crybaby. The motivation is irrelevant.
What matters is whether there is, or is not, something to be said for the argument that such a sale could be contested by the group. COULD BE. It doesn't have anything to do with whether said band would want to, or would even consider doing so. It has only to do with the logic of law. If there is such law, and such a possibility, than all the cries of "BOC FANBOYS ARE AUTISTIC!!" would be silenced once and for all. So, we should find out, is there such a possibility? I should not that the existence of such a possibility would not have any bearing on whether there exists a contingent of autistic BoC fanboys. I only mean to clarify that the issue is not one of sentiment, but simply a matter of determining whether the ethic-action of the seller is really as clear cut as has been claimed.
Now, I should note that it was mentioned that the Beatles had a similar situation where an early recording of them was put on auction, something along these lines. Perhaps a demo. Either way, the Beatles were able to stop this auction in its tracks. Why is this? And how does this differ from the present case?
Imagine you send a demo for an album you are working on to a friend. Imagine that you are planning to finish this album and sell it yourself. But imagine that your friend thinks that this album is worth a lot of money and decides to sell it himself. The question here is: is this legally acceptable? Could I, the creator, stop this sale by claiming that it was a demo, not meant for resale? Could I claim that the music contained on the CD was my creation, and that selling the CD represented a breach of trust. Could it be said that selling the music on the CD represented a sort of breaking of copyright law, whereby I have control over the material on the disc, and selling it and spreading it around basically is taking the material out of my control, without my permission?
The problem here is that I have a plan for my music. I want it to be a certain way, as I have been working on it and would like to present it properly. However, a friend who I was working with decides to take it upon himself to take the demo I lent him and sell it on his own terms. For whatever reason the music is worth a shitload of money.
But that brings us to the complication. Where is the line between the object and the sound contained within? This is a collectors item. It is a rarity. It is in possession of one party. However, the musical copyright material on the item is an abstract form. It is NOT properly in possession of the party. It is strange how proceeds from these rarities get kicked back to people who had nothing to do with their creation. It is also curious how such valuable items can contribute nothing to the artist who brought them that value. It really is just the art world, I guess.
I can only conclude now by saying that my logic may not be as strong as I thought. But still, I think there are some interesting dimensions to this problem that have not been given enough consideration. I don't like the idea that I have passed out these DEMOS to my friends, as I have, and the fact that someday in the future when I am more well known, these demos could be sold without my approval. I think part of this is the idea that the mere exposure of a piece of music immediately risks its reproduction on the internet, and hence taking it out of the control of the creator.
I still really do think this could be contested, and I still think it is less clear than anyone is saying.
First off, things got off to a "questionable" start when the record was posted at $999 dollars with a prominent musician's wife and also musician-in-itself claimed that the item needed to be sold to help pay for pregnancy. To some, such as my lowly self, this just screams "laughable," or at the very least, "questionable." So, that set off some minor fireworks for me and I basically just sat back and started enjoying the show as fanboys rolled in, people argued, and both sides (if it can even be reduced to that: what side am I on?) felt with total certainty that they were correct about the legality of the transaction, whatever that was anyway. Facts remained unknown, the illustrious details of IDM's creme de la crepe. And thus, it was seen that such movements could only be leading toward a sort of double-retardation with members rolling in claiming that "everyone except for me is retarded" and "they are wrong."
Such a weepy sort of crybaby style makes poverty stricken pieces of shit like myself feel a bit annoyed. Who are these illustrious friends of the great BoC? And why do they deserve 999$! GOD DAMMIT!
In the end though that is all just backstory, completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. See, we don't need the details of the relationship between the seller and the artist. We don't need to know anything about whether it was the fanboys defending BoC from "posers." We don't need to know if any single anybody involved was a crybaby. The motivation is irrelevant.
What matters is whether there is, or is not, something to be said for the argument that such a sale could be contested by the group. COULD BE. It doesn't have anything to do with whether said band would want to, or would even consider doing so. It has only to do with the logic of law. If there is such law, and such a possibility, than all the cries of "BOC FANBOYS ARE AUTISTIC!!" would be silenced once and for all. So, we should find out, is there such a possibility? I should not that the existence of such a possibility would not have any bearing on whether there exists a contingent of autistic BoC fanboys. I only mean to clarify that the issue is not one of sentiment, but simply a matter of determining whether the ethic-action of the seller is really as clear cut as has been claimed.
Now, I should note that it was mentioned that the Beatles had a similar situation where an early recording of them was put on auction, something along these lines. Perhaps a demo. Either way, the Beatles were able to stop this auction in its tracks. Why is this? And how does this differ from the present case?
Imagine you send a demo for an album you are working on to a friend. Imagine that you are planning to finish this album and sell it yourself. But imagine that your friend thinks that this album is worth a lot of money and decides to sell it himself. The question here is: is this legally acceptable? Could I, the creator, stop this sale by claiming that it was a demo, not meant for resale? Could I claim that the music contained on the CD was my creation, and that selling the CD represented a breach of trust. Could it be said that selling the music on the CD represented a sort of breaking of copyright law, whereby I have control over the material on the disc, and selling it and spreading it around basically is taking the material out of my control, without my permission?
The problem here is that I have a plan for my music. I want it to be a certain way, as I have been working on it and would like to present it properly. However, a friend who I was working with decides to take it upon himself to take the demo I lent him and sell it on his own terms. For whatever reason the music is worth a shitload of money.
But that brings us to the complication. Where is the line between the object and the sound contained within? This is a collectors item. It is a rarity. It is in possession of one party. However, the musical copyright material on the item is an abstract form. It is NOT properly in possession of the party. It is strange how proceeds from these rarities get kicked back to people who had nothing to do with their creation. It is also curious how such valuable items can contribute nothing to the artist who brought them that value. It really is just the art world, I guess.
I can only conclude now by saying that my logic may not be as strong as I thought. But still, I think there are some interesting dimensions to this problem that have not been given enough consideration. I don't like the idea that I have passed out these DEMOS to my friends, as I have, and the fact that someday in the future when I am more well known, these demos could be sold without my approval. I think part of this is the idea that the mere exposure of a piece of music immediately risks its reproduction on the internet, and hence taking it out of the control of the creator.
I still really do think this could be contested, and I still think it is less clear than anyone is saying.
-
diminishingshine
- Friendly Stranger
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:55 pm
- Location: Upstate New York
As far as Maxima goes, I remember reading that the cassettes and CDs totaled 50. Not sure about Old Tunes, so perhaps someone else could enlighten us on that.MindElevation wrote:Out of interest, does anyone know how many actual copies of these cassettes there are in existance?
1969 in the sunshine...
-
EnforcedNo
- Posts Quantity
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:50 am
- Location: Washington, DC
