sounds of the smiths
- Thread starter leedoggpimp
- Start date
ToDieByYourSide
Junior Member
Support the artist, buy it
Sort of agree. This is no place to post this. But I do have mixed feelings on it. I mean did the world REALLY need this to be released? We all have it. Could it sound THAT much better?? A couple extra so called rarities. Please. I'd like to hear it, but no cash of mine will be heading their way.
ToDieByYourSide
Junior Member
Your opinion is valid.
My thoughts are that making a purchase like this will show the powers that be, that people still care about these types of releases so that in the future, new material/releases will be made available.
Sure we all have it, "Unofficially"
But there is something to say about the anticipation of a new release from your favorite band, especially since we have all been wanting the material to be released and remastered.
My thoughts are that making a purchase like this will show the powers that be, that people still care about these types of releases so that in the future, new material/releases will be made available.
Sure we all have it, "Unofficially"
But there is something to say about the anticipation of a new release from your favorite band, especially since we have all been wanting the material to be released and remastered.
evergreennightmare
Fantastic
thanks for sharing
bobalmighty
*Cornette Face*
Hmmm, no no, bad. Buy it. I bought them both yesterday. It's not that much money really. Can someone lock/remove link?
ray_afraid
***********
I agree that this shouldn't be here. If you want to download it there are other ways. I wouldn't spend a dime on this, but sharing official releases on a public forum is no good.
This is why we have Soulseek
This is why we have Soulseek
Last edited:
evergreennightmare
Fantastic
your picture there is hilarious,
bobalmighty
*Cornette Face*
sdsuedehead
The Kids A Looker
this is only CD 1 not CD 2 as listed.
Bigmouth
Scandinavian
support a band who said they wouldn't make re-issues etc.
even a band as lovely as the smiths...
it's quite sad - even though it has been going on since the break...
nice
lol
Last edited:
Devoted101
Crashing Bore
i love the remasters and i wish the whole moz back catalogue would get that treatment.. that said, my only problem with buying this release, twice in my case, is that although i am not sure, i believe that 2 people who are not contractually "the smiths" are getting more than their fair agreed upon share of the royalties.. it still gets me.. when you sign a damn contract you can't go back 10 years later and dispute it.. that is so ridiculous.. anyway.. my two cents.. damn jumped-up session musicians..
There are specific steps the copyright holder or a representative of the copyright holder must follow to remove links that violate the DMCA. See section 18. Copyrights and Copyright Agents in the TOS / Privacy Policy.
Moderators abide by that policy. The files are actually not on this site, they are on rapidshare.com, have you complained there? They would probably tell you something similar.
dunya
.
It may not technically be illegal to allow the link, but for goodwill towards the artists it would be better to remove it.
It's hard to know where to draw the line.
Audience bootlegs are not going to be commercially valuable, but newly-released merchandise, even of old material is intended to profit the artists (regardless of how wealthy/poor they may be).
However, I have grabbed the odd track, b-side, where I didn't want to buy the A side.
Tricky.
It's hard to know where to draw the line.
Audience bootlegs are not going to be commercially valuable, but newly-released merchandise, even of old material is intended to profit the artists (regardless of how wealthy/poor they may be).
However, I have grabbed the odd track, b-side, where I didn't want to buy the A side.
Tricky.
It is indeed tricky. Some people appreciate it, some don't. I have already purchased the deluxe edition (and have paid for the same songs several times over already, some I would estimate at 20x+ over) as I'm sure many others have.
If the files were actually on my server I would remove it. This is just a link. Perhaps the label/copyright representative would like to know the link is active and have it removed at the source. An argument for not removing the link is that neither you or I should pretend to act as that representative.
I did get something in the past from a lawyer that told me I need to monitor every post on the site for illegal activity. That was technically untrue with the DMCA (and be a huge waste of my time), which is led me to lay out the TOS and steps to follow for content removal similar to other sites, like YouTube, Yahoo!, etc.
If the moderators or I started deleting files without these hard rules, people would question why something was removed and not something else.
If the files were actually on my server I would remove it. This is just a link. Perhaps the label/copyright representative would like to know the link is active and have it removed at the source. An argument for not removing the link is that neither you or I should pretend to act as that representative.
I did get something in the past from a lawyer that told me I need to monitor every post on the site for illegal activity. That was technically untrue with the DMCA (and be a huge waste of my time), which is led me to lay out the TOS and steps to follow for content removal similar to other sites, like YouTube, Yahoo!, etc.
If the moderators or I started deleting files without these hard rules, people would question why something was removed and not something else.
Similar threads
