David wrote:
> bill wrote:
>>>The companies, in my opinion rip off the public enough by charging
>WAY too much
>>>for CDs and they complain about bootlegs
>
>Bill, you are contridicting yourself here!  You are justifying
>something that
>you were complaining about!
 
I mean David that the companies are regulating what goes out to the public
and actually are holding back material that could/should be released.
Bootlegs are made obviously for the money but fill the need for a full
catalog.  The companies complain that bootlegs hurt them when they have no
intention of releasing a "full" catalog.  So by that the companies are short
changing the fans by not releasing all they could then complain that
bootlegs exist and hurt their wallets.  Do  they actually think they lose
money from something they wouldn't release anyway? I don't think so.  They
think they have to up the prices of legit recordings to recoup what is a
pseudo loss, which IMO is bullshit but as far as pirating they are
justified.  As was said by someone on the list earlier (sorry I forget who),
bootlegs are bought by people who have all the legit recordings and are
looking for more than the companies care to release. Bootlegs enhance
artists "catalogues" and so are a good thing, IMO.
I am in no way a bootlegger and have never bought one unless you consider
the tapes from the trees, but I feel they should be there for people who
want more than the companies give.
 
Lee,
 
I would love to have a tape of the Connells doing their cover songs!!!
 
Bill