[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tapes not Zep? Bollicks!

Mark wrote RIAAther succinctly,
oh my
<wink> <wink>
got something in my eye.
Personal Opinion:
Wake up boys, I smell brass polish and heated aluminum from big nightstick
size flashlights headed in the direction of Led Zeppelin labels.
But then maybe a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse after all.
In my opinion, I think that maybe the idea to Atlantic is not what you
believe so much as what you claim. I've come across odd imports I believed
were Zeppelin, cause it sounded like them to me, but I'm certainly not
going to claim they are Zeppelin.
Jim can believe whatever he wants to as well. 
In situations of a possible federal violation of copyright authentication
of a work needs to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt and with more a
more reasonable certainty that circumstantial evidence can provide.
Otherwise there's a possibility at least ten percent of the Zep influenced
artists that have come out since Zeppelin might get charged with copyright
violation based on circumstantial evidence.
At 09:50 AM 11/29/01 -0800, Mark Donahue wrote:
>I thought it was meant as a <wink wink> disclaimer to any authorities who may
>hassle you.  In the wake of the Ballentine site (Sorry, Chris), and the
>some people in Europe have had with customs, why not?  If need be, we
could be a
>list of zeppelin tribute bands fans!  Instead of The Earls Court video....we
>trade a video of a tribute band in a dark hall recreating the Earls Court
>experience.  Like when you were in school, and you'd go on a field trip to an
>"authentic colonial village".  Well...those pilgrims drove home from work
>night...and that Earls Court tribute video is so dark and glitchy because
of a
>shitty SECAM/PAL/NTSC transfer.  That's right.  How could we possibly have
>authentic recordings?  They were never released!
>Jim Berry wrote:
>> >>I believe if you didn't hear it with your own ears and verify it with
>> >own eyes as a personal witness then you're a fool if you don't clarify
>> >>those recording labels and references you've got hanging around.
>> Hmmmm.. that's a pretty shaky statement on a lot grounds. There is such a
>> thing as circumstantial evidence. It can establish truth beyond a
>> doubt.
>> Do you really believe that somebody can copy another musician and you would
>> not be able to tell? I would have to say no. Another musician may be
able to
>> a good/perfect job for a substantial portion of a piece of music but there
>> is just no way to reproduce another players style completely. Every
>> plays in their own way, a musical fingerprint. It is unique to the player.
>> That 'fingerprint' coupled with the other evidence (set list, verification
>> that a show took place on the correct day, Plantations, etc.) make a pretty
>> strong circumstantial case. In fact, a strong enough case that it would
>> stand up in most any court in the world and would be enough to convince
>> reasonable people as to the truthfulness of the claim.
>> I've never seen the moon in person. But from the circumstantial evidence I
>> have every reason to believe the Apollo moon landing did happen. All I have
>> is circumstantial evidence, but it is enough for me to believe that the
>> pictures I see are real not just some mock-up in a movie studio.
>> By similar reasoning I believe the tapes I have heard are really Led
>> Zeppelin despite not witnessing the shows in person. Labeling them
>> similar to Zeppelin" would be a falsehood, not claiming them to be genuine.
>> Jim