Topic: Please help. What to do? Taped and gig and told not to spread by management.

[randallanddarcy]

I have been taping shows all over the world since 1998. I’ve taped a lot of bands, and have circulated an awful lot of my recordings. I’ve just recently had a situation that has never occurred to me before, and I’m looking for taper’s advice. I taped a musician’s solo show. This musician has been in several bands, but isn’t huge or anything. He has a global following, but it would be a cult following. But I’m a big fan. I posted on his board that I taped this small show. The webmaster of this guy’s website sent me a private message, saying that he also recorded the show and would like mine to do a matrix of the recordings (mine is an audience recording, not a soundboard).  I then PM’d him asking if he was the promoter (the webmaster’s first name and the first name of the promoter on the ticket were the same), and if he was the guy video-ing the show. I then got a PM that didn’t answer my questions, but did request that I didn’t circulate my recording, as the management is thinking of doing a live album of this one specific show. (Which maybe why he wants mine). I just set up 2 trades (big trades that would expand my collection of this artists music) that I will have to cancel if I agree to this.

What do I do? To give to these 2 guys in the trade and tell them it’s not for trade, or to cancel altogether? Any advice appreciated. As far as I could tell on the night, the vocal was through the PA, but the piano wasn’t. It was a tiny gig. I think the projected official live album won’t be a soundboard anyway. But I could be wrong. I was seated front row between the artist and the left PA. All night, I got the piano in my right ear (from the instrument) and the vocal in my left (from the PA). The gig was in a church in the country (weird venue) and didn’t even have a stage.

So, what do you think? Do I circulate for my 2 trades and tell those traders not to tape it, or just hold onto it myself. One of the guys that wants to trade was at the gig, and the other has the most complete collection of this artists songs ever. They’re both obviously die-hard fans, but I don’t know either of them.

Thanks in advance for the advice, and sorry this is so long. Just wanted to give all the information.

Randall

[OFOTD]

If you agreed to not trade, don't.  If they asked you not to circulate because they are going to release it, don't.   Absolutely no need to burn bridges with the artist for the sake of two trades.

[randallanddarcy]

I haven't got back to the webmaster that asked me not to circulate. I thought I'd get advice here first. Many of my friends ARE musicians, and have no problem with it. This artist I am not friends with at all. In fact, I live in Ireland, but the musician is American. And the gig was in England. So, knowing this, do I have any bridges to burn do you think? Thanks for the response.

[OFOTD]

I haven't got back to the webmaster that asked me not to circulate. I thought I'd get advice here first. Many of my friends ARE musicians, and have no problem with it. This artist I am not friends with at all. In fact, I live in Ireland, but the musician is American. And the gig was in England. So, knowing this, do I have any bridges to burn do you think? Thanks for the response.

Well I don't know if you have any personal bridges to burn but what you do or don't do could have an effect on others taping this artists.   Was you tape a stealth job or was it an open taping situation.

[dean]

I think you really need to honor the artists wishes in this circumstance.  Let the 2 traders know that they can buy the official release when it comes out, but that you've been asked not to circulate.  I think if you circulate it then you run the high risk of changing the artists attitude towards audience recordings, and that will have a ripple effect over time and artists that will eventually effect us all.

The "greatly expand my collection" argument is insufficient.  Whatever they were going to trade you, you can likely get elsewhere without impacting this artists relationship with tapers.

YMMV, of course. That's just my 2 cents...

[TNJazz]

The title of the thread makes it pretty clear what the right thing to do is.  Not sure why there's even a question.

[randallanddarcy]

OFOTD: That's a good question mate. In this fella's OLD band, they allowed taping, but didn't have a taping section as such. After their 1997/1998 tour, management solicited fan tapes, even. People sent them in, but nothing came of it. But, granted, that was 10 fucking years ago.  

Because this gig was small, in the country, in a (I presume deconsecrated) church (!), there was no security as such. I did stealth tape it though. I always stealth tape, because it's just easier. There is currently no official taping policy, but I THINK if it was any other gig, they wouldn't give a shit. I PM'd the webmaster fella when I asked him those original questions, and said I knew someone who taped the London show, and he didn't say anything about that one at all. This one specific show seems to be the issue.

Everyone else: thanks for the responses. I just mean: I paid my ticket, I've supported this artist and bought all his stuff for 15 years, I don't really feel I 'owe' him anything. He ain't bought me a pint or anything, y'know what I mean? I'm honestly not being a cunt: I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate. Having said that, the advice about the artist becoming non-taper friendly for other tapers is an issue close to my heart and has made the decision for me.

Other opinions still welcomed, though. Thank you all.

[eric.B]

The title of the thread makes it pretty clear what the right thing to do is.  Not sure why there's even a question.

what he said..  ^

[Belexes]

Always honor the artist/management request in terms of what is recorded.  It's not your music, it's theirs.  You just captured it.

[randallanddarcy]

Just want to clear something up. Been thinking of the right way to convey it. Here's an example. When I say, 'I don't owe the artist anything', I realized it can come across as kind of obnoxious. Some of the responses I've had have basically said: if the artist doesn't want it circulated, don't.
If I put it this way:
Pearl Jam allows audio taping. They do not allow video taping. PJ fans still collect stealth fan-shot DVD's. This is against the artists wishes. How is what I'm saying about this gig different? I'm not going to circulate it, but as a genuine question about taping ethics, how is it different. PJ's whole Italian 2006 tour was shot by fans and circulated as DVD's (which the band don't allow) but the band still released a DVD of the Italian tour. Are all us PJ fans who got the fan-shot DVD's arseholes for trading them?

[randallanddarcy]

Always honor the artist/management request in terms of what is recorded.  It's not your music, it's theirs.  You just captured it.

That's a fair cop. I can't really argue with that. I've taped literally hundreds of shows, and this situation has never occurred to me.

[dean]

Just want to clear something up. Been thinking of the right way to convey it. Here's an example. When I say, 'I don't owe the artist anything', I realized it can come across as kind of obnoxious. Some of the responses I've had have basically said: if the artist doesn't want it circulated, don't.
If I put it this way:
Pearl Jam allows audio taping. They do not allow video taping. PJ fans still collect stealth fan-shot DVD's. This is against the artists wishes. How is what I'm saying about this gig different? I'm not going to circulate it, but as a genuine question about taping ethics, how is it different. PJ's whole Italian 2006 tour was shot by fans and circulated as DVD's (which the band don't allow) but the band still released a DVD of the Italian tour. Are all us PJ fans who got the fan-shot DVD's arseholes for trading them?

Apples and oranges.  The artist specifically requested that YOU don't circulate THIS ONE show.  It's not some general "no" policy, it's a specific request to you.

[randallanddarcy]

Deanlambrecht: yeah, that puts me in my place!

Just as a side issue: has anyone released one of their recordings (a show not in circulation, so maybe your copy is the only one), and just released it to a few die-hard collectors on a 'Not For Trade' basis. This is a complete side issue from my current issue. The reason I'm asking is because I have some shows from some bands that I've got on a not for trade basis because the taper doesn't want them circulated. However, does a taper have a 'right' to do this? They don't own the copyright. If you give it to a couple of people and other fans know you have it but can't copy it for them because of the original taper's wishes, is the original taper being a prat? The shows I have as Not For Trade that I didn't tape: it seems to me there's no reason for it other than the taper wants to have a 'exclusive' I-have-it-and-you-don't kinda vibe. My natural inclination is to circulate most everything I tape. I mean, it's a good feeling to give someone something they're gonna love, especially if they can't get it else, y'know? If I tape something myself, and don't want it circulated, I just don't advertise the fact I have the fucking thing, y'know?

[Belexes]

The NFT recordings I have are ones where I or the taper signed some legal waiver not to distribute. If we let the recording out, we are screwed.  I also have recordings from bands where if I let them out, the sound engineer will likely get canned because he gave me board access when I really wasn't suppose to have it.

I honor the wishes of whomever gave me the recording and if it goes out of my house, I make certain permission is granted by whom I received my copy first.

We have all seen it, someone lets out a show they were not suppose to and it makes the whole community look like a bunch of ass hats.

[Brian Skalinder]

Pretty well covered so far, but I'll add my $0.02 anyway, starting with a quote from another thread:

Every action we as tapers take (or fail to take) as individuals reflects on the broader taper community.  Likewise, traders' actions reflect on the traders and the tapers.

It's not just about me, or you, the night we tape.  It's also about musicians, venue management, security, band management, musicians' labels, even fans, and their individual and collective perceptions of tapers, what we do, how we do it, why we do it.  A single, simple wrong step may have broad-reaching repercussions.  Stories abound of a musician or management or venue getting pissed off at a taper, or group of tapers, and shutting taping down temporarily or permanently, or causing conflict and tension, bad blood between fans and tapers, tapers and musicians, tapers and management, tapers and venues, etc.  Is sharing a recording against the musician's or management's decision really worth risking the potential down side?

IMO, disrespecting the wishes of the musicians, venues, security, management, etc. isn't worth the downside repercussions.  I think this holds true especially for situations in which the musician or management specifically requests a performance not be shared.  Sharing anyway, even among a "trusted few", simply doesn't work - the recording gets out eventually one way or the other, and if the musician gets word of it...we don't know what repercussions might be in store.  Maybe none.  But possibly significantly negative ones, too.  Multiple references on TS reflect this experience:  share a recording even once, and you lose control.  Please don't put someone else - trader, fellow fan, even another taper - in a position to jeopardize your personal or our community's relationships the musicians, etc. or negatively influence their perceptions of us and what we do.

[/soapbox]

[boojum]

The man said, "no."  What is it about "no" that you don't understand?  You are just trying to weasel out of it.  No = No.

[heyitsmejess]

im just curious...who is it?

[Krispy D]

Your level of integrity and respect or lack thereof of others wishes should answer this question very easily. 

[itook2much]

Just as a side issue: has anyone released one of their recordings (a show not in circulation, so maybe your copy is the only one), and just released it to a few die-hard collectors on a 'Not For Trade' basis. This is a complete side issue from my current issue. The reason I'm asking is because I have some shows from some bands that I've got on a not for trade basis because the taper doesn't want them circulated.

I have shows that I haven't circulated for various reasons.  The artist asked me to keep it to myself, a few that include material to be on the artists' debut album not yet released, & some I just haven't gotten around to.  Most have gone to friends that were there with me, but no further.

As far as shows I didn't tape, I have plenty that I won't circulate.  If I'm asked to not trade it, & I agree, I keep my word.  I have a number of shows from various tapers who asked me to not spread them...so I haven't.  Period.

If you're going to make an exception after agreeing not to spread a show (& it's probably advisable that you not), you better be sure it'll stop with whomever you give it to.  If I don't want a show to go any further, I limit it to trusted tapers, who'll understand the idea that it stops with them.  A trader you don't know may figure you traded it to him, so what's the big deal if he trades it further?

Stick to your word, it'll pay off in the end.  The artist will know you can be trusted, & you may reap benefits from that.  Those you traded with will know you can be trusted, & you'll likely benefit from that.  I traded with another local taper that filmed a solo show by the singer of a legendary punk band.  He was given permission to film, but was asked not to spread it.  While working out a trade, we were just talking about shows we'd taped/seen, & he mentioned that one.  I was there, said I'd love that one.  He explained the situation, & trusted me to sit on it.  I have, and he even included a partial show he'd filmed from another band on the DVD.  That show doesn't exist on a recording according to the collector sites for the band.  Over time, stuff will come out (although that video is from 1993).

No need to rush to spread it when you know it'll piss off the artist.  Sit on it.  Wait awhile.  If no release is forthcoming, ask about it.  Explain the situation to those with whom you've set up trades.  And when you do set up the deal with the webmaster, ask to trade for the video or his recording.  Quid pro quo.  Your one-of-a-kind for his.  But if he balks, I'd just give it to him.  Better to help out an artist you like than to chance angering or alienating him or his staff.

[newplanet7]

This seems like a catch 22 of sorts IMO.
There are tons of members on this board that stealth and circulate recordings against
the bands policy/wishes.
I don't personally, but have dl'd my fair share.
My question is to those who say no don't post.

What is the difference between a stealth taper on this board who seeds and what
randallanddarcy is posing?

Is there really a grey area?
A policy is a policy, be it for one specific show or all of their shows.

[itook2much]

This seems like a catch 22 of sorts IMO.
There are tons of members on this board that stealth and circulate recordings against
the bands policy/wishes.
I don't personally, but have dl'd my fair share.
My question is to those who say no don't post.

What is the difference between a stealth taper on this board who seeds and what
randallanddarcy is posing?

Is there really a grey area?
A policy is a policy, be it for one specific show or all of their shows.

I stealth, & I circulate some of them.  I have a few the artist knew about & asked me to sit on, & I've done so.

It's one thing to anonymously stealth a show & spread it.

It's entirely another to tape it, post on the artist's message board that you did so, then be asked not to spread it by the artist's representative, and then spread it anyway.

It's "violating" a general policy versus ignoring a specific request made to you personally.  I really don't see it as that grey, or that fine a line of distinction.

[wilsonedits]

if management tells you to do something do it !

[kbergend]

I'm totally with Brian on this one.  It hurts all of us when a taper disregards an artist's or their management's express wishes about the distribution of a show.  I was asked not to distribute a matrix I made of Ryan Adams tearing up Hammerstein Ballroom last Halloween because a DVD is supposedly in the works, and it's killing me!  But if those kinds of requests are disregarded, fewer artists will allow taping under any circumstances.  The people you have trades lined up with should understand your situation.

[illconditioned]

This seems like a catch 22 of sorts IMO.
There are tons of members on this board that stealth and circulate recordings against
the bands policy/wishes.
I don't personally, but have dl'd my fair share.
My question is to those who say no don't post.

What is the difference between a stealth taper on this board who seeds and what
randallanddarcy is posing?

Is there really a grey area?
A policy is a policy, be it for one specific show or all of their shows.

Interesting situation!

If I know the artist I will follow their request, that is, ask permission, and post only if agreed.  As some of you have seen, I have a compromise situation of posting clips on my website (http://Soundmann.com).

If I don't know the artists (typically more popular artists, I can't reach before the show), I'll (stealth) tape anyway, but keep to myself.

I have not considered the third option, taping stealth, and posting to dimeadozen.  I'm not into this, but I must say I am glad others are doing this so I can hear some bigger acts.  I get to hear the shows without attending large venues.

Yes, it is a grey area, but it does not make sense to openly tape and then violate the artists' wishes.

  Richard

[Myco]

In the few instances I've heard complaints from band managers/promoters complaining about shows being taped and released they didn't say "that John Smith is a douchebag, he released the show when we asked him not to.", they said "that f***in taper released the show when we asked him not to." We all are judged collectively, fairly or not, so my opinion would be to respect the wishes of band management. Ultimately it is your decision to make, but be aware that your decision can have consequences for all of the rest of us and do you want to be the guy that all the tapers curse out for screwing it up for all of the rest of us? I archived for a now defunct band that many people liked alot and I have all of their soundboards still at my home. Many people have asked for a copy of this show or that show because they just can't find it anywhere, but the band and their management asked me specifically to not allow copies out unless I can trust that the individual getting them will not spread it around, so I just sit on them. Maybe someday I'll be allowed to release them, but for now I sit on this pile of DATs that alot of people seem to want. It sucks but it's not worth screwing with the people who allow you to do what you like to do. Just my .02 cents.

[newplanet7]

This seems like a catch 22 of sorts IMO.
There are tons of members on this board that stealth and circulate recordings against
the bands policy/wishes.
I don't personally, but have dl'd my fair share.
My question is to those who say no don't post.

What is the difference between a stealth taper on this board who seeds and what
randallanddarcy is posing?

Is there really a grey area?
A policy is a policy, be it for one specific show or all of their shows.

Interesting situation!

If I know the artist I will follow their request, that is, ask permission, and post only if agreed.  As some of you have seen, I have a compromise situation of posting clips on my website (http://Soundmann.com).

If I don't know the artists (typically more popular artists, I can't reach before the show), I'll (stealth) tape anyway, but keep to myself.

I have not considered the third option, taping stealth, and posting to dimeadozen.  I'm not into this, but I must say I am glad others are doing this so I can hear some bigger acts.  I get to hear the shows without attending large venues.

Yes, it is a grey area, but it does not make sense to openly tape and then violate the artists' wishes.

  Richard

I definitely wasn't suggesting he do anything, one way or the other.
I just wanted to hear peoples opinions who stealth tape and spread against the bands wishes, ala Dime/TTD. That was my whole gray area point. Is one situation more valid because one is a general to all policy not to share vs. a specific show policy?

Personally, I wouldn't post it but, there is a hint of hypocrisy in ME that sometimes downloads a
bands show against their no taping/trading policy.

[morst]

Dimeadozen has a "banned artist" list that groups can opt-in to.

The difference between a straight-up stealth and this situation is that a specific request was made to a specific person to not circulate. Sometimes trying to be a good guy can backfire. Had you never asked if you could post, you would not have been shut down directly. Kinda ironic, huh Ren?

[restevezes]

The stealth debate is something different to what we are discussing here, IMHO.
Fact is that management explicitly asked taper not to distribute this specific recording.
Very big difference with pretty obvious answer. It is all about ethics. If taper is still wondering what to do, probably makes no sense in trying to explain him

[adrianf74]

I've been following this thread for a while now, and I finally feel that it's time to add my $0.03 (due to inflation).

I think there are two issues here that people are confusing:

1. The original post says it all: the taper was asked NOT to circulate the show after in contact with the artists management/personnel. That is, IMHO, the end of the debate.  You've been asked NOT to do so, so you don't.  End of story.  If you do, you end up burning the ability for others to tape the artist's show (whether it be this particular artists or others who are represented by the same team members).

2. If the original poster had not been in contact and had stealth'd the show and then chose to seed it, trade it, give it away, then the only way he would have had to stop as if he'd been asked to by the artist/management/legal, etc.

By having been in contact with the team, and having been asked not to, it's been summed up in two letters: NO.

[newplanet7]

I'm not confusing the point. I realize it's two different situations.
I am posing a different point one of me being hypocritical in giving an answer on this thread
that's all.
Richard understood that.
Take the Almans policy.
To open tape and not to trade on-line.
I've d/l'd a few of those for sure.
That's the only point I was getting at.

[deadheadcorey]

I've been following this thread for a while now, and I finally feel that it's time to add my $0.03 (due to inflation).

I think there are two issues here that people are confusing:

1. The original post says it all: the taper was asked NOT to circulate the show after in contact with the artists management/personnel. That is, IMHO, the end of the debate.  You've been asked NOT to do so, so you don't.  End of story.  If you do, you end up burning the ability for others to tape the artist's show (whether it be this particular artists or others who are represented by the same team members).

2. If the original poster had not been in contact and had stealth'd the show and then chose to seed it, trade it, give it away, then the only way he would have had to stop as if he'd been asked to by the artist/management/legal, etc.

By having been in contact with the team, and having been asked not to, it's been summed up in two letters: NO.

what he said.... 

[flipp]

I say you sit on it until 1) the webmaster answers your question whether he was the promoter or 2) get in touch with the artist's management, not the artist's site webmaster, and ask them directly if it can be circulated or they want you to keep it under wraps.

Reading your original post it seems you have only been in contact with one person who may or may not have any official capacity to speak for the artist. So ask someone who does speak for the artist. If the response is No, then sit on it; if the response is Yes, then circulate it.

[Tye]

I wasn't going to ask this question but I have always been confused about how this issue of stealthing is handled in this community.
 Some in this thread say that this situation(circulating after being asked not to ) is diffrent from stealthing example NO=NO .
 
 By stealthing (I mean the true act of recording bands that don't allow taping) doesn't that make the assumption the artist/managment has already stated a policy NOT to record the concert.
 I have seen many people get flamed for asking similar questions as randallanddarcy. Now my opinion on this  is if they ask not to circulate the issue ends there DO NOT CIRCULATE !!!

My question is why are so many people so quick to say don't stir the pot and get the artists/management upset by not respecting their policy/requests when they stealth bands often and don't hesitate to spread it with source info and at times their name on it when it could be easily traced to the taping community?

 If a band says no before or after how does that differ?
 Honestly to me I don't care if people stealth because as far as I know it has never had a huge impact with tapers as of yet. I'm just curious why the double standard?
 

[newplanet7]

I wasn't going to ask this question but I have always been confused about how this issue of stealthing is handled in this community.
 Some in this thread say that this situation(circulating after being asked not to ) is diffrent from stealthing example NO=NO .
 
 By stealthing (I mean the true act of recording bands that don't allow taping) doesn't that make the assumption the artist/managment has already stated a policy NOT to record the concert.
 I have seen many people get flamed for asking similar questions as randallanddarcy. Now my opinion on this  is if they ask not to circulate the issue ends there DO NOT CIRCULATE !!!

My question is why are so many people so quick to say don't stir the pot and get the artists/management upset by not respecting their policy/requests when they stealth bands often and don't hesitate to spread it with source info and at times their name on it when it could be easily traced to the taping community?

 If a band says no before or after how does that differ?
 Honestly to me I don't care if people stealth because as far as I know it has never had a huge impact with tapers as of yet. I'm just curious why the double standard?
 

This is the question I posed earlier addressing my hypocrisy.

I definitely wasn't suggesting he do anything, one way or the other.
I just wanted to hear peoples opinions who stealth tape and spread against the bands wishes, ala Dime/TTD. That was my whole gray area point. Is one situation more valid because one is a general to all policy not to share vs. a specific show policy?

Personally, I wouldn't post it but, there is a hint of hypocrisy in ME that sometimes downloads a
bands show against their no taping/trading policy.

[Tye]

I didn't mean to be redundent I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but feared being flamed, oh hell flame away 

I wasn't going to ask this question but I have always been confused about how this issue of stealthing is handled in this community.
 Some in this thread say that this situation(circulating after being asked not to ) is diffrent from stealthing example NO=NO .
 
 By stealthing (I mean the true act of recording bands that don't allow taping) doesn't that make the assumption the artist/managment has already stated a policy NOT to record the concert.
 I have seen many people get flamed for asking similar questions as randallanddarcy. Now my opinion on this  is if they ask not to circulate the issue ends there DO NOT CIRCULATE !!!

My question is why are so many people so quick to say don't stir the pot and get the artists/management upset by not respecting their policy/requests when they stealth bands often and don't hesitate to spread it with source info and at times their name on it when it could be easily traced to the taping community?

 If a band says no before or after how does that differ?
 Honestly to me I don't care if people stealth because as far as I know it has never had a huge impact with tapers as of yet. I'm just curious why the double standard?
 

This is the question I posed earlier addressing my hypocrisy.

I definitely wasn't suggesting he do anything, one way or the other.
I just wanted to hear peoples opinions who stealth tape and spread against the bands wishes, ala Dime/TTD. That was my whole gray area point. Is one situation more valid because one is a general to all policy not to share vs. a specific show policy?

Personally, I wouldn't post it but, there is a hint of hypocrisy in ME that sometimes downloads a
bands show against their no taping/trading policy.

[newplanet7]

I didn't mean to be redundent I have been wanting to ask this for a long time but feared being flamed, oh hell flame away 

No one flamed me.
It's a legit question.
What I was more or less  posing is that I couldn't give an answer
because it's a gray area to me.

[jamroom]

A bit of clarification might be necessary here. Just because a recording was "stealthed", does not necessarily mean that the recording was made against the artist's official or unofficial taping policy. Most European recordings have to be made this way, as the venue culture is greatly different from that in the US, although again, I'm sure there are US venues that do not permit taping, regardless of the artist's policy.

[danlynch]

I "stealth" taper-friendly bands all the time because of venue issues.

[newplanet7]

A bit of clarification might be necessary here. Just because a recording was "stealthed", does not necessarily mean that the recording was made against the artist's official or unofficial taping policy. Most European recordings have to be made this way, as the venue culture is greatly different from that in the US, although again, I'm sure there are US venues that do not permit taping, regardless of the artist's policy.

I "stealth" taper-friendly bands all the time because of venue issues.

That's not what anyone is referring to.
We were talking of bands that don't allow taping/trading or online trading.
Who said anything about stealthing for bands that allow taping?
We're not talking about the venue at all.

This seems like a catch 22 of sorts IMO.
There are tons of members on this board that stealth and circulate recordings against
the bands policy/wishes.

I just wanted to hear peoples opinions who stealth tape and spread against the bands wishes, ala Dime/TTD. That was my whole gray area point. Is one situation more valid because one is a general to all policy not to share vs. a specific show policy?

By stealthing (I mean the true act of recording bands that don't allow taping) doesn't that make the assumption the artist/managment has already stated a policy NOT to record the concert.
 I have seen many people get flamed for asking similar questions as randallanddarcy. Now my opinion on this  is if they ask not to circulate the issue ends there DO NOT CIRCULATE !!!

My question is why are so many people so quick to say don't stir the pot and get the artists/management upset by not respecting their policy/requests when they stealth bands often and don't hesitate to spread it with source info and at times their name on it when it could be easily traced to the taping community?

[jamroom]

^^^ I read all of your post, thank you. I made the point for others (newbs), not you, as I was happy enough with what you had posted - note I did not quote you. Not everyone picks everything up, so I just wanted to clarify.

[newplanet7]

^^^ I read all of your post, thank you. I made the point for others (newbs), not you, as I was happy enough with what you had posted - note I did not quote you. Not everyone picks everything up, so I just wanted to clarify.

Gotcha.
I didn't even think of that angle 
+ tea.
-todd