V/VM Are Being Sued

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The future of V/Vm Test is under severe threat. Anyone in possesion of a recent V/Vm Test Release which cannot be named for legal reasons could be breaking the law.

News here

Is it all over for the gruesome Stockport bootleg merchants? What ramifications does this have for bootleg culture as a whole? Does anyone still care?

― Jason J, Thursday, 18 March 2004 09:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Do we know what release it was, who is sueing them and for what? They should distribute it for free a la the grey album.

― hmmm (hmmm), Thursday, 18 March 2004 09:20 (twenty-two years ago)

So they are not allowed to mention which release it is? Just to send it back? I take it if you have it, you'd know which one it is...

Anyhow, whatever it says there, it's still not illegal to own a bootleg. Of Any kind.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i have it, so yes i know what it is, and if you email me i can tell you where you can still buy it.

i worry V/Vm got too cocky for their own good.. but i'm surprised this release was the first one to cause them trouble. i thought whatever VVMCPS consisted of meant that they were untouchable..

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)

(e-mail as above)

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:36 (twenty-two years ago)

done

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I love the idea that we're all meant to send back every single V/Vm release just in case we might accidentally have bought the "offending" item.

Jim, is it so obvious what's got the authorities in a tizzy? I mean, if I were Chris de Burgh (and I didn't already live in a solid gold house with a rocket car) I'd have probably sued their arses ages ago...

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't see how this release is any different to the others - if anything, it's possibly because some of the versions are simply *too* close to the original..

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:39 (twenty-two years ago)

So, it's not the band/group but cover versions/remixes/rejiggers?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)

some of the versions are by V/Vm plus a stack of other cohorts..

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:44 (twenty-two years ago)

specifically

ANIMAL
GAMERS IN EXILE
SOLYPSIS
EVOLdDOPA+SKANDIUM
V/VM
7U?
THE BEATBOX SABOTEURS
ALIEN PORNO MIDGETS
SHITMAT
PRESTO+SPARTANITE
ROCKY SMALLS
HYPO+O.LAMM
NASAKENAI DOUJI
EMIL+JOE
TOECUTTER
COCK E.S.P.
BLAKK SAUSAGE

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:44 (twenty-two years ago)

So it's quite feasible that there is not one note of the original versions? Or by dint of the message on the website, are they admitting it?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:46 (twenty-two years ago)

that i don't know. it is possible that there are sizeable unchanged portions of the original track on the release but i cannot say that for sure

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

When I got my d/l of the Grey album, the site I got it from had lots of stuff about landmark copyright cases. One such was how as the samples used were onto a track criticising the original song/viewpoints, the case went 'not guilty' on the basis of free speech of opinion...

Would this apply here?

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i think this is a scam, or possibly scamola

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

you can't be breaking the law just for being merely in possession of an illegal recording (the only reason file-sharers got subpoenas was because they were deemed to be providing by sharing the files they'd downloaded), unless there's a free sachet of cocaine with every CD or something.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

oooh. Good point clever stevem. they are such pranksters, those v/vm people.

xpost

― hmmm (hmmm), Thursday, 18 March 2004 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

That's how they marketed "Still Tango Orange", back in the day.

ad 1. cheap ravey commercial with drink..
ad 2. Managing director of Tango "We do not make a still version of Tango Orange - report any outlets to this telephone number"
ad 3. MD getting spanked over knee of tango orange man (I Think this ad was banned off the TV, so rendering the joke useless. I only know this as I saw a video cassette of all the tango ads ever, complied. I didn't even see the ad itself)

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 18 March 2004 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.