Hi Guest once more (I'm sure we could get better acquainted if you had a name, but there you go)...

Look, I do take your comments on board and you will note that, from Nic Jones onwards with my uploads, except for a couple, I have not only refrained from putting anything up that includes "cover versions" where the copyright interests to which you allude may well apply, but also cleared the uploads with the artsts themselves, to ensure that they are happy for these audience recordings (bootlegs if you will) to be put up with their approval.

RE "Make that material available on some kind of external site, and someone else is likely to take even free material and sell it, ripping off songwriters, artists, publishers, and rights organisations." - well that is what I actually call bootlegging (or piracy), taking someone else's property withut authorization and trying to make money out of it. Of course educated potential purchasers will (or should) avoid paying for such products since they can get them without charge if they look. The same bootleggers can (and do) take commercially available product and bootleg that - I cannot see why they should find old audience recordings of a niche listening area a likely target in reality, compared with (say) Michael Jackson, Sting, etc. etc.

The Albert Lee/Vince Gill show to which you refer is actually an interesting case: it turns out that "the guys" did 2 shows there on consecutive days, day 1 was taped by the sound guy from the PA (better quality) and day 2 by myself from the audience (worse quality), and the "better quality" recording has just received an official release, selected tracks available here via youtube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Albert+Lee+Vince+Gill+LIVE+at+the+Prince+of+Wales+Hotel+1988. 2 of these are the ones picked up by the YouTube "automatic listener" as potential copyright violations... however the "official" release is a lot clearer and I cannot see in practice that my "unofficial" one is in any way a threat to any revenues that the "official" one might generate. In any case, in these situations, YouTube does not remove the material, it merely issues a caution that myself as the uploader cannot make any money from it via advertising revenue, which is fair enough in my book.

The bottom line (for me) is that if either Albert or Vince, or their management, so advise, I can always take my "rival" version down (in fact I have been told that they are aware it exists, and have chosen not to do so, thus far at least). So I sleep (reasonably) happy at night in this particular case, but can always alter my position should the situation change. Ultimately again this is just revisiting territory covered earlier in this thread, for which there are a range of viewpoints, for which the olders are unlikely to change their positions any time soon...