Bootlegging

[SouthSIDE Glen]

My bet is that it is illegal to tape if the artist has expressed a desire to not have it taped. However, the taper may not be the actual liable party, it may be the promoter/venue since the no taping clause is almost always in the contract rider with the promoter.

It actually goes even further than that, if I'm not mistaken.

Any performance is a copyrighted performance by default unless or until explicit permission is given by the copyright owner (artist), except when used as a relevant part of news reporting. The artist does not even have to explicity express a restriction; the restriction is there automatically and it's instead up to the artist to explicity describe any exceptions to it (any rights they are willing to forego.)

Whether any profit is made from the recording or not is irrelevant. Unless the copyright owner explicity says somewhere that it's OK to record and distribute such recordings, such recordings and distributions - even if free - are unauthorized and illegal.

And remember, even if no profit is made from the unauthorized wide distribution of such recordings on BitTorrent or YouTube or CD duplicators or whatever, such recordings can inpinge on the copyright owner's ability to distribute their own recordings of the event. Granted if it's a horseshit bootleg, it may not have a huge negative effect on the sales of a quality authorized recording, but it can have some effect. And better quality bootlegs can have more effect.

And besides, whether they do have a negative effect or not, it's not the bootlegger's or the bootleg recipient's place or right - either legally or morally - to make that decision.

G.

 

[ez_willis]

And besides, whether they do have a negative effect or not, it's not the bootlegger's or the bootleg recipient's place or right - either legally or morally - to make that decision.

G.

Armfister's or armfist.

 

[peopleperson]

I can't begin to count how many times I sock toed the Dead while standing at front of house position.

 

[Ironklad Audio]

recording live shows and distributing for free: good for the fans, good for the band(unless the set sucked)

recording live shows, packaging it, selling it: shits on the band and the fans

that is all

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

recording live shows and distributing for free: good for the fans, good for the band

Unauthorized recording and distribution takes away a signifigant percentage of the artist's potential income from both their own possible future release of the live recording and dilutes the income potential for other live recordings by the artist as well. Verdict: Bad for the band.

Unauthorized recording and distribution also therefore reduces the chances for a professional release of such a recording to the fans in the future. More importantly, it reenforces the idea of unjustified entitlement while weaking the idea of the rule of law, and totally flies in the face of ethics, morality, and legality. Verdict: Bad for the fans.

G.

 

[ez_willis]

Unauthorized recording and distribution takes away a signifigant percentage of the artist's potential income from both their own possible future release of the live recording and dilutes the income potential for other live recordings by the artist as well. Verdict: Bad for the band.

Unauthorized recording and distribution also therefore reduces the chances for a professional release of such a recording to the fans in the future. More importantly, it reenforces the idea of unjustified entitlement while weaking the idea of the rule of law, and totally flies in the face of ethics, morality, and legality. Verdict: Bad for the fans.

G.

While I agree with your position, I feel compelled to say that if I heard a song that I liked that was recorded by a kid with a digital voice recorder, or some other crappy audio capturing device, it would not prevent me from buying the studio version of said groups next album that includes said audio track. Definitely.

 

[ez_willis]

Unauthorized recording and distribution takes away a signifigant percentage of the artist's potential income from both their own possible future release of the live recording and dilutes the income potential for other live recordings by the artist as well. Verdict: Bad for the band.

Unauthorized recording and distribution also therefore reduces the chances for a professional release of such a recording to the fans in the future. More importantly, it reenforces the idea of unjustified entitlement while weaking the idea of the rule of law, and totally flies in the face of ethics, morality, and legality. Verdict: Bad for the fans.

G.

While I agree with your position, I feel compelled to say that if I heard a song that I liked that was recorded by a kid with a digital voice recorder, or some other crappy audio capturing device, it would not prevent me from buying the studio version of said groups next album that includes said audio track. Definitely.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

While I agree with your position, I feel compelled to say that if I heard a song that I liked that was recorded by a kid with a digital voice recorder, or some other crappy audio capturing device, it would not prevent me from buying the studio version of said groups next album that includes said audio track. Definitely.

Perhaps not. But while an Internet-distributed unathorized recording of a live concert may not cut into studio recording sales, it certainly would cut into live recording sales, both now and in the future.

"But the artist did not release an album of their last concert, so the free recording doesn't hurt anybody," is the common retort. The answer to that retort is, "Maybe they would have if the bootleg hadn't already spread like a virus. And maybe they wanted to strategically wait until their next studio album, already in the works, was finished and has sold through the marketplace, so that in 18 months or so they could release a live compilation and take a well-earned break from the studio to work on writing more stuff."

The point is, it's not the right, the privelidge, or the entitlement of anybody but the artist to make such decisions, and it's dissing the artist - unless they give a previous blessing - to make such judgements for them. Who am I or who is the next guy to make the judgement "It's OK for me to do this with that guy's property" without first getting permission from that guy first? It's a massive rationalization for theft, nothing more, nothing less. Not to mention a decision being made by folks that have no idea what the artist's plans may be, and therefore are not even qualified to make the judgement to begin with.

And the argument that it actually helps their future sales is a dodge of an argument. Anyone ever hear the phrase, "The end does not justify the means"? And that's *if* it helps. Actual sales statistics over the past few years have shown that illegal distribution does not help sales, it cuts into it.

If the fan wants a win-win situation for the artist and themselves they should consider following the artist's wishes and not being a greedy bastard. The artist will appreciate their fan more and the fans will appreciate themself more.

G.

 

[ez_willis]

Perhaps not. But while an Internet-distributed unathorized recording of a live concert may not cut into studio recording sales, it certainly would cut into live recording sales, both now and in the future.

"But the artist did not release an album of their last concert, so the free recording doesn't hurt anybody," is the common retort.
G.

And my retort to that would be, "what fucking live record?" Bands don't place such importance on their ability as players and cohesion as a unit. IOW, they suck-ass live.

Ever see The Last Waltz? Who's giving that kind of performance anymore?

 

[ez_willis]

And my retort to that would be, "what fucking live record?" Bands don't place such importance on their ability as players and cohesion as a unit. IOW, they suck-ass live.

Ever see The Last Waltz? Who's giving that kind of performance anymore?

But like I said, I agree with your position SSG. I have no stake in it though, for I turned Beatles 10 years ago and refuse to play live. Mostly because those one-man-band guys that play at the Fair are idiotic, and I refuse to play music with other humans. Except at Jamfest.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ever see The Last Waltz? Who's giving that kind of performance anymore?

Seen it? I have it on vinyl. CD, Beta, VHS, *and* DVD

I have no stake in it though, for I turned Beatles 10 years ago and refuse to play live. Mostly because those one-man-band guys that play at the Fair are idiotic, and I refuse to play music with other humans.

I may be able to only to play just enough guitar and blues harp to call myself a musician wannabe and not a real musician, but I've befriended enough musicians over more than enough years to say that most of the musicians I know perform live to pay bills and to send their kids to college, not because it's fun; that whole sex, drugs and r'n'r aura thing gets old real quick.

At that stage, people become real picky about who they play with, they have to be people that the enjoy playing with. This usually translates into those musicians with an excess of talent with a minimum of ego; which describes about 17 people on the North American continent .

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Oh, while we're on the sugject of playing live, you guyz have GOT to check out Iggy Pop's concert rider:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1004061iggypop1.html

G.

 

[ez_willis]

This usually translates into those musicians with an excess of talent with a minimum of ego; which describes about 17 people on the North American continent .

G.

18. We've never met.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

18. We've never met.

HAhahahaha, Pleasure to meet you!

G.

 

[Cyrokk]

Unauthorized recording and distribution takes away a signifigant percentage of the artist's potential income from both their own possible future release of the live recording and dilutes the income potential for other live recordings by the artist as well. Verdict: Bad for the band.

Not really. If an artist puts out an official release of a performance that has been circulated in tape trading among fans, the official release will be a much better recording of the live performance, most often because the recording is straight from the soundboard, has better sound distribution, the audience is more in the background, and any mastering techniques applied to help the recording is applied. People who own a bootlegged performance will still go out and buy the official recording because that's what loyal fans do.

An example of this is the notorious Zeppelin Earl's Court shows. They've been circulating underground twenty years before Zeppelin's DVD sets were officially released. I am 99% certain that a Zeppelin fan who owns his own bootleg copy of the show isn't going to say "oh, I'm not going to get the official release with the shiny photos and better sound quality, because I have the same concert on my warped Maxell cassette tape."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rationalize the act of making unauthorized recordings into something wholesome, and I certainly don't like the idea of selling such recordings for profit with nothing going to the artist, whose performance is under copyright. But how much of a profit is lost is not, and has never been, as material as many seem to suggest.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

because that's what loyal fans do.

Funny. I would think that loyal fans would respect the rights of the band they are so loyal to. I guess we just have different definitions of "loyal".

G.

 

[Cyrokk]

Funny. I would think that loyal fans would respect the rights of the band they are so loyal to. I guess we just have different definitions of "loyal".

G.

If you think a die-hard Doors fan would not want to get his hands on an unauthorized recording of a show at the Whiskey, especially for free, then your definition is different than most.

This is especially true with groups long gone who were known in their heyday for their live performances, but any future release of such material is not possible.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If you think a die-hard Doors fan would not want to get his hands on an unauthorized recording of a show at the Whiskey, especially for free, then your definition is different than most.

There are a whole lot of things in this world that I want to get my hands on, but to which I have no legal or ethical right to. Just because I want something, doesn't mean I have the right to have it or the justification to usurp the rights of others who *do* posess their own rights in the matter.

No matter how one slices or dices it, it still boils down to one thing, and one thing only. Respect for the rights of the artist. If they do not wish to opt in on the "go ahead and bootleg us please" option, that should be the final word on the subject.

G.

 

[ez_willis]

Not really. If an artist puts out an official release of a performance that has been circulated in tape trading among fans, the official release will be a much better recording of the live performance, most often because the recording is straight from the soundboard, has better sound distribution, the audience is more in the background, and any mastering techniques applied to help the recording is applied. People who own a bootlegged performance will still go out and buy the official recording because that's what loyal fans do.

An example of this is the notorious Zeppelin Earl's Court shows. They've been circulating underground twenty years before Zeppelin's DVD sets were officially released. I am 99% certain that a Zeppelin fan who owns his own bootleg copy of the show isn't going to say "oh, I'm not going to get the official release with the shiny photos and better sound quality, because I have the same concert on my warped Maxell cassette tape."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rationalize the act of making unauthorized recordings into something wholesome, and I certainly don't like the idea of selling such recordings for profit with nothing going to the artist, whose performance is under copyright. But how much of a profit is lost is not, and has never been, as material as many seem to suggest.

I think we decided socktoed will be used in place of bootlegged.

 

[Cyrokk]

I think we decided socktoed will be used in place of bootlegged.

Okay, sorry about that.

Does the new term also apply if I am smuggling alcohol and cuban cigars into the US?