Del Zeppnile Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 What is everyone's view on the subject of the crime of bootlegging? How do you feel about the subsequent sharing and distributing of bootlegs... isn't that also a crime? Or do you draw a distinction between the bootlegging of material for fan appreciation/preservation and that just done as piracy for profit? Your views on the subject please? Del Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 What is everyone's view on the subject of the crime of bootlegging? How do you feel about the subsequent sharing and distributing of bootlegs... isn't that also a crime? Or do you draw a distinction between the bootlegging of material for fan appreciation/preservation and that just done as piracy for profit? Your views on the subject please? Del This was another popular topic at the now defunct Jethro Tull chat room and caused loads of fighting. Technically it's a crime. I'm not sure what you mean by the moral aspects of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Selling pirate copies of officially recorded material is stealing. Swiping a musician's works in progress is pretty much along the same lines, though of course we all have a few demos here and there. But making and/or distributing a live recording that the band has no intention of ever releasing should be fair game. You're not stealing from the band. In fact, I think Led Zep's reputation and ultimately, their sales have been boosted tremendously through the myriad of live shows that have been heard by the masses. Do you really think HTWWW and BBC Sessions would have done as well if fans hadn't already heard them live and developed a ravenous hunger for more? I think not. Bands like Led Zeppelin, The Stones, etc. should thank the "bootleggers" for distributing those live shows. It's free promotion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmsofAtlas Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 There are bands that allow it and that's cool, but if a band is against it, then they have the right to control what material gets released to the public. Alotta bands quit playin new songs live, b/c they know it'll be all over the internet tomorrow. That's my least favorite aspect of bootlegging. I will say it's nice to have that momento of a show, but if a show can't live on in your memories, then it probably wasn't that memorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 There are bands that allow it and that's cool, but if a band is against it, then they have the right to control what material gets released to the public. Alotta bands quit playin new songs live, b/c they know it'll be all over the internet tomorrow. That's my least favorite aspect of bootlegging. I will say it's nice to have that momento of a show, but if a show can't live on in your memories, then it probably wasn't that memorable. I have to disagree with that last line. Most Zep shows were played in the 70's, and let's face it-you can't remember exactly how they sounded all those years ago. You'll remember if it was great or not, but that's about it. And I'm glad I have recordings of the Zep and Page/Plant shows I saw. It's nice to hear them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 This was another popular topic at the now defunct Jethro Tull chat room and caused loads of fighting. Technically it's a crime. I'm not sure what you mean by the moral aspects of it. The moral aspects of taking intellectual property and making it your own by electronic means, without the consent or licencing by the owner. Especially when that activity is clearly forbidden at concerts. Like reading the no trespassing sign and then ignoring it. Selling pirate copies of officially recorded material is stealing. Swiping a musician's works in progress is pretty much along the same lines, though of course we all have a few demos here and there. But making and/or distributing a live recording that the band has no intention of ever releasing should be fair game. You're not stealing from the band. In fact, I think Led Zep's reputation and ultimately, their sales have been boosted tremendously through the myriad of live shows that have been heard by the masses. Do you really think HTWWW and BBC Sessions would have done as well if fans hadn't already heard them live and developed a ravenous hunger for more? I think not. Another way to look at that is that they released the material so that they could recover some of the lost revenues that they were being deprived of by the pirating of their creative content. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Before I knew any better I purchased a handful of bootlegs but there's no need to do so today since they can be traded for free or downloaded via torrent sites. Artists like the Grateful Dead (and many, many others) allowed the taping and subsequent trading of their shows as long as no money changed hands. As long as the artist approves of it, I see no harm in it whatsoever. Now, when someone knowingly downloads something illegally and never pays for it, that's stealing. I also strongly disapprove of those that take advantage of free recordings only to turn around and try to sell them on eBay. They should have their fucking nuts cut off. Personally I know of lots of people that download music (both legally and illegally) but they do so as way to see if a new record is worth spending their money on or not. If they like it, then they buy the record when it comes out. Though they may have initially obtained the record via a leak, if they spend their money on the actual product when it's released I see no harm in that whatsoever. A year or so ago a study was conducted about downloading, the results were that those that download the most music also purchase the most music. The industry needs to learn that "download" is not a dirty word and try to embrace it rather than putting people in jail for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarlaxle 56 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Depends on whether the band consents or not, a lot of bands don't mind people bootlegging shows they have no intention of recording or releasing themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 Depends on whether the band consents or not, a lot of bands don't mind people bootlegging shows they have no intention of recording or releasing themselves. Has that ever been the case with Led Zeppelin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 The moral aspects of taking intellectual property and making it your own by electronic means, without the consent or licencing by the owner. Especially when that activity is clearly forbidden at concerts. Like reading the no trespassing sign and then ignoring it. I did kinda know where you were heading, but not I'm really not sure what morals have to do with it. Most criminals don't have morals. Or should I say no criminal has morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Has that ever been the case with Led Zeppelin? Jimmy Page & Robert Plant authorized taping within specific seating areas during several dates of the first leg of their 1995 North American Tour. The intent was to defeat the bootleggers and profiteers by allowing the fans to properly document the show (thereby maintaining a reasonable quality standard) with the understanding those recordings would then be shared amongst established trading networks/forums. Inevitably, some of those recordings were subsequently pressed by bootleggers and profiteers and sold. However, Page/Plant's primary objective of reducing the demand for such pressings was met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Dave Matthews band allows the recording of their shows for non-profit. I knew somebody in which you can order the "Soundboard" recording of the show you attended from the band websites. I thought it was the DMB, but i don't want to make assumptions. There was a guy who recorded the Police concert with a tape recorder outside the walls the of Wrigley field and could legally sell it. Ill try to find it in the Chicago Sun times website. it was a small snippet of a court case. It was rulled upon that sound is public domian outside of the venue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmsofAtlas Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Dave Matthews band allows the recording of their shows for non-profit. I knew somebody in which you can order the "Soundboard" recording of the show you attended from the band websites. I thought it was the DMB, but i don't want to make assumptions. There was a guy who recorded the Police concert with a tape recorder outside the walls the of Wrigley field and could legally sell it. Ill try to find it in the Chicago Sun times website. it was a small snippet of a court case. It was rulled upon that sound is public domian outside of the venue. Countless jam bands release their shows via the internet. Pearl Jam was the first to release and entire tour and you could get them in the store, several bands followed suit but just sold them on a website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetTheLedOut Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Dave Matthews band allows the recording of their shows for non-profit. I knew somebody in which you can order the "Soundboard" recording of the show you attended from the band websites. I thought it was the DMB, but i don't want to make assumptions. There was a guy who recorded the Police concert with a tape recorder outside the walls the of Wrigley field and could legally sell it. Ill try to find it in the Chicago Sun times website. it was a small snippet of a court case. It was rulled upon that sound is public domian outside of the venue. That's interesting. My take on this is very clear: If bootlegging is done for means of non-profit sharing, then it's fine by me, whether or not it's approved by the artist. If it's done for sale, I disapprove, and like many others I bought a lot of bootleg before I discovered the bootleg-sharing communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Pearl Jam was the first to release and entire tour and you could get them in the store, several bands followed suit but just sold them on a website. There is also Instant Live which both the Allman Brothers Band and the Black Crowes have used. The Grateful Dead have downloads available at their website in addition to the Dick's Picks and Road Trips series of CDs. Phish, Jimmy Buffett and other artists have also released a similar series of live recordings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I knew somebody in which you can order the "Soundboard" recording of the show you attended from the band website. Oh yes, The Who has provided this service to fans for several years now. What a shame Robert Plant's opening performances for them in 2002 were not made available in similar fashion, seeing as they shared the same management (and audiences on those nights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Jimmy has stated in an interview that he used to tape shows he went to as a teenager himself. But yeah it is still a crime, technically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 Jimmy Page & Robert Plant authorized taping within specific seating areas during several dates of the first leg of their 1995 North American Tour. The intent was to defeat the bootleggers and profiteers by allowing the fans to properly document the show (thereby maintaining a reasonable quality standard) with the understanding those recordings would then be shared amongst established trading networks/forums. Inevitably, some of those recordings were subsequently pressed by bootleggers and profiteers and sold. However, Page/Plant's primary objective of reducing the demand for such pressings was met. Sounds like they are creating a double edged sword for themselves in some respects. Allowing some sections to tape, and for some concerts. But once again, I believe the thing is that for those particular performances they had in effect licenced those people to aquire and use that content. Even if it was in an informal manner much like the Greatful Dead would. So that really would not constitute bootlegging in my opinion. And any subsequent profiteering of that material would easily have a defense in court. And of course any band who may have allowed some taping to take place, would not necessarily relinquish their rights to other performances by default on the basis of those few exceptions. But then again, in the case of the Greatful Dead, they had such a long history of permitting taping, that over time it could be implied that they had in fact relinquished the rights to all of their live content which was privately aquired and not from the soundboard or other official means of recording/duplication. Was any audience taping expressly allowed during the O2 performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Another way to look at that is that they released the material so that they could recover some of the lost revenues that they were being deprived of by the pirating of their creative content.. Well, here's my question: How can you deprive them of money when they weren't even going to release the shows themselves? Certainly Led Zeppelin (or any other band's) fans have already bought all there was to buy legitimately. Live shows are the icing on the cake. Again, I'm speaking strictly of live shows. Not demos, outtakes, etc. That's a different matter altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 Jimmy has stated in an interview that he used to tape shows he went to as a teenager himself. But yeah it is still a crime, technically. Btw Knebby, that was you 666th post. Yes it still is a crime. Not sure about the UK, but in the United States people are being arrested on much more frequent basis for videotaping in theaters. And if they are tied to actual pirating operations, many are seeing jail time. I believe the thing to remember in this day and age, is that despite the feelings of the artists themselves on this subject, there are more likely than not studios, record labels, puplishers and a whole host of legal people who are not okay with bootlegging. And it is those folks who may also representing stock holders, who have no choice but to take action to protect this creative content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Slocum Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 When you buy a ticket for a show, you are paying for the right to hear it ONCE unless otherwise specifically stated that recording is permitted in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 And it seems like to some its a crime to just mention it on this website. Discussion is fine. Posts to conduct trades, sales, torrent transactions or advertise where to get them are not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 But then again, in the case of the Greatful Dead, they had such a long history of permitting taping, that over time it could be implied that they had in fact relinquished the rights to all of their live content which was privately aquired and not from the soundboard or other official means of recording/duplication. I don't think that's true at all. However, a few years ago when Bob Weir wanted to remove all of the Dead's recordings from sites such as archive.org so they could start charging for downloads via dead.net (the Dead's official site) it caused a shitstorm among fans who had grown accustomed to obtaining their live Dead shows for free. Shortly thereafter the shows in question were restored to archive.org and similar sites. It also cast Weir in a very bad light with fans. This is somewhat understandable given the Grateful Dead's stance on the sharing of audience recordings for so many years. The first bootleg I ever heard was a Grateful Dead show recorded on a boombox from a show in Maryland in the early 80s. The quality was so good you'd be hard pressed to know it wasn't a professional recording. The first "real" bootleg I ever saw were a couple of Zep vinyls that a friend owned which was also back in the early 80s but it was truly more like a black market thing back then and considered extremely taboo. They also sounded like shit for the most part but hey, it was Zeppelin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 When you buy a ticket for a show, you are paying for the right to hear it ONCE unless otherwise specifically stated that recording is permitted in my opinion. I disagree somewhat, but that's OK. As long as you're not really screwing the band out of their hard earned $$ anything should be fair game. Just my personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chien Noir Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Crime or not, no reason to have the bloody topic title in capslock. These things irritate me soooo much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.