smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "John L. Micek" <jlmicek@mindspring.com> |
| Subject | Re: Ethical question regarding bootlegs |
| Date | Thu, 22 May 2003 08:54:41 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
That was an immediate and visceral reaction, and I was probably overly flip.
You raise a fascinating ethical dilemma, Bill. Is it right and moral to
trade bootlegs of shows that artists are now turning into semi-official
releases with the full imprimateur of their record companies behind them.
So, the question is, would you own a bootlegged copy of "Live at Leeds," for
instance, if an official copy of "Live at Leeds," already exists.
My immediate answer is: Probably not.
That said, there is something in me that simultaneously recoils, but also
begrudgingly respects what Clear Channel is doing. There's already a
thriving, unofficial bootleg market, why not try to get a cut.
Still, this is just another example of a corporate behemoth trying to expand
its hegemony over the music/entertainment complex. And, for that reason
alone, a little guerilla warfare is probably called for.
John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John L. Micek" <jlmicek@mindspring.com>
To: "*Bill Holmes*" <bholmes_fm@msn.com>; <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Ethical question regarding bootlegs
> Three words: Screw Clear Channel.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "*Bill Holmes*" <bholmes_fm@msn.com>
> To: "Auditeers" <audities@smoe.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:44 AM
> Subject: Ethical question regarding bootlegs
>
>
> > Raised this point elsewhere but thought it was an interesting question
to
> > discuss...we've bandied the bootlegging issue here many times, with the
> > general consensus being that if the artists don't object and no money
> > changes hands, it's OK as most of the traders buy all the artists
> commercial
> > product anyway (and would not copy and distribute legitimate releases).
> >
> > But...Clear Channel - the Evil Empire who makes Ticketmaster look like
> Mom's
> > Diner - wants to implement contract clauses giving them permission to
> record
> > and sell their concerts immediately after the show in the lobbies of
> arenas.
> > Obviously, to do this, they will have to have an agreement with the
> artists
> > as well as a financial arrangement and an auditing process. I also
imagine
> > that for this to get off the ground, the record company of said artist
> will
> > be eating a piece of that pie. (Matter of fact, I suspect the record
> > companies will ENCOURAGE this arrangement for the reasons below).
> >
> > Most tapers I know immediately stopped trading boots of Who and Pearl
Jam
> > shows that were being offered for sale by the bands themselves...these
> shows
> > now fell under the category of authorized releases and ethical trades
> pulled
> > them off the market. But what happens when EVERY arena show is now
> "booted"
> > by a conglomerate with the artists permission (and profit
participation).
> > Clear Channel may suck, but they're a legitimate corporation like Sony
or
> > Universal, and in effect would own the rights to that concert recording.
> So
> > isn't booting one of those shows now piracy at the same level as booting
> an
> > album (or a show that was released as a live album)?
> >
> > Now THAT will be an interesting dilemma for tapers. If you're a person
who
> > swaps shows (and I know many here who are)...what would you do?
> >
> > b
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.