bootleg/counterfeit

[Ted O. Jackson]

> What I refer to as "bootlegging", however, I'm not so sure about (and it
> would be interesting to hear Al and Deb's thoughts on this topic, since
> they are artists who may have been, or may be at some point in the
> future, "bootlegged").  Personally, I think bootlegs serve a useful
> function.  Mostly, they provide fans (who probably have everything else
> the band has to offer already) material they don't otherwise have for
> their collection.  True, profits from the sales of bootlegs don't go to
> the artist or record label, but I do not believe that that implies that
> bootlegs hurt the sales of legitamite releases -- unless people were to
> buy bootlegs instead of the legit releases (and I don't believe that this
> happens much, especially considering bootleg CDs usually cost $20 or more),
> I don't see how they hurt the sales.  And, as I pointed out in my post
> regarding the lyrics, they may even actually *help* them (suppose I play
> my copy of *The Thing!* to a friend who's never heard BOC, and he thinks
> the music's is so cool that he goes out and buys *Workshop of the
> Telescopes*?).  And, I think there have been cases where the existence of
> bootlegs have actually *helped* an artist or label.  Look at the Beatles'
> *Anthology* - most of the tracks on there have been bootlegged for years
> when the band and the label were stating that "there's nothing left in
> the vaults worth releasing".  Think any of the bootleggers are receiving
> royalty checks from Apple/EMI? ;-)
>
There is an issue of ownership and control of distribution of a work
of art [sorry for my redundance--I posted something like this
yesterday] Even if the release of bootlegs doesn't actually cost a
band financially, it removes a marketing tool from the hands of those
who own a product--to reduce music to its ugliest and most commercial
form.  Also, Bootlegs/counterfeits aren't always of the highest
quality [I know, some bootlegs are better than the legit copies].  A
band could legitimately be concerned about the poor quality of
something being released as showing the band in an unfavorable light.
 I'm not a recording artist, but I do play live music regularly.  I
may not like it if someone circulated a tape of me where I totally
blow a guitar solo!


> Then again, perhaps if bootlegs were legal and readily available, then
> they might compete with legit releases.  Perhaps the fact that they are
> obscure and in most cases illegal keeps things in the balance.  Hmm...
>
You and I oare of the same mind, but are all fans as rabid as we are?
 Also, a lot of bootlegs are not even paid for, but given from one
fan to another.  If a really high quality bootleg existed, might not
one be tempted to have a friend make a copy, and then not buy an
existing live album?  You and I might want to own everything BOC puts
out, but maybe a more casual fan would be content with a bootleg, and
not go out and buy a band's legitimate release.  This is indeed
another issue, and I believe it is at the heart of copyright laws.


> John



theo