To bootleg or not to bootleg, that is the question. (concerts / panels / etc.)

[devilof76]

Make musicians sing for their supper every time the want to get paid, like every musician in the history of the world had to do before recordings. Beethoven and Mozart got no money from selling records or cds, and today's musicians are certainly no better than them.

Why do you think it was ok for Beethoven and Mozart to be poor?

So spoiled they are, that they can sit on their butts getting money for nothing, and acting as if they are entitled to get it when far greater musicians got NO money.

Talent does not entitle someone to wealth. You expect pop revenue from a genius musician? Most people can't understand/appreciate music that good. Would you force them to buy music they don't like? Do you think they should receive subsidies for being better composers?

Musicians should be happy that they get more money because recording technology exists, and leave it at that. At the end of the day, in the big picture, that is all that is really important.

They should be happy to get paid for what they sell. I can just see Richard Wagner having a fit because his last song cycle only sold 4,000 copies.

 

[karamazov80]

I say concerts with parents count, if it is a legitimately big show. I saw the Traveling Wilburys with my parents when I was a kid, and am definitely glad they took me.

Lucky!

I also was at the Debbie Gibson concert with my family, as it was my sister's birthday present and had no one to watch me.

Not lucky If she had come to Louisiana back in those days, I'm sure my sister would have tried to go as well. I think she had a Debbie Gibson poster next to her giant New Kids on the Block puzzle which was plastered on the wall.

My first concerts by myself are a much better story, as I saw Radiohead and the Smashing Pumpkins (not together, obviously) in 1996. Although they were, literally, "by myself", as I didn't know anyone who wanted to go.

Lucky! We never had those guys come to Louisiana in those days (that I know of), but I had a similar story when Bad Religion came to Tipitina's (well known New Orleans bar) in 1995 or 96. No one else in my school knew who they were or would have liked them if they did, so I went by my lonesome. Fortunately, lots of folks wanted to go to Lollapolooza to see Metallica, so I got to go with them though my focus was on the Ramones, Rancid (who I liked at the time), and Soundgarden.

 

[sparkstron73]

I say its all fair game.
Glad you got a momento of your concert.
Not my taste in music but interesting to watch.

I make music as do my freinds and we have all had some minor success with released material on the interweb.

The music industry has had a monopoly on the industry for years and untill only recently, with sites such as "my space" and "soundclould" has unsigned artists been able to get their music heard.
The downside is that music is easily reproduced and copied and artists do not get the funds to live off it as a career.
Saying that artists such as Lilly allen do alright and still moan about people pirating their material (suck satans c*&k lil).
I personally don't care about people downloading my music for free as i have done it enough over the years and as long as I want to make music and people enjoy it then I will continue and if I make a few pounds from it cool if not no problem.

I don't buy the opinion that bands/artists don't want crappy versions of their music floating about as it is good publicity and free advertising and an essentive to buy a proper copy or download it.

F*&k the MAN art is meant to be enjoyed not exploited for fat cats or money hungry scum sucking pigs.

 

[karamazov80]

Ultimately, only the artist can decide this IMO. If they think that bootlegs are going to somehow cut into their deserved profits from selling CDs of either live or studio albums, DVDs, etc., or if they only want pristine, filtered versions of their songs going out, then they should be able to tell their audience not to do it. If they think the benefits will outweigh the costs, or if they just want to let their audience take home a quaint souvenir recorded with an IPhone, that should be their right as well. But it is their product, and their show, so it should be their decision.

 

[sparkstron73]

Ultimately, only the artist can decide this IMO. If they think that bootlegs are going to somehow cut into their deserved profits from selling CDs of either live or studio albums, DVDs, etc., or if they only want pristine, filtered versions of their songs going out, then they should be able to tell their audience not to do it. If they think the benefits will outweigh the costs, or if they just want to let their audience take home a quaint souvenir recorded with an IPhone, that should be their right as well. But it is their product, and their show, so it should be their decision.

I think it is not really their decision though as copyright laws would probably stop anyone recording in the venue and as the infringement would be made on the venues premises they would be liable for damages.
Such a sorry state of affairs really

 

[devilof76]

Right. Who needs copyrights? Burn the patent office to the ground already.

 

[karamazov80]

My previous post was coming from an "ideal world" standpoint, of course, where artists truly do own their product, and where the artist would be able to determine the degree of enforcement of copyright violations. Of course, this is not usually reality where artists often sign contracts with major labels that don't allow them that freedom of action. And that is when the corporation becomes an agent with financial interests in keeping bootlegs away despite the intentions of the band. Artists can often still have influence here of course (creating a public campaign to allow their label to remove restrictions on bootlegs, etc.).

But I do not feel that the fans are entitled to any treatment unless the artist (or the owner of the music) deems otherwise.

 

[devilof76]

I agree. I was being sarcastic because people don't think through what they're saying. Or they do, and are advocating something that is not particularly civil. Like communal ownership, etc.

 

[sparkstron73]

Right. Who needs copyrights? Burn the patent office to the ground already.

Copyrights are ok to protect artists rights, but this is about a suing culture where reason has gone out the window in fear of being sued over minor infringements imo.

There is no profit to be made from a live recording on an iphone and this is just an example of the claiming culture that has cost us all.

You may not agree that is your right but I have thought it through and beleive my point is fair.

 

[devilof76]

Ownership is either conditional, or absolute. If it's absolute, then the artist has the right to set the legal terms of sale and reproduction of their work. If it's not absolute, then you have as little claim to ownership of your bootleg as they do to what was taken.

A person who records for their own personal enjoyment (and to share with friends) can have it if they can get away with it. If they abuse that, then it's a matter of law whether or not they have any right to possess a copy.

 

[Darth Cruel]

Ownership is either conditional, or absolute. If it's absolute, then the artist has the right to set the legal terms of sale and reproduction of their work. If it's not absolute, then you have as little claim to ownership of your bootleg as they do to what was taken.

A person who records for their own personal enjoyment (and to share with friends) can have it if they can get away with it. If they abuse that, then it's a matter of law whether or not they have any right to possess a copy.

And in my opinion, there is no more justification for an artistic creation to be owned absolutely than there is for a laborer's effort to be.

Acting, singing, drawing, writing, sculpting, playing sports...all of these things are simply entertainment. If all entertainers were removed from Earth in some kind of creative rapture...those non-entertainers who would be left behind would simply find new ways to entertain themselves. How does this justify the continuous paying upon paying upon paying of a person for a single creation? I am not against paying them for their idea. But within reason. Can you imagine if you had to pay every person who made an effort to make every thing you have available to you in the same way you have to pay for entertainment?

The ridiculous perverting of copyright laws has given some entertainers (those who make their art for the love of making art excluded, of course) an exaggerated sense of entitlement hugely disproportionate to the benefit they offer to society.

But kudos to the entertainers. They have found a way to become rich. Were I an entertainer, I would fight for that side as hard as I could...at least until I felt I had MY slice. They have gotten the legislators on their side because the money swung that way. It is not likely to change any time soon despite how ridiculous the whole scheme is.

And so for me, as it is in many other cases where law infringes upon my desire to do something, I am left to myself to determine what I find to be reasonable. The law be damned.

For me, the infringement of pirating and bootlegging on the wallets of entertainers is a perfectly acceptable counter to the infringement on my wallet of the copyright law.

 

[devilof76]

The laborer's effort is owned absolutely; their time and effort is paid as they contracted. You do pay every person who is involved in the production of every item sold on this earth, so long as they have voluntarily contracted to do the work they are paid for.

Entertainers and those with whom they do business for the sake of manufacturing their product possess the right to copy the material they own, and to offer said copies for sale. I don't know how that's a perversion of copyright laws.

Who are you to determine what is reasonable compensation for what does not belong to you? No one is forcing you to buy the music you want to listen to. You are free to go without if you choose not to purchase.

 

[tomandshell]

I have taken pictures/video for myself at concerts and events, but not to post online.

 

[sparkstron73]

And in my opinion, there is no more justification for an artistic creation to be owned absolutely than there is for a laborer's effort to be.

Acting, singing, drawing, writing, sculpting, playing sports...all of these things are simply entertainment. If all entertainers were removed from Earth in some kind of creative rapture...those non-entertainers who would be left behind would simply find new ways to entertain themselves. How does this justify the continuous paying upon paying upon paying of a person for a single creation? I am not against paying them for their idea. But within reason. Can you imagine if you had to pay every person who made an effort to make every thing you have available to you in the same way you have to pay for entertainment?

The ridiculous perverting of copyright laws has given some entertainers (those who make their art for the love of making art excluded, of course) an exaggerated sense of entitlement hugely disproportionate to the benefit they offer to society.

But kudos to the entertainers. They have found a way to become rich. Were I an entertainer, I would fight for that side as hard as I could...at least until I felt I had MY slice. They have gotten the legislators on their side because the money swung that way. It is not likely to change any time soon despite how ridiculous the whole scheme is.

And so for me, as it is in many other cases where law infringes upon my desire to do something, I am left to myself to determine what I find to be reasonable. The law be damned.

For me, the infringement of pirating and bootlegging on the wallets of entertainers is a perfectly acceptable counter to the infringement on my wallet of the copyright law.

I agree with this, glad someone else voiced a level headed argument, better than I could,but the same sentiment.

I get the other side of the argument and agree you should be paid for your music labour whatever but there are limits and common sense should be appiled.

 

[devilof76]

So who gets to be the one who decides what is and is not common sense?

 

[karamazov80]

Intellectual property is property. In the eyes of the law, in many cases, there is a fine line between an idea and a physical thing. As with music, I think the person(s) who create such things and own such things should have the right to determine how they are used and by whom.

It does depress me when playing the Happy Birthday song requires someone to pay a royalty, though

 

[devilof76]

Happy Birthday isn't public domain?

 

[cokebabies]

Nope, that's why so many restaurants have their own awful version of a happy birthday song.

 

[devilof76]

I see. But royalties only have to be paid if the song is sung for profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

 

[Darth Cruel]

The laborer's effort is owned absolutely; their time and effort is paid as they contracted. You do pay every person who is involved in the production of every item sold on this earth, so long as they have voluntarily contracted to do the work they are paid for.

But laborers are not in control of how much they get paid. And they are not paid constantly and repetitively over and over for long periods of time for a specific effort on a specific project. This is spin.

Entertainers and those with whom they do business for the sake of manufacturing their product possess the right to copy the material they own, and to offer said copies for sale.

This is not the issue. Whether or not it is reasonable is. Everybody knows that this is the way business is done currently.

I don't know how that's a perversion of copyright laws.

Herein lies the problem. Copyright laws were originally made to encourage creativity...period. They were not intended to be used to suck every penny that entertainment industries can suck out of consumers. The perversion is taking the intent of the law and twisting it to support the greed of entertainment industries.

Who are you to determine what is reasonable compensation for what does not belong to you? No one is forcing you to buy the music you want to listen to. You are free to go without if you choose not to purchase.

It is simple common sense. The value should be equal to the benefit. And what would common sense dictate to be more of a benefit to humans in general? A song? Or a person's ability to say...weld? When it comes to carrying on day-to-day life living...I'll want the welder around before the musician every day. Can't cross the river on a song. It takes the bridge or the ship that the welder made to do that.

So who gets to be the one who decides what is and is not common sense?

Common sense is not dictated by any individual. It is a standard of judgement that will hold up to any argument. And "let the person who spent 15 minutes thinking of a song get paid millions of dollars for it over his lifetime and then pass the money-making on to his heirs even though they had nothing to do with making the song but then give the guy who who help build society next to nothing by comparison and forget his heirs" simply does not hold up to argument pertaining to value to society despite the fact that that is the current norm.

Now...on the other hand...the same scenario absolutely holds up to common sense when you look at it from another perspective. The one where the entertainer has the right to try to suck every penny out of the public that they wants to.

It depends on what you prioritize. And despite the fact that I understand that the entertainer currently has the right to squeeze every penny they can out of their fans, I prioritize value to society. And that makes me believe that entertainers are obscenely over-paid.