Jump to content

Why do people film concerts?


Zurimor

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, classicrawker said:

not at all Pappy as you are comparing apples to oranges......and I know you love to stir the pot so no offense taken as I love you too.......

It isn't stirring the pot at all, nor is it comparing apples to oranges as, ultimately, in both cases you are obtaining material that you did not pay for and are infringing on the IP rights of the musicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, classicrawker said:

Nope not the same at all.........

Did you pay for the music that you get to listen to on the bootlegs? Did the artist/label receive that money? In fact, bootlegs are specifically stated as being illegal, under Federal law, as it is copyright infringement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Unless it's a show that a band/artist intends to release themselves, how is having a bootleg the same as getting an album for free? If it was never planned for release, you can't argue that the band would be losing money because the show was bootlegged - they made all their money at the show.

By the same logic, if a person downloads an album that they wouldn't have paid for anyway, then the band hasn't lost any revenue either. I'm never, in a million years, going to buy the latest Justin Bieber album, so if I downloaded a copy of it the artist and label haven't lost anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

By the same logic, if a person downloads an album that they wouldn't have paid for anyway, then the band hasn't lost any revenue either. I'm never, in a million years, going to buy the latest Justin Bieber album, so if I downloaded a copy of it the artist and label haven't lost anything.

 

Except the latest Bieber album is for sale in every music store, while 'Bieber live in wherever-the-fuck' isn't. I think it's also important to consider that bootleg collectors are usually more than casual fans of a band, they already have the albums, dvds, etc. For example, I have tons of GNR bootlegs, and if they announced tomorrow that they were officially releasing, say, the Ritz 1988 show, I'd still buy it even though I already have a few different copies of that show. Now, if they released it and I decided that I wouldn't buy it because I already had the bootleg and it was just as good, your argument would make sense. But that's not the case. Unless the band officially releases a show, how can you argue they're losing money because of a bootleg recording?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Except the latest Bieber album is for sale in every music store, while 'Bieber live in wherever-the-fuck' isn't. I think it's also important to consider that bootleg collectors are usually more than casual fans of a band, they already have the albums, dvds, etc. For example, I have tons of GNR bootlegs, and if they announced tomorrow that they were officially releasing, say, the Ritz 1988 show, I'd still buy it even though I already have a few different copies of that show. Now, if they released it and I decided that I wouldn't buy it because I already had the bootleg and it was just as good, your argument would make sense. But that's not the case. Unless the band officially releases a show, how can you argue they're losing money because of a bootleg recording?

It isn't about whether they are losing money because of a bootleg recording so much as asking whether they lose money on a pirated download that a person was never going to pay for either way. Moreover, the key point is that both bootlegs and pirated copies of copyrighted material are illegal, but bootleggers happily claim that what they do is cool because they are true fans but at the same time they call those who pirate music "thieves", hence my calling the position hypocrisy.

The fact that Bieber, or any artist, doesn't have their shows available for purchase does not give someone the right to go and grab a copy of it. The fact that an artist's specific work is not available for sale is besides the point; the artist is the owner of the work and the artist is who gets to decide who can and cannot have copies of it, but bootleggers seem to happily skip over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

It isn't about whether they are losing money because of a bootleg recording so much as asking whether they lose money on a pirated download that a person was never going to pay for either way. Moreover, the key point is that both bootlegs and pirated copies of copyrighted material are illegal, but bootleggers happily claim that what they do is cool because they are true fans but at the same time they call those who pirate music "thieves", hence my calling the position hypocrisy.

 

I get the point you're trying to make but I think you're stretching things a bit far with that argument, because the sole purpose of bootlegs is to provide fans with something they can't get from the band. If you can't legally purchase a copy of a show, which was never going to be released anyway, I don't see how it's wrong to have a bootleg? If I download Appetite For Destruction, yes, technically I'm stealing. If I download a copy of the show from Middletown 1988, who am I stealing from? The band? The record company? The guy that held up the camcorder?

 

Quote

 

The fact that Bieber, or any artist, doesn't have their shows available for purchase does not give someone the right to go and grab a copy of it. The fact that an artist's specific work is not available for sale is besides the point; the artist is the owner of the work and the artist is who gets to decide who can and cannot have copies of it, but bootleggers seem to happily skip over this.

 

If we're talking soundboard, professionally mastered shows, I see your point. If we're talking about a show someone recorded from the audience, we disagree. At least for the former you could argue there was some intent to release the show at some point, with the latter I think it's more a case of fans sharing with other fans. And yes, the artist is the owner of the work - the work which appears on official studio or live albums. But if you're doing a public performance, audience recordings are fair game IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

I get the point you're trying to make but I think you're stretching things a bit far with that argument, because the sole purpose of bootlegs is to provide fans with something they can't get from the band. If you can't legally purchase a copy of a show, which was never going to be released anyway, I don't see how it's wrong to have a bootleg? If I download Appetite For Destruction, yes, technically I'm stealing. If I download a copy of the show from Middletown 1988, who am I stealing from? The band? The record company? The guy that held up the camcorder?

 

 

If we're talking soundboard, professionally mastered shows, I see your point. If we're talking about a show someone recorded from the audience, we disagree. At least for the former you could argue there was some intent to release the show at some point, with the latter I think it's more a case of fans sharing with other fans. And yes, the artist is the owner of the work - the work which appears on official studio or live albums. But if you're doing a public performance, audience recordings are fair game IMO.

You would be stealing in both cases. For the downloaded copy of Appetite For Destruction you are violating the band's/label's intellectual copyright, and in the case of the copy of the show from Middletown you are still violating their copyright. One may have a financial aspect to it whereas the other does not (assuming that there is no official Middletown show, etc) but ultimately, in both cases, you would be violating the rights of the artist by utilising their work without their express permission.

I know that you say that audience recordings are fair game, and I may agree with you, but legally they are not fair game, whether they be video recordings or audio, which is the point that I was making with Rawker. In other threads, where people has said that they pirate music or filme, Rawker (unless I am misremembering, in which case I apologise unreservedly to him) has said that he views that as theft and the people as thieves, but the legal fact of the matter is that bootlegs, under the letter of the law, are just as much thievery, yet he does not seem to have an issue with it. That was the point that I was making; that there seems to be a distinct line drawn up by people who enjoy bootlegs vs people who download music/film without paying for it, and the bootleggers invariably describe themselves as being simple fans and that bootlegging is somehow "different". The end result of that is the implication that bootleggers do not see themselves as thieves or in breach of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

You would be stealing in both cases. For the downloaded copy of Appetite For Destruction you are violating the band's/label's intellectual copyright, and in the case of the copy of the show from Middletown you are still violating their copyright. One may have a financial aspect to it whereas the other does not (assuming that there is no official Middletown show, etc) but ultimately, in both cases, you would be violating the rights of the artist by utilising their work without their express permission.

I know that you say that audience recordings are fair game, and I may agree with you, but legally they are not fair game, whether they be video recordings or audio, which is the point that I was making with Rawker. In other threads, where people has said that they pirate music or filme, Rawker (unless I am misremembering, in which case I apologise unreservedly to him) has said that he views that as theft and the people as thieves, but the legal fact of the matter is that bootlegs, under the letter of the law, are just as much thievery, yet he does not seem to have an issue with it. That was the point that I was making; that there seems to be a distinct line drawn up by people who enjoy bootlegs vs people who download music/film without paying for it, and the bootleggers invariably describe themselves as being simple fans and that bootlegging is somehow "different". The end result of that is the implication that bootleggers do not see themselves as thieves or in breach of the law.

 

I would argue that downloading a bootleg can't be labelled "stealing" as there is no way to pay for it in the first place. The difference between downloading a bootleg and downloading an official album is being able to walk into a store and buy one of them, and not the other. The band/record company owns the copyright to the songs and officially released versions of them, but they don't own recordings of public performances which don't/wouldn't produce income to either the band, record company or the bootlegger. Technically, I would be listening to the recording without the express permission of the band, but I don't think there's a way to gain permission from a band to listen to unofficial recordings? If I were pressing CD's and charging $50 each, or playing the recording in public, I'd agree with you, but that's not the argument. Selling copies of a bootleg would violate copyright laws, but merely having and listening to bootlegs is fine, as far as I know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

 

I would argue that downloading a bootleg can't be labelled "stealing" as there is no way to pay for it in the first place. The difference between downloading a bootleg and downloading an official album is being able to walk into a store and buy one of them, and not the other. The band/record company owns the copyright to the songs and officially released versions of them, but they don't own recordings of public performances which don't/wouldn't produce income to either the band, record company or the bootlegger. Technically, I would be listening to the recording without the express permission of the band, but I don't think there's a way to gain permission from a band to listen to unofficial recordings? If I were pressing CD's and charging $50 each, or playing the recording in public, I'd agree with you, but that's not the argument. Selling copies of a bootleg would violate copyright laws, but merely having and listening to bootlegs is fine, as far as I know.

 

Simply owning a bootleg copy of a band's work is illegal as it violates the artist's copyright of their work. Discussing whether there is a difference between bootlegs and album piracy, because one can walk into a store for regular albums etc versus not being able to do so for bootlegs, is besides the point; both are illegal.

As for saying that it isn't stealing to download a bootleg, again, that is besides the point. Sure, it isn't stealing by the definition of the word, but then again neither is pirating an album. However, the key point is that bootlegs are still in violation of a band's intellectual rights to maintain their work, and therefore producing bootlegs, against the artist's wishes, consent or knowledge, is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

Simply owning a bootleg copy of a band's work is illegal as it violates the artist's copyright of their work. Discussing whether there is a difference between bootlegs and album piracy, because one can walk into a store for regular albums etc versus not being able to do so for bootlegs, is besides the point; both are illegal.

As for saying that it isn't stealing to download a bootleg, again, that is besides the point. Sure, it isn't stealing by the definition of the word, but then again neither is pirating an album. However, the key point is that bootlegs are still in violation of a band's intellectual rights to maintain their work, and therefore producing bootlegs, against the artist's wishes, consent or knowledge, is illegal.

 

Profiting from bootlegs is illegal, having them isn't. It's the same sort of thing with playing cover songs; any band can perform any song they want without the permission of the songwriter, but they can't release or profit from it. Just the same as I can film some songs on my phone but can't put out a DVD of them. Having bootlegs isn't violating a bands intellectual property because they only own the official versions of the songs, not the public performances of them. Downloading an album is considered stealing because there are various legal ways to listen to it (even just digitally), while the same can't be said for bootlegs. If you pirate an album it could be argued you're stealing from the band, itunes, or whoever, but how do you steal something that was given away for free? Quite a difference there IMO.

 

I have a feeling we'll have to agree to disagree :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gordon Comstock said:

 

Profiting from bootlegs is illegal, having them isn't. It's the same sort of thing with playing cover songs; any band can perform any song they want without the permission of the songwriter, but they can't release or profit from it. Just the same as I can film some songs on my phone but can't put out a DVD of them. Having bootlegs isn't violating a bands intellectual property because they only own the official versions of the songs, not the public performances of them. Downloading an album is considered stealing because there are various legal ways to listen to it (even just digitally), while the same can't be said for bootlegs. If you pirate an album it could be argued you're stealing from the band, itunes, or whoever, but how do you steal something that was given away for free? Quite a difference there IMO.

 

I have a feeling we'll have to agree to disagree :P

I would say that, technically, pirating something isn't stealing as the original still exists. I'm no expert on copyright law, but my understanding of it is that a band maintains the sole right to their performances and therefore recording it to be later shared is a violation of their intellectual rights. Here's a quote on it:

Bootleg recordings are musical recordings that have not been officially released by the artist or their associated management or production companies. They may consist of demos, out takes or other studio material, or of illicit recordings of live performances. Music enthusiasts may use the term "bootleg" to differentiate these otherwise unavailable recordings from "pirated" copies of commercially released material, but these recordings are still protected by copyright despite their lack of formal release, and their distribution is still against the law.

I think the issue, or at least for me, is not the legality of bootlegs themselves, but rather how people who do bootleg justify their actions in context to, and in relation with, those who pirate commercially available albums. That is to say, bootleggers, or those who collect and enjoy them, justify their illegal actions by saying that they are not damaging the artist because the work is not available to buy, but those who download commercially available albums are thieves. Basically, it seems to me, that bootleggers are happy to break the law to get what they want, but place themselves in a different moral category to others and insist that they are doing no wrong. Like I said in my original post, I think that this is an extremely hypocritical position to take, especially when those who bootleg often espouse that they are true music fans and other pirates are the lowest of the low. Different actions, for sure, but both equally illegal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Briefly, it is illegal to copy intellectual property which would be a boot recorded at a show. It is also illegal to duplicate an album which infringes upon something called mechanical copyright. Essentially, if you duplicate an album you are committing two offenses, duplicating both intellectual property and mechanical property. A bootleg is not as bad.

There are loopholes and different laws country-by-country, and this thing which has just recently happened whereby there has been a time lapse on the intellectual property of various classic rock acts which has led to all of these quasi-bootlegs of The Stones and so forth appearing on Amazon. Somehow GN'R dvds have also appeared because their rights are tied up with MTV and other companies. It is complicated. This is why The Beatles released for something ridiculous like one hour a bunch of demos and outtakes: to not allow the copyright to lapse.

Indeed, intellectual property always lapses given the time span - hence the fact that things like Shakespeare are in the Public Domain.

A bit of trivia: so is Night of the Living Dead due to a clerical error or an oversight. That is why you can buy the DVD from a thousand different companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

I would say that, technically, pirating something isn't stealing as the original still exists.

Now we're just nitpicking about technicalities, but I assume you grasped the point I was trying to make about pirating official albums?

 

Quote

I think the issue, or at least for me, is not the legality of bootlegs themselves, but rather how people who do bootleg justify their actions in context to, and in relation with, those who pirate commercially available albums. That is to say, bootleggers, or those who collect and enjoy them, justify their illegal actions by saying that they are not damaging the artist because the work is not available to buy, but those who download commercially available albums are thieves. Basically, it seems to me, that bootleggers are happy to break the law to get what they want, but place themselves in a different moral category to others and insist that they are doing no wrong. Like I said in my original post, I think that this is an extremely hypocritical position to take, especially when those who bootleg often espouse that they are true music fans and other pirates are the lowest of the low. Different actions, for sure, but both equally illegal.

 

FWIW I believe the majority of serious bootleg collectors already own all or most of their favourite artists albums, so the logic in comparing downloaded bootlegs vs albums is flawed there. I don't think a casual fan is gonna listen to a bunch of audience recorded shows to hear the slight differences between them, whereas die-hards will definitely do that. The demographic for bootleg shows is an important factor that doesn't transcend to that for regular albums. I agree with you though, that trying to portray oneself as a 'true music fan' while belittling those who listen to the same music for free is hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Now we're just nitpicking about technicalities, but I assume you grasped the point I was trying to make about pirating official albums?

 

 

FWIW I believe the majority of serious bootleg collectors already own all or most of their favourite artists albums, so the logic in comparing downloaded bootlegs vs albums is flawed there. I don't think a casual fan is gonna listen to a bunch of audience recorded shows to hear the slight differences between them, whereas die-hards will definitely do that. The demographic for bootleg shows is an important factor that doesn't transcend to that for regular albums. I agree with you though, that trying to portray oneself as a 'true music fan' while belittling those who listen to the same music for free is hypocritical.

I don't think that it's nitpicking, but rather being specific in order to show how blinkered the "bootlegging is not stealing, but pirating is" position is. They are both stealing, in the common parlance, and are both illegal in the realms of law, but the bootleggers pass themselves off as being holier than thou whilst calling the pirate a dirty thief.

The issue is not so much who owns various copies of music and whether they own the original, studio albums and all of that jazz, so much as the fact that saying that bootlegging is fine and dandy and then turning around and saying that those who pirate albums are thieves, is simply hypocritical. Of course they affect the artists involved differently, but under the letter of the law they are both illegal.

Edited by PappyTron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Live bootlegs are a load of bollocks anyway.  You have to be seriously class for your every live show to have a standalone value.  The only person who bootlegs are worth collecting of that I would do it with is Jimi Hendrix, simply because that cunt was on a mad one every night and there's something interesting you can take from 99% of the shit out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Live bootlegs are a load of bollocks anyway.  You have to be seriously class for your every live show to have a standalone value.  The only person who bootlegs are worth collecting of that I would do it with is Jimi Hendrix, simply because that cunt was on a mad one every night and there's something interesting you can take from 99% of the shit out there.

Absolute rubbish. Mick Taylor era Stones bootlegs are godly. Neil Young boots are indispensable documents, featuring songs which be never released officially!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Absolute rubbish. Mick Taylor era Stones bootlegs are godly. Neil Young boots are indispensable documents, featuring songs which be never released officially!

Surely you are corroborating my position that you have to be seriously class for bootlegs to be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bootlegs are for gypsies. I've never heard a bootleg that didn't sound like it wasn't recorded inside a vacuum cleaner. I have a GNR Chile bootleg that sounds like they at least turned the hoover off, but still not worth the dollar I paid for it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...