Grex Music2 Conference

Item 214: Question about bootlegs

Entered by orinoco on Wed Nov 17 14:52:08 1999:

Does anyone here understand the legal status of concert tapes?  I had thought
that they were as illegal as bootleg copies of albums, but there seem to be
quite a few people trading them openly on the internet (and unlike the mp3
traders, these guys have to give a real address).  THey all seem to be very
emphatic that they are _not_selling_anything_: is this some legal loophole
that I don't know about?
14 responses total.

#1 of 14 by mcnally on Wed Nov 17 16:57:29 1999:

  It depends a great deal on the band, actually..


#2 of 14 by orinoco on Wed Nov 17 19:08:47 1999:

Whether it's illegal depends on the band, or how well-enforced the law is
depends on the band?


#3 of 14 by mcnally on Wed Nov 17 23:20:10 1999:

  Some bands (such as the Grateful Dead, to cite an extreme example) 
  explicitly allow, even encourage, the taping of their live shows.
  I've been at at least one show where several fans making recordings
  of the show were provided access to the output from some of the
  sound equipment.

  I imagine there are a lot of bands that don't get to choose for
  themselves, however:  my guess is that "normal" (whatever that means)
  recording contracts probably don't give most bands the option to
  freely permit fan recording.  

  Then, too, there are some performers that really don't like to be
  recorded live..  

  To answer your question, I guess, yes -- whether it's illegal
  (or forbidden, which isn't necessarily the same thing) is a matter
  that for any given concert might be decided by a) the band, b) the
  band's record company, or even c) the rules of the concert venue..


#4 of 14 by tpryan on Thu Nov 18 00:28:51 1999:

        The Grateful Dead approach was such that no one would make
big bucks by selling thousands of copies of a rare bootleg.  If
bootlegs are common, then more likely only a dozen or less copies
will be made of any one's recording.


#5 of 14 by otaking on Thu Nov 18 16:40:41 1999:

I liked Frank Zappa's approach. He took the bootlegs and released them as
offical albums. What could they do? Sue him?

Psychic TV decided to release every concert they played on tape or CD. That's
another effective approach.


#6 of 14 by krj on Thu Nov 18 18:22:51 1999:

In a recent interview on Mp3.com, a representative of the RIAA had an 
interesting argument with respect to the Grateful Dead.  The RIAA rep
argued that while the Dead are free to waive their rights 
with respect to the recordings their fans make, they cannot waive 
the rights of other people, in particular the songwriters.  
The Dead (used to) play a *lot* of covers.


#7 of 14 by mcnally on Thu Nov 18 18:50:48 1999:

  Which does a great job of revealing the fundamental pettiness behind
  the RIAA's attitude.

  Nevermind that if all those Dead bootlegs were never traded that nobody
  (including the original songwriters) would have ever made *any* money
  off of them and that the record companies that have handled the Dead over
  the years would have sold thousands of times fewer Dead records if the
  bootleg scene hadn't built a cohesive cult following for the band.

  They'd much rather nobody made *any* money at all than take the chance
  that someone might make a dollar without them getting their cut.

  I think it's obscene of the RIAA, too, to claim to be acting in the 
  songwriters' interests, especially considering the sorts of songs the
  Dead were most likely to cover and the likely attitude towards the
  creators' rights among the big record companies that fund the RIAA.

  I don't think there objection is wholly without basis -- in fact I think
  it's a decent point.  I just am convinced that the RIAA doesn't give a 
  rat's ass for the individual songwriters who may have lost money.



#8 of 14 by orinoco on Thu Nov 18 18:56:53 1999:

oh is _that_ why Zappa has so many albums out?


#9 of 14 by krj on Thu Nov 18 19:09:25 1999:

I'm sorry, brain fart.  For "RIAA" in myy resp:6, please substitute
"ASCAP".  ASCAP is an organization which looks after the interests
of songwriters, which is why they expressed concerns over the 
songwriters of the material covered by the Dead.   As I wrote it,
it doesn't make much sense.  Yeargh. 


#10 of 14 by mcnally on Thu Nov 18 22:41:27 1999:

  It's a much more sensible objection coming from ASCAP..



#11 of 14 by dbratman on Tue Nov 23 00:20:53 1999:

It is my understanding, but perhaps incorrectly so, that copyright 
owners of published, recorded songs cannot prevent anyone from making 
and selling their own cover recordings of that song, so long as 
royalties are paid.

I am not sure, however, if that would apply to authorized (a la 
Grateful Dead) bootlegs.


#12 of 14 by orinoco on Tue Nov 23 02:42:57 1999:

Well, and in any case the problem with bootlegs is that royalties _aren't_
paid.


#13 of 14 by arianna on Thu Jul 19 05:27:12 2001:

(I'm surprised, with all the crap and goings on with Napster, that this
item hasn't gotten more hits.) 

Royalties are monies paid to the originator of the work by an second party
who wishes to perform that work.  Royalties only enter the picture when
Person B want's to perform/cover Person A's music, and generally, only in
a recording-oriented manner.  Theres a lot of bands/performers who do
improptue covers of other artists' music; perhaps here is where the
royalties get lost, but it's such a minimal "loss" IMO as to be ridiculous
to even remark upon. 

The recording companies that argue against bootlegging are mostly whining
about money loss.  But I would say that the more important complaint would
be one posed by the artists: live bootlegged music is not always the best
presentation for the music, as it lacks the control provided by
professional sound engineers.  And most musicians I know (being one
myself, I have to agree) would rather be in control of what is presented
to the world as their work, rather than be at the whim of the public's
(often limited) capacity to capture their artistry and distribute it.

In recent years, a lot of musicians have recognized the listeners' desire
for more "live" recordings and have responded.  This is pretty smart.  Not
only does it assuage the artists' worries about how live works are
presented to their audiences in recorded format, but it fills the
listeners' want and compels those listeners to catch a live show.  Shows
are major money making events for musicians, as much and often more
important than record sales when it comes to the bottom line.  The quality
of today's music scene is very much geared toward recordings presenting
the music in a basic, polished form and performances providing a platform
for the music to take on the life and spirit the performer intends for it.



#14 of 14 by tpryan on Sat Jul 21 23:19:21 2001:

        When I was in Borders last week, I noticed the big ?Pearl Jam?
set of live recordings, made to beat the bootels.  A disk for most 
every city they toured.  Of course, $18 or $19 each.  Collect all
34!


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: