Quote:
Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse
 The problem with this (as well as the comments on this thread concerning artist who encourage illegal downloads of their material) is that is not up to the artist, or any fan club to give this permission.
Strange as it might seem, they do not have the right. |
You are of course correct when it comes to official releases, because those recordings are indeed the property of the label. To me, it becomes different when you talk about fan recordings of live shows.
We're talking copyright law here, which is why the murder/mugging example, while I know your intent was to be dramatic, was not a good example. Laws against those types of actions were made for a completely different purpose than copyright law, which was made to protect the rights of the creator of something to profit from it.
I'm a huge Bruce Springsteen fan (shocking, I know
), and he is one of the top most bootlegged artists (with the Beatles, Dylan and the Stones being others). While he has never explicitly given permission to tape his shows (as the Grateful Dead did), he's done very little to stop it. There are websites devoted entirely to boots of his shows, which I'm sure he could shut down with just a phone call to his attorney if he wished.( I might note that links to official material are not allowed.)
Satellite radio has a channel called E Street Radio, which is officially sanctioned by the Springsteen camp. They play bootlegs. Recently, Bruce gave an interview in which he stated that he gave them permission to play anything that anybody sends them. If you want to be picky, you could argue that he never gave permission to record in the first place- that is true. The Grateful Dead did- you mean they had no right to do so? Why not- it's their performance, of their songs.
My point is, he is the performer, songwriter, and owns the publishing to these songs. He owns the copyrights. Are you saying he has no right to say what happens with these recordings? Who owns them then? Not the record company- they only own the specific recordings released by the label.
Is it still illegal? I guess so. But if the artist appears not to have a problem with it, I don't either. And I don't feel any sense of entitlement to have any recording, nor am I saying that it's the artist's "fault" because they haven't released it officially. I would be quite content to live without them- I did for many years before I knew anything about them or where to get them. On the contrary, I feel happy that fans share with each other, and thankful that the subject of our admiration "allows" us to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse
Most people find their own compromise based on their ethical beliefes.
|
They do. And nowhere did I say that just because you can get away with something, that it's OK. I simply stated that people are more likely to do so. It's a matter of degree, IMO.
@tink, to answer your questions, when we say bootlegs, in most cases, we mean audience recordings of a concert. You don't need any magical software or equipment- if you can download and play songs from iTunes, you could do the same with boots if you knew where to look for them. Let me state clearly that I am not advocating or encouraging this practice- simply answering a question.
And technically, yes, if you tape an album and give a copy to a friend, that is illegal, even if you didn't sell it.