in the instance that you are discussing here the 'piece of art' is the whole package, right? a bootlegged copy isn't actually the same artifact so someone who buys that isn't actually getting the real deal, if indeed releasing only a few of the actual item is part of the artistic 'statement'. this statement isn't compromised by producing a 'fake' version, the profits might be though.
it would be the same as your vase maker making only 5 vases and then someone piling in with 500 reproductions - in years to come the objects that hold value (monetary) will be the five originals. Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:22:12 -0500 To: "::)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <313@hyperreal.org> From: "Matthew MacQueen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: artists vs. bootlegging Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the bootleggers would have a lot less market if the record were = repressed I can't disagree with that logic. BUT... I've been following this = thread for awhile and a voice I'm not hearing in this debate (that is = kind of troubling to me, actually) is the rights of the ARTIST. Art is = not necessarily subject to the same demands as say, any old consumer = product where the goal is to sell as many as possible (say, toothpaste = or something). One of the benefits of owning and running your own label = (or printshop, for example) is to control the trickle - or flood - of = your art into an art-buyers market -- more control over your own = destiny. You can still keep things limited or special if, as the = artist, you feel like that is a part of your 'statement' so to speak, of = what you have created.=20 When a famous potter makes a vase, and they decide to make 5 of them, = not 500... it makes that vase unique. You have to think the artist has = a reason to only make 5 if that's what they choose. Is everyone forgetting that the artist has a right to release as many or = as few pieces of art as they feel? Sure there are ramifications of = releasing few, I'm not denying that: if demand is high enough and the = art is scarce, it may get bootlegged. That is a risk. =20 But an artist of any medium is certainly never OBLIGED to fill the needs = of every consumer! That is the artists right. I have detected this = slight tone of "well if he just would have pressed up more it wouldn't = matter, he deserved it, etc." -- but the reality is sometimes an artist = might want LESS of something out there, not more, as part of the = artistic statement itself. I respect artists who choose to release = less, not more... even if I can't have a copy myself. But that doesn't = necessarily mean I'm going to bootleg it (and profit from it) if I can't = find my copy.=20 peace, Matt