Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
Thomas D. Cox, Jr wrote: my main point is this: limited releases purposely limited are elitist. i cant understand why something as populist as dance music should be elite. ive never been a supporter of limited releases, i think that everything should just be available to the people who want it so that the good feelings can be spread as far and wide as possible. limiting production does 2 things: it drives up the price of the music, and it limits who can deejay or listen to a certain song. well i can come up with an argument that proves quite the contrary: dunno how many of you record buying 313ers are dj-ing on a regular basis, but to those who do: what kind of records do you tend to play when playing out? are those the records that everyone and their mother is playing, or do you try to dig a bit deeper in your box, to present to the crowd songs they may not hear every night? second how many of you record buyers do dj at all? and for those who don't: how many other people besides yourself get to hear the records you own? my point is that most of the music discussed on this list hardly ever gets heard by anyone outside the usual suspects. by pressing limited copies, you might indirectly encourage dj's to play your music, whereby it does reach a bigger audience then just the people that normally buy your records. jurren _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
:) i love being called retarded! ab -Original Message- From: J. T. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 4:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging you are all paranoid! your logic is retarded..and what paranoia, we're talking about something that's already happening.. jt _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
Sorry to chime in so late. Have to say I'm feeling Matt. The one thing I would add is that even though I think it's a tad irresponsible to release records like these in limited numbers when we all know what the Ebay/GEMM markets are like, that still does not compell me to side with the bootleggers, because that's a preference and a pragmatic footnote to what is ultimately a moral (or artistic) issue - and if you don't buy that, it seems to me it's at least a good enough reason to want to kick someone's ass, whereas the idea of someone wanting to kick KDJ's ass for putting out too few records is absurd. Tristan === Text/Mixes: http://www.phonopsia.co.uk Music: http://www.mp313.com Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Matthew MacQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ::) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:22 PM Subject: (313) artists vs. bootlegging 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. 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. 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. peace, Matt
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
like most djs, i've got a large pile of bootlegs. everything from love is the message to derek may's wildtime remixes and the automan series. my favourite record stores have a special bootleg section, categorized by the different bootleg series. bootlegs are an important part of my record collection and any set i play. james From: Matthew MacQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:33:07 -0500 To: Innes Macnee [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging i can see why kenny is pissed off about this-he's started a label and put out a limited pressing to see how it does and some f#ckers decide to bootleg it and make some money Exactly. A footnote: Why is the UR S.I.D. series special? I mean, MOST of the releases (not all IMHO) are excellent music, first and foremost. But as a secondary factor: it's because you can only get them new from the Submerge store. They are less widespread. Also you don't see people bootlegging the UR S.I.D. records because they know UR has eyes and ears everywhere (aka - Operatives) ;) and they defend their independence and control of distribution in a militant manner. It's not perfect, but it's worked thus far. I don't see any problem UR seeking out who booted the KDJ stuff, because it could happen to UR too. If the artists stick together and 'protect the hive', a swarm is always more lethal than a single bee. peace, Matt MacQueen
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
- Original Message - From: James Bucknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matthew MacQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Innes Macnee [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging like most djs, i've got a large pile of bootlegs. everything from love is the message to derek may's wildtime remixes and the automan series. my favourite record stores have a special bootleg section, categorized by the different bootleg series. bootlegs are an important part of my record collection and any set i play. I think the difference is that with few exceptions, those records will not see a re-press, whereas with the UGE/Mohogany issue at-hand, the artist/label never even got a chance to repress them before the boots hit the street. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, artists will be forced to press up huge quantities of every record they want to release on the *assumption* that those records will sell quickly - and they will need to do it out of their own pocket (and I think this is just one of many bad consequences of a speedy bootleg). Tristan === Text/Mixes: http://www.phonopsia.co.uk Music: http://www.mp313.com Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
yep thanks to matt and the others who support artist label rights! but reallyDUH!! would add is that even though I think it's a tad irresponsible to release but wait tristan...irresponsible !? labels have ZERO responsiblity, much less any inherent ability ($ wise or business sense) to maximize supply/demand or follow some maximum-efficiency capitalist model bullchit...no offense! it is of no concern to the record collector whether something gets repressed or not, they have no right to expect it, it's all on the label/artist to do it..if they do it the collector should be thankful, period...personally, once something sells out, thats good enough for me, the fact that it might be going for a bit of $ on gemm and there are more people out there that want it...i really don't care. its nice to make more money and reach more people but once you've already succeeded in your original plan there's no strong compulsion to do it all over again just to see how far you can go...know what i mean? i give a personal example since it is something i know in my own experience -- there is one dL record in particular, macho cat garage, which is sold out and our distributor has been pushing us for almost a year now to repress as there are lots of re-orders etc etc. well, someday we will (probably) but in the meantime we are spending our money on new releases and paying our artists. we do try and make money but there is a time and a place and i swear if somebody bootlegged our chit before we even got a chance to execute our own plans (afterall, dammit, we own this music!) then minto and i would get on our brass knuckles and be after some fools!!...we would be soo mad -- there really isnt any rationalizing around how wrong and just illegal bootlegging something that is still clearly the property of another label is...even once a label doesnt own music anymore (usually a 5 year term), at least contact the artist because then it is owned by them again. it's just completely PUNK (and i dont mean rocknroll) to not even make contact and try to do things right, not to mention ILLEGAL (ok some laws are stupid but not laws that protect artists!). no one asks for bootlegging to happen, thats a crazy and selfish way to look at it. who cares if suckers and record junkies are dropping all their $$ on overpriced stuff on gemm that you can still find in shops, or have some email buddy of yours find in one of their local shops..that's part of being a record collector!!...there are loads and loads of records out there in demand but out of print, if it is suddenly excusable to bootleg them just because the labels/artists choose not tothings are gonna get really nasty...thats gonna kill the appeal of even running an underground label and putting out music for a lot of label owners and artists... ultimately a moral (or artistic) issue - and if you don't buy that, it actually, really, it's neither -- when it comes down to it, it's a legal issue!! looking at it as an artistic issue is just being nice. it's much more black white than that. copyrights exist for a reason.. i do think older records/songs, which have no clear legal ownership anymore (dead label and or unreachable artists -- making licensing difficult/impossible), well then thats when bootlegging is strictly a moral/artistic issue. like these automan records -- altho i wonder if automan even tried to license any of the songs?...usually licensing is not even very expensive, it's usually very reasonable and flexible. i do understand how dj's can get pissed when some rare record they play and have made their own suddenly gets bootlegged and everyone has it...but the dj's would be just as frustrated if the record was officially re-released so thats not really a complaint that has much merit.. needless to say, i agree with ur and kdj completely...i see no gray area in this... jt _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
I find myself waiting for Otto to chime in here (the man has a doctorate in issues relating to supply and demand after all). But I don't want to put him on the spot. ;) So here's my humble opinion: Unfortunately, this may be the result of fallout from the heavyhanded tactics of the record industry. Let me try to clarify. Underground Artist X forms a label and minimizes supply as an artistic statement or business decision (whichever, does not matter). Greedy Fan Y decides to cash in on higher demand by bootlegging. Greedy Fan Y is breaking the law. Y could have asked for licensing rights and given a cut back to artist X. But artist X will not do business with Y, in part because of a complete mistrust fostered by the record industry's history of ripping off artists. This is the pure (albeit ugly) nature of free markets, no? Survival of the opportunist? I am NOT condoning bootlegging. The piece that's missing is the free flow of information from the willing buyer to the copyright owner. This is what a lot of artists are trying to figure out lately. Of course I am not taking into account the economics of vinyl production and single copy distribution. Final thoughts: If that pre-order deepchord CD was available from their site, I'd order now. I am about to own a legit copy of Beltran's 10 Days of Blue after waiting 6 years to hear it. -- im
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
I have to agree. First of all the artist who made record never gets any money from a bootleg, the bootleggers are cashing in on money belonging to first of all the artist and second to the original record label. The bootleggers are getting money which does not belong to them, they are stealing it, it is a theft. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find myself waiting for Otto to chime in here (the man has a doctorate in issues relating to supply and demand after all). But I don't want to put him on the spot. ;) So here's my humble opinion: Unfortunately, this may be the result of fallout from the heavyhanded tactics of the record industry. Let me try to clarify. Underground Artist X forms a label and minimizes supply as an artistic statement or business decision (whichever, does not matter). Greedy Fan Y decides to cash in on higher demand by bootlegging. Greedy Fan Y is breaking the law. Y could have asked for licensing rights and given a cut back to artist X. But artist X will not do business with Y, in part because of a complete mistrust fostered by the record industry's history of ripping off artists. This is the pure (albeit ugly) nature of free markets, no? Survival of the opportunist? I am NOT condoning bootlegging. The piece that's missing is the free flow of information from the willing buyer to the copyright owner. This is what a lot of artists are trying to figure out lately. Of course I am not taking into account the economics of vinyl production and single copy distribution. Final thoughts: If that pre-order deepchord CD was available from their site, I'd order now. I am about to own a legit copy of Beltran's 10 Days of Blue after waiting 6 years to hear it. -- im -- DISCLAIMER De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen). Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen te controleren. --
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
read ian's piece again Underground Artist X doesn't want to make more money for whatever reason because they wouldn't suply according to demand. it has an analogy with Prince who signed a contract in which he gives the rights of his masters to the record company ... and later portraits himself as a slave .. while he was knowning what he signed at the time if you wanne live in your own world fine but don't expect to much of it outside your world and talking about stealing ... the reason why Moodyman can't repress is ..well you know .. ;) .. even if he did a great job Mad'r - Original Message - From: Jongsma, K.J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Ian' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Music Institute 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 10:17 AM Subject: RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging I have to agree. First of all the artist who made record never gets any money from a bootleg, the bootleggers are cashing in on money belonging to first of all the artist and second to the original record label. The bootleggers are getting money which does not belong to them, they are stealing it, it is a theft. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find myself waiting for Otto to chime in here (the man has a doctorate in issues relating to supply and demand after all). But I don't want to put him on the spot. ;) So here's my humble opinion: Unfortunately, this may be the result of fallout from the heavyhanded tactics of the record industry. Let me try to clarify. Underground Artist X forms a label and minimizes supply as an artistic statement or business decision (whichever, does not matter). Greedy Fan Y decides to cash in on higher demand by bootlegging. Greedy Fan Y is breaking the law. Y could have asked for licensing rights and given a cut back to artist X. But artist X will not do business with Y, in part because of a complete mistrust fostered by the record industry's history of ripping off artists. This is the pure (albeit ugly) nature of free markets, no? Survival of the opportunist? I am NOT condoning bootlegging. The piece that's missing is the free flow of information from the willing buyer to the copyright owner. This is what a lot of artists are trying to figure out lately. Of course I am not taking into account the economics of vinyl production and single copy distribution. Final thoughts: If that pre-order deepchord CD was available from their site, I'd order now. I am about to own a legit copy of Beltran's 10 Days of Blue after waiting 6 years to hear it. -- im -- DISCLAIMER De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen). Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen te controleren. --
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
to me it's like ... i'm sitting here ... and I ain't moving principle ... and yes you have some points but also the label should be thankfull that ppl buy their records it takes two to tango ... to say it in dutch het bestaan van de 1 bestaat bij de gratie van de ander and now i'll shut up cause I also feel that it's not right what has been done by bootlegging a new release ... that's wrong period and something has to be done about it - Original Message - From: J. T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 3:27 AM Subject: Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging yep thanks to matt and the others who support artist label rights! but reallyDUH!! would add is that even though I think it's a tad irresponsible to release but wait tristan...irresponsible !? labels have ZERO responsiblity, much less any inherent ability ($ wise or business sense) to maximize supply/demand or follow some maximum-efficiency capitalist model bullchit...no offense! it is of no concern to the record collector whether something gets repressed or not, they have no right to expect it, it's all on the label/artist to do it..if they do it the collector should be thankful, period...personally, once something sells out, thats good enough for me, the fact that it might be going for a bit of $ on gemm and there are more people out there that want it...i really don't care. its nice to make more money and reach more people but once you've already succeeded in your original plan there's no strong compulsion to do it all over again just to see how far you can go...know what i mean? i give a personal example since it is something i know in my own experience -- there is one dL record in particular, macho cat garage, which is sold out and our distributor has been pushing us for almost a year now to repress as there are lots of re-orders etc etc. well, someday we will (probably) but in the meantime we are spending our money on new releases and paying our artists. we do try and make money but there is a time and a place and i swear if somebody bootlegged our chit before we even got a chance to execute our own plans (afterall, dammit, we own this music!) then minto and i would get on our brass knuckles and be after some fools!!...we would be soo mad -- there really isnt any rationalizing around how wrong and just illegal bootlegging something that is still clearly the property of another label is...even once a label doesnt own music anymore (usually a 5 year term), at least contact the artist because then it is owned by them again. it's just completely PUNK (and i dont mean rocknroll) to not even make contact and try to do things right, not to mention ILLEGAL (ok some laws are stupid but not laws that protect artists!). no one asks for bootlegging to happen, thats a crazy and selfish way to look at it. who cares if suckers and record junkies are dropping all their $$ on overpriced stuff on gemm that you can still find in shops, or have some email buddy of yours find in one of their local shops..that's part of being a record collector!!...there are loads and loads of records out there in demand but out of print, if it is suddenly excusable to bootleg them just because the labels/artists choose not tothings are gonna get really nasty...thats gonna kill the appeal of even running an underground label and putting out music for a lot of label owners and artists... ultimately a moral (or artistic) issue - and if you don't buy that, it actually, really, it's neither -- when it comes down to it, it's a legal issue!! looking at it as an artistic issue is just being nice. it's much more black white than that. copyrights exist for a reason.. i do think older records/songs, which have no clear legal ownership anymore (dead label and or unreachable artists -- making licensing difficult/impossible), well then thats when bootlegging is strictly a moral/artistic issue. like these automan records -- altho i wonder if automan even tried to license any of the songs?...usually licensing is not even very expensive, it's usually very reasonable and flexible. i do understand how dj's can get pissed when some rare record they play and have made their own suddenly gets bootlegged and everyone has it...but the dj's would be just as frustrated if the record was officially re-released so thats not really a complaint that has much merit.. needless to say, i agree with ur and kdj completely...i see no gray area in this... jt _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
and talking about stealing ... the reason why Moodyman can't repress is ..well you know .. ;) .. even if he did a great job No don't know, tell me by the sound of it he told you :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- DISCLAIMER De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen). Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen te controleren. --
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
- Original Message - From: Jongsma, K.J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The Music Institute 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 12:37 PM Subject: RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging and talking about stealing ... the reason why Moodyman can't repress is ..well you know .. ;) .. even if he did a great job No don't know, tell me by the sound of it he told you :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] release 1 and 2 of KDJ could not get repressed because of certain sample rights ..as far as I know or am i wrong ? which is possible ofcorse
(313) artists vs. bootlegging
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
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
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. This is only the case for some record collectors who are looking for that very first original unside out :) Some people just want the music. 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. Dunno what your trying to say with this? There are legal laws in the music industry protecting your artistic creations and giving you the right to control it. 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 -- DISCLAIMER De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen). Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen te controleren. --
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
i was trying to make the point that if it really is an artistic statement and not a business decision then the artistic statement isn't, in my opionion, compromised. the business side of it is obviously a different ball game. 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. Dunno what your trying to say with this? There are legal laws in the music industry protecting your artistic creations and giving you the right to control it. i was making the point that if talking artistically then if the limited press was part of an 'artistic statement' as has been intimated then a bootleg is not stripping this artifact of value. again, the business implications are different. -Original Message- From: Jongsma, K.J. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 April 2003 12:00 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: '313@hyperreal.org' Subject: RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging 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. This is only the case for some record collectors who are looking for that very first original unside out :) Some people just want the music. 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. Dunno what your trying to say with this? There are legal laws in the music industry protecting your artistic creations and giving you the right to control it. 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 -- DISCLAIMER De gemeente Almelo aanvaardt voor haar medewerkers geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor eventueel onjuist, onrechtmatig of ontoelaatbaar geacht gebruik van e-mail (inclusief bijlagen). Dit e-mail bericht is door de gemeente Almelo gecontroleerd op de aanwezigheid van eventuele virussen. Wij kunnen echter geen garantie afgeven dat al onze e-mail berichten volledig virus vrij zijn. Het is daarom verstandig uw binnenkomende e-mail berichten zelf op de mogelijke aanwezigheid van virussen te controleren. --
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
Mad'r wrote: it has an analogy with Prince who signed a contract in which he gives the rights of his masters to the record company ... and later portraits himself as a slave .. while he was knowning what he signed at the time the fact prince portraied himself as a slave was not so much because he didn't have control over the masters, but because his recordcompany didn't find it in prince's [read: sony's] best interest to release the amount of music prince wanted to release. prince wanted to release 1 or 2 records a year, sony didn't think that was in their best interest [because 1 record every 2 or 3 years would sell more, and cost less then 2 records a year] thereby limiting prince in his 'right' to exploit his artistic talents. perhaps a bit short sighted in prince's initial trust in his record company, but not an action you would expect from the recordcompany at first, you would expect them to be happy with the amount of material the artist was giving them to sell. jurren _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
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. Dunno what your trying to say with this? There are legal laws in the music industry protecting your artistic creations and giving you the right to control it. i just hope kommando 6 represses the brainiac ep #3. kommando 6 records are so hard to find in the states
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
could get me a link of that ? i've read some interviews where he tells that the troubles with his record company Warner Brothers (same as sony ?) began when he had the publishing rights but wanted the copyrights/masters of his 19 released albums too ... http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:tlje759VvHkC:www.octopusmediaink.com/Th eArtist.html+music+prince+slave+masters+rightshl=enie=UTF-8 the fact that he had 1000+ tracks in his volt and could not release them may be a reason too .. but i haven't found anything about that being the reason for putting slave on his cheak Mad'r - Original Message - From: jurren baars [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging Mad'r wrote: it has an analogy with Prince who signed a contract in which he gives the rights of his masters to the record company ... and later portraits himself as a slave .. while he was knowning what he signed at the time the fact prince portraied himself as a slave was not so much because he didn't have control over the masters, but because his recordcompany didn't find it in prince's [read: sony's] best interest to release the amount of music prince wanted to release. prince wanted to release 1 or 2 records a year, sony didn't think that was in their best interest [because 1 record every 2 or 3 years would sell more, and cost less then 2 records a year] thereby limiting prince in his 'right' to exploit his artistic talents. perhaps a bit short sighted in prince's initial trust in his record company, but not an action you would expect from the recordcompany at first, you would expect them to be happy with the amount of material the artist was giving them to sell. jurren _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
On Friday, April 11, 2003, at 08:22 AM, RAW2019 wrote: but because his recordcompany didn't find it in prince's [read: sony's] you mean Warner's?
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
someone brought up a really good point in this thread. illegal samples are used pretty frequently by artists, including moodymann and theo parrish. now i find it slightly hypocritical to be jacking someone else's stuff and then not allowing your stuff to be jacked. but thats not my main point in this argument. my main point is this: limited releases purposely limited are elitist. i cant understand why something as populist as dance music should be elite. ive never been a supporter of limited releases, i think that everything should just be available to the people who want it so that the good feelings can be spread as far and wide as possible. limiting production does 2 things: it drives up the price of the music, and it limits who can deejay or listen to a certain song. another thing that it sometimes does is create an artificial demand for music thats not all that great. people want to have that exclusive release, even if its not that good, just so they can say they have it. to me, i dont care about any of that. i dont care if my records are worthless after i pay $10 for them new. i dont care if someone else has access to the same times as me. all i want is to listen to and spin the best music that exists. tom andythepooh.com
(313) artists vs. bootlegging loop
11/4/03 3:51 PM Thomas D. Cox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] someone brought up a really good point in this thread. illegal samples are used pretty frequently by artists, including moodymann and theo parrish. now i find it slightly hypocritical to be jacking someone else's stuff and then not allowing your stuff to be jacked. but thats not my main point in this argument. True enough, but it don't stop it hurting when you've put your money behind something and then someone else jacks you and your left with nothing but a red bill and angry artist my main point is this: limited releases purposely limited are elitist. i cant understand why something as populist as dance music should be elite. Don't think this is the case, I certainly can't afford to do big runs, but Limited Edition etc are just marketing tools that work and a true reflection of how big the market is, I'm dreaming of the day I can be elitist *LOL* ive never been a supporter of limited releases, i think that everything should just be available to the people who want it so that the good feelings can be spread as far and wide as possible. limiting production does 2 things: it drives up the price of the music, Do you think people get paid that much? I don't know anyone doing Techno for money, hands up if you are... all i want is to listen to and spin the best music that exists. Why not start a label, put stuff on the net like we do...add to the vibe instead of complaining, you'd be surprised Martin dust Dustclub.com PS hey Lisa
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging loop
-- Original Message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] True enough, but it don't stop it hurting when you put your money behind something and then someone else jacks you and your left with nothing but a red bill but youve already done the same thing! i just cant feel compassion for one and not the other. the forms of stealing are different for sure, but both bootlegging and illegaly sampling are stealing from someone. ive never felt compassion for the sampled people, its getting their music out there. and the same for bootlegged material, its just getting the records into the hands of the fans who want them. Don't think this is the case, I certainly can't afford to do big runs, but Limited Edition etc are just marketing tools that work, I'm dreaming of the day I can be elitist *LOL* if you sell all the copies of your first run, you can just repress it. its not all that hard, and if youve already made back your money plus your profit, you should easily be able to afford to do that. Do you think people get paid that much? I don't know anyone doing Techno for money, hands up if you are... im not saying that. im saying look at the prices paid on ebay for that amp dog knight single. like $90. and NONE of that is going to the artist, thats for sure. but someone is making mad loot off of the fact that it was a limited pressing. Why not start a label, put stuff on the net like we do...add to the vibe instead of complaining, you'd be surprised who is complaining? im working on my own material, and when its done, it will be posted on the web for free in high bitrate MP3. venetian snares used to do this with every single tune he made, and then when the record the songs were being released on were about to come out, he'd take them off. and he has definitely managed to continue to sell buttloads of records on many big labels. tom andythepooh.com
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
someone brought up a really good point in this thread. illegal samples are used pretty frequently by artists, including moodymann and theo parrish. now i find it slightly hypocritical to be jacking someone else's stuff and then not allowing your stuff to be jacked. but thats not my main point in this argument. thats getting into gray area...there is a legal free usage of samples but i think it is limited to 2 seconds. ?? and to me this is apples and oranges anyways...using samples, illegal or not, is not the same as stealing someone else's entire creation outright...altho it can sure get pretty close sometimes with lazier producers...this gets into the whole other discussion of using samples creatively or using them blatantly, whole other argument...apples and oranges.. my main point is this: limited releases purposely limited are elitist. i cant understand why something as populist as dance who knows why things are limited tho. maybe the label just doesnt have the $ to press more. maybe the label just doesnt WANT to spend the money to press more. maybe the label doesnt think the music is that good to justify pressing more -- not their fault if record collectors decide that the limited run makes it better. maybe the artist doesnt like the music that much and doesnt want it to be a widespread release. maybe distributors dont pre-order many copies. to assume it's elitism is quite an assumption. there are a lot more mechanics in running a label and releasing music than just scene politics! and to speculate the reasons is pointless imo. furthermore when things are hyped up as limited! you should not assume that was a decision by the artist or label to market it that way. it's the job of distributors and stores to sell records. there can be a complicated mixture of business and art and personalities involved. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging loop
-- Original Message -- From: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] red bill but youve already done the same thing! i just cant feel compassion for one and not the other. the forms of stealing are different for sure, but both bootlegging and illegaly sampling are stealing from someone. ive never felt compassion for the sampled people, its getting their music out there. and the same for bootlegged material, its just getting the records into the hands of the fans who want them. I can see your point but this isn't a new problem and we just have a different point of view, actual I'd be chuffed if some jacked some of my stuff :) Purely for the ego of course/// day I can be elitist *LOL* if you sell all the copies of your first run, you can just repress it. its not all that hard, and if youve already made back your money plus your profit, you should easily be able to afford to do that. But we run a club and rig so they money always goes somewhere, 12' are a luxury to us... Techno for money, hands up if you are... im not saying that. im saying look at the prices paid on ebay for that amp dog knight single. like $90. and NONE of that is going to the artist, thats for sure. but someone is making mad loot off of the fact that it was a limited pressing. That just a fact, it never change don't let it eat you up Why not start a label, put stuff on the net like we do...add to the vibe instead of complaining, you'd be surprised who is complaining? im working on my own material, and when its done, it will be posted on the web for free in high bitrate MP3. venetian snares used to do this with every single tune he made, and then when the record the songs were being released on were about to come out, he'd take them off. and he has definitely managed to continue to sell buttloads of records on many big labels. Sorry that was a bit rude, look forward to hearing your stuff Respect martin
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
using samples, illegal or not, is not the same as stealing someone else's entire creation outright... i dont know why you think bootlegging is stealing someones creation, they are not exactly putting their own name on it and bootlegging is not a great business to be in if you actually want to make money what about ppl selling tunes for $100 on ebay? is that stealing from the artist? theres $95 that could go to the artist! you are all paranoid! ab (i dont buy bootlegs simply because i am a collector of original pressings, not because i worry about these artists pay packets) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging loop
:But we run a club and rig so they money always goes somewhere, 12' are a :luxury to us... I think 12ft records are a luxury for most of us :P
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
Alex Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i dont know why you think bootlegging is stealing someones creation, they are not exactly putting their own name on it and bootlegging is not a great business to be in if you actually want to make money what about ppl selling tunes for $100 on ebay? is that stealing from the artist? theres $95 that could go to the artist! As far as I'm concerned, if I buy (note, not license) a record/cd/dvd etc. for $x, then I own one copy of that item (irrespective of the media). That item is mine, and I will do with it what I choose, including selling it for a profit, or perhaps turn it into a giant drink coaster :) If I license the same item from a company or individual (for, I would expect, much less than $x) then I waive that right, and am bound by a contractual agreement which most likely limits my rights in terms of reproducing or selling the item. Bootlegging, To produce, distribute, or sell without permission or illegally, is stealing. You are producing extra copies of an item that you do not have permission to reproduce. I don't see any comparison between bootlegging and selling (a non-bootlegged) item for profit on Ebay. Sven
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
i dont know why you think bootlegging is stealing someones creation, they are not exactly putting their own name on it and bootlegging is not a great business to be in if you actually want to make money are you kidding me?! it's releasing someone's music without paying that someone for their work! you take someone's chit without asking and give them 0 royalties, gee uhh...and there's more money in it than releasing a normal 12 since you dont pay any artist...especially if you're bootlegging something highly sought after, doing a fairly big pressing, the 50% that normally goes to the artist stays with the bootlegger... what about ppl selling tunes for $100 on ebay? is that stealing from the artist? theres $95 that could go to the artist! well it's their property they can sell it for whatever they want! doesnt mean anyone's gotta buy it.. you are all paranoid! your logic is retarded..and what paranoia, we're talking about something that's already happening.. jt _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
(313) artists vs. bootlegging
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. 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. 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. peace, Matt
RE: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
i can see why kenny is pissed off about this-he's started a label and put out a limited pressing to see how it does and some f#ckers decide to bootleg it and make some money Exactly. A footnote: Why is the UR S.I.D. series special? I mean, MOST of the releases (not all IMHO) are excellent music, first and foremost. But as a secondary factor: it's because you can only get them new from the Submerge store. They are less widespread. Also you don't see people bootlegging the UR S.I.D. records because they know UR has eyes and ears everywhere (aka - Operatives) ;) and they defend their independence and control of distribution in a militant manner. It's not perfect, but it's worked thus far. I don't see any problem UR seeking out who booted the KDJ stuff, because it could happen to UR too. If the artists stick together and 'protect the hive', a swarm is always more lethal than a single bee. peace, Matt MacQueen
Re: (313) artists vs. bootlegging
FINALLY SOME ONE WHO MAKES SENSEit amazes me how many people can only think of themselfsI NEED THIS RECORD .I NEED THAT RECORD.ME ME ME ME..if UR wants to only make 3 records of a release then that is their rightif moodyman wants to keep his records in small numbers and not repress them...then that is his rightRESPECT peoples way of doing things as artists.some people don't do everything just to sell recordsand if they do limited runs..you better hope you get the record if not you don't get itthere are plenty of records i have not ever been able to get being from Portland, OR .and i just deal with it and usally find it a few years later owell i guess...sorry for the rant sometimes the mentality on this list annoys methanks for the comments matthew michael www.renegaderhythms.com
