Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
Larry wrote; (And after years of not participating in discussions because of the digest factor, and having posts ignored, it's an honor to be debated by Joe Gracey. And I'm not being facetious.) I don't have anything to add to the main point of this thread, but I do want to say to Larry (and others) that as a former digester/lurker/and someone who pretty much thought the few posts he ever did send thru were ignored (hell, they probably still are g), I can relate. But fwiw, I've always read your posts and gotten a lot out of them. I try to often drop an off-list note to tell folks when one of their posts strikes home for whatever reason, but don't always do it, for sure. All I'm trying to say is that just because you don't see a response to a post doesn't mean it didn't receive careful consideration. For what that's worth. dan
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
But Joe, weren't you exposing your art to the public in that show that my hypothetical buddy recorded? Last fall, Richard Thompson toured and played a number of new songs that will presumably be coming up on this spring's new album. He was very much against these shows being taped, because he wanted the songs "to be new to everyone" when the album appears. Okay, so playing those songs to maybe 10,000 people on the tour is somehow going to keep the music "new," but having 200 or so fanatics hear them via the tapes will not? Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but if Thompson didn't want people to hear those songs until the album came out, then what was he doing playing them in public performance? -- rest snipped There was a similar thread last year on the Bob Mould list. He was playing out new songs which would them be part of his _Last Dog and Pony Show_ release. His reasoning against taping these shows (he has always been pro-taping of his shows), was that with the new songs, he hadn't even recorded them yet. They really are part of his own intellectual propery. What if some local band hears a tape of an unreleased song and then records it? Now it is no longer his song, but this bands' song. I understand this line of reasoning, and agree completely with it. But also, I try to tape a lot of shows myself for my own personal enjoyment after the fact, and in case anything magical happens at the show I want preserverd, like Alejandro singing "Excuse Me..." with Whiskeytown at the Electric Lounge (RIP). I'm sure this didn't happen at every stop of the tour, and I felt special about hearing it, and can hear it right now. NP: Eliiott Smith - Liberty Lunch show 3/10/99 Larry -- Jim Fagan| AIX Build Architecture and Integration | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internal T/L 678-2458 | External (512) 838-2458 | Austin, Texas| fagan@austin
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
There was a similar thread last year on the Bob Mould list. He was playing out new songs which would them be part of his _Last Dog and Pony Show_ release. His reasoning against taping these shows (he has always been pro-taping of his shows), was that with the new songs, he hadn't even recorded them yet. This is an interesting turnaround for Bob, who encouraged taping of the acoustic shows during which he worked the kinks out of songs which were to appear on Sugar's _FUEL_. I have hours and hours of recorded shows from that tour and it seemed as though he was covering himself by explaining the song in detaila nd explaining how each would sound on the album. He spoke very intentionally regarding this before he played almost every song. He liked to hear the tapes that fans made and even included one on CD in Sugar's _Besides_ collection. If I remember correctly from when I was on Bob Mould's listserv, he put out a call to fans who had recit show because he felt that he and the band had nailed the song "Explode and Makeup" and he wanted to make it available because he swore he'd never do it live again because it had been done. Chad ** Chad Cosper Dept. of English Univ. of North Carolina at Greensboro 336-275-8576 http://www.uncg.edu/~cscosper
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
Larry Slavens wrote: Joe (I) wrote: since I insist on my right as an artist to control what happens with my art. Pretty simple concept. Simple? Yes and no. So what makes that performance good enough for those people in the venue, but not good enough for me to listen to at home? I think it is a crucial difference, one that is at the heart of this debate. When you stand up and sing a song, it is gone at the moment that it is born. However, if somebody tapes it it then becomes a different thing from an ephemeral instant in time. If you are having a sub-par night for some reason, at least the damage is over as soon as it existed, unless somebody is taping it, at which point the damage can go on forever. I think this story (which I am only remembering from an article I read years ago, and probably butchering) illustrates, at least tangentially, my point: A visitor to Picasso's studio reaches into the trashcan and retrieves a discarded piece of work and asks if he might be allowed to have it as a keepsake. Picasso says "No, no that is worth millions of dollars. If you would like to buy it, contact my agent." The visitor remonstrates "but this was trash moments ago" and Picasso says "yes but now it is a Picasso". While I am not saying live performances are trashcans, I am trying to show the difference in my mind if you merely witness my performance, good bad or ugly, and go home with the memory of it in your mind as opposed to your taking a record of the performance with you, to be replayed through time as representing my work. While it may do that, I still instist on the right to leave that performance in the trash if I so desire. Live performance and taped performance are two completely different creations, with different sets of criteria. Once that tape machine is on, a completely different set of rights comes into play, all of them mine. I had to learn this the hard way when I released some stuff on my little label that the artists weren't especially pleased with, and it really hit home to me how painful and invasive of their basic rights it was for me to do that. I realize tapes are not releases, but I just see no way to avoid the fact that the artist has absolute veto power over taping. I find myself in an odd position here because I am really trying to define a very important right while not especially worried about the current reality. As far as I am concerned, the guy who wrote in from Australia about how hard it was for him to ever see any of these people in person and how important tapes were to him makes perfect sense, and I understand that tapes in reality present very little if any threat to the artist unless abused. I just hate to see music treated as something apart from the artist; like Will Miner said something like "didn't the artist basically give up his right to it once he sings it" (or at least that's how it struck me) and I just can't stand that. But Joe, weren't you exposing your art to the public in that show that my hypothetical buddy recorded? Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but if Thompson didn't want people to hear those songs until the album came out, then what was he doing playing them in public performance? again, I think there is a huge difference in the transient nature of a live performance vs. a tape. If tapes of his new material get out way ahead of the record and get played on the radio for instance (easy to have happen) then it really screws up the thing he is trying to do. You must have more artistic control than many performers. I'm talking about broad rights based on control of copyrights, masters, etc. When you sign a record deal, you are actually signing away your right to control those masters. However, with unsanctioned tapes, you never got the chance to even do that. This is a fundamental difference. And the serious tape collector is confused too. Does the circulation of live tapes take income away from the artist? It takes away the ability to derive income from those recordings of the artist's performance. I see no way around this fact. Regardless of how salubrious the effect on the artist may be in the end, free tapes are still a violation, no matter how well-intentioned or benign, of the basic idea of ownership of artistic property. You can be very casual about this right, as the Dead and others are (were), or you can be all humped up about it, which I guess most big touring acts probably are. I could probably argue either way, depending on if I woke up as the hippie/commie me or the budding hard-ass me as I slowly morph into my father the corporate defense lawyer. I think much of this is rapidly being made moot by digital-realm recording and duping. It will soon be that artists will only derive income from the very first incarnation of their music (and from controlled licensed usage, which won't be altered) and after that they will simply get used to living with a large shaft in a delicate part of their anatomies. (And after
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
On a related note, look up Uncle Tuplelo or Wilco on Ebay. At any given point, you'll find all sorts of CD-R bootlegs for sale. Sad. Dave *** Dave Purcell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Northern Ky Roots Music: http://w3.one.net/~newport Twangfest: http://www.twangfest.com
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
Larry Slavens wrote: What's got me about this discussion is the doublethink. I'm not supposed to have this live music that I didn't "pay" the artist for-- This was not my, at least, point. Whether a live tape is free or not is not the issue with me. All I ask is the courtesy of a veto over a bad show, or for that matter for any reason whatsoever, since I insist on my right as an artist to control what happens with my art. Pretty simple concept. While I don't have any passionate feeling about tapes floating around out there and consider them mostly harmless in practical terms, I do have an uneasiness about them insofar as they may violate my right to control how my art is exposed to the public. this is such an important and fundamental concept that it almost takes on a kind of holy aura with me, like the right of free speech, etc. It seems to me that it's pretty easy for industry weasels g who enjoy lots of free music to cast stones at a music exchange medium that they don't participate in. I don't really see how promo music relates to tape trading. Promos fall entirely within the confines of what I am talking about, the artist's right to control how his music is presented. (And I'll join the musicians in their everyone-should-pay-for-every- note-they-hear argument if they join me in my campaign, as a writer, to close down every library, used book store store, copying machine, scanner, and the like, so that every person who reads my work has to pay for it. It's only fair.) I have often wrestled with this similarity. How is a used book store any different than a used CD store? It seems to me that to be entirely fair there should be some way of assessing a royalty at the point of sale of all books/CDs/art. One last thought. Even though tape trading may be harmless and not for profit, there is still something there that bugs me. All I have to sell is my music. If my music goes around endlessly for free, am I not being deprived of compensation for what I do? I am not angry or blustering about this, just slightly confused by it. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
Joe Gracey wrote: One last thought. Even though tape trading may be harmless and not for profit, there is still something there that bugs me. All I have to sell is my music. If my music goes around endlessly for free, am I not being deprived of compensation for what I do? I am not angry or blustering about this, just slightly confused by it. Given that radio is now a complete failure at exposing new or more marginal artists, trading tapes around is one of the few ways people have to share music with others. CD stores can also help in this and let you listen to a CD before you decide to buy it. But most CD stores won't let you sample things and a lot of CD buyers are squeamish about buying a CD with an opened wrapper, as if you were sharing used needles or something. At one point I regularly compiled my latest favorites on tapes and sent them to my friends. People got to hear a lot of music they wouldnt have otherwise, and in the end bought a lot of CDs they never would have bought. Unless a record is overhyped and sucks, I think sharing music leads to more sales rather than fewer, because people will buy things that they would probably not have risked forking over the money for. While I can understand Joe's wanting to control what of his performances get released, I think that tape trading (when it doesnt involve bootlegging) is ultimately better for the music world. I'm not quite sure what I think about distributing tapes of live shows. Again, Joe's objections make sense. But on the other hand I think that at the moment of performing, one is, in a sense, releasing the music. One certainly does to all ears who are there listening. There's not a whole lot of control you can exercise at that point if things are coming out right. I'm not sure that taping makes that any worse. And if taping has those side benefits that Bob mentioned -- that one might be able to hear a performance by an artist who he has not been able to see -- then I find it hard to blankly criticize it. (The gravity of this problem is particularly acute now that I'm here in Denver, which most touring bands seem to keep south of when they head out to the West Coast.) Will Miner Denver, CO
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
Reading today's digest, looks like this topic has pretty much blown by, but as a digester, I reserve the right to flog the dead horse a little. g Joe Gracey (and I) wrote: What's got me about this discussion is the doublethink. I'm not supposed to have this live music that I didn't "pay" the artist for-- This was not my, at least, point. Whether a live tape is free or not is not the issue with me. All I ask is the courtesy of a veto over a bad show, or for that matter for any reason whatsoever, since I insist on my right as an artist to control what happens with my art. Pretty simple concept. Simple? Yes and no. If we're talking about some session you recorded and never released, I'd agree--yes, simple, you should have the only say in whether that music gets circulated beyond the confines of your studio. If we're talking about that show you played in public last night, I'd say no, it's not that simple. Let's say you think last night's show wasn't one of your finer performances and that you wouldn't want someone to hear it on tape. Did you give everyone at the show their money back, or announce for the stage, "Oh jeez, people, forget everything you heard up here tonight. Come back for free tomorrow night and we'll try to give you a better show." (I know from talking to musicians that there are nights that they may feel that way, but no one's ever offered a refund at any show I attended. And yeah, I've heard a few that to describe them as "off nights" would be very kind.) So what makes that performance good enough for those people in the venue, but not good enough for me to listen to at home? No one listening to a live tape is expecting to hear hundred-take in-studio perfection. We couldn't go to the show, you didn't come to us, but we'd like to hear you perform a show anyway. You presented this music to those people at the club, so what's so different about presenting it to me in my living room (via a tape deck)? While I don't have any passionate feeling about tapes floating around out there and consider them mostly harmless in practical terms, I do have an uneasiness about them insofar as they may violate my right to control how my art is exposed to the public. But Joe, weren't you exposing your art to the public in that show that my hypothetical buddy recorded? Last fall, Richard Thompson toured and played a number of new songs that will presumably be coming up on this spring's new album. He was very much against these shows being taped, because he wanted the songs "to be new to everyone" when the album appears. Okay, so playing those songs to maybe 10,000 people on the tour is somehow going to keep the music "new," but having 200 or so fanatics hear them via the tapes will not? Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but if Thompson didn't want people to hear those songs until the album came out, then what was he doing playing them in public performance? It seems to me that it's pretty easy for industry weasels g who enjoy lots of free music to cast stones at a music exchange medium that they don't participate in. I don't really see how promo music relates to tape trading. Promos fall entirely within the confines of what I am talking about, the artist's right to control how his music is presented. You must have more artistic control than many performers. I hear about bands that have no say in what songs get released on promos or the full- length releases, have the promos charged against royalties, and then have industry-connected weasels sell them off to used CD stores or collectors. I don't see a lot of difference between the industry weasel selling a promo CD and the bootleg weasel selling a live CD-R, except that one's selling music performed for public consumption via a recording studo, and the other's selling something performed for public consumption via a club. They're both weasels. But I see another similarity between a promo CD and a live tape-- in a best case scenario, both can increase the exposure of an artist and lead to someone buying a commercial release or attending a show. Worst case, the tape collector doesn't like the tape or the band and doesn't buy a CD. . . but the promo CD gets sold to a used CD shop, who sells it to a customer *in place* of a commercial release that the customer might otherwise have purchased. Does the first case represent a loss to the musician? Only if the tape collector would have purchased the CD if he hadn't heard the tape. The second case surely does. (And I'll join the musicians in their everyone-should-pay-for-every- note-they-hear argument if they join me in my campaign, as a writer, to close down every library, used book store store, copying machine, scanner, and the like, so that every person who reads my work has to pay for it. It's only fair.) I have often wrestled with this similarity. How is a used book store any different than a used CD store? It seems to me that to
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
Bob Soron wrote: At 5:19 PM -0500 on 3/24/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so now that i've been beaten up for my views on bootlegging, am i to assume that all those that have had a dissenting view point in one form or another have never purchased, or even traded for, such an item? just curious... Let me try to explain my vehemence regarding this subject... I produced an album with Stevie Ray Vaughn and Lou Ann Barton- two, actually, in 1979. Stevie and I parted ways when he went to Epic and I handed over every single one of my tapes to his manager. I didn't keep dubs or copies or nuthin' because I loved Stevie and I didn't want the bad karma of the temptation of a bootleg hanging over me. Now some dick-weed has bootlegged MY stevie sessions and pressed them and is selling them, apparently using a copy of MY mastering that I had given to Stevie and the band to approve. I cannot tell you how angry this makes me. I have no tolerance for this. Not only is Stevie's estate being robbed here, but I and the band are being screwed as well. Trading of concert tapes is a different thing, although as an artist I feel that I should have control over whether sub-par performances get out. Kimmie and I never sign releases prior to a show, only after we view the results, and if anybody were to ask about taping I just say "send me a copy of it and we'll talk about it" because in truth, an artist deserves and in fact owns the right to all performances. Because music or spoken word are ephemeral rather than concrete, there is an underlying feeling that they are less "owned" by the artist. This leads to all sorts of abuse, ranging from terrible shows passed around to laws passed by Congress taking away royalties for commercial use of copyrighted music. I view it as a matter of degree and intent- if you love somebody enough to want to tape them and trade tapes with other fans, great, but give the artist the courtesy of saying yes or no. If you are selling the artist's image or work without consent or royalty agreements, then you are stealing property. thankyouverymuch, JG -- Joe E. Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
At 10:57 AM -0600 on 3/25/99, Joe Gracey wrote:
Let me try to explain my vehemence regarding this subject...
I produced an album with Stevie Ray Vaughn and Lou Ann Barton- two,
actually, in 1979. Stevie and I parted ways when he went to Epic and I
handed over every single one of my tapes to his manager. I didn't keep
dubs or copies or nuthin' because I loved Stevie and I didn't want the
bad karma of the temptation of a bootleg hanging over me.
Now some dick-weed has bootlegged MY stevie sessions and pressed them
and is selling them, apparently using a copy of MY mastering that I had
given to Stevie and the band to approve.
I cannot tell you how angry this makes me. I have no tolerance for this.
Not only is Stevie's estate being robbed here, but I and the band are
being screwed as well.
Joe, that really sucks, and I'm behind everything you say. I've got no
use for this sort of thing myself. I have heard that in the case of the
one unreleased album I own, the artist (someone you've known for a long
time, and that should make it pretty obvious) was very frustrated at
the label's decision not to release it and made copies pretty liberally
available. Now, if that's true, hindsight doesn't help him much if he's
changed his mind since then. If that isn't true but some after-the-fact
rationalization cooked up by people in a position to know him down
there, let me know. (And while this isn't any consolation on any sort
of basis, my copy isn't good enough quality to trade to anyone else
anyway.)
It also sounds like someone -- either Stevie or his manager, perhaps --
may have considered the tapes a souvenir at some point, something to be
given as a gift rather than property in which many had not only a
financial but also an emotional stake. It would only be just for that
snake's skin to be turned into boots. g
Trading of concert tapes is a different thing, although as an artist I
feel that I should have control over whether sub-par performances get
out. Kimmie and I never sign releases prior to a show, only after we
view the results, and if anybody were to ask about taping I just say
"send me a copy of it and we'll talk about it" because in truth, an
artist deserves and in fact owns the right to all performances. Because
music or spoken word are ephemeral rather than concrete, there is an
underlying feeling that they are less "owned" by the artist. This leads
to all sorts of abuse, ranging from terrible shows passed around to laws
passed by Congress taking away royalties for commercial use of
copyrighted music. I view it as a matter of degree and intent- if you
love somebody enough to want to tape them and trade tapes with other
fans, great, but give the artist the courtesy of saying yes or no. If
you are selling the artist's image or work without consent or royalty
agreements, then you are stealing property.
I do have stuff I would never trade because I know the artist wouldn't
want it to be traded. Obviously, this implies there were folks further
up the chain who weren't so worried about that. I can't be responsible
for them, but I can try to have some ethics myself. Since I don't tape
shows myself (as I told one person offlist, this is pragmatic -- I'm
there to have fun, not to attend to the logistics of hidden recording
equipment), I'm a pretty small fish in a pretty big pond.
But I do want to suggest, and this isn't to contradict a single thing
you say, that there can be a disparity between what the performer and
the fan considers a terrible show. Let's take, purely for the sake of
argument, Kimmie. I've lived in two pretty good music towns, I've been
a fan since '90 ("Angels Get the Blues"). I still didn't see y'all
until last year's Twangfest. Now, I know that isn't from a lack of
trying on your part, but it still worked out that way. Now, that set
was a really fine one, and would have been even without the Magic Feet
of Tom Ekeberg, but even if you folks had thought it was a tough one, I
figure I would have been pretty happy. Now, I don't own a tape of the
set or any of the TF sets (I was counting on the official live tape,
RIP), but again, to bring it back to general terms, if there's someone
whose work I've enjoyed for a long long time and after many years I get
to see them and I end up with the opportunity to have a souvenir of
that moment, I'll want one. Again, I do respect the wishes of folks who
don't want it traded, but for myself? Sure.
Bob
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
Bob Soron wrote: But I do want to suggest, and this isn't to contradict a single thing you say, that there can be a disparity between what the performer and the fan considers a terrible show. Most artists are perfectionists of one kind or another (it is one of the qualities that helps them get anywhere) so what they consider bad may not seem so to a normal human. This is impossible to draw a solid line about. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
RE: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
Oh, yeah, almost forgot... I've never bought a bootleg, nor do I solicit trades. I do have about two dozen tapes of live shows (I'm the guy Bob referred to in his post in this thread yesterday) by a half-dozen different artists, all but one of whom were the original, and in most cases the immediate, sources for the tapes - and I know because I've asked 'em; in most cases, they were given to me directly to illustrate some point or other we were discussing (example: I was talking with a member of Band A about a number written by a member but never recorded by them, that was recorded by Band B; he gave me a tape of a Band A show that had their version, so that I could check out differences in arrangements and solos). I have also, on a handful of occasions, made copies of a couple of these tapes for individuals I think I know and I trust. That's not a 100% reliable control, but it sure beats posting lists of stuff for trade with all and sundry. Like Nancy said yesterday, you have to draw the line somewhere, and that's where I draw it - and recent trade solicitations on this list from folks who pop up out of nowhere don't make me feel like it's a bad place to do so. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
In a message dated 3/25/99 1:10:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now some dick-weed has bootlegged MY stevie sessions and pressed them and is selling them, apparently using a copy of MY mastering that I had given to Stevie and the band to approve. I believe the culprit is Home Cookin' Records out of Houston. Well known for it's blues bootlegs, they are calling it a LouAnn Barton album with the title "Sugar Coated Baby". The XL Ent. insert in today's AA-S said that "neither Barton or the SRV estate are happy about the album." Well, duh. If anyone has the label's Email address maybe we can mass-flame them!! Slim - lookin' for trouble
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/25/99 1:10:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now some dick-weed has bootlegged MY stevie sessions and pressed them and is selling them, apparently using a copy of MY mastering that I had given to Stevie and the band to approve. I believe the culprit is Home Cookin' Records out of Houston. Actually, I think this is a different session they are pressing. I can't recall the name on the boot I saw of my sessions. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
I always find these debates interesting, as I've been a tape trader for about 17 years. And that's TRADER-- I've never bought a "bootleg" tape or CD, have never sold a tape, and won't trade with anyone who looks like they may sell tapes/CDs. Trading tapes has introduced me to a lot of music that I never would have heard otherwise-- translating into a lot of CDs that I never would have bought or shows I never would have gone to. I probably wouldn't have found this list two or three years ago had not a friend put some Uncle Tupelo/Wilco filler on the tape of a Jayhawks show he sent me. I hate bootleggers too, for a different reason than what Nancy and others have expressed-- by selling bootlegs of live performances, they're making me and every other live music collector look like scum, out to make a fast buck off the music we collect. CD burners have made it so easy for any spoiled frat boy to run some bootleg discs to sell for beer money that I'm afraid more and more artists who formerly encouraged or allowed taping to ban it. I love live music. I want to hear what an artist/band can do when it's just them and their instruments up there, with no Lanois twiddling the knobs or dozens of overdubs or pitch-perfecting software between me and the performance. I go to a lot of shows that come through the area, but Des Moines ain't no Chicago or Dallas or L.A. And until I hit the lottery, I can't road trip to even a fraction of the shows I'd like to see. So it boils down to a live tape or nothing. What's got me about this discussion is the doublethink. I'm not supposed to have this live music that I didn't "pay" the artist for-- even though I've bought the artists' commercial releases and gone to the shows, and though I didn't pay a bootlegger for this tape. . . yet am I to believe that the people so negative about taping-- some musicians and radio personalties, I note-- have paid for every piece of music they've experienced? I've got about 400 CDs strung around here, and I've paid for every one. Of the hundreds of concerts and shows I've been to, I've been on the guest list twice. So Nancy and Jon and Joe (nothing personal, you guys, I'm just wanting to make a point) don't have a single promo CD in their house, have never gotten in free to shows, don't have a few "live" tapes sitting around their house? It seems to me that it's pretty easy for industry weasels g who enjoy lots of free music to cast stones at a music exchange medium that they don't participate in. (And I'll join the musicians in their everyone-should-pay-for-every- note-they-hear argument if they join me in my campaign, as a writer, to close down every library, used book store store, copying machine, scanner, and the like, so that every person who reads my work has to pay for it. It's only fair.) Larry
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
In a message dated 3/24/99 12:31:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because the artist wouldn't have a way of directly netting money from taped concerts The artist is not making anything off this, but seriosly there are people out there who are. Like I said, it is flattering when someone tapes a show. Passing around a couple copies to friends is no big deal. But there has to be a line drawn there somewhere. Someone right now is selling t-shirts for $20 plus postage of a live concert shot of Todd. They are calling it the "unofficial Todd Snider T-shirt"... they also have tapes, bootleg CDs and videos for sale. Meanwhile, Todd ain't getting any richer, these guys are. His manager can only police so much. Is there not any dignity among fans. If they are real fans, how can they do this. No they are not fans, they are untalented assholes out to make a buck off of someone elses talent. Artist get bootlegged all the time, but we have to watch out for people 24 hrs a day to not get ripped. We can't moniter every single soul, damn. But it sucks when we browse the internet and see our stuff being pimped out, or even worse, go into a record store overseas to try to sell some records, only to find out they already have bootlegs. I say, bootlegg me baby, but when you start making more dough off merchandise than me, can ya buy me dinner or throw me a bone, hey, help me out on rent?
RE: boot me baby, but don't sell it
Nancy says: The artist is not making anything off this, but seriosly there are people out there who are. Like I said, it is flattering when someone tapes a show. Passing around a couple copies to friends is no big deal. But there has to be a line drawn there somewhere. Posts on the Internet that traffic indiscriminately in such recordings might be a good place, eh? If they are real fans, how can they do this. Good question. I've always wondered how someone who thinks that their *want* outweighs any ethical (not to mention legal) consideration for the artist in question can call themselves a fan. BTW, this (which, it should be obvious, is *not* from Nancy): the difference is that there's a contractual, legal relationship between artist and company that either disallows, or allows, the company to release with or without consent of the artist. there is no such agreement between the public and the artist. is mighty lame. There isn't a contract between the artist and the public because there's a LAW that says that an artist's material belongs to the artist until s/he assigns the right to reproduce it to someone else in a contract. According to this argument, a company would be free to release material as long as it DIDN'T have a contract. The technical term for this is "ass-backwards." Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
In a message dated 3/24/99 2:10:55 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I say, bootlegg me baby, but when you start making more dough off merchandise than me, can ya buy me dinner or throw me a bone, hey, help me out on rent? how about i just continue to show up at your shows, drink booze from the clubowners who pay you, buy your records, maybe a tshirt, etc. i'd say that's helping pay the bills, wouldn't you?
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
At 2:09 PM -0500 on 3/24/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone right now is selling t-shirts for $20 plus postage of a live concert shot of Todd. They are calling it the "unofficial Todd Snider T-shirt"... Were I working with Todd, I might inquire to this guy about buying out the stock at $17 or $18 a pop and then selling them at gigs and over the Web for $22 or so. I'm not saying the guy should be doing this. I'm saying that he sounds like he can be co-opted pretty easily. Bob
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There isn't a contract between the artist and the public because there's a LAW that says that an artist's material belongs to the artist until s/he assigns the right to reproduce it to someone else in a contract. According to this argument, a company would be free to release material as long as it DIDN'T have a contract. The technical term for this is "ass-backwards." Agree Following all of this bootlegging, music stealin', moral lacking, illegal tappin' line of discussion --- someone might want to review the laws which are nicely displayed on the WEB pages of ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Seems to me, it's pretty clear that no matter how much you "support" a musician by buying their product, it'll be a pathetic bargaining chip at the time a judge is figuring out your fine or prison sentence. Kate.
RE: boot me baby, but don't sell it
If they are real fans, how can they do this. Good question. I've always wondered how someone who thinks that their *want* outweighs any ethical (not to mention legal) consideration for the artist in question can call themselves a fan. Jon Weisberger http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*term=fan fan n 1: a device for creating a current of air by movement of a surface or surfaces 2: an enthusiastic devotee of sports [syn: sports fan] 3: an ardent follower [syn: buff, devotee, lover, afficionado] v 1: strike out a batter, in baseball [syn: strike out] 2: make fiercer; as of emotions; "fan hatred" 3: agitate the air 4: separate from chaff; of grain [syn: winnow] With my "want" of a concert boot that somebody's selling/trading, I think I fit under # 3. I may not relish paying $15 for a homemade concert cdr, or $30 for a cdr of b-sides that someone else has spent years assembling (though THAT one I did willingly), but if I have to choose between coloring in the lines and having one or two official discs or scrawling outside and having as many as possible, give me the drunken crayon and the broke checkbook, baby! Not that I don't think the outbreak of homemade cdr boots isn't regrettable, but hey - welcome to capitalism. If there's a buck to be made... And nope, don't consider these people "fans". Seems to me, it's pretty clear that no matter how much you "support" a musician by buying their product, it'll be a pathetic bargaining chip at the time a judge is figuring out your fine or prison sentence. Kate. 60 days community service for purchasing from Tunnel Records? You think? GrayZone may go after Kiss the Stone or the cdr maker who's foolish enough to advertise on newsgroups, but I can't EVER see them coming after the consumer. What would they gain? Chris awash in moral gray, but agreeing with the subject
Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/24/99 2:10:55 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Someone right now is selling t-shirts for $20 plus postage of a live concert shot of Todd. They are calling it the "unofficial Todd Snider T-shirt"... they also have tapes, bootleg CDs and videos for sale. Meanwhile, Todd ain't getting any richer, these guys are. look, sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but this is life, and it ain't going away. maybe its not fair, but it goes along with the territory of being a performer for the public. and if you're lucky enough, as todd seems to be, to have a hard core following who will buy t-shirts of him for 20 bucks, then he should be happy about it. if todd really has a problem with people buying this stuff, and others making dough off of him, than maybe he oughta get busy and throw out some stuff on his own, and then he can prosper as well. course, he can always choose another career. this is an insulting and outrageous thing to say. He has every right and duty to find this bastard and prosecute him for theft. "Life" my ass. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
RE: boot me baby, but don't sell it
fan n 1: a device for creating a current of air by movement of a surface or surfaces 2: an enthusiastic devotee of sports [syn: sports fan] 3: an ardent follower [syn: buff, devotee, lover, afficionado]... With my "want" of a concert boot that somebody's selling/trading, I think I fit under # 3. So does a stalker, who might also claim to be a devoted lover. What's the difference? Nancy says: I don't want stuff that I am not proud of out there. and given that it's *her* stuff, what makes someone think that they have more of a right to control it than she does? She also says: It still is not fair for others to make money off him without permission, I don't care how many t-shirts you buy. That's exactly right, and I don't even like Todd Snider g. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
so now that i've been beaten up for my views on bootlegging, am i to assume that all those that have had a dissenting view point in one form or another have never purchased, or even traded for, such an item? just curious...
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
I have never bought a bootleg that I am aware of, I feel guilty buying a cutout from Cats. I sell "official bootlegs" on my web page and call them the "Tijuana Tapes" (when the bastard is working) for real cheap. If someone wants to hear every bad old demo I did, more power to them. If someone wants to trade because they don't have money (there always is atleast one letter from a prisoner somewhere) I take mojos, icons and religious curios.
Re: glass houses:(was Re: boot me baby, but don't sell it)
At 5:19 PM -0500 on 3/24/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so now that i've been beaten up for my views on bootlegging, am i to assume that all those that have had a dissenting view point in one form or another have never purchased, or even traded for, such an item? just curious... In one of those wonderful coincidences, exactly a year ago tomorrow, one of the anti-bootleggers in the thread sent me mail offlist noting that he had acquired a fair number of bootlegs in the course of things, but doesn't mention it because the times he has, he was swamped with requests for copies, and there are sometimes other reasons for being cagey. Beyond the paraphrase, I won't reproduce private mail, of course, or disclose the identity. But yes, at least one person seems to be playing both sides of the fence. Bob
