Re: artist rights vs. fans

        In re Greg Biggs remarks:
     
        You're right, you're right, I know you're right, but I don't have 
     to like it.  There's no way I can defend boots either legally or 
     morally and I would be a complete hypocrite to say I bought them for 
     any other reason than my own curiosity and pleasure.
        That having been said, I still think that the drying up of bootlegs 
     will actually harm the interests of the artists, not help them.  Yes, 
     it doesn't excuse violating the laws and the rights of the artists.  
     However, I believe history has shown that without the pressure 
     provided by bootlegs, artists like The Who, Dylan, The Beatles, etc. 
     as well as their labels would have found it easier to ignore fans.
        Yes, they have every right to use the government and the law to 
     keep bootleggers from ripping them off.  But imagine The Who without 
     "Odds and Sods," Dylan without "The Basement Tapes," The Beatles 
     without The Anthology series (perhaps that last one wasn't such a good 
     example).  Without boots, rock performers and particularly their 
     labels, would have been encouraged to consider their releases as 
     "product" instead of work of lasting value.
        I think when this big crunch comes down, performers will find their 
     fans enthusiasm not as strong as it once was.  The shame is that 
     they'll probably never realize why.
     
                                        Brian Cady