Re: Great Boot Debate revisited (long)

Now that I have my MSG tix, I can finally get to posting this....

In a message dated 96-06-16 23:38:15 EDT,  Greg wrote:

> However, the plain and simple fact is, that by buying them I have taken
money out of the pockets of those that created that music. >>  

Ah, are you really taking money out of the pockets of the artists if they had
no
intention of ever releasing the material to make said money? Well,
technically no, but maybe ethically yes. However, buying a "counterfeit" of
a legit release would be pilfering their pockets.

> The only people that made money from my purchase of these items is the CD
or record manufacturer - not the band themselves. 
>
You are correct here, but I feel the real culprit is the big Record Co's.
They
have no time or desire to deal with limited appeal small (by their big bottom
line standards) runs. They can't be bothered with items that will (may) only
sell a few thousand copies. 
(quoting from BOOTLEG, by Clinton Heylin : "The sad thing is that the big
record companies won't even let their artists sanction small-run specialist
releases, though they could never release such items themselves. They object
to bootleggers yet refuse to countenance the sort of truly specialist,
'fan-club' labels that could genuinely fill the same niche." (pg410)
As far as money not going to the bands, (pg 396) "The total 'losses' in
royalties for every single one of the close-to-a-thousand commercial bootlegs
by Dylan would still be a blip on the oscilloscope compared with the sums
deducted by Columbia from his royalties for CD research and design costs,
despite having nothing to do with any aspect of compact disc's design or
innovation." 

Not that I enjoy paying the bootlegger either. Though I have become spoiled
by the convenience and programmability of CD’s , I will gladly trade and
trade for tape copies of boots - which takes money out of the bootleggers
pockets as well! Yet helps spread the MUSIC to all who wish to hear. 

> The music belongs to the band and their contracted record company - not the
fans, unless the band and/or record company desire that music to be issued to
those fans.

Ok, with studio cuts you *may* be right, but first let's first take a look at
the "Live performance" argument. The band performed live for people to hear
their music. The fans paid their admission to SEE and HEAR. Is a recording of
this event a violation of their "ownership"?  In theory, the commercial
release by *any* independent label would only require payment of songwriting
and performance royalties. Their record companies would argue that it hurts
the
potential sales of studio product (rubbish - bootlegs are bought by
"collectors" who usually purchase all legit releases.. Average fans buy
the studio commercial releases and avoid or are ignorant to the existence of
anything else).
Another argument is the one about the artist being able to control his
product. This one really kinda pisses me off. The idea that the artist would
think his effort was good enough for 60,000 fans to pay $35-$65 each to
witness live, but NOT good enough to release for all who wish to hear it, is
ludicrous. 

>  We do not have some devine right to that music - we did not write it,
>record it, perform it or copyright it in any way, shape or form.  Therefore,
>why do some people think they do have some devine right to that music?

I'm not sure it's divine right. It's may be more a sense of protecting and
preserving. Most of the major record companies have been very lax in the
archiving and preserving and cataloging of their master tapes. If EVERYTHING
done in the studio is such gold to them, why is it that so many tapes are
lost, mismarked, unmarked, tossed, auctioned off, etc? It's a prevailing
feeling that trusting the archive of an artist to the Big$Co, is a dire
mistake. Sometimes the artist's themselves are even a worse choice - (Dylan's
own office destroyed about 90 master reels of 1978 rehearsals from his Santa
Monica Studios, because they felt they had no need of them). Olympic Studios
London tossed bin-fulls of masters into the dumpster, which were salvaged by
others, and Columbia failed to claim countless masters from a Nashville
Storage facility that was shut down. Those tapes made there way to public
auction. Astley & Co still can’t find all the masters (or possibly don’t give
a damn to look  hard enough).  So what happens when these neglected tapes
surface on the street? All of a sudden the Record weasels cry foul - that’s
our product, we’re losing money etc. I have no sympathy. As for the artists,
payment of the songwriting and performance royalties again would and should
be their compensation, but their power to veto or block release in these
instances may not be as clear.  
Rehearsal tapes and demos and alternate versions give great insight to the
collector/fan who knows the final released product inside and out. Live tapes
capture a unique moment in time, good or bad, that again can speak volumes
about a song, or band (refer to the live "Water" and "Naked Eye" threads)  
We as fans can't rely on the record companies to supply this, and the artist
who is willing, may not have the means, so we are forced to turn to the
bootleggers. There are a number of good, reputable boot labels. Granted there
seems to be far more crappy ones, but that's the price WE pay. I'm not
convinced that there is a loss or damage suffered in any *great* degree by
the
artist or company. Maybe just alittle sting to their pride sometimes, but I
don't think we are sending their kids to bed hungry. 


>  If you built a house in your neighborhood, does some one else in your
neighborhood have a devine right to your labors?  Of course not - same goes
for the music business.
>
 Ah, but if I build that house, and then abandon it, with no intention of
ever living in it, or ever caring for it, and then insist that no one even so
much as looks at it... doesn't the neighborhood at least have the right to
complain, and demand me to take responsibility and action?  And if I fail to
do so, can they be blamed if they take it upon themselves?  (though I don’t
think either analogy truly fits)

>The United States has some of the most stringent copyright laws in the
world. They are designed to protect artists from having their creations
stolen or
>appropriated by others for financial gain.  That's very fair -
           Yes it is.
> - and it was created that way >because many artists DID lose fortunes due
to record company ripoffs,publishing company ripoffs, managerial ripoffs and
many more.  Some of these artists, particularly blues artists, died
completely broke!  I don't think >that is fair - and I'm sure you don't
either.  That's why these laws exist.
>

Here's were I think things are confuse. The blues artists and others who died
broke, didn't go broke because of lax copyright laws, they went broke BY THE
BIG RECORD COMPANY ripp-off practices in their recording and publishing
contracts. The product of these big companies who were (and still are to an
extent) ripping off their own artists, were always protected by the copyright
laws. Most of the changes in the copyright laws over the years have benifited
the Industries & copyright owners (which isn't always the artist) much more
than the artists themselves. Again, the book BOOTLEG goes into great detail
on the history of copyright law around the world.  Highly recommended
reading. 

>

In conclusion (finally you say! ;-) ), I believe that, on average, Boots are
healthy for music. I champion their existence, because every now and then,
the industry needs a good kick in the pants to remind them that music isn’t
something to be doled out in drips and drabs of  ‘officially approved’
snippets! They can’t control every little thing, no matter how they may try.
 

Thanks for listening, 
Kathy