[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V7 #53
>I didn't think that mattered. I see all the time on this very list people
>trading and taping things. It seemed to me that this list is meant for
>fans to be objective, mature about their love of The Who.
>But to tell me to "Fuck Off and Die" or to e-mail me and call me "A
>wanker"? Is that really necessary?
That *is* a little much, but you've encountered some definite feelings in
the matter.
This is an interesting problem in ethics, and everybody seems to have a
different point where they think taping and trading has gone too far. Rock
groups seem to have different feelings on what's hurting them and what's
not, as well. Pete has expressed the opinion, if I'm not mistaken, that a
certain amount of trading of the live concerts serves to promote his music,
but he must not totally approve, as Matt Kent has indicated that trading is
off limits at the BBS.
I notice, though, that the bootleg buying and tape trading seems to
desensetize and confuse people as to the ownership of intellectual property
(in this case music), and how they should handle it. Is it okay, for
example, to copy and distribute legitimate material that's out of print?
What about inaccessible formats? There was a move to distribute the recent
WHO'S NEXT DVD because it was initially released only in PAL format--and of
course people have no patience to wait for the NTSC release. What about TV
concerts and magazine interviews, which are copyrighted, after all?
A matter that's recently come up on other lists is the matter of archiving
and sharing mp3s. Many colleges these days supply a LAN for students and
some of the college age fans have detailed how it's common to archive
legitimately released movies and music for others to access. They're using
their computers, in other words, for TV/stereo systems and copying music out
of the LANs. This might be equated to loaning out your cds for other people
to tape, but it HAS affected music sales. Buyers under thirty have always
been the biggest and most dependable segment of the music market, but
they're not any longer. Music sales have dropped off noticibly among the
under 35 age group, presumably because of this--signal of a major change in
how the market is working.
As this generation gets older, fewer people will be buying initial releases
because they can get the music out of the archives, and the profit margin
for "traditional" sales is going to nosedive. A couple of people have
reported that smaller record stores are already unable to survive. We're
sort of heavily dependent on the current system (regardless of it's abuses),
but it might be a good idea to make plans about what we're going to do
without it.
>Taping and "pirating" will always exist. It is bigger than all of us.
>Record companies are not being hurt at all by any of this. They will always
>make money from me and you. The artists will make money too.
I'd say record companies are about to be cut out of the loop and they're
running scared. The music market has fragmented since the days when the big
companies ruled, and they're noticbly more conservative about investing in
such things as promotion. (It's been interesting to listen to how much
trouble it was for Santana to market a clear hit.) Pete/TED seem to be
playing it both ways just now. Notice Pete's gone to direct marketing for
the box sets, and he's going to release a single Lifehouse cd for the
general public.
Chris, one reason you've gotten the hard line response about copying the box
set is that it came directly from Pete. There was no record company
involved, and no particular reason to release demos other than the fact that
long-time fans would like to have them. Pete has invested his own money in
the up front costs and he at least needs to make that back, or else he'll
never consider doing it again. It's a clear, uncomplicated situation--no
confusion about who's taken the risk--and so you get the responses about
piracy and stealing from Pete.
> These days, I guess we should all be ready to fork out the big bucks to
>be able to enjoy our idols. Just look at a couple of years ago, fans of
>"The Eagles" showed their appreciation by paying upwards of $150.00 a
>concert ticket. I guess I should shell out the money and be able to feel
>closer to Pete like some of you do.
Concert tickets are another can of worms. I believe there were people
paying $1500-$2000 for tickets to the fall concerts, but the charities only
got the $150 asking price. Buying from brokers/scalpers supports the black
market, but it seems to be the only way to get decent seats, or sometimes
any seats at all. Watch for more ticket sales through the voucher system,
or auctions at artist websites.
keets
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com