Re: records shows

>As you said, you pay for the experience of the concert -- not a tape
>or pictures of it (actually, you're paying for the right to be in the
>building or location, usually in a specific seat, while the concert
>occurs.)  You didn't sign anything, but you don't have a right to see
>the performance under any and all circumstances (for example, walking
>in without paying if there is an admission charge).  Your ticket
>(assuming tickets are required) is your license to attend.  If on that
>ticket it says (check the back) you can't bring in recording
>equipment, photo equipment, or wear red shoes, that's it.  You're
>admitted subject to those conditions -- which, obviously, is why you
>have no recourse if your tape, film, or red shoes are confiscated.  (A
>posted notice would serve the same purpose if there are no tickets.)

Alan:

All of what you say is true. But I think we've drifted away from the subject
a bit. No one has the automatic "right" to tape or or sell or own bootleg
material. Because it is illegal, and that's how the law is written. Is is
just? That's another debate. Lots of laws aren't just. In the US, people
assume that anything that doesn't hurt anyone else is a right. Maybe that's
how it should be, but that's not how it is.
No, the main thing about bootlegs would be the assumption by record
companies that their existance takes away from the sales of an artist. Which
has been proven not to be true. And it's the choice of the artist and
company not to profit by the sales. After all, they have the original (or a
fine substitute in the case of live material) and chose not to release it.
I would be willing to bet my tickets to MSG (which I've been told I have,
but don't actually have yet if you see what I mean) that 99% of the people
who buy boots of an artist already own all of the legitimate releases
available to them. Given that they are enough of a fan to even BUY a bootleg
for $10-20 more than the regular releases, they (we) are that sort of
people. Even albums with one track featuring a guest shot by a member of the
band are sought. The record companies apparently ignore that, but it's true.
If the same material was available as a legit release at the normal CD
price, it would be bought. If it was released via mail, it would be bought.
If it was licensed to radio shows, it would be bought. The record companies
have many ways to profit by this music, but choose not to. So it's rather
petty of them to refuse the release in any form. They aren't losing sales of
(say) LAL to people who bought Pure Rock Theater.
In other words, to Hell with them if they want to take this attitude. It's
their decision, after all. If they want it to be this way, then they should
have nothing to say about "imports."



                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long