[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: artist rights vs. fans
- Subject: Re: artist rights vs. fans
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:44:40 -0400
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