Re: records shows

At 10:46 AM 6/17/96 -0500, Alan McKendree <amck@eden.com> wrote:

>>      *I* didn't sign their agreement. I *do* pay for the
>> experience of a concert performance when I buy a ticket.
>> And the right to a performance certainly doesn't carry
>> any necessary right to control how it is distributed 
>> later ...

>As you said, you pay for the experience of the concert -- 
>not a tape or pictures of it ...

    Well, that in turn begs the question of whether I
*should* have the right to more than an intangible memory.
So far as I'm concerned, the existence of a public 
performance should imply the right to create a personal
memory -- akin to a photo of Buckingham Palace. The
notion of artistic control over downstream use is the
historical departure, not vice-versa. And I believe that
it's an improper extension of intellectual property rights
because it is not in the public interest to restrict the
distribution of intellectual property without proof of any
corresponding benefit.  

>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.

     My purchase of a ticket allows me to experience the 
performance so long as I do so in a non-disruptive manner.
That fact, by itself, certainly does not imply any
restrictions on inobtrusive personal taping.

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.

     Actually not. At the time I hand over the cash, I don't
know *what* the ticket says about tapes, cameras or shoes.
In the southern states I might expect prohibition of shoes
as a matter of historical tradition, but there is no preset
course of dealing that imposes a flat ban on tapes, etc.
Thus, the taping/photo issue is not part of the bargained-
for exchange -- it's something the venue adds after the
fact. And in the consumer context, that's not generally valid.

... 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.)

     Actually, I would have recourse and I suspect that if it
were worth the effort, I'd win a court challenge. The problem
is that it isn't worth the time and trouble for most people,
and the enforcement is pretty lax as well so that is isn't
usually an issue. In any event, the discussion has involved
"should" instead of "would" in a specific set of circumstances,
which is a safer place to play mind games ...
Bad defeats Good then self-destructs ...