[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: Poor Roger & Poor John



>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:27:56 GMT
>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>
>Somebody (on O&S, I think it was) did a really excellent breakdown a while
>back about the royalty structure and how it is that Pete makes his money
>from the songs vs. how Roger and John do.  Bootlegging hurts them
>considerably more than it does him,

The original point was that bootlegging doesn't hurt any of them.  In
addition to the previously-raised point that anyone who's interested in
bootlegs already owns 90%+ of all the legitimate releases, there's also the
point that if/when the band does legit releases of live performances, fans
will buy it even if they already have boots of that (those) particular
show(s).  And, for that matter, very few people can say that they truly
have ALL of the legit releases.  E.g., has anyone here seen the Austrian
release of Who By Numbers, which is printed in negative (white design on a
black background)?  I have, although I don't own a copy.  (I do, however,
own a Czech 7" of Happy Jack.)  The point is that if owning 100% of the
legit catalog is your prerequisite for buying boots, you could never buy a
boot.

Pirating and counterfeiting, OTOH, are a different story, DO take money out
of the artists' pockets, and to the best of my knowledge have never been
advocated on this list.

and it strongly suggests the idea that
>Roger and John should promote their songs for use in ads and  movie
>soundtracks the way Pete has been doing, plus actively write songs for
>soundtracks the way John did with Van-pires.

Good idea.

Cheers,

Alan
"It's not like bein' possessed or anything...it's just...*I* *do* *my* *job*."
   --Pete Townshend