RIGHT OR WRONG?
Got a question - is the bootlegging of a concert right or is it wrong? To me, and to many musicians, this is a gray area. True, I can see circumstances where bootlegging may hurt revenues the artist is sorely dependent on. Take it from me - a novelist with a strong fan base, but no exposure yet on the national circuit. I have a pony in this race, and I feel that I can weigh in on this.
I have quite a number of friends who bootleg concerts, and have a personal collection of more than 600 recorded shows. To me, it's a way of preserving history. I have Nirvana shows, John Denver shows, etc. These are moments that can never be experienced again. I am grateful to have these shows in my possession, and have something that the general public does not have. Do I share them? Of course I share them. That's what it's all about. Do I sell them? Absolutely not - in any circumstance.
Recently, I attended a concert and discovered that it had been bootlegged. I acquired a copy, and shared it with someone who had attended the concert, but had not been impressed by it. After listening to the bootleg, this person walked away with a whole new perspective of the concert, and appreciated it more. You see, we go in with high expectations - what we want to hear, how we want to hear it, how it should sound, etc. Afterwards, we sometimes are disappointed with the experience. But to give it a little bit of time and to put those initial expectations aside can clear the way for a positive experience. And I've seen it work the other way, too. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, you may like what you are hearing but later, on hearing it again, you can identify inconsistencies and poor performance on the part of the primary musician or the band.
Right or wrong? Weigh in on this, please. I have four published books. I make the complete texts of two of them available on peer-to-peer filesharing networks. To me, it's like putting a book in the library. You make money on it once, but you get wide exposure. With regard to bootlegging, it comes down to the equation of revenue vs. exposure. Some bands condone and even encourage bootlegging, wanting the exposure.
And I think some encourage it because they know there are people like me out there - people who prefer to hear a band play live. It's naked music. Take it from me, a good editor can make a so-so writer look good. A good producer can make a so-so musician sound good. But live performances level the playing field.
I'm currently looking for select bootleg performances - mainly Bob Dylan's "Not Dark Yet," "The Highlands," and "Things have changed." But don't try to sell me them - I have plenty to trade. And yes, it propogates the network and strengthens the solidity of the fan base.
But that's just my opinion.
Comments
The only problem I can see, legally or ethically, would arise in a situation where you are selling a bootleg.
There's the obvious damage to the musician's interests when this happens, as the profits of his or her work go to someone else (material costs of producing the bootleg aside - no one is buying a bootleg for the medium it comes on, but the music, after all!).
As far as sharing goes, I can only see a problem with it in instances where the musician has also recorded the show with the intention of selling it. Obviously, fewer people would be prompted to buy the musician's recording if a free bootleg is available.
However, I would stop short of calling this case strictly wrong, because there is an impossible burden of proof in demonstrating that someone's accepting a bootleg recording of the particular show actually stopped him or her from buying the musician's recording. The person accepting the bootleg may have had no intention of buying the musician's recording, only accepting the bootleg because it would nearly be free of charge. In such a case, it's only a matter of convenience that led to someone accepting the bootleg, while at the same time they only would have accepted the musician's recording if it were also free.
So I think in this latter case, its specific character is impossible to accurately assess, even on an individual basis, and certainly not as a general description of the character of the activity applied to a wide population of people. I guess that, in the end, it's an ethical question that each individual will have to settle for his or herself.
Posted by: Paul E. Zimmerman | October 20, 2006 4:54 PM
And remember, most bootlegs (outside of soundboard recordings) are of poor to middlin' quality. I know that in trading music, it's encouraged me to spend a LOT of money on CD's and DVD's. I hear it, I get interested in buying it and suddenly, poor quality is an issue. I was turned on to the Jayhawks, Frente and other groups I adore through bootlegs, and I've purchased all their releases - some of which were imports, at a high dollar. I like to think I'm benefiting multiple economies.
But that's just me. Okay, anyone else? What are your thoughts?
Posted by: Jim W. Coleman | October 20, 2006 6:29 PM
I think that recording someone else's music for one's own personal gain is wrong. But bootlegging for the purpose of sharing music is right and good for everyone!
As most audiophiles know, the Grateful Dead were all about letting people record their concerts, even setting up special areas for fans to get the best possible recordings. Jerry Garcia said that once songs were sung, they were done with them (or something like that). It was their view that everyone was better off when the music was shared. I do not believe that it ever hurt their "legitimate" record sales. In fact, when the remaining members of the band tried to keep recording devices out of their shows, fans revolted (peacefully, of course) and the band finally allowed their shows to be recorded again.
Napster-hating Metallica releases limited live recordings at livemetallica.com. I'm guessing this is in response to people trading music online and poor ol' Lars Ulrich loudly whining about not getting his fair share of the profits. But what they did was release free versions that were of such poor quality, (sounded like listening to a concert over the phone) that real fans would most likely pay for the higher bit-rate recordings that are also available. I did.
I would rather have a professionally recorded concert over a bootleg. But sometimes those recordings are just not out there. Bands don't always record their shows due to cost or whatever.
Just imagine if the tapes weren't rolling when Frampton was touring or when the Allman Brothers were at the Fillmore. All we would have would be some horrific recording of fans screaming with the music somewhere in the background.
I firmly believe in supporting bands that I love by paying for their studio recordings. But those bands better support me and other fans as well. Let us share your music. We'll still pay for it if you release it, but no one is so special that they should keep it all to themselves. If that's the case, then they should not be on stage in the first place.
Posted by: Eric | October 26, 2006 7:18 AM