RUSSIAN BOOTLEG ALERT

[John A Swartz]

Thanks Deb for the word of caution.  I'd like to use this opportunity,
while we're discussing some moral and legal issues, to make a few
points, none of which are meant to be directed directly at Deb, but I
have comments on the term "bootleg", where I would believe perhaps
a better choice of word would be "counterfeit".  Some might not draw
a distinction (and I think that in some cases the laws might not),
but let me explain what I mean:

The activity which Deb describes, that is someone taking a copyrighted
product (like a BOC album) and making illegal copies for re-sale (usually
but not always passed off as the actual product) I would consider
"counterfeiting", as oppossed to "bootlegging".  When I think of
"bootlegging", I think of someone making copies (no doubt also illegal,
at least in most countries) of material such as live shows or un-
released studio tracks for sale.  I think that there is a big difference
between these two activities -- one might argue that they both should
be illegal.  To me (and I think practically everyone else, save maybe
for the counterfeitters) that "counterfeitting" is (and should be)
definitely a illegal and immoral.  Which to me is what Deb happens to
be warning us about -- hopefully our friend Boris is not really looking
to start distributing illegal copies of *Eponymous* and *Trepanation*
throughout the world for his personal financial gain (with no compensation
to the artist and record label).

What I refer to as "bootlegging", however, I'm not so sure about (and it
would be interesting to hear Al and Deb's thoughts on this topic, since
they are artists who may have been, or may be at some point in the
future, "bootlegged").  Personally, I think bootlegs serve a useful
function.  Mostly, they provide fans (who probably have everything else
the band has to offer already) material they don't otherwise have for
their collection.  True, profits from the sales of bootlegs don't go to
the artist or record label, but I do not believe that that implies that
bootlegs hurt the sales of legitamite releases -- unless people were to
buy bootlegs instead of the legit releases (and I don't believe that this
happens much, especially considering bootleg CDs usually cost $20 or more),
I don't see how they hurt the sales.  And, as I pointed out in my post
regarding the lyrics, they may even actually *help* them (suppose I play
my copy of *The Thing!* to a friend who's never heard BOC, and he thinks
the music's is so cool that he goes out and buys *Workshop of the
Telescopes*?).  And, I think there have been cases where the existence of
bootlegs have actually *helped* an artist or label.  Look at the Beatles'
*Anthology* - most of the tracks on there have been bootlegged for years
when the band and the label were stating that "there's nothing left in
the vaults worth releasing".  Think any of the bootleggers are receiving
royalty checks from Apple/EMI? ;-)

Then again, perhaps if bootlegs were legal and readily available, then
they might compete with legit releases.  Perhaps the fact that they are
obscure and in most cases illegal keeps things in the balance.  Hmm...

Speaking from my personnal experience, if I want to hear a particular
artist, and they've got a CD at my local record store, I'm going to buy
it there.  Unless I've got just about everything I can readily get my
hands on on the artist in question, I'm not going to waste my time and
money trying to get a bootleg.  On the other hand, if I've got everything
I can get on the artist and still want more, I'll check out the "import"
dealer's lists . . .

Again, I'm not trying to argue with Deb just because she used a different
choice of words than I would have, and I think we should use caution so
as not to exacerbate the problem of counterfeit music products.  I'm just
putting out some of my thoughts (which may be against some others legal
or moral codes) on the subject of what I call "bootlegs".  Other thoughts
encouraged . . .

John