bootleg/counterfeit

[John A Swartz]

A few comments on theo's comments:

>There is an issue of ownership and control of distribution of a work
of art

Well, when a bootleg is of unreleased studio material, I can understand
that argument (but even then, I think people who buy such bootlegs want
to hear that unreleased stuff, and they understand that it may be a "work
in progress" - otherwise it probably would have been on a legit release --
but again perhaps this wouldn't happen if bootlegs weren't as obscure as
they are).  But, when you are talking about a live recording (which most
bootlegs are), then I'm not so sure.  The artist performed to the public,
so they've obviously lost some control right there -- some finite number
of people are going to hear that performance (and again, I think people
who hear these understand that live performances can be flawed, and they
accept that - sometimes it's preferable to hear the raw sound rather than
a live album full of overdubs).  So, if the artist is concerned about the
quality of his/her/their product, then this should carry over to their
live performances as well.

>Also, Bootlegs/counterfeits aren't always of the highest
quality [I know, some bootlegs are better than the legit copies].  A
band could legitimately be concerned about the poor quality of
something being released as showing the band in an unfavorable light.

Again, I think people who buy bootlegs understand this - many bootlegs
are recorded in less-than-ideal conditions.  Again, perhaps if bootlegs
were less obscure though, this might be more of a problem.

And as far as a bootleg being of better quality than a legit release,
I have little sympathy for the artist/record company in this case.  If
someone can put out a better quality product than the actual record
company, then they deserve to lose money to the bootlegger -- there's
no excuse (especially with today's technology) to put out sonically
inferior material (look how many people hate "Cult Classic").

>If a really high quality bootleg existed, might not
one be tempted to have a friend make a copy, and then not buy an
existing live album?

Well, this is somewhat a seperate issue, I think.  What if the copy you
made for your friend was the legit live album?  Either way, your friend
didn't buy the legit live album, whether he's got a (illegal, BTW) copy
of it or of a bootleg.

>I
may not like it if someone circulated a tape of me where I totally
blow a guitar solo!

Yeah, and movie stars don't like it when people photograph them in less-
than-idea situations either.  Life can be messy.  I really believe music
fans who collect bootlegs understand this -- if they want the "clean"
version, they can get it (and no doubt already *do* have it).  Also, if
an artist consistently gives bad live performances, then word is going to
get around and future shows for that artist may suffer.  I think most
artists (especially ones that haven't "made it big") understand that
they've got to go out and give it everything they've got night in and
night out.

John