OFF: Bootleg CD's

[John A Swartz]

>What about editing the recordings (taking out artifacts, reducing hiss,
etc.)?  I imagine some collectors (those in it for completeness) would
prefer to have the 'pure' recording, noise and all, but I imagine most
would rather have a cleaner recording.

I'd rather have the cleaner recording in terms of noise reduction, but
would prefer that the space between songs in a live set is preserved.

>So do you see any difference between making a 'custom mix' on cassette and
making one on a CD?  I've recorded a lot of music in various mixes on
cassettes, for myself, for gifts, received them as gifts, etc.
'Everybody's doing it', which doesn't make it legal or right, but what I'm
wondering is if there is a perceived difference in the legal or moral
implications between doing it on  CD vs. a cassette.

I think there IS a perceived difference, but in my mind, if you're making
seperate recordings of previously-released material for someone other than
the owner of the original copy, it's the same whether its CD or cassette.
Yeah, everyone does it, as you say.  With CDs, the fear always seemed to
be greater in the industry since there was a fear that CDs implies a
much higher quality.  Of course, we all know that sound quality depends
on many things, most notably the source of the audio.  I've got live tapes
that blow away the sound quality of the "Live 1976" BOC CD.  I suspect
that after recordable CDs become more prolific, there will be much less of
a perception that one medium (CD or cassette) is o.k. while another is not,
but I think there is a perceived difference today.

>I'd have to agree with you that the distribution of re-recorded material
in general is going to be depriving the artist, but what about specific
cases?  (I'm being the Devil's advocate here, these opinions do not
necessarily reflect my own.)  If I were to make a 'custom' Imaginos CD
(which I probably will), and distribute it (which I probably won't) to a
select small group of interested people (perhaps members of a certain
mailing list), wouldn't that just increase interest in the album itself?

I understand where you're coming from and I've thought about that issue
a lot in the past as well.  I've raised a similar argument for websites
that post lyrics to songs as well - hey, might not a BOC website with the
lyrics to BOC songs (a violation of, I believe, Sony's copyright on BOC's
lyrics) spark some interest (albeit minor) and possibly influence someone
into buying a BOC album?  Quite possibly, in my mind.  But, it still is
in violation of the law, and one would be hard-pressed to use the argument
in one's defense.  Now, in the case of, say, Imaginos - yes, it might
increase interest of the album to distribute a custom Imaginos CD, but
I doubt you could convince the copyright holder that this interest would
pay off in future sales (hey, if you give folks a copy of Imaginos, why
would they go out and buy a copy -- ignore, for a moment, the fact that
Imaginos is no longer readily available in the U.S. - which is perhaps
another possible argument for doing something like this).  I am not
trying to point flaws in your logic, but just present to you the flipside
of your argument.

By the way, you might stretch this a bit further - suppose you made such a
"custom" CD, but didn't give it to people, but just loaned it out.  This
technically would be o.k., and would perhaps spark the interest you refer
to.  Now, if someone decided to make themselves a copy of your "custom"
CD, well then technically I would think that they are the violators, and
not you (then again, how many of us can make custom CDs of our own these
days?).

>If I had the power, I'd push everyone involved in the Imaginos project to
complete it, perfect it, and release it.  If there were 'bootleg' or
'pirate' (the two terms are, I think, legally similar, but have very
different implications) CDs running around, I'd think that would only put
a little pressure on the involved parties (record companies, artists,
etc.) to put out something that there was obviously an interest in.

The "Beatles Anthology" is a great example of a record company making huge
profits by releasing stuff that's been bootlegged for years.  I suggest
that had the bootlegs not existed, this much-hyped 6 CD collection would
never have existed.

>The uniqueness of the Imaginos situation is what makes this argument
tempting.  I _know_ there's more out there, I _know_ that there's a
certain *order* to things, and I want to see it all done.  If I know I
won't be able to go out and buy "Imaginos vols. 1, 2, and 3 Boxed Set"
anytime soon, I'm going to try and Imaginit (sorry, I couldn't resist) on
my own.  And if I (being the philanthropist I am) wish to share my
creation/piracy with others, where's the harm?

I understand where your coming from.  But, the "harm" (and you and I
could probably never guess the magnitude - but whether it is huge or
insignificant probably shouldn't factor in such judgements) is that if
someone who doesn't currently own Imaginos now feels no need to buy it
because they have your CD (again, dismiss the fact that Imaginos is
not readily available in the U.S. anymore), then ultimately that is one
CD Sony doesn't sell, and one CD's worth of royalties that the artists
(one of which is a BOC-L listmember, BTW) don't make.  I can't say
how significant this could be, and one could argue that the person
receiving the custom CD wasn't going to buy a copy of Imaginos anyway,
so there really was no "loss" of sale.  From a legal standpoint, I don't
think such an argument would fly.  Again, my point is not to tell you
that you can't or shouldn't do what you are implying, but to give you
the other side of the argument.

>On a Not Quite But Almost Related note, does anybody have any idea how
much the BOC band members get in royalties each time Sony comes out with
another BOC compilation?  And do the royalties go to current band members,
or original band members, or members of the band when the songs were
originally released, or some/all/none of the above?  Just wondering.

Albert has mentioned this before (although I don't think he's mentioned
dollar amounts or percentages -- something that really isn't our business),
and he could probably answer that better.  I do believe that he continues
to collect royalties from Sony for BOC material - at least the stuff he
had a hand in writing.

John