Bootlegs on Ebay

[Rick-An Ordinary Fool]

How do you feel about video bootlegs on ebay? What about those videos that you know your favorite artist will never ever put out officially. Is it wrong to want to see something & collect it for your own personal viewing? Or do you feel that it is cheating the artist out of there fair share of royalties?

I can understand both sides both lean more towards that it is ok sometimes to buy this. I feel that if the artist isn't going to release it, heck I still want to see it cause I love this artist so I want it. Is it wrong to think like this?

I guess there are all kinds of reasons pro & con but how do you feel?

 

[Murray]

How do you feel about video bootlegs on ebay? What about those videos that you know your favorite artist will never ever put out officially. Is it wrong to want to see something & collect it for your own personal viewing? Or do you feel that it is cheating the artist out of there fair share of royalties?

No, it's not wrong to want to see something and own it for your collection!

Personally though, I think that ebay bootleggers are the lowest form of pond scum!! They are profitting from other people's work, with no compensation to the artists involved. I try not to give these people any business, but admit that I was duped a couple of times - I bought a couple of foreign Carpenters DVDs that looked legitimate, but turned out to be bootlegs.

In the case of videos that have never been released commercially, I see nothing wrong with trading with other fans, as long as nobody profits financially from the transaction.

Murray

 

[alpertfan]

No, you're only the consumer, so it's not wrong. Besides, as was pointed out in another post, many bootleggers make their products so "official" looking, that you would never guess in a million years that you've bought something illegit. Yeah, we're doing them a service instead of the artist, but wouldn't make it more sense to say that the greater evil was actually making the product and selling it? I mean, who's the one making the dishonest profit, the manufacturer/seller, or the consumer?

 

[DAN BOLTON]

No, you're only the consumer, so it's not wrong. Besides, as was pointed out in another post, many bootleggers make their products so "official" looking, that you would never guess in a million years that you've bought something illegit. Yeah, we're doing them a service instead of the artist, but wouldn't make it more sense to say that the greater evil was actually making the product and selling it? I mean, who's the one making the dishonest profit, the manufacturer/seller, or the consumer?

That's kinda like saying, "Which came first...": as long as there are takers, there'll be those who are gonna be givers. If you spend 25 bucks on something that somebody might have invested 25 cents in making...who really lost? And, if it's okay to bootleg records, then it's okay to bootleg cars and airplanes and other items...and one day, somebody is gonna get killed by some shoddy ripoff of something they trusted to be safe...it happens all the time.

Bootlegging is dishonest. It is an abuse of the free market. If you knowingly support it, then you are undermining the system...you're saying in effect that it's okay to cheat people, and the end result will be catastrophic someday.

It all has to start somewhere...

Dan

 

[Harry]

Definitely a grey area, and something that you have to search your own soul about.

I personally despise bootleggers with every fiber of my being and avoid them at all cost. I've always found out that it's better to wait on some of these things. Ultimately they seem to show up here among our 'circle of friends' where trading of these rare items seems a more civilized practice.

Harry
...patient, online...

 

[Rudy]

One problem with any recorded work that has been "unreleased" is that we, as buyers, have no way of knowing if these are the property of the TV network that broadcasted it, or if they are now in the public domain, in which anyone can copy and resell them. Regardless of that, boots are sometimes of poor quality. Don't expect something to look all that good if it's a video. Bootlegged music can be of CD quality, or it can be pulled from a scratchy old LP or worn-out tape.

I sort of feel that if you want it bad enough, buy it...but don't pay a lot for it. Bootleggers may whoop and holler about how rare something is, but THEY got it from somewhere too. Set a limit and don't go over it. Main thing is, ask questions. Find out as much as you can before you buy it. It's one thing to sell an outright bootleg, but when sellers use deception to make you think it's an official release, it hurts everyone. You CAN retaliate against unauthorized product at Ebay, but the copyright owner has to be the one to file the complaint. Ebay does have a VeRO program (Verified Rights Owner) where you contact, say a record label via a special Ebay user ID and lodge a complaint. The label's rep then e-mails a special address at Ebay for investigation. Universal isn't listed, unfortunately, but the RIAA also has a contact, so at least audio works can be turned in.

Finally there are two valid points about bootlegging:

First, if it's an illegal copy of an existing product (CD or video), then it DOES hurt the copyright owner. So without a doubt, this point is bad.

But second, if it's an unauthorized release of unreleased material, usually it was unreleased for a reason. The artist, record company, producers or management felt it was not worth releasing. And therefore, chances of it being released are very slim, if at all. In that case, can you really say you are depriving an artist of royalties? YES, if there was a chance they'd ever release it...but also NO, since if it had no chance of being released, it would not have produced royalties anyway. And with this argument, those who buy bootlegs also say it keeps up interest in the band or artist, and the increased awareness does help the sales of legitimate product as well. The true collectors also would buy the same material legitimately if the company ever decided to release it, since most are hopeful that the quality would improve over the bootlegged item.

The Beatles are a good example. For years, "un-Spectored" versions of the Let It Be album have circulated under such names as Get Back and Sweet Apple Tracks. Many Beatles fans already have those. And yet they also bought Let It Be...Naked when it came out. I don't think Apple, Sir Mac or Ringo would have even bothered if there weren't so much interest in the music.

There just is no real right or wrong answer I guess!

 

[W.B.]

Speaking of The Beatles and bootlegs . . . I saw a so-called "Christmas Greetings" single supposedly issued by Parlophone, offered on eBay recently. Some problems with that: 1) Parlophone never issued Christmas greetings from the Fab Four in any year - such records were released through their fan club, and 2) the catalogue number and prefix depicted, never meshed with the various catalogue series Parlophone had had over the course of its history. In short, I may be a collector's collector among record collectors, but at the same time I can spot a phony a kilometer away.

 

[Rudy]

In short, I may be a collector's collector among record collectors, but at the same time I can spot a phony a kilometer away.

All the more reason to say that if anyone's ever unsure if an item is a bootleg or not, please ask either here, or in any other music forum that might have members who can identify it. The old saying holds true--if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[jimac51]

Just so everyone understands,and this may be just a case of two DIFFERENT crooksiracy(or counterfeiting) is the illegal copying of legitimate releases-the guy in the street selling those CDs that look kinda like the ones in the stores-that's piracy. Bootlegging is the manufacture and distribution(for sale or not) of material not available to the public but owned by someone who has not given permission for its manufacture and distribution. The existence of all of those Beatle studio tapes-that's bootlegging. FYI-piracy is far and away the biggest headache to the industry. Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they are obligate to share it with you. Not unlike shoplifting,these are legal terms for THEFT. Someone is stealing and if you KNOWINGLY pay for any of it,you are not guilty of ownership but you are keeping the stealing alive. This is not a grey and there is a real right or wrong answer-it is ALWAYS wrong. The problem is that it is something we desire and feel cheated not to have it. There is so much available legally,it is hard to understand that something not available should be available-sometimes it just ain't. Mac

 

[Rudy]

Some artists are taking bootlegging into their own hands. This past summer, Peter Gabriel's tour was recorded at each venue. When you got home that night, you could go online and order a 2-CD set of the performance you just saw. It took about six weeks to get, but it's a great souvener...and this "official bootleg", professionally recorded, sort of undercuts the tapers out in the audience. The Who did this two years ago, with the same company. I hope more artists do this.

 

[Rick-An Ordinary Fool]

I appreciate such a response to this topic.

I have often thought that at certain concerts, could there be professional people recording the event to sell it to the public as a bootleg? Sometimes I wonder how could an event that doesn't allow audio recording or video get into an event & then you find that it's for sale on ebay. Sometimes I wonder if the artist is already aware that it's happening from within there own professionals & the artist doesn't really care? Knowing that the artist isn't going to release anything official from that "event" anyway.

 

[Mr Bill]

I've held off giving my 2c worth here. But here I go (feel free to move to the ignore thread in FAO, )...

My take on it is this. If something is in print or available legitimately, then no I don't copy it even for friends. ie: any current hit CD or items eternally in print. It's available, buy your own damn copy.

If it's something not in print and doesn't appear likely to ever get into print, then I look at it on a case by case basis. Someone wants the music, the artist or label has opted NOT to keep it in print, then I usually "share" it, but without any $ changing hands. Often I prefer to do a swap of an item under the same condition.

Not that I've ever done that, but that would be the conditions under which I would do it.

But folks who make pirated copies of Britney or Madonna or whatever else is currently riding the charts -- they're scum and should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. So while I think the RIAA has their head up their ass if they come after me for making a CD of Herb's OOP Fandango for a fan in the Czech Republic in exchange for some rare Czech record, they have every right to fry & try Bubba Smith for making thousands of Britney CDRs in his garage and selling them out of his trunk for $5 a pop.

--Mr Bill
who realizes that ultimately ANY recording made at home for anything beyond personal use is technically a copyright violation...

 

[Rudy]

I appreciate such a response to this topic.

I have often thought that at certain concerts, could there be professional people recording the event to sell it to the public as a bootleg? Sometimes I wonder how could an event that doesn't allow audio recording or video get into an event & then you find that it's for sale on ebay. Sometimes I wonder if the artist is already aware that it's happening from within there own professionals & the artist doesn't really care? Knowing that the artist isn't going to release anything official from that "event" anyway.

Some artists actually allow taping. Grateful Dead was one of them. They even went to the extent of setting up a specific area at the venue, near the sound board, where the tapers could set up their recorders and microphones. Other bands actually let tapers have a feed right off of the sound board, so they get decent sound that way. BR549 is one current band that actually encourages taping, since they have a repertoire of over 600 songs and nobody has ever captured them for posterity.

Tape trading and networking is a BIG hobby and has been going on for years. And some are quite clever. When there needs to be clandestine taping, they've devised all kinds of ways to disguise their gear, from microphones hidden in caps to small recorders strapped to legs or bodies. Thing is, in the older days of tape trading that I remember (back in high school, a fellow student explained to a few of us what it was and how it worked), money didn't change hands. Instead, maybe you have a recording of Genesis in the UK in 1974 and I have an early Police nightclub appearance. Straight trade, tape for tape. No money involved.

And actually, if that's the case, can it really be "bootlegging" if there is no money changing hands? That's what makes the situation so confusing. Yes, it's unauthorized, but for traders, no money is being made--they're just building collections and sharing what they have.

 

[Rudy]

I've held off giving my 2c worth here. But here I go (feel free to move to the ignore thread in FAO, )...

Your thoughts, actually, are pretty much in line with mine and others' about the situation. If you're into pirating copies of current albums, bad news. If it's out of print, I see no harm at all in an even trade. If someone has to, they can charge for a blank disc and postage. But beyond that, I don't go for it. That in fact is one reason why all of us have sort of banded together here as collectors and fans: we help each other find what we're looking for, and suggest other recordings we all might enjoy. And I know from personal experience, it's one thing to have a CD copy of something I don't own, but it's also a thrill to find an original of my own.

 

[jimac51]

As for bootlegging of live/studio outtakes,etc.(material not with the intention of availability to the public in a recorded form)I believe that it is in the act of taping(or in the outtake situation,the re-taping)of the performance that the guilt lies. Even for personal use-if you're holding the mike,you're guilty. The same would be true of visual part of the event,either video or photographic. While on the topic,the jazz world has a couple of interesting stories. Saxaphonist Dean Benedetti recorded saxaphonist Charlie Parker using a recorder and sometimes holding the machine in a bathroom. Dean only recorded Bird's solos-not caring for any other part of the performance. Those recordings were found in 1988 and are available as a box set from Mosaic Records. A guy named Mike Harris was so obsessed by the work of pianist Bill Evans that he recorded every set of Bill's Village Vanguard perfromances that Harris attended to over the '60s & '70s. Those secret recordings are available today as a commercial boxset from Fantasy Records. Mac

 

[Rudy]

The whole difficulty with the live thing is: how can you tell ahead of time if the artist allows it? And who's going to tell the ushers? Some artists like their fans to take photos and send them in to post on a website. If I'd known about Brian Setzer's policy, I would have taken my camera, some fast film and long zoom and would have had some wonderful photos. Others like BR549 actively encourage audio taping, and have an active section on their forum just for traders.

But...when you're trying to get into the theater, you often have to run the gauntlet of ushers who sometimes ask you to open your coat or purse for an inspection. (It's nothing like the Prince concert in 1983 when we were actually frisked at the door. Although I wouldn't have minded if Wendy or Lisa would have done the frisking. ) The ushers are usually clueless and just routinely say "No, sorry!" if you try to bring anything in. As a courtesy, the few bands I know that allow taping just ask that tapers please not sell the recordings for profit, but keep them for personal use or trading only.

Interesting though how recordings made on the sly are now released by the big labels.

 

[W.B.]

Interesting though how recordings made on the sly are now released by the big labels.

One of the earliest cases of that was The Kingston Trio's LP Stereo Concert (Capitol ST-1183, 1959). This stereo-only release was recorded "on the sly" and with the permission of the group's manager, Frank Werber (who would later manage and produce A&M act We Five), at a concert in late 1958. The tapes were then offered to a rather chagrined Capitol Records, which nonetheless agreed to cull ten of the tracks for this album (and have Voyle Gilmore credited as "producer"). This tidbit was from a book called The Kingston Trio On Record.