OK...WHAT ABOUT THIS:

Someone sneaks into a show and records it...uploads it to Kazaa or some other P2P network and then i download it 4 free for my own listening pleasure???

I'd much rather do this than pay someone $$$ for a show...this way - no financial transaction has taken place - does this still invoke copyright infringement??? It seems like a good question 2 ask seeing that everyone seems 2 be downloading much more these days...

PS. By doing this alone (Me downloading the Nighttown Aftershow) i am signing to the NPGMC next year again!!! This show has lit the fire for me once more - see how 'bootlegs' can help Prince...not hurt him!!!

Hmm, this is definitely a touchy subject.

From the artist's point of view, look at it like this;
If you told someone close to you a rumour about someone else, something embarrassing that you'd done, or told them about someone that you fancy - and then, without you knowing, they'd recorded your statements and then sold them, uploaded them onto Kazaa, or e-mailed them to everybody that you knew, I think that you may start to feel something like how Prince feels when his work is bootlegged.
The material is clearly something that he didn't want people to hear, and so, in a way it's unfair to spread that stuff around against his will.
However, from the fans point of view, it's great! It's fantastic to hear what is almost 'forbidden fruit' and what is otherwise not officially available. Prince may be embarrassed or simply dis-satisfied with some of the stuff that he's come up with and has therefore not released, but his fans really won't see why he's not happy with it, and won't judge him any differently because of it.
However, much like when somebody reminds you of something that you said or did whilst you were drunk, you know that those things were something that you would have kept within and not shared in other circumstances and you most certainly wouldn't want to be judged on them.
From a fan's point of view, there's no harm in listening to unreleased material/concerts, especially when no-one's profiting from the situation. The only people interested in listening to such things are usually the people who will buy everything officially released, anyway.
From the artist's point of view, however, I'm sure that you must feel sort of violated when you become aware that something has fallen into the public domain that you'd rather have remained private, or at least shared with only the people present at the time. And I suppose that you must also get annoyed that someone else is profiting from your work, if that material is being sold in any way, shape, or form.

Ultimately, I think that bootlegging is part of the territory of the cult artist, and they should greet the whole thing with a mixture of pride and wariness.

I'm not saying that bootlegging is right or wrong. That would be stupid, considering the amount of bootlegs that I've bought in the past, but I do think that it's worth looking at all sides of bootlegging.

Just my humble opinion.

Yes it's free but the quality of some of the trax on Kazaa is horrible, particularly on the live trax... all you can hear is people yelling and shit. At the very least, it keeps you somewhat current with his music.

Bootlegging is very clearly WRONG because it is taking something that does not belong to you and distributing it (free or for money) to other people.

It would be like writing a report for a client and then have someone else photocopy it and give it to another client.

The artist should have control over what they want their 'clients' to hear.

HOWEVER, that does not stop me from wanting the hear bootlegs because there are so many vault trax I want to hear (and I'm weak).

Now if only Prince would start releasing more Vault CDs as part of the NPGMC membership?

Haystack said:[quote]Hmm, this is definitely a touchy subject.

this is right on the money and currrently being debated / amended in many parliaments...
but the problem is gonna be enforcing anything

derek said:

It doesn't matter whether you paid for it or not, accessing illegal recorded material is an infringement of the copyright of the artist.

Problem is that in some countries recording concerts by audience is not disallowed by law (in other words it is legal!) and in other countries this is illegal!
Another question is whether an artist owns copyrights of a live-performance, without having recordings of the live-concert registered. This part of law is just starting to develop.

In legal terms (well at least in EC and US laws) copyright is of the same category of ownership as owning a good (such as a car), so returning to your question, let's look at it from another perspective:
You lent your car to a friend. Your friend allows a 3rd person to drive your car and this 3rd person gives the car to a 4th person. So you lost your car (and a friend I think )

Is this invoking your property-rights to the car? How would you feel if this scenario was allowed?
Btw, when the 3rd person sold the car to the 4th person for a reasonable price your car is probably gone for good! and is allowed to stay with the 4th person. Buying is legally more rightful than getting something for free!!!
(Of course in this case you are entitled to compensation for the loss of your car to be paid by the 2nd and 3rd person).

hope this helps in re-assuring your conscience

It is not illegal to possess, just to sell or distribute. You can have as many boots as you want, owning or possession is not the illegal part, selling and distribution is.

Just like blank tapes and VHS.

You can tape Days of our Lives and the MTV music awards, for yourself to keep. Just do not sell or distribute.

Same with cassettes, tape songs or shows all you want for your personal enjoyment, just don't turn around and sell them.

My cousin records a live Phish show, comes home and make a couple copies for his friends, and then they copy, and so on. No money exchange. Nobody selling nothing. Phish says, share the music, especially the live stuff. It was meant for the public to hear. Unreleased stuff is a whole different story. Most artists want you to share their live stuff.

If I buy the new Phish cd, make a copy, sell the original, everyone still got paid. If I pay $100 to go to a live show, record it, make myself a cdr, everyone still gets paid, right? Who is stealing from whom?




off subject but who steals from whom?

If you buy a cd for $15 and SUCKS, do you get to take it back, because you didn't like it? who steals from whom?

I wrote the U.S. Copyright office asking these questions, derek.

Let's see if I get a response. I don't expect one for a while, since it's Thanksgiving. But I will post it as soon as I do get a reply!

LaVisHh said:

Thank u my Mayte lookalike!!! (Hope that doesn't offend!)

U live in MPLS right? Lucky son-of-a-*&%^$*

derek said:

Now how would that offend me? She is very beautiful - I could never live up to her exotic looks...

Yes, I live in MPLS

LaVisHh said:

Personally, I think you're far better looking...


.

LaVisHh said:

you are a Very Beautiful Woman&I dig your threads.

Bootlegs are a part of the Business Period.Warner Brothers Sold a Copy of the "Black Album" on it's Backlot in Cali back in 1991 for 13 thousand dollars too a fan from Canada.not too mention Artists don't get a Dime off Columbia House,BMG Record clubs etc... but where are the Tears for that?? you can have many names and get your 13 Discs for a Penny.Artists get the Sales but not the Profit because the Industry&those Music Clubs make a deal with the Artist just there for Window Dressing.

derek said:

yes that constitutes copyright infringement.

And yes I agree that Prince fans become bigger Prince fans because of bootlegs. Prince, himself also a "music lover", however doesn't seem to realise that.


-
[This message was edited Thu Nov 28 11:44:22 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

if you took the Bootleg aspect away from Prince's Music the interest wouldn't be half the same IMHO.take the Underground feel&vibe that the "Black Album" Created back in late 87 early 88 then you have A Artist that folks dig but not in the same area.it did wonders for Him as a Artist IMHO.Boots&Live Recordings or Shows it can be Argued kept Prince High on alot of Folks list.without the Boots especially things would have been differently.

mistermaxxx said:

That's not true. They make money from those clubs, just not as much as they would by status quo retail sales.

Supernova said:

Don Henley My Friend spoke of how the Eagles Greatest Hits Sold all those Copies but they didn't get a dime.you seem too get OFF at making me out too Be wrong on alot of things??folks like you get off with Fucking with me because you gotta try too rip into what I'm saying.it's Pure Bull-Shit!!Michael Jackson doesn't get paid off Columbia House Selling "Invincible"&BTW Sony Owns that.but I bet you are gonna say something too put me in the Looney Bin as you always seem too do?

mistermaxxx said:

1. Don Henley speaks for the Eagles.

2. You say a lot of wrong things.

3. If you feel I'm trying to "put you in the Looney Bin" that says something about your self-conscious mentality. I've never said or alluded to such a thing, BUT...

4. Seek serious help for your over-the-top, out of the blue reactions.

5. Happy holidays to you too.

roverlo said:

Copyrightowners do not have the right to prohibit the "access" of their copyrighted work. Reading a book is the same as "accessing" it. Listeningto a sound recording is the same as "accesing" it. International copyright treaties and national statutes do not explicitly grant a right of "acces" to copyrightowners.

Copyrightowners do have the right to prohibit the "reproduction", the "distribution" and the "making avalaible" of the work "to the public".

This "making avalaible" of a work to the public on the internet ( on computers) turns this right (and the rights of "reproduction" and distribution") into a right of "acces", because a computer needs to make copy (reproduction) of the work before the listener can "acces" (Listen) to it on his computer. But that's it for a "v right to acces". Nobody can prohibit you to read a book or listen to a record.




I don't see that as a problem. Many copyright stautes in Europe know exceptions to the reprodution right, such as private personal use expections. That's because copyright is tradtionally a right that exist in the public, commercial sphere and not in the private, personal (non commercial) sphere of people. In the Netherlands for example the reproduction of a work for the exlusive peronal use of the one who makes the reproduction is not an infringement of copyright. This means that a person can make a copy of a cd for his personal use (e.g a compilation of favorite songs) without permission of the copyrightowner and without infringing on the copyright owners reproduction right. There is nothing in the wordings of all these national private use exceptions that prohibits the recording (reproduction) of a live performance of a work of an artist. A performance for which the one making the personal copy already has paid a fee for to "acces" (listen to) it.




that's not a real problem, because an artist does own the right to prohibit the recording of their work and performances. It's part of their copyright, a derivation of the reproduction right. But if the law knows a private use exception then they can't legally prohibit the recording for personal use. They do factually anyhow by letting the concert organisers search peoples clothes and belongings before they may "access " the concert; an in essence privacy infringing act.




That's not true. Intellectual property rights (copyright, trade marks, patents etc.) are not the same as tangible property rights. That's not to say that copyright is a very strong right, but it isn't the same as tangible property rights.

Copying a work is the same as creating more copies of the work. That's not stealing. Stealing is taking something, tangible, away from somebody else. An artist still has his work after it has been copied without his permission. So unauthorized reproduction of a coprighted work is not the same as stealing a tangible good, such as a car. Sorry if that dissapoints you, but that's the way it is.


-
[This message was edited Thu Nov 28 12:20:55 PST 2002 by Abrazo]
[This message was edited Thu Nov 28 12:26:22 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

Ok...going along with this;

Is it agreed that recording a live performance is an unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted material???

The fact that these recordings can be reproduced over the internet is irrevelent as the copyrighted work is still being reproduced without the artist's consent - regardless whether or not a financial transaction has taken place?

Take the freemyheart.com lawsuit:
A website owner (aka Prince fan) posted unauthorised recordings of the Xenophobia performances on their site for free download. Even though no financial gain was being made Prince still filed the suit...assuming that legally he was entitled to. This then seems to hinge on the artists' intent to protect their copyrighted work.

A photographer posted on the org saying that if one of his pictures was reproduced in a publication without his permission - he would have the right to sue, but normally he wouldn't, as this was his personal decision.

Prince must feel (stating the obvious) very protective of his work (live & studio) and therefore enforces this right to protect his work...even though we know freemyheart.com is only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to online access to Prince's work!!!

Mmmm...thoughts anyone???

PS. Lavish is sexier than Mayte...what was i thinking!!!???

Supernova said:

I'm very COnfident in My Being&Skin.Happy Holidays too you as well.but again I Repeat you aren't the only Person in here with some Inner Knowledge concearning the Industry.and as far as those Music Clubs go Acts don't get a Cent when there Records are sold for 99 cents-3 something.what I might say wrong too you might be right for some did you ever think about that?Nope!I don't attack on your threads&whatnot so why you gotta Knock&Ring My Door Bell when My Lights were Off??Don Henley speaks on many issues.the Eagles Passing "THriller" with there Greatest Hits Album mainly came from the Columbia House Sales.I don't tell you how too be so don't tell me.

mistermaxxx said:

All I said was that you're wrong about them all not getting "a dime" from the record clubs, and you are. Stop trying to make it into more drama than you already have.

Supernova said:

and my point is that not every artist gets paid off those Clubs.Michael Jackson won't get a dime off "Invincible" from the Clubs that's all.I ain't making no Drama I keep a Smile on My Face..

mistermaxxx said:

Get real. Your verbatim quote was not that "not every artist gets paid" as you're saying NOW...initially

you said:

my suggestion would be (1) to allow everybody to walk in with his/her equipment like U2 allowed a couple of years ago just to prevent that bootlegs will hit the store that are of a lousy quality or (2) that Prince will release all the shows himself like Pearl Jam did (and also the Who for their current tour).

In general: bootlegs: the more, the better.

Supernova said:

when the Price is Half off or further back.from 3 something too the 99 cent Bin Price they don't get paid.but you know what? I don't wanna argue with you.&Since you gotta always have the last word go for it.You are Bright&Intelligent but you got alot of Jim Rome about you.so it's all on you.

erikstroeve said:

Agree, but I'm afraid prince has his head far in the ground that he thinks he can really prohibit and prevent the recording of his shows by any person of the thousands visiting his concerts... sigh... he is in the business for almost 25 years and still doesn't get it.

/
[This message was edited Fri Nov 29 6:19:58 PST 2002 by Abrazo]

mistermaxxx said:

Yada, yada, yada. I couldn't care less what you're going on and on about now. When you want to discuss something with me make some logical, rational points, and use some spacing and paragraphs instead of all the jumbled up words you usually do - and most of all don't backpedal when you're caught in a lie. I'm bored with this now, but you can certainly keep posting about it as you usually do.

Thank you.

Good night.

And have a pleasant tomorrow.

Supernova said:

I ain't caught in no Lie.but I'm tired of you trying too Be Right with Every Damn thing&I Promise you I'll Avoid any Feedback on you.can't talk logical with you.I know I'll never talk Sports with you again.anybody that doubts Bill Russell's Dominance or Barry Bonds isn't on the Right Sport track.si if you avoid Me I'll Avoid You.Later