Quote:
Originally Posted by mickp
You're right he doesn't have to and agree he currently has the right to take what action he wants. I respect his view on that. But my own view is that over time copyright laws will have to change to reflect circumstances they were never drafted in contemplation of. Fundamentally I believe that commercial loss should be protected against (eg unauthorised ripping) but reputational loss (a clip someone doesn't like) is a far more difficult area
|
Copyright laws may well change over time, but as you say, reputational loss is more difficult to manage. (I'm also forced to wonder whether Bob Jovi et al are hounded and harassed on-line by a deranged tag-team
). Strictly speaking it would also need a change perhaps in the law governing what is permissable in public places too.
Meat asked why anyone would want to watch a poor quality bootleg. I admire a man who takes a pride in the effort he puts into giving the best he can, and can understand why poor quality would be anathema to him.
Stretch, Mick said "artists have to get used to it", I said Meat didn't, he agreed. We worked it out by ourselves
I don't find your example close enough to the essence of this, ie Meat exercising his right to remove poor quality bootlegs to which the posters cannot in law claim copyright. That he chooses to remove those which he thinks don't fairly represent his performance doesn't to me seem foolish ... any more than yours would be if you chose not to adopt a new language you felt was not fit for purpose
(You work in an industry that failed to warn the systems they designed that when we reached the year 2000 it was not the end of life as we know it, so they shouldn't shut down
)
And .. I was very impressed by the two new vocalists, and believe they will prove to be a great asset to the Vegas show
Splitting the vocals as they did at the racecourse gigs will make the show interesting in that kind of show I think.