Interesting report on illegal downloads [Archive]

View Full Version : Interesting report on illegal downloads

robgomm

16 Dec 2010, 12:56

There was a report out this morning which makes for interesting reading and also an interesting discussion.

Apparently in the UK currently 7.7million people regularly download music illegally, and in the last year alone 1.2billion tracks have been downloaded illegally. Now as the UK music industry currently gets nearly 25% of it's revenue from downloads, the illegal downloads are really hurting the industry.

But you know it's an intersting thing to discuss, because I was saying to my Wife about it and she said, well what's the difference between what these poeple are doing now on the internet, and what we all did years ago when we used to tape the top 40 songs off the radio? Surely that was illegal copying too? And also if you think about it if you've got a DVD recorder at home, you can easily record tons of songs off of music channels and digital radio stations.

Now I have to admit, I have downloaded Meat Loaf songs in the past, BUT, this has only been songs from live shows that were never released on CD or video or DVD, am I wrong for doing this? I don't think I am, because there is a line to be drawn. If it's an officially released track, album, or DVD, that's when it's illegal in my book, because then you are hurting the music industry. But then I am saying it's illegal to tape stuff off the radio or record stuff on your DVD player, which i'm not sure I agree with, so my thoughts contradict themselves!

Anyway i'd love to hear everyones views on it, the report was really quite shocking to me with the numbers involved.

AndrewG

16 Dec 2010, 13:28

I'm not sure what to believe with regards to such "reports". I do think illegal downloading is crazy. In my opinion people who do that do not respect basic morals. Just because you can do something doesn't make it legal obviously. I guess because the whole thing is very difficult to trace it becomes possible for people to keep doing this without getting caught. It's sad really. I also do not understand the feverish attempts by many people to get something for free. I much rather buy a digital (or preferably physical) album for £9 than waste evenings trying to download it and then discover there is probably something wrong with the files. I've witness many colleagues and friends downloading movies or music, taking ages over it and either getting the completely wrong thing or getting a virus installed on their computer in the process. Serves them right I guess. I personally can't think of a greater waste of my time.

Especially in the case of new and upcoming artists I think the illegal downloading is a shame as they lose revenue which may be necessary for them to continue making music.

I don't know how accurate these (http://www.grabstats.com/statcategorymain.asp?StatCatID=9) stats are but these do indicate that music spending, certainly with regards to concerts is certainly on the increase. In a perhaps saturated market it is probably still difficult to grab a piece of this pie.

I think a bigger problem is the ridiculous amount of TV related commercialisation in recent years which interestingly works constantly on a recording covers basis and not very much original music. Think of how many artists could make a living out of the money which instead goes to ITV/Simon Cowell (does he really need £200 million)/Apple (I'm pretty sure the "recording artists" get the smallest piece of the pie). Other companies are taking in large parts of the money from live performances these days too such as Ticketmaster and LiveNation.

Therefore I do not think that illegal downloading is solely hurting the music industry or its artists, a lot of it I think also has to do with a shift of the money which now goes to third party lazy companies (who are not really involved in creation at all), who cleverly now have a hold on the industry.

In the end I think it is always the honest consumer and original artist who get screwed over the most.

Wario

16 Dec 2010, 15:16

The world should stop revolving around money is what i say. everything should be for free and stuff not released should be out their for the taking.

Jayd

16 Dec 2010, 15:28

It will never go away, if anything become more widespread, as internet reaches more homes. :-)

robgomm

16 Dec 2010, 15:35

So is recording stuff off music channels and radio illegal?

Adje

16 Dec 2010, 16:19

I think it was Bon Jovi that once said 'I don't mind people downloading our music as long as they visit the concerts' That's where the real cash and recognition lies for the artists. Not the cd sales. I tend to buy all my original cd's but when some artist/band gets a 'best of' release that contains one track not available on the other albums I download that.

Movies is another story. I actually download all my movies first OR go see them in a cinema and buy the good ones on BluRay later. And if you know you're way around the internet it's as safe as visiting a forum. I do honest labour and I need my bills to pay. The internet downloads are a great option for me to spend the bit money that is left on products I'm actually gonna like. So Andrew's statement about 'it's a time of waste' is not a fair one. In fact it's a good time investment if you have not that much to spend.

I agree on Andrew's final statement but for a complete other reason. Too many times the 'honest' comsumer gets screwed by the greediness of music compagnies. And too many times (new) artists get screwed by the same compagnies. It's too easy to blame it all on the downloaders. In the end it's about the popularity of an artist that decides his success. And it's not unlikely that many downloaders have helped 'new' artists on their way by listening to a cd that they would never buy in the first place. Yet because of that download fall in love with the music and actually go to the concerts.

As for non-official releases I'm very clear. If it exist make it available for the fans to get it for free. And let those fans decide if they want it or not.

jcmoorehead

16 Dec 2010, 16:19

So is recording stuff off music channels and radio illegal?

Technically it is but I don't think anyone would really do anything about it.

Illegal downloading is such a huge issue to get into because it affects each artist differently plus you can get even deeper into it when it relates to singles/albums and even bootlegs.

The thing is from what I know a lot of bands don't make much money from album sales as it is, most of that money goes to the record company and it's generally the touring where artists make money. I'm not sure if thats true or not because you hear so many different things regarding the issue.

The only music I download, I guess you could say illegally, are bootlegs but they're such a massive grey area. Most of the bootlegs I download are Dream Theater ones and they support people trading bootlegs.

SueW

16 Dec 2010, 16:33

I work for an artist management company (i.e. we manage and work for musicians) so that will colour my opinion slightly but any illegal download is THEFT.

People seem to easily forget that this is the music BUSINESS and if you download music or movies illegally then you are taking money from the musicians (and yes the record companies).

It's all very well saying that you'll download it illegally and if you like it then you'll buy it but HMV don't have a policy that you can steal CDs and then come back and buy one if you actually like the music so it should be the same on the internet.

If some musicians choose to upload their own music and let people download it for free (or give away CDs at the concerts like Meat Loaf has) then that's their choice but if you are downloading illegally then you are taking away their right to choose how their music is distributed.

Of course, I realise that it is hard to police illegal downloads nowadays but just because something is easy to get away with, doesn't make it any less illegal.

Evil One

16 Dec 2010, 17:56

TheDoode

16 Dec 2010, 18:58

AndrewG

16 Dec 2010, 19:47

So Andrew's statement about 'it's a time of waste' is not a fair one. In fact it's a good time investment if you have not that much to spend.

It's a waste of MY time, which is what I wrote, whatever anyone else choses to do is up to them.

I don't even have time to watch all the DVDs/ Blu Rays I own + I have a £15.99 per month subscription with Lovefilm which gets me unlimited movies (I can't see how that would break the bank for anyone but fair enough). In addition to this I love going to the cinema as it makes for the best experience for movies. Yes I saw a small part of Avatar on a bootleg DVD when the movie was still in the cinema, but the quality was so appalling indeed I really wonder why people bother, but it's up to them. For me it's simply not worth it and rather spend money on a good quality product.

A Slice Of English

16 Dec 2010, 19:57

And as a Police Officer, I would be remiss if I didn't reinforce the fact that downloading music and movies without paying for them is indeed a criminal offence of theft for which anyone in the UK could be sentenced up to 7 years imprisonment on indictment if convicted of so doing.

I shit ye not.

robgomm

16 Dec 2010, 20:15

If it's available to buy and is a reasonable price, then I have no problem paying for it. If it's not available to buy (ie a bootleg) then I have no issue downloading it; it should be free for everyone and shame on the record company for not putting out the product and making a few quid off it. :twisted:

I think this is actually the best argument so far, 100% agree with you.

On another note, what about if I rent a film from lovefilm and then copy it? Technically I have paid for the movie right?

Regarding movies I have to say I love going to the cinema, went last night in fact to see the new Harry Potter, but I think the price they charge now is absurd. Cinema prices have just gone up and up and up over the years and theirs no excuse for it. I don't think they can even blame piracy because movie piracy didn't used to a huge problem. I couldn't say what started the problems really, the prices going up or piracy of movies, but it's too expensive now. £24 for 3 of us to see that film last night.

duke knooby

16 Dec 2010, 20:19

Technically I have paid for the movie right?

technically you have paid for the rental of the movie (for a limited time period)

(i imagine)

duke knooby

16 Dec 2010, 20:22

I would be remiss if I didn't reinforce the fact that downloading music and movies without paying for them is indeed a criminal offence of theft for which anyone in the UK could be sentenced up to 7 years imprisonment on indictment if convicted of so doing.

I shit ye not.

.....however as most shop lifters convicted of theft get ~~~~~~ all etc etc

youngJB

16 Dec 2010, 22:33

I've heard tons of small-time bands actually encourage torrent downloads, and it really does generate thousands more fans. Sure, the industry doesn't make money off of it, but people enjoy their music. And isn't that the point?

I've made a point to buy all of Meat's albums legally, several of them multiple times, but I'll admit I use loopholes every once and a while - AKA record stereo background sound off the computer with audacity etc. It all comes down to music sharing. If it's not done on the computer, it'll be done some other way. And if I bought ever song on my itunes, my entire family would be living in the street. A dollar per song on itunes is ridiculous. The industry needs to change if they want to filch money to that extent.

Julie in the rv mirror

16 Dec 2010, 22:44

But you know it's an intersting thing to discuss, because I was saying to my Wife about it and she said, well what's the difference between what these poeple are doing now on the internet, and what we all did years ago when we used to tape the top 40 songs off the radio? Surely that was illegal copying too?

It is similar (and yes, I think technically illegal), but there is a difference, at least in my experience. For one, those recordings off the radio didn't have the same sound quality as a record or commercial tape would have. Plus, you might have the DJ talking over parts of songs or such. I never taped much, but if I did, it was usually just to hold me over until I could go out and buy the record. Nowadays, people will buy a CD, rip it and post the files for anyone to take, with (I assume) little loss in the quality. Plus, with the limits of analog tape, if you made copies of copies to distribute the song, eventually it would sound terrible. And, you'd conceivably only give copies to your friends anyway, which is way fewer people than a digital download would reach.

Now I have to admit, I have downloaded Meat Loaf songs in the past, BUT, this has only been songs from live shows that were never released on CD or video or DVD, am I wrong for doing this? I don't think I am, because there is a line to be drawn. If it's an officially released track, album, or DVD, that's when it's illegal in my book, because then you are hurting the music industry.

I pay for all my officially released music, as a matter of principle. Bootlegs are a different matter, IMO; while they are still illegal, it's not competing with something the artist has officially released. I think anyone who is devoted enough to an artist that they are going to seek out bootlegs, they will buy all the official material, but maybe that's a wrong assumption. There's typically little money to made by bootleggers these days, so most recordings are made by fans to share with other fans. As was pointed out, some artists allow sharing outright, while some others do very little to stop it. I would happily pay for good quality recordings of live shows, but if they aren't available, I have no problem downloading a boot.

I agree that the artists who are most hurt by illegal downloading are new and up and comimg artists, because they don't have years of record sales behind them, nor can they draw thousands of people to a live show to make up for what they are losing on record sales. An artist has to recoup costs of recording an album, which ultimately are their responsibilty, not the record compamy's. (However, for an act that has a great live show, boots may actually help them build their reputation.) I think veteran artists nowadays realize the money is to be made on the live shows (as in the Bon Jovi example given). I think illegal downloading is thus in a large part to blame for increasing concert ticket prices.

PanicLord

17 Dec 2010, 01:05

All - before reading the rest of my post, please be aware that I am not judging any person in particular and am in most cases simply documenting my understanding of the law from my uni studies! Trying to think like a lawyer :D

It is possible that I myself may have downloaded a couple of copyrighted things that I shouldn't have in the early days of downloads. Had I done so, I would have still known that it was wrong, felt guilty about it, and either got rid of those items entirely, or replaced them with legally obtained copies. So I do accept that it can generate sales if the thief is willing to mend their ways in the future, but sadly this doesn't always happen. And even if it does, it doesn't erase the earlier theft. Perhaps only salves the concience of the thief.

The world should stop revolving around money is what i say. everything should be for free and stuff not released should be out their for the taking.

Yes, lovely. 2 questions though:
* Still go to work would you if you didn't get paid?
* Please could you post a list of all your worldly posessions and how we can get hold of them to eg this forum? I quite like your microphone and as you haven't made it publicly available I shall assume it's mine for the taking.

So is recording stuff off music channels and radio illegal?

Yes, technically you should assume so, unless you are specifically given the right to do so by the TV / Radio channel, who would have had to get permission from the copyright holder to enable them to do so etc.

However, there have been court cases about this and the courts uphold that it is perfectly reasonable to record such broadcasts for your own personal use and later viewing / listening etc.

I mean, the BBC would be very hard pressed to argue breach of copyright if you record something off Freeview BBC1 when they themselves are pushing Freeview recorders, unless it was specifically stated that the programme in question was excluded from this general ability.

I think it was Bon Jovi that once said 'I don't mind people downloading our music as long as they visit the concerts'

That's fine them saying that, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is legal for you to do so. It may mean they wouldn't prosecute anyone who does it, but again that may be a decision out of their hands if they have signed over that right to the record label or whoever.

In fact it's a good time investment if you have not that much to spend.

Well yes. I suspect burglary and money laundering are too, but that doesn't make it any less illegal or harmful to the victims.

Too many times the 'honest' comsumer gets screwed by the greediness of music compagnies. And too many times (new) artists get screwed by the same compagnies.

I certainly agree with you there.

It's too easy to blame it all on the downloaders.

Yes. Because it is their fault. No one forces you to steal the song / film / album etc, even if it is possible to do so.

Would you steal a car because you thought it was too expensive from the local dealer?

Illegal downloading is such a huge issue to get into because it affects each artist differently plus you can get even deeper into it when it relates to singles/albums and even bootlegs.

Nope - it is very simple. I have highlighted a word from your quote that should help ;)

I guess you could argue that it is a difficult issue to decide what constitutes legal vs illegal downloading, but again that's a bit of a red herring - it is illegal to obtain or make a copy of something that is copyrighted unless you are given the right to do so.

Imagine a music track that you created as an entirely original piece and which you therefore have automatic copyright over, and think of it as a possession in your house, like your TV. Clearly, if that is your TV only you have the right to have it and if anyone takes it without your permission they are stealing it. It is no different with the music track.

The thing is from what I know a lot of bands don't make much money from album sales as it is, most of that money goes to the record company and it's generally the touring where artists make money. I'm not sure if thats true or not because you hear so many different things regarding the issue.

I would imagine that is true - but it is entirely irrelevant to whether it is illegal to steal it.

The only music I download, I guess you could say illegally, are bootlegs but they're such a massive grey area. Most of the bootlegs I download are Dream Theater ones and they support people trading bootlegs.

Bootlegs are NOT a grey area. Again, a major clue is in the name. If you have not specifically and legally been given permission to obtain a copy of that copyright material then you have stolen it.

If the Dream Engine have the copyright in their live performances and have clearly and publicly stated that they support trading bootlegged copies of such, then I guess that would be sufficient. If they don't own the copyright, then it is not up to them in the first place.

I work for an artist management company (i.e. we manage and work for musicians) so that will colour my opinion slightly but any illegal download is THEFT.

People seem to easily forget that this is the music BUSINESS and if you download music or movies illegally then you are taking money from the musicians (and yes the record companies).

It's all very well saying that you'll download it illegally and if you like it then you'll buy it but HMV don't have a policy that you can steal CDs and then come back and buy one if you actually like the music so it should be the same on the internet.

If some musicians choose to upload their own music and let people download it for free (or give away CDs at the concerts like Meat Loaf has) then that's their choice but if you are downloading illegally then you are taking away their right to choose how their music is distributed.

Of course, I realise that it is hard to police illegal downloads nowadays but just because something is easy to get away with, doesn't make it any less illegal.

Hear hear! Absolutely right.

If it's available to buy and is a reasonable price, then I have no problem paying for it. If it's not available to buy (ie a bootleg) then I have no issue downloading it; it should be free for everyone and shame on the record company for not putting out the product and making a few quid off it. :twisted:

I partly agree with you in the sense that I hate the way the companies started throwing lawsuits around all over the place instead of making their products easily available at reasonable prices.

On another note, what about if I rent a film from lovefilm and then copy it? Technically I have paid for the movie right?

No, absolutely not, in the same way that you dont own a rented car or house. You have paid for access to that film or films for a limited period of time with no actual legal right to make a personal copy.

Regarding movies I have to say I love going to the cinema, went last night in fact to see the new Harry Potter, but I think the price they charge now is absurd. Cinema prices have just gone up and up and up over the years and theirs no excuse for it. I don't think they can even blame piracy because movie piracy didn't used to a huge problem. I couldn't say what started the problems really, the prices going up or piracy of movies, but it's too expensive now. £24 for 3 of us to see that film last night.

A couple of points here:

* Prices are quite high now and have certainly gone up. When I was 16 you could see a film for less than £6 most of the time, adult prices. But that was 15 years ago! There was no minimum wage back then, employment rights and costs (in terms of national insurance, tax, pensions etc) were probably lower, land costs (ie rent) were generally lower, electricity was I guess cheaper, there probably was less piracy (as I guess it was harder). Film production budgets were generally much lower. Plus, all the cinemas I now go to are WAY nicer places to watch a film than they were back then. Better projection, sound, seating, cooling etc. There are a huge number of factors that affect the price of the ticket, and I don't really think that £8 is really all that much when you take all that into account, and add in 13 years of inflation on top of it all!

* If you paid the £24 then you are not really demonstrating the view that it is too expensive ;)

you'd conceivably only give copies to your friends anyway, which is way fewer people than a digital download would reach.

Exactly - the key is now that one person could copy it and suddenly millions if not billions of people can easily steal it by making their own copies of the copy.

GDW

17 Dec 2010, 01:06

Monstro

17 Dec 2010, 01:24

Trying to think like a lawyer :D

Which, translated into normal person speak, means it'll cost you £200 to read the post :D

A Slice Of English

17 Dec 2010, 01:40

Better start building some bigger prisons to fit everyone in. One on every street corner should do.:-)

I'd rather build some offshore prison ships if there was the money around to do it. Get the scum off the island.

Unfortunately I don't have anything to do with the prison situation. I don't write the laws, I just enforce 'em, as best I can.

Julie in the rv mirror

17 Dec 2010, 05:08

Would you steal a car because you thought it was too expensive from the local dealer?

No, of course not. And I've never illegally downloaded music because I thought it was too expensive to buy. I think there's a distinction between pirated music, which is an illegal copy of an official release, and a bootleg, which is in most cases, an audience recording of a live concert.

Bootlegs are NOT a grey area. Again, a major clue is in the name. If you have not specifically and legally been given permission to obtain a copy of that copyright material then you have stolen it.

They are a grey area, to my knowledge, and no, I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV ;) ). At the very least, there are loopholes in the law. I can walk into my local record store right now and find loads of CDs and DVDs that I know for a fact are bootlegs right out on the racks. If it's illegal, how do they get away with it? They slap an "Import" sticker on it. AFAIK, the laws in parts of Europe are different than in the US. In some countries, it's legal to record a show and sell it, provided that you pay a "royalty" to the performer. So, bootleggers simply set up a token account, thus satisfying the law, regardless if the artist collects it or not. At least it was this way- may be different now. I've noticed that many of the bootleg CD's I've seen are of concerts recorded outside of the US.

Speaking strictly as Devil's advocate, if I have made my own recording of a show, to share with my friends, it's not really much different than people who take pictures at a show and post them, or post videos of it on youtube. Provided, of course, I'm not selling the recording to make a profit.

PanicLord

17 Dec 2010, 08:10

Which, translated into normal person speak, means it'll cost you £200 to read the post :D

Lol - very good idea!

PanicLord

17 Dec 2010, 08:29

No, of course not. And I've never illegally downloaded music because I thought it was too expensive to buy. I think there's a distinction between pirated music, which is an illegal copy of an official release, and a bootleg, which is in most cases, an audience recording of a live concert.

There probably is a distinction - as I say, I am not an expert either, although I have watched many episodes of Perry Mason, mainly for the awesome theme tune :lol:

However, distinction or not, they are still both illegal. If you are an audience member (at least in the UK), then you do not have the right to make a copy of the concert unless you are specifically given the right to do so in the ts and cs of eg the ticket, or the venue, or someone with the ability to give you that right.

They are a grey area, to my knowledge, and no, I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV ;) ). At the very least, there are loopholes in the law. I can walk into my local record store right now and find loads of CDs and DVDs that I know for a fact are bootlegs right out on the racks. If it's illegal, how do they get away with it? They slap an "Import" sticker on it. AFAIK, the laws in parts of Europe are different than in the US. In some countries, it's legal to record a show and sell it, provided that you pay a "royalty" to the performer. So, bootleggers simply set up a token account, thus satisfying the law, regardless if the artist collects it or not. At least it was this way- may be different now. I've noticed that many of the bootleg CD's I've seen are of concerts recorded outside of the US.

I thought that many of the basic copyright laws were international, and then I guess each country can build on that basis. I'm sure there are some countries that dont enforce them or have relaxed the law etc, and "loopholes" certainly always exist. In fact, loophole is also a bit of a misleading term, mainly used by eg The Daily Mail to make us hate lawyers and foreigners more. If a law specifies a way of avoiding the main requirements of that law, or does not specify that something very specific is a requirement, then it is absolutely fine to avoid the main requirement or not to do the thing that they missed out (hope that makes sense, did in my head!).

Again, I've highlighted something key in your quote - if it satifies the law (however dubious it may appear), then it is not illegal.

Oh and getting away with it certainly doesn't make something legal!

Speaking strictly as Devil's advocate, if I have made my own recording of a show, to share with my friends, it's not really much different than people who take pictures at a show and post them, or post videos of it on youtube. Provided, of course, I'm not selling the recording to make a profit.

Absolutely it isn't any different - it is still illegal. Hence Meat or Red Pony or whoever owns the copyright is able to get them removed should they choose to do so. Whether you sell it or not is irrelevant (regardless of whether it is for profit) to whether you legally own it in the first place.

robgomm

17 Dec 2010, 11:08

* If you paid the £24 then you are not really demonstrating the view that it is too expensive ;)

Actually I am because that's the first time I have been to cinema in ages due to the prices.

Adje

17 Dec 2010, 18:06

@ PanicLord. First of I want to compliment you on the structured reply. Although I do not agree on all it was very well argumented :)

Well yes. I suspect burglary and money laundering are too, but that doesn't make it any less illegal or harmful to the victims.

This is what the anti-piracy folks tell you. It's nonsense of course to compare this with burglary or money laundring. Especially in the example I posted.

Burglary you actually do harm people. In the case of -and I used the bluray example- it's the oposite. If I hadn't been able to download those titles I would never have bought the originals anyway. The thing is I would never have spent money on them, thus never watched them. If I download them now and watch them that has the same impact as not watching them (from the point of view of the copyright holders). Now I have bought quite a few titles after I saw the downloaded version. So basically this form of piracy eventually regenerates money for them.

Same with music. How many people attend concerts after they heard a downloaded song or album? Especially from new/unknown artists. Eventually they buy merchandise, cd's etc from that same artist.

Now I never claim it's legal but in all honesty it's not fair to claim that all downloaders harm an artist. When sometimes the oposite is true. And that's also what I meant with my latest statement that it's too easy to put the blame on all downloaders ;)

Again refering to my post. The first part I tell I buy cd's unless it's a compilation album with that one missing song. Why would they do that? Sell a 15 to 20 Euro (Dutch prices) compilation album with all songs you -as a fan- already have just to get that one song. How many people would buy one song for 20Euro? It's almost theft. In fact it's legal theft and I actually appreciate it's illegal counterpart if a ddownload is possible.
According to the law this is very simple. You're either black or white. But when we use common sense then there actually is a large grey area (even if you can rightfully claim it's illegal according to the law). Then again, how many of you wait for a red light when there is no traffic?

Anyway that's my opinion in this matter :)

Adje

17 Dec 2010, 18:10

It's a waste of MY time, which is what I wrote, whatever anyone else choses to do is up to them.

My fault, I should have read it better :oops:

Julie in the rv mirror

18 Dec 2010, 07:35

Oh and getting away with it certainly doesn't make something legal!

You're right, it doesn't. But people are more likely to do something illegal if they are unlikely to get caught, or if the consequences are not severe even if they do.

Absolutely it isn't any different - it is still illegal. Hence Meat or Red Pony or whoever owns the copyright is able to get them removed should they choose to do so. Whether you sell it or not is irrelevant (regardless of whether it is for profit) to whether you legally own it in the first place.

Oh, I won't argue that it is illegal, whether or not you profit.

Then again, how many of you wait for a red light when there is no traffic?

I do- we have a lot of red light cameras here, which means I am very likely to get a ticket, and they are nearly impossible to beat. :lol:

robgomm

18 Dec 2010, 10:08

I always wait at red light's, i've never gone through one.

CarylB

18 Dec 2010, 11:01

Like Andrew, I think illegal downloading shows people do not is respect basic morals, and just because it's almost impossible to police doesn't make it justifiable or right.

Hell in a handbasket really does to me describe the way the music busines has been careening over the past years, particularly the giant chunk controlled by people like Cowell, and the money shift Andrew described so well towards lazy 3rd party companies.

What continues to surprise me .. perhaps because I am of Meat's generation, is the incredible sense of "entitlement" people seem to hold these days. Just because a live performance hasn't been officially recorded and released gives me no belief I am entitled to grab it from an illegal source; there are many live shows I don't see .. but I make the effort to see what I can, delight in those and hold them in my memory .. just as I prefer to buy a quality physical single release and play it when I want, knowing I have contributed to the artist who makes their living through entertaining me with great music. And to suggest that all performance should be free is just a nonsense. Some make their living by entertaining us as paid professionals, and thank God they do. I am happy to have earned my crust in other ways and to invest it in those who are talented, creative, driven and energetic enough to light up my life with their endeavours.

I don't feel I have a "right" to obtain bootleg rcordings, any more than red lights "don't matter" if there's no traffic around. I obey traffic laws, I don't steal. The labourer is worthy of his hire, whether it be some basic essential or an artistic enrichment of my life. Simple as that to me. Ease of law-breaking doesn't make it somehow more OK.

Caryl

Evil One

18 Dec 2010, 11:36

Just because a live performance hasn't been officially recorded and released gives me no belief I am entitled to grab it from an illegal source... I don't feel I have a "right" to obtain bootleg rcordings
I'm pretty sure the Republic Of Loafdom used to have quite a few TV performances of Meat.

If it wasn't for bootlegs then I would never have heard the fantastic El Mocambo concert amongst other things.

PanicLord

18 Dec 2010, 12:23

...People are more likely to do something illegal if they are unlikely to get caught, or if the consequences are not severe even if they do.

You're right of course.

But the weird thing about this comment and the thread in general is that very few people seem to have said it is wrong in principle to steal things, and have instead tried to provide justification for doing so.

Eg it's not my fault I stole it if they're so expensive to buy. Or, I had to steal it because the record company didn't make it officially available.

The whole world seems to be going to hell in a handbasket ;)

PanicLord

18 Dec 2010, 12:24

PanicLord

18 Dec 2010, 12:34

@ PanicLord. First of I want to compliment you on the structured reply. Although I do not agree on all it was very well argumented :)

Thank you!

This is what the anti-piracy folks tell you. It's nonsense of course to compare this with burglary or money laundring. Especially in the example I posted.

Burglary you actually do harm people. In the case of -and I used the bluray example- it's the oposite. If I hadn't been able to download those titles I would never have bought the originals anyway. The thing is I would never have spent money on them, thus never watched them. If I download them now and watch them that has the same impact as not watching them (from the point of view of the copyright holders). Now I have bought quite a few titles after I saw the downloaded version. So basically this form of piracy eventually regenerates money for them.

Same with music. How many people attend concerts after they heard a downloaded song or album? Especially from new/unknown artists. Eventually they buy merchandise, cd's etc from that same artist.

Now I never claim it's legal but in all honesty it's not fair to claim that all downloaders harm an artist. When sometimes the oposite is true. And that's also what I meant with my latest statement that it's too easy to put the blame on all downloaders ;)

Again refering to my post. The first part I tell I buy cd's unless it's a compilation album with that one missing song. Why would they do that? Sell a 15 to 20 Euro (Dutch prices) compilation album with all songs you -as a fan- already have just to get that one song. How many people would buy one song for 20Euro? It's almost theft. In fact it's legal theft and I actually appreciate it's illegal counterpart if a ddownload is possible.
According to the law this is very simple. You're either black or white. But when we use common sense then there actually is a large grey area (even if you can rightfully claim it's illegal according to the law).
Anyway that's my opinion in this matter :)

I do agree as per my earlier post that there are ways artists benefit from this from some people. But consider the following 2 points:

* What proportion of people, having illegally downloaded eg a film or album, would then go and legally obtain the same or something else by the artist? My opinion is if you steal once you are more likely to steal a 2nd time. I think the majority is harmful.

* Regardless of potential future benefit, if an artist creates something and does not give anyone else permission to have it, then no one else should have it. The artist is the owner and creator and it is their property to do with as they please.

Then again, how many of you wait for a red light when there is no traffic?

Me. Every time.

BTW, I'm not trying to claim that I never broke a law or claim some moral highground here, for example there may be times when I may have accidentally travelled a little bit faster than the law would allow. I also enjoy watching some of the fan taped videos on Youtube etc.

I'm just standing up for the right of someone who owns something not to have it taken without their permission - i.e. stolen.

CarylB

18 Dec 2010, 13:22

I'm pretty sure the Republic Of Loafdom used to have quite a few TV performances of Meat.

And we always stayed within the rules which were approved by Meat's official international fanclub .. ie short clips which do not breach copyright; we were always scrupulous about that. The only clips which were longer were a few rare, unreleased ones done with permission .. eg Star Spangled Banner. I did not post the clips, but my understanding was that Vicki was scrupulous in staying within copyright law. That was an agreement we stuck to.

The sites which I have been involved with to support the new album have also stayed strictly within copyright law. Mark has produced some wonderful stuff, all legal.

If others have taken our clips and joined them together (as has happened in the past) that was not our doing and we asked that people should not do that. If others have managed to get hold of material purchased for ROL and used it, that is outside my control.

So ... sorry if you thought you'd "proved" something :roll: .. you haven't. Like Meat, I yam what I yam .. and I stick by what I believe. I do not condone bootleg concert recordings, nor do I believe I have the right to have recordings of every Meat performance. I take photos at concerts, (except during the time when Meat withdrew his permission). I never record at concerts; it's proscribed in law and on the tickets.

If it wasn't for bootlegs then I would never have heard the fantastic El Mocambo concert amongst other things.

There are many things I haven't heard because I don't download or buy bootlegs. There are so many, many more wonderful performances which I have heard live or legally. I do not feel the need to "collect" or tick off everything Meat has ever done. That's me, and it's my right to express that view and choice.

Caryl

Evil One

18 Dec 2010, 14:11

And we always stayed within the rules which were approved by Meat's official international fanclub .. ie short clips which do not breach copyright; we were always scrupulous about that.
But did you (or your compatriots) then delete the full clips from your hard drives, or do you still have them? If you did, then fair play. If you didn't then it's a case of I've got something you haven't, and I'm only showing you a bit of it. :twisted:

The Flying Mouse

18 Dec 2010, 14:21

And we always stayed within the rules which were approved by Meat's official international fanclub

:twisted: The problem with this (as well as the comments on this thread concerning artist who encourage illegal downloads of their material) is that is not up to the artist, or any fan club to give this permission.
Strange as it might seem, they do not have the right.
If they want to set up a site where tracks can be openly downloaded for free (as with the site created for HCTB) then all well and good, but an illegal act is an illegal act, no matter if you have the artist permission.

Think of it like this, could you murder someone at a concert and then say "no no no officer, you see, I had Meat's permission to do that, all is well my good man" :mrgreen:
The population of this forum would plummet.
Half to the morgue, half to those nice people at happy acres :nuts:

But let's be a little less extreme to try and make the victim the person giving the A OK.
Imagine a person being mugged at gunpoint.
Then the person being mugged tells the police the mugger had his permission to do what he did (hey, there are a lot of weird people out there, hell, we got them here too :bleh: ).
Does that make it legal?
No.
You are in possession of a firearm, and guilty of using that firearm in an illegal act.
You are well and trully nicked sunshine.

You've got a hard drive full of illegal downloads and bootlegs?
Sorry, but the law says you've had it laughing boy.
Illegal activity is illegal activity, no matter who told you it was OK.

ie short clips which do not breach copyright;

Again, i'm singling this out as it's the most recent post on a re-occuring theme.

It is (believe it or not) illegal to record something from TV onto video, or record a song from the radio.

That is the law.

If you do not personally hold the copyright for media, you can bet your ass that somebody does, and copying that media is breach of that copyright.
No matter what it is, or however long.

Is it a silly law?
Does it encourage people to break the law and turn good and honest people into criminals?
Is it being a spoil sport?

Maybe it is (especially as VCR's and tape players have a record function, WTF did they think people were recording all those years? :wtf: ), but it is the law.

Not too surprisingly, not everyone adheres to these laws.
If you were to lock up everybody guilty of recording a song off the radio, the prison service would have a hell of a problem :faint:
There wouldn't even be any police to arrest us.
I can see the headline now, "Police Chief Superintendant is shock arrest shame for illegal copy of Seven Tears by Goombay Dance Band taped from radio found in his car.Monster kept his secret stash safe since the 80's sources reveal".

There are people who will illegally download every movie and CD under the sun, make multiple copies and sell them for their own profit

There are people who will go through life never hitting the record button on their VCR or radio, and when you get to heaven, I hope it's as boring as you, you pious sonoffabitch :p

Most people find their own compromise based on their ethical beliefes.

More than one person on this thread has said they are happy to own bootlegs, as long as it is of something that is not commercially available.

Some people are happy to download an album, and if they like it buy a legitimate copy.

Some people just click the record button on their VCR.

No matter.As soon as you copy media belonging to another person, you are breaking the law.
Those is the facts.

CarylB

18 Dec 2010, 14:43

I hold NOTHNG illegal on my hard drive. I was instrumental in designing a site in 2000, in consultation with Meat's official international fanclub and everything we did was with Meat's permission and approval. I posted no clips, and am not going to accept being singled out as some flouter of the law to serve anyone else's purpose. We were advised that short 30 second clips as tasters were acceptable to raise interest and support Meat.

I do NOT condone bootleg recordings of concert performances, which is what I have always said. Short clips of TV promotions, again to support the artist, we were advised were fine.

Talk and examples of murdering people is as fatuous as it is irrelevant. Evil wants to try and prove I don't practice what I preach and rub my nose in it? He's out of luck. As are you. And frankly I don't give a rat's ass .. I do not record bootlegs, I do not post them. In fact I do not and have never posted ANY recordings on the internet. I don't know how to. I buy official recordings, I go to concerts, I do anything I can to support Meat. The clips we have used to support HCTB, including the LAR promotional video, were all cleared through Meat. Supporting Meat is all I care about. I do not "keep" things to crow that I have them and others don't. That has never been my style; never would be.

I do not download bootlegs or illicit recordings. My conscience is clear, my integrity intact.

Caryl

The Flying Mouse

18 Dec 2010, 15:28

and am not going to accept being singled out as some flouter of the law to serve anyone else's purpose.

Evil wants to try and prove I don't practice what I preach and rub my nose in it? He's out of luck. As are you.

:twisted: Who's trying to single you out and rub your nose in it?

I said I singled out a comment of yours as it was the latest post in what I saw as a running theme in the thread.
And as many people have said themselves that they have downloaded bootlegs and other performances, I can't see how you believe you are being singled out as a wrong doer

Talk and examples of murdering people is as fatuous as it is irrelevant.

A little OTT perhaps, but my point is that artists are not in a position to encourage fans to break the law.
I would have thought, due to the conversation, that it was highly relevant.
And in a jo-cose manner, I think I made my point.

CarylB

18 Dec 2010, 15:45

And I have made and stand by mine. I do not download bootlegs. I do not record live performances. I do not post them on the internet.

Evil One

18 Dec 2010, 16:48

I do not download bootlegs. I do not record live performances. I do not post them on the internet.
Then you'll have never heard this:VSyVziz2kIY

snider22

18 Dec 2010, 16:58

Then you'll have never heard this:VSyVziz2kIY

In all fairness to CarylB, "HEARD" is a completely different situation than "DOWNLOADED" or "RECORDED"

Chances are, 90% of the people on this site have heard that particular performance but it doesn't mean that we recorded it, or that have downloaded it, or that we are posting in other places for people to see.

Evil One

18 Dec 2010, 17:04

And my point is that if any of those 90% then go on to condemn bootlegs as the devil's work, they are being hypocritical.

snider22

18 Dec 2010, 17:22

The definition of hypocrite: "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite?show=0&t=1292689022

Just because you listen to something doesn't mean that you can't be against bootlegs. Now, if she were to download that and then turn around and put it on a site like YouTube or Daily Motion for the world to see then yes, she would then be a bootlegger and a hypocrite, but that currently isn't the case. According to the logic you used above, if I were sitting in close proximity to someone who happened to be listening to that bootleg and I then condemned the used of bootlegs, then I would be a hypocrite simply because I had "heard" that something.

Evil One

18 Dec 2010, 17:29

Sue K

18 Dec 2010, 17:32

Hi, all ! I'm sorry, but I got a bit lost and dizzy reading all of this so, apologies, I did not and have a few questions.

What does it mean to download a bootleg? How does one do that ? I don't have all the bells and whistles hooked to my computer to do anything like copying movies or music or whatever.

Where is "bootleg" located ? On YouTube ? How does it get there ?

When I think "illegal bootleg", my mind goes to someone who has gone to a theater or concert and recorded the material and put it onto cds/ dvds and sold them for profit.

Is it a bad thing if I record something and listen to it for my pleasure alone and never tell a soul about it ? Am I committing a crime ?

In past, I have used a tape recorder to record music from the tv and radio. Is that a bad thing ? What about recording LPs onto tapes for my own pleasure and convenience ? What about if I've done that and given it to someone else ? Given, not sold, making no profit ?

I appreciate aid helping me to understand the above.

Thanks !

CarylB

18 Dec 2010, 17:36

In all fairness to CarylB, "HEARD" is a completely different situation than "DOWNLOADED" or "RECORDED"

Chances are, 90% of the people on this site have heard that particular performance but it doesn't mean that we recorded it, or that have downloaded it, or that we are posting in other places for people to see.

Thanks Mark, but I don't think there's any intention amongst some here to be fair to me ;)

And actually I have NOT listened to the recording Evil has posted, so am one of the ten per cent.

I've heard Meat sing FCOL live, I have it on a legitimate recording. That's enough for me. As I have said, I do not feel the need to hear everything Meat has ever done, nor to collect it. I have a beautiful recording of FCOL, I have the memory of hearing it live. Evil can throw up as many links to bootleg recordings as he likes. I don't give a rats ass .. he is wasting his time on some UNholy crusade which is pointless, (and has frissons back to when we were launching the Single Campaign!).

Bootlegs are not my style, never have been. I don't record them, don't seek them out, don't watch them when links are posted here. It's just my way, and people wanting to prove it's not are just wasting their time. If Meat sent me that recording and asked me to listen to it .. probably I would as I believe he has moral rights to it. Failing that, I do just as I say.

When leaked fragments from HCTB were being posted on here I did not click on them. My choice is to wait until Meat is ready for me to hear a new album as he wants me to hear it. Others can do what the hell they want, but I wil not be pushed or tempted into doing the same.

I save to go to see Meat perform in concert. I acknowledge I am lucky to have seen so many shows, although I have worked all my life to make my own luck. I have not listened to any of the bootlegs from this tour. I don't need to. I can still hear wonderful performances ringing in my memory, I can still see Meat triumphant on stage. That's enough for me.

Caryl

Sue K

18 Dec 2010, 17:38

Then you'll have never heard this:VSyVziz2kIY

I haven't heard it and don't have time right now to give it a listen, but I'm sure I will when I have time.

My question now is, if this is "bootleg" (from the picture, it appears someone at a concert taped it and years later when YouTube came to the internet or when there WAS an internet ... lol ... posted it to YouTube) and "bootleg" is illegal, why is it allowed to remain on YouTube ?

Thanks !

Evil One

18 Dec 2010, 17:44

I haven't heard it and don't have time right now to give it a listen, but I'm sure I will when I have time.

My question now is, if this is "bootleg" (from the picture, it appears someone at a concert taped it and years later when YouTube came to the internet or when there WAS an internet ... lol ... posted it to YouTube) and "bootleg" is illegal, why is it allowed to remain on YouTube ?

Thanks !
Interesting questions that shows the murky grey area of Youtube! It was taken from a radio broadcast of the concert, some of which was released on a promo LP, but not this song for some bizarre reason.

Technically if you are recording stuff from the telly or radio, even for your own use, it is classed as illegal. Realistically you're only likely to get into trouble if you are caught making your own CD's from this material and then selling it for profit.

CarylB

18 Dec 2010, 17:45

You wouldn't have sought out the person you were sitting next to, in order to listen to the bootleg. Even if you came upon the recording of FCOL I posted above completely by chance, you would still have to click play, therefore it would be a conscious decision.

Just for the record I am not deliberately fingering Caryl :rly: just that she popped up in this thread with views dissimilar to mine. :twisted:

Something I'm entitled to hold. Given some of your views, something I could take pride in. And that I hold different views to you does not give you the right to repeatedly challenge me and suggest I do not do what I say. I am aware that the recording you refer to is a bootleg, and everytime I have seen a link posted to it I have made a conscious decision NOT to listen to it.

You say you are not "deliberately fingering" me (just as well, I'd have you for assault!) .. but you quote me, then give a link to a bootleg and say "Then you'll have never heard this:" Correct. I have not listened to it. I suggest you move on to try and demonstrate someone else who holds similar views to me is not telling the truth, because you won't demonstrate that I am not.

Caryl

AndyK

18 Dec 2010, 18:54

OK enough with the personal comments please.

Discuss the issues, don't drag it to personal insults or accusations any more please or it's a :lock:

Adje

18 Dec 2010, 23:26

* What proportion of people, having illegally downloaded eg a film or album, would then go and legally obtain the same or something else by the artist? My opinion is if you steal once you are more likely to steal a 2nd time. I think the majority is harmful.

First of (and this is also an answer to the very first post) -according to Dutch law (not sure about other coutries)- It's not illegal to download movies, music etc. It's illegal to UPLOAD them without permission of the artist. That may sound as a technicallity but it's an important difference because the law says that it's not upon the downloader to find out if material was offered by permission. What you are not allowed to do is make a copy of it yourself unless you own the original. But you can record from a third party.

So over here you won't get prosecuted for downloading and watching copyrighted movies/listen to music. When you offer these material to others without permission you are breaking the law. In that perspective I'm not doing anything illegal :) So there can't be a mentioning of stealing in my case.

Maybe you should all check the law in your country/state but it might be that they are equal to ours.

That also means that in the Netherlands you are allowed to tape from radio/tv and watch/listen the material in your own private surrounding. Again you're not allowed to share so you technically can't invite people when you watch this material.

Now we have sliced this topic in two, it seems. Apart from 'is it legal to record radio/tv material we also started a discussion about bootlegs. Just so you know bootlegs are not considered copyrighted material over here.
Maybe you never watch bootlegs, maybe you do or maybe you lie about it. Thing is that having/watching/listen to bootlegs doesn't make you a bigger or lesser fan of an artist.
If you feel it does the artist wrong, good for you. Don't bother with it.
If you want to enjoy as much as you can from your idol this is a great way to do so.

Take Meat Loaf. I won't be able to see the HC tour. After 2007 and 2008 it would be extremely hard for Meat Loaf to get a concert booked in the Netherlands. But more important Meat doesn't seem to want to tour outside the UK on this side of the ocean. Costs, health, busy agenda etc. they are all part of that decision which I can only accept. That means if Meat doesn't give us an official release I will never be able to see anything of the tour. Thank the mighty Lord for YouTube and the people recording in the audience. They make it possible for me to get a real impression of the concerts. And as a fan I enjoy every moment of it.

Does this make me a 'bad' fan? I don't think so. Are people who refuse to watch those clips lesser fans than I? Nope. But the bootlegs make it possible for me to get impressions of shows that I could never hear or see otherwise. And for me it's a big bonus that they exist and are out there to grab.

Julie in the rv mirror

19 Dec 2010, 00:44

:twisted: The problem with this (as well as the comments on this thread concerning artist who encourage illegal downloads of their material) is that is not up to the artist, or any fan club to give this permission.
Strange as it might seem, they do not have the right.

You are of course correct when it comes to official releases, because those recordings are indeed the property of the label. To me, it becomes different when you talk about fan recordings of live shows.

We're talking copyright law here, which is why the murder/mugging example, while I know your intent was to be dramatic, was not a good example. Laws against those types of actions were made for a completely different purpose than copyright law, which was made to protect the rights of the creator of something to profit from it.

I'm a huge Bruce Springsteen fan (shocking, I know :lol: ), and he is one of the top most bootlegged artists (with the Beatles, Dylan and the Stones being others). While he has never explicitly given permission to tape his shows (as the Grateful Dead did), he's done very little to stop it. There are websites devoted entirely to boots of his shows, which I'm sure he could shut down with just a phone call to his attorney if he wished.( I might note that links to official material are not allowed.)

Satellite radio has a channel called E Street Radio, which is officially sanctioned by the Springsteen camp. They play bootlegs. Recently, Bruce gave an interview in which he stated that he gave them permission to play anything that anybody sends them. If you want to be picky, you could argue that he never gave permission to record in the first place- that is true. The Grateful Dead did- you mean they had no right to do so? Why not- it's their performance, of their songs.

My point is, he is the performer, songwriter, and owns the publishing to these songs. He owns the copyrights. Are you saying he has no right to say what happens with these recordings? Who owns them then? Not the record company- they only own the specific recordings released by the label.

Is it still illegal? I guess so. But if the artist appears not to have a problem with it, I don't either. And I don't feel any sense of entitlement to have any recording, nor am I saying that it's the artist's "fault" because they haven't released it officially. I would be quite content to live without them- I did for many years before I knew anything about them or where to get them. On the contrary, I feel happy that fans share with each other, and thankful that the subject of our admiration "allows" us to do so.

Most people find their own compromise based on their ethical beliefes.

They do. And nowhere did I say that just because you can get away with something, that it's OK. I simply stated that people are more likely to do so. It's a matter of degree, IMO.

@tink, to answer your questions, when we say bootlegs, in most cases, we mean audience recordings of a concert. You don't need any magical software or equipment- if you can download and play songs from iTunes, you could do the same with boots if you knew where to look for them. Let me state clearly that I am not advocating or encouraging this practice- simply answering a question.

And technically, yes, if you tape an album and give a copy to a friend, that is illegal, even if you didn't sell it.

Wario

19 Dec 2010, 00:47

Im pro not spending money on unreleased music.

Evil One

19 Dec 2010, 00:52

Im pro not spending money on unreleased music.
Anyone who pays for bootlegs in this day and age is a bit :weirdo:

evil nickname

19 Dec 2010, 01:17

First of (and this is also an answer to the very first post) -according to Dutch law (not sure about other coutries)- It's not illegal to download movies, music etc. It's illegal to UPLOAD them without permission of the artist. That may sound as a technicallity but it's an important difference because the law says that it's not upon the downloader to find out if material was offered by permission. What you are not allowed to do is make a copy of it yourself unless you own the original. But you can record from a third party.

Just to clarify: in The Netherlands it is legal to make a copy of an copyrighted work of art (music, movies, books, etc.) for "personal training, study or use", regardless of the source. That last part has been reaffirmed in two separate lawsuits this year. Uploading or "making available copyrighted works without the rights holder's consent" is forbidden.

Which brings me to a related pet peeve: downloading a song from the internet without paying for it (what one might call "illegal downloading") is not "theft". You do not take some discrete instance of something, like when you take a cd from a record store without paying for it. When you download something, you make a copy of it. Calling it theft is polluting the discussion, as the word has a lot of baggage.

But going back to the 'interesting report in illegal downloads': in the last few years there have been several studies showing that there's a correlation between downloading music and money being spend on music. As in: those who download lost of music often spend more money on music too. But of course, that's not something you hear from record industry reports.

Fact of the matter is that the internet has drastically changed the music industry, and it's not going to change back to the way it was ever again. That might be bad news for the record companies and the select group of artists who made a boatload of money from lucrative record deals, but ultimately, they'll have to adapt. Record companies should stop doing what they have been doing for ages--home taping is killing music, anyone?--blaming the fans for the dire straits they're in and start to innovate. Like make their back-catalog easily available online without stupid restrictions. I believe that if people can easily get the music that they want when they want it for a reasonable price, that they are willing to pay for it. I know I am. But when something I want (say, the If I Can't Have You EP) is only available through one platform (say, iTunes) or in some part of the world where I don't happen to be, (say, the USA), well, then I have no problem obtaining that from other sources. That's one of the reasons why peer-to-peer networks are so successful: a wealth of content is easily available at a very reasonable price. ;)

Of course, some might argue that you cannot compete with free, and there are those who wonder what the value of music is when you start giving it away for free. Why then are there numerous examples of artists being successful while giving away their work for free or with pay-what-you-like pricing? Maybe it's not the Robbie Williams/Madonna/Bruce Springsteen multi-million-dollar-record-deals kind of success, but artist who make money out of record deals have always been the exceptions. For every mayor success there's a multitude of artists who never get the recognition (monetary or otherwise) they deserve.

As I said, the music business has changed, and I believe that artists will have to work a lot harder to make a living of their art. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I think it goes to the very core of being a musician: do you make music because you want to be famous and make a lot of money, or do you do it because you have to?

I think my train of though has derailed a bit. But something like that anyway.

allrevvedup

19 Dec 2010, 03:13

I refer to what Andy has said...can we stick to that please?

sexyeyes_jo

19 Dec 2010, 13:05

imo i think that illegal downloads shouldn't be aloud to me there's nothing wrong with going out and buying a cd wether its a meat loaf or bon jovi cd at least that way its legal and you can listen to anytime you want rather than listening to it on the computer i don't know perhaps im just being old fashioned for my age but thats what i would rather do myself

Sue K

19 Dec 2010, 13:15

This morning I received a Garth Brooks alert containing a link to his performance Thursday night of Friends In Low Places. It's on YouTube and was recorded by someone in the audience. It was of pretty good quality, imo. I'll be unable to attend his shows in Nashville. I watched it, enjoyed it and I've passed along the link to friends.

Should there be a dvd or cd and I have some extra cash, I'll probably purchase it. If I can get a new vcr recorder and the Nashville shows come on tv, I'll probably record them.

No questions. Just saying... lol ...

I'm bad for good... :lol: ...

Steve6

19 Dec 2010, 13:28

I'd feel sorry for the artists who lose money from people downloading music illegally, but I certainly don't feel sorry for the record companies if I was being totally honest. They have ripped people off for decades and got away with it, including the artists they sign, and we have seen this with Meat Loaf.

Sarge

19 Dec 2010, 13:39

As for illegal downloads, I don't know if they are primarily to blame for the crisis the music biz is in. I'm sure it's due to a couple of reasons why sales figures decrease. As for bootlegs: Those who claim they would never listen to any obviously don't know about the joy of discovering some rare gem and I wonder if they are really interested in the music. Not everybody is fortunate or old :twisted: enough to have seen and heard their favorite artists live when they were in their prime. Fans have always provided each other with inofficial live or rare studio recordings. They may be in circulation without the approval of the artist but they usually don't cause financial losses, they rather increase the interest in the artist, in my opinion.
Ripping new, official releases and make them available for free to everybody is another matter, that's indeed theft. If you put a lot of time, effort and money into something in order to sell that product and make a living from it, you wouldn't be pleased if someone else took posession of it and spread it without your consent.
The trouble is, it's not possible to suppress illegal file sharing entirely and some decisions of the artist / record company even prevent people from purchasing a product. "Exclusive" releases, for example. I guess most people on this forum would like to BUY Boneyard or the B-Sides to If I Can't Have You but they can't because they live in the "wrong" part of the world.

Evil One

19 Dec 2010, 13:46

If I can get a new vcr recorder
Ever thought of getting something slighty more modern? :lol:

Sue K

19 Dec 2010, 13:49

Ever thought of getting something slighty more modern? :lol:

Oh, gawd ! You and my daughter ... nag nag nag ... :roll: ... lol ...

Monstro

19 Dec 2010, 14:36

Dave

19 Dec 2010, 16:18

The United Nations determined quite some time ago that any and all activities on the Internet would be regulated by the legal discourse and precedent of the local legal standards. Any and all activity on the internet is under the legal threshold of where the server is physically located.

I too ran a very popular Meat Loaf fan site. I obtained the services of a bar certified lawyer as part of my web hosting package. I was informed that unless I had specific written permission from the copyright holder for anything I posted that I was putting myself up to legal issues.

I also had it explained to me that since the server that housed my website was physically located in Atlanta, Georgia that I was under the legal precedent of Atlanta, Georgia for any and all activities on my site. Upon the physical server moving to Denver, Colorado - my legal responsibilities changed to that locale.

As for posting multimedia, again it was explained to me that posting even a portion of anything that I did not have expressed written consent to post from the copyright holder was in violation of local copyright law in America and I could hold myself up to legal recourse. There was not an exclusive dissemination of the information that 30 second clips were "okay by Meat Loaf" to post on the Internet. Many websites were told the same thing. However; I did the research, knew that Meat Loaf was in no way legally authorized to provide permission written or otherwise, and chose to share not only 30 second clips - but also full performances in many cases.

Does this make me any less of a fan than anyone else? Certainly NOT!
Does this make me any more of a fan than anyone else? Certainly NOT!

I know the fingers will be on the report button for this post. That is okay, as I know this post is just adding my personal opinion and the facts as I know them to the current conversation.

Dave

19 Dec 2010, 16:26

Another thought on illegal downloads to ponder. There were recordings made from International Radio Broadcast in MP3 format and sent directly to me and/or my partners that worked on the Meat Loaf site I used to own. There were certain circumstances where Meat Loaf was interviewed on the radio, the archives were not made readily available, and the amazing network of fans from all around the world did what they could to digitally record these interviews for dissemination on our old website.

Here are a few questions to open up conversation further:

1 - What is the difference between posting MP3 files of interviews and performances on a personal website versus adding a cheesy graphic to them and posting a video version of them on YouTube?

2 - A lot of the files that were recorded by fans for the distribution through the fan community on my former site are now appearing as part of bulk Meat Loaf "live recording" illegal downloads. Do I have a right to be personally upset about this? Do I have any more right to report these bulk downloads than other illegal downloads?

Just some things to think about on a freezing cold Sunday morning kids.

Julie in the rv mirror

19 Dec 2010, 18:02

As for bootlegs: Those who claim they would never listen to any obviously don't know about the joy of discovering some rare gem and I wonder if they are really interested in the music. Not everybody is fortunate or old :twisted: enough to have seen and heard their favorite artists live when they were in their prime. Fans have always provided each other with inofficial live or rare studio recordings. They may be in circulation without the approval of the artist but they usually don't cause financial losses, they rather increase the interest in the artist, in my opinion.
Ripping new, official releases and make them available for free to everybody is another matter, that's indeed theft. If you put a lot of time, effort and money into something in order to sell that product and make a living from it, you wouldn't be pleased if someone else took posession of it and spread it without your consent.

Agree 100% with all of this. :yep:

I have a few bootlegs that I like better than many official albums, and in those cases, they have only increased my appreciation of the artist's work. If it weren't for those recordings, there's absolutely no way I could have heard some truly amazing performances, and for that I'm a happy camper.

The Flying Mouse

19 Dec 2010, 18:24

We're talking copyright law here, which is why the murder/mugging example, while I know your intent was to be dramatic, was not a good example. Laws against those types of actions were made for a completely different purpose than copyright law, which was made to protect the rights of the creator of something to profit from it.

:twisted: Just for the record, I was talking about illegally downloaded albums at the time, not bootlegs (or if you prefare, "fan recordings" :wink: lol).
Artists are pretty much at liberty to allow fans to record them at concerts, but an artist can't endorse criminal behaviour like illegal downloading.
That was the point I was making.

It would be nice to think that copyright laws were put in place to protect the creator, but I fear it's the record companies thyat are being protected far more than any artist or song writter.

I'm a huge Bruce Springsteen fan (shocking, I know ), and he is one of the top most bootlegged artists (with the Beatles, Dylan and the Stones being others). While he has never explicitly given permission to tape his shows (as the Grateful Dead did), he's done very little to stop it. There are websites devoted entirely to boots of his shows, which I'm sure he could shut down with just a phone call to his attorney if he wished.( I might note that links to official material are not allowed.)

It's cool he takes that attitude.
Bootlegs are a fact of life, and people who bury their head in the sand about them are ostrich-izing (see what I did there? :mrgreen: ) themselves from reality.
It's how you deal with them that counts.
The coolest way i've heard of dealing with illegal bootlegs was by Roy Orbisons estate.
They basically obtained the rights to the four best bootlegs, cleaned them up a little, and sold them as an authorised bootlegs box set.
So all the fans were able to go out and buy these bootlegs and enjoy them with a crystal clear concience.

I'd love to see Meat do something like that 8)

The Grateful Dead did- you mean they had no right to do so? Why not- it's their performance, of their songs.

Again, the comparison I was making at that time was against copying and downloading albums.
Artists are well within their rights to allow fans to record them, they are not able to give permission to download or in any other way copy media that is copyright protected.

They do. And nowhere did I say that just because you can get away with something, that it's OK. I simply stated that people are more likely to do so. It's a matter of degree, IMO.

Exactly :up:

Evil One

19 Dec 2010, 18:55

The coolest way i've heard of dealing with illegal bootlegs was by Roy Orbisons estate.
They basically obtained the rights to the four best bootlegs, cleaned them up a little, and sold them as an authorised bootlegs box set.
So all the fans were able to go out and buy these bootlegs and enjoy them with a crystal clear concience.

I'd love to see Meat do something like that
The frustrating thing is they wouldn't even need to do that. Meat and/or one of his record labels probably has more stuff stashed in their vaults than you could shake a stick at. If you had a stick and felt the desire to do a bit of shaking. :bleh:

The Flying Mouse

19 Dec 2010, 19:05

:twisted: I dare say you're right, but "proably" is a bit of a loose term.

There are a number of reasons that the stuff isn't released.

Perhaps the quality isn't good enough.

The material has been damaged over the years.

The material has been lost over the years.

Conflicting copyright issues.

Not enough of one particular thing to make a product from (if you catch my meaning).

No confidence that the product would sell well.

Nobody knows/remembers the stuff exists.This I suspect especially with record companies, who I picture to have vast warehouses full of stuff that will go unopened and undiscovered until the end of time.Think of the end scene in Raiders Of The Lost Arc, only injstead of the arc, the crate has a Meat Loaf DVD in it :wink:

I imagine there are reasons that I haven't listed here, but it is still frustrating all the same.

Julie in the rv mirror

19 Dec 2010, 19:23

Bootlegs are a fact of life, and people who bury their head in the sand about them are ostrich-izing (see what I did there? :mrgreen: ) themselves from reality.

Oy. :lol:

It's how you deal with them that counts.
The coolest way i've heard of dealing with illegal bootlegs was by Roy Orbisons estate.
They basically obtained the rights to the four best bootlegs, cleaned them up a little, and sold them as an authorised bootlegs box set.

Frank Zappa did something similar, but one better, IMO. He hated bootleggers, although that didn't stop them. Anyway, he simply took their releases and copied them- sound issues, their artwork- everything, and released them as a series called "Beat the Boots". The beauty part was, the bootleggers couldn't say one word about it. :lol:

Evil One

19 Dec 2010, 19:28

Conflicting copyright issues.

No confidence that the product would sell well.

Nobody knows/remembers the stuff exists.This I suspect especially with record companies, who I picture to have vast warehouses full of stuff that will go unopened and undiscovered until the end of time.Think of the end scene in Raiders Of The Lost Arc, only injstead of the arc, the crate has a Meat Loaf DVD in it
I suspect these three are the most likely. Remember that Sony were all set to release a show (probably the Nassau Coliseum one :bleh:) and then changed their mind. :roll:

carole

19 Dec 2010, 21:50

Oh, gawd ! You and my daughter ... nag nag nag ... :roll: ... lol ...

Not sure of the situation in the US but would assume it's similar to here. When my video recorder packed it in last year, I asked a couple of places about getting it fixed, and they said it wasn't worthwhile and would be cheaper to get a new one, but that video recorders were becoming obsolete and were being phased out due to the digitalisation of TV. And on looking around at various shops here could not find many stocking video recorders so had no choice but to buy a DVD recorder.

Carrole

Paul Richardson

19 Dec 2010, 23:08

Sue K

19 Dec 2010, 23:40

Not sure of the situation in the US but would assume it's similar to here. When my video recorder packed it in last year, I asked a couple of places about getting it fixed, and they said it wasn't worthwhile and would be cheaper to get a new one, but that video recorders were becoming obsolete and were being phased out due to the digitalisation of TV. And on looking around at various shops here could not find many stocking video recorders so had no choice but to buy a DVD recorder.

Carrole

Yes and my problem, too, with the need to get a vcr player/ record is I have piles and piles and piles AND piles of vcr tapes containing shows I copied from tv I enjoy watching and now can't ... :( ... lol ... My mother-in-law has a vcr player she's not using. Maybe she can give it to Santa who can give it to meee ... lol ...

AndyK

19 Dec 2010, 23:42

A reminder to all.

If you have an issue wuth posts on this thread (or the forum in general) use the Report Post button to the left of the post in question and let the mods deal with it.

If the mods issue a warning or a request in a thread. Please, use some common sense and do not continue in contravention of that warning or request.

AndyK

20 Dec 2010, 10:46

I've cleaned this thread as it had strayed off topic in a number of posts. Please keep to the original interesting discussion without resorting to calling other people's actions into question.

VCR / DVR / HDR talk moved here (http://www.mlukfc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16338)