Elizabeth Platt ([email protected])
Thu, 3 Dec 1998 15:42:01 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 05 Nov 1998, "* FarawaySoClose *" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Francesco wrote:
> >Why they fuck the should care for some bootleg sellers?
>
> Why would U2 care about bootleggers?? Hmmm lets see.... 1) It's
> illegal. 2) It robs them of their rights as artists to distribute their
> work as they see fit. 3) Its a breach of copyright. 4)As a more
> enlightened band, U2 actually care about their fans and dont like to
> hear about people selling their work for exorbitant amounts of money, or
> exploiting their fans to make profit. 5) (Ooooh and this is the
> killer.....) *gasp* It robs them of monies they have EVERY RIGHT to
> earn.
In order:
(1) True, but (at risk of reviving that danged druggy thread), I don't
think U2 have completely shunned everything on the wrong side of the law
(er, they jaywalk regularly...that's it!) (2) Sorry to say, but the
recording industry can be as guilty of this as any bootleggers...
Obviously, U2 have more "clout" in what is done to market and promote
their records, but even then, they don't have total control over how
everything they've done is handled (remember Edge's comments about having
his stubble airbrushed out of the "Rattle & Hum" posters?) (3) Yep.
(4) Also "yep", but they've _also_ stated that they don't mind their
_fans_ taping shows, and trading, etc. Which begins to undermine some of
the stuff you cite above--technically, fan-taping/trading is still
illegal, and still a copyright violation. Yes, I'm aware that Francesco
is gouging fans with his CDs, but you're lumping even the most
"not-for-profit" fan-taper in with him...
And: (5) This depends on how much an artist is legally entitled to make
from live performances (or re-broadcasts of live performances) of their
work. Any music biz accountants out there? Also, as an added twist,
whenever any of us purchase a blank tape/CD-R or the equipment to record
music, we pay a fee that is structured into the price of the
hardware/software, which goes to compensate the artists and their
publishers/labels for reproduction of music. Unless I hear otherwise, I
can only assume this covers live performances of music as well? Also,
the music industry has become increasingly "horizontal" in structure over
the past decade or so, where huge companies like Sony have a stake in
every aspect of the biz: blank media, record labels, publishing,
hardware. You can (theoretically) buy a blank Sony tape to record on a
Sony Pro-Walkman with a Sony mic at a concert by a Sony-owned artist--and
guess who gets a chunk of the action at every step of the way? And don't
forget to buy a t-shirt from Sony's merchandising arm on the way out!
> >I mean if they'd only want they could stop all the bootlegs market.
>
> Oh you mean they aren't just a rock and roll band they are actually
> God's? Nothing short of Godhood would enable anyone (I dont care how
> rich, famous, talented etc etc etc) to put a stop to bootlegging.
Actually, U2's record label/publishers haven't exactly been wimpy (never
mind tactful) when it comes to pursuing bootleggers, even when it's
obviously just a fan with a kitchen-table hobby...But you're correct,
bootlegging (and piracy) is too big a job for any single band (and even
their label) to bust up. Of course, it's all like the "war on drugs", and
about as successful, too--it would seem that a sort of "harm reduction"
approach to bootlegging would do more to undermine that industry than the
"just-say-no" approach favored by the music biz. After all, the same
companies that tried to kill off cassette tapes, then DAT technology, with
the slogan "home taping is killing music!" quickly changed their tune (no
pun intended) when they got a stake in the hardware/software, and were
able to negotiate the fees/royalties mentioned above. Never say never!
> >Did you know that Metallica during their concerts allowed
> >fans to stay in a special area to record and film their concerts?
> >Think if u2 would allow this!!!!!
>
> Yes lets think about that shall we.....Im not a laywer or anything but
> by doing that (I think) U2 would effectivly be legally waving any
> copyright on any song performed under that kind of environment. Not to
> mention screwing with the distribution rights blah blah blah.
Actually, I have to differ with you on this--and again, I don't know that
"distribution rights" are anything that matter to artists; sounds like
something that the label deals with. Also, I doubt that allowing some
sort of fan-taping (or videotaping, or, for that matter, allowing use of
still cameras) would do any damage to a band's copyright protection.
Case in point: Yes, Metallica and the Grateful Dead both allow(ed) for
fans to tape concerts (I'm not sure if the Dead allowed for videocameras,
however), as do other bands--anyone have a definitive list? Interestingly
enough, both Metallica and the Dead rate(d) as box-office champs with
their live shows, and their record sales have always been consistently
good, despite their not always being radio/video fodder. I don't know how
Metallica structures their taping allowance, but the Dead actually issued
permits for tapers though their fan club (and, contrary to what Paul
McGuinness once said in an interview, the Dead did _not_ charge anything
for these permits, and this was confirmed to me by a spokesperson in the
Dead's office a few years back).
The question needs to be asked: Does fan-taping _really_ harm a band's
career and income? A strong case could be made that it doesn't. But by
suppressing this home-grown, fan-based "industry", the music biz actually
encourage the most harmful (and annoying) sort of bootlegging to flourish.
> If U2 decide that they dont care about that (and get permission from
> Polygram) and set aside an area for bootleggers....would they have it
> near the stage?
Actually, the best place to tape is the so-called "sweet spot" right in
front of the soundboard! At Dead shows, though, they eventually had to
ban the tapers from clustering in the "sweet spot", since there were so
many of them--often using extended/boom mics, etc.--that the sound
engineer couldn't see the band on stage! :) Taper areas to either side
of the soundboard were set up...But most tapers don't like areas too close
to the stage.
>If so would they be charging a higher (considering the
> fact that these people would most likely be selling their recordings a
> MUCH higher price) ticket price for that section?
Why should they have to charge a higher price? (As if ticket prices
aren't high enough already...check out what the Stones are getting these
days). Also, it's wrong to assume that anyone who tapes would be out to
manufacture recordings for commercial purposes--if the Dead/Metallica
experiments have shown anything, it's that most if not all of the tapers
are fans, who trade or only engage in small-time "cottage industry"
dealings with other fans. And since they're able to acquire live shows
from other fans, for free or for a nominal price, the market for
high-priced bootlegs by the bands has been seriously undermined. Also,
don't forget that _banning_ fan-taping doesn't prevent the "pros" from
getting recordings of live shows. In fact, they often manage to get their
tapes from _crew_ members. It seems that the fans are being punished, and
assumed guilty until proven innocent, for the unprofessional conduct of
others...
> Would it be fair to
> the people who line up for days to get front row U2 tickets and have
> them BEHIND a bunch of people who only want to exploit the concert they
> are attending?
Again, who says that fan-tapers are out to "exploit" the concert? You're
implying guilt in advance here...I have friends who are serious fans, who
do indeed tape shows, and trade with others. Far from being some evil
hucksters who are out to screw U2 and their fans, they're part of the
whole "community", and actually are the sort of consumers that the record
companies _need_ to make a go of things. These are fans who buy the
records, the tickets, the concert merchandise, etc., and don't need
massive (and expensive) hype and airplay to be goaded into opening their
wallets... :) If the music biz were willing to stop demonizing the
tapers, and survey them to find out how the tapers really think and act,
they might be surprised to find that the "tape heads" are the best friends
the biz ever had...
And by the way: As I said, the front row is not the place most tapers
want to be. It is, however, where fans with _cameras_ want to be--and
that's another issue that should be addressed in the future... >:|
> At least in Australia, Metallica played much smaller venus than
> U2...it might be practicle for Metallica to do something liek that but
> it'd be a nightmaare for U2.
Metallica have played some pretty big venues here in the US, as big as any
filled by U2, and haven't suffered for it. In fact, Metallica's audience
tends to be so...*lively* <cough cough>, it takes a brave fan to bring a
DAT machine into that environment! =:| (At Oakland, they shredded the
turf on the field, and pelted each other with it...) There's no practical
reason why a band like U2, who have always professed such an affinity with
their audience, couldn't take steps to accommodate fans who want to tape
(or use a video or still camera) at live shows. They've had experience
with selling tickets through Propaganda, and it shouldn't be all that much
more difficult to allow fans to get "equipment passes" for concerts, as
the Dead did for years. I'm sure if someone at Principle were to ring the
Dead's office up in Marin County, they'd be happy to explain how it was
done. (And yes, the Dead did offer tickets by mail for years--they could
sell out entire shows by mail order!)
> >Certainly Mr Paul Mc Guinness would get a fucking heartache all the
> >way around! Think about all the nightmares of these bootleg tapes
> >going bloody around him! Poor man....
>
> Heaven forbit a BUSINESSMAN get a tad upset over illegal dealings that
> cost him and his clients money. Sheesh.
That's a managers job! :) On the other hand, an ideal rock 'n' roll
manager has a more important job: Protecting his clients from being
exploited by the "legitimate" side of the business! Exploitation and
mis-handling of artists by record companies and sleazy managers have
ruined more careers and cost artists more money than has been lost to the
bootleggers...never mind the fans who tape and trade shows because they
love a band and their music.
Slan,
Elizabeth Platt
[email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Thu Dec 03 1998 - 15:43:58 PST