»

[ragudave]

Is this a real crime ? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3878289.stm

To be fair this bootlegger appears to have only sold recordings of gigs / demos / out-takes etc, which are not available to the public anyway*.

Do people who buy bootlegs such as these stop buying offical albums ? I have my doubts as most buyers will be obsessive fans who buy all an artists material.

Dave

* well okay sometimes demos get released but normally just when an album gets re-released

[Toasty]

I buy alot of bootlegs of bands i listen just to hear them live or to hear what demos they have made and to get general rarities of bands ... i feel that it only becomes a crime , when the band themselves discourage bootleging.

[Stephen]

"the lose to the musicindustry issaid to be uncalcuable"

well i cant imagine it being that bad to be honest. its mostly live cds recorded at gigs which wouldnt be sold anyhoo

[craig deadenstereo]

I don't think of it as a crime.

I somehow think of a bootleg as not being a "real release" - if it sounds shit then it's not the band's fault - maybe they weren't doing a 100% performance or maybe the sound quality is poor as it's some guy in the audience with a camcorder.

If it's something the band hasn't chosen to release I think of it as just an "extra", and wouldn't say a band are shit off the back of it

Can't really seem to find the words to explain here...

[delboy]

i think the sentence is pretty harsh, trying to clamp down on bootlegging is a never ending game (like trying to stop drug trafficing or alcohol/tobacco smuggling) people are always gonna do it. i could think of better ways to spend public money than targeting a bootlegger. i've bought bootlegs in me time and its not stopped me from buying the artists product. jesus christ at the end of the day its merely selling records that fans want.

on the other hand from the artists point of view, it must be frustrating seeing stuff released that is unofficial due to inferior quality of product and the fact they'd be getting no royalties, though in this case the guy targeted mega rich artists like macca, oasis, the strolling bones and madonna who hardly need the royalties! but there is wads of cash to be made in bootlegging, i knew a guy who made 6 grand a year (tax free of course) by selling elvis bootlegs in his spare time!

Everybody knows that anyone who is going to buy a bootleg will already have bought all the official stuff.

If bands don't like it they could release every show as an official live album, like Pearl Jam.

I think Led Zeppelin used to offer live feeds off the sound board (or so I read somewhere).

[Pete]

Bootleging isn't illegal - pirating is. Two completely different things.

Sorry, I think bootlegging is illegal as well. The artists/songwriters don't get royalities so it's bound to breach all sorts of copyright laws.

This site agrees:

http://www.u2news.de/flom/legality.htm

(Google to the rescue again!)

In the eyes of the law, it is a crime. But then so is illegal downloading, and I'll wager at least 85% of the members on this website have no objection to doing that.

I love bootlegging, it's only when people actually sell boots rather than trade them that I have objections. You're sharing the work of an artist you like, without financially gaining.

[delboy]

i'm so old i have vinyl records that have a big pirate sign with the slogan 'home taping is killing music' underneath it. so this has been an ongoing thing for a long time now. Pearl Jam made an admirable stand against the bootleggers but why anyone would want to own 50 odd Pearl Jam live album (much as i like them!) is beyond me though i think they were trying to make a point.

apparently McCartney was ready to stand up in court if the guy pleaded not guilty, at the end of the day i suppose he was breaking the law and was caught even if there are much more sinister and dangerous criminals out there.