Conference marvin::uk_music

I think `bootleg' implies that the recording is made by individuals other than
the artists or agents of the artists... thus revenue accrued goes to said
individuals rather than the group who recorded the actual material.

Bootlegs on CDs are not uncommon, places such as Porky Primecuts offer very
reasonable prices for batches of CDs for example... a bootlegger, if he has
enough capital and stands to gain enough could quite easily find a method of
pressing such bootleg material onto CD.

								- JIM CAD*

    Sometimes it is possible for magazines to blatently miss adverts like
    the one you saw. Usually the disclaimer is just there to cover
    themselves. The same is usually done for 'personal services'.
    
    Another possibility is that the record company have decided that they
    will release an official album like yours where the royalties do go to
    the artist. Successful bootlegs usually persuade record companies to do
    this. Take for example the Syd Barrett release OPEL. Much of the
    material was only available on bootlegs before the album came out.
    
    Just a few thoughts,
    
    Rupert   (8* )

	A bit on definitions...

	"It is important to distinguish between the different forms of music
	piracy.  

	A "bootleg" is defined as an illegally manufactured disc or tape that 
	includes previously unreleased live or studio recordings.  -yes, no
	royalties go to the artists...

	A "pirate" is considered a copy of a commercially available recording
	that has been repackaged in its own unique packaging. A "counterfeit", 
	finally, is a copy of a commercially available recording that 
	duplicates all aspects of the original official copy, including the 
	packaging.  

	These distinctions are important because the perpetrators of each 
	different level approach the project with a different intention.  
	Pirates and counterfeits are usually made  by professionals with the 
	sole intent of high profits. Most bootlegs are manufactured by fans.  
	Even the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA, the body 
	that actually takes bootleggers to court) admits that bootlegging is 
	small potatoes compared to millions of dollars in losses record 
	companies face from pirates and counterfeits.  Usually the RIAA does 	
	not distinguish  between the various forms of bootlegging when they
	report on raids or actions they have taken, so when you read about
	100,000 records being seized they usually aren't talking about
	copies of your favorite bootleg which depending on the actual date 
	of the live performance has probably been re-issued n-times
	making it a bootleg of a bootleg itself and loosing sound quality 
	each time unless of course original plates are used."

	Trade Mark of 'Equality Years! 

	It's quite common to see promo material, you know the stuff that
	states on it "not for RESALE..." in stores or ads for sale.  

	Record collector rags that state they don't accept adverts
	for bootlegs are simply covering themselves..the ads are usually quite
	discrete, you won't see a BOOTLEG SALE ad.

	- Jim

    The reason record companies lose more from counterfeiters and
    re-packagers etc. as oppossed to bootlegers is that the
    counterfeiters/re-packagers etc and in direct competition with the
    record company. If the record company has not released an album already
    covered by a bootleg then it is not losing any immediate revenue, and
    the likelihood is that if the record company released a good master
    version of the bootleg many would go out to buy the master copy for
    greater sound quality/packaging etc.
    
    Rupert  (8* )

	Reminds me of something Bob Dylan once said following the official
	release of one of his very popular bootlegs...

		'I thought everyone already had that one on bootleg'.  

	You're right though, hence the push for more of the beat the bootleger 
	type releases, Frank Zappa's, soon to be Nirvana's outakes and demos
	release, etc.  Bootleggers time to 'market' still surpasses these 
	considerably.  I've seen ads. and actual product literally days after 
	some shows and not all recordings are horrible.

	- Jim

    I think record companies are just too greedy and do not always take
    into account the fans OR the artist.
    
    Rupert.

    I know several people who make enough to live on dealing in bootlegs,
    (the illegitimate recording of a band live-type)
    
    One of them is a "taper", a guy who goes to shows and tapes them, he
    either plugs right into the soundboard, as he cuts the engineer in on
    some of his profit. He turns around and sells copies of his "master"
    tape to various people who reproduce the recording in large or small
    quantities. (This is how different bootlegs of the same show appear
    from different sources) He also sells copies to stores that sell them
    outright or on consignment.
    
    The other guy I know employs about a half a dozen kids who he pays to
    go to all the shows they can and tape as much stuff as they can with-
    out getting caught. He then copies these tapes on his home stereo and
    sells them on the street. He occasionally will have videos as well.
    
    I'm not sure of my position on how the bands are losing out on this
    kind of stuff... ...but I have bought some phenomenal-sounding live
    recordings from these kind of people that I wouldn't have ever gotten
    any other way.
    
    I remember reading about Kurt Cobain of Nirvana, going up to people
    selling bootlegs of Nirvana shows on the street, taking the tapes, and
    giving them to kids on the street who wanted them...
    
    Just my thoughts,
    
    Bill.