 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaws 4 was a Promo, not a B**T
In case you weren't informed, talk of Bootlegs in any way on this forum is a no, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 14, 2013 - 7:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
"bootleg" should refer to something made with the purpose of making money without the approval of the owner of the music, but you could also have movie rips, vinyl rips, promos, unreleased tapes, which are not, in my opinion, bootlegs if they are not sold.
That is not the definition of "bootleg," nor is it especially relevant if the thing you own that is stolen is done so to profit the thief of merely for fun. Many people seem to believe that stealing is not stealing if profit is not the motive. This is nonsense, and the reason the legal warnings on DVDs and such include mention that copying and distribution is illegal regardless of monetary gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 14, 2013 - 7:50 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
slint
(Member)
|
"bootleg" should refer to something made with the purpose of making money without the approval of the owner of the music, but you could also have movie rips, vinyl rips, promos, unreleased tapes, which are not, in my opinion, bootlegs if they are not sold.
That is not the definition of "bootleg," nor is it especially relevant if the thing you own that is stolen is done so to profit the thief of merely for fun. Many people seem to believe that stealing is not stealing if profit is not the motive. This is nonsense, and the reason the legal warnings on DVDs and such include mention that copying and distribution is illegal regardless of monetary gain.
Certainly, there are cases where unreleased material can be legally circulated, hence I certainly would not call that a bootleg. There are other cases where, as you say, a vinyl or DVD transfer is illegal, but I'm not sure I would call that a bootleg, especially if that's my own transfer. Perhaps most people do, I don't know. I'm not thinking only of film music here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avast there!
No seriously I hate pirates and bootleggers. Long John is not getting any of my silver!
Tapes of Barnaby Jones exist? Would buy instantly if anyone would legitimately produce it.
What about the rest of the Quinn Martin shows? Cannon, Streets of San Franscisco et al.
If I could get hold of a Cannon I could scupper a few pirates!
CC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 14, 2013 - 7:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mstrox
(Member)
|
Certainly, there are cases where unreleased material can be legally circulated, hence I certainly would not call that a bootleg. There are other cases where, as you say, a vinyl or DVD transfer is illegal, but I'm not sure I would call that a bootleg, especially if that's my own transfer. Perhaps most people do, I don't know. I'm not thinking only of film music here.
The definition of bootleg is anything "made, distributed, or sold illegally." Hence, since you made it illegally, it is a bootleg.
I would assume that proper permissions have been obtained for awards promos, but I've always wondered about composer promos - they always seem to be fair game around here as far as owning/discussing, but are all of the rights usually obtained by the composer before they mail them out? Does it not matter because the artist's people burnt the CD? I have no experience with these so I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moolik, what part of the community forum rules did you not understand?:
4) No Bootlegs. "Bootlegs" is an umbrella term for pirate CDs, unauthorized albums, illegal music file sharing, etc.
We have a TOTAL blackout on discussion of these “unmentionables”;
we have found that even posts that warn people against them only serve to publicize them. Why is this our policy? For one, we’re ethical fellows. Stealing is wrong. For another, more practical reason, bootleg CDs are typically of poor quality and only damage the ability of legitimate labels to put out official, superior versions. Given that we’re one of the labels, it is maddening to compete against crooks peddling stolen goods. Also...the people at the studios who license us the music have the Internet too and may even read this board, and they would not be happy to see posts about stolen versions of their property. See where that is going? Stealing is wrong, AND bad for business—ours. Recently we’ve been asked about whether it’s OK to link to youtube clips given the abundance of copyright violations there; the answer is yes but please use your judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 14, 2013 - 8:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
It's a slippery slope, to be sure. But I think there may be other unique factors that muddy the moral waters even further, and I want to use the world of pop music to make my point:
Take David Bowie, for example. His fan base is vast. Your typical Bowie nut has all of his commercially available recordings. Any additional recordings of his they may own are those which no company has officially released. With a few exceptions, these would be primarily concert recordings. If no company has, as of yet, released them, then no company is losing any money, nor is Bowie himself. In these cases, both Bowie and whatever company he is currently signed to can rest quite assured that if they choose to issue the recordings in question, the Bowie fan would snatch them up in a cold second. To put it another way, any money to be had by Bowie or said companies has already been had.
Now, if we are talking about illegal copies of pre-existing issued recordings... that seems to be a very different thing. Bowie recorded them, a company issued them, they are both supposed to get that money when we buy them.
Perhaps it would be much the same with OST collectors (we can be just as rabidly enthusiastic about our films and their scorers as pop fanatics are about pop music). If one chooses to buy an illegal recording, in one sense it can be considered only a stop-gap until some company issues an authorized edition of that recording. The illegal issue goes bye-bye. I have never heard of any instance where the sound quality or presentation of an illegal release trumped a legal release... so the way I see it, there would simply be no reason to keep it once "the real thing" comes along.
Well, I suppose this is all academic if this thread itself goes bye-bye!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
