Bootleg/Filming Shows Discussion - Page 5

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/10/19 at 12:45pm

magictodo123 said: "Why do you think it's not stealing? You are illegally taking someones work."

No, it's not. Theft/stealing have very specific legal definitions. Recording a copyrighted show is not theft, no matter what you think.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/10/19 at 2:24pm

Fosse76 said: "magictodo123 said: "Why do you think it's not stealing? You are illegally taking someones work."

No, it's not. Theft/stealing have very specific legaldefinitions. Recording a copyrighted show is not theft, no matter what you think."

Then what is it? You’re literally taking something that doesn’t belong to you-isn’t that what stealing is? 
 

“Stealing: “take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.” 
 

^ is that not what you’re doing when you bootleg a show? You’re taking the property of the artists, everyone who worked on the show. 

[morosco]

Posted: 10/11/19 at 10:10am

For those passionately against bootlegs... do you ever under any circumstances watch them? What determines if you watch one or not?

If a suddenly found complete bootleg recording of a legendary show was discovered and posted online would you watch it?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/11/19 at 10:46am

morosco said: "For those passionately against bootlegs... do you ever under any circumstances watch them? What determines if you watch oneor not?

If a suddenly found complete bootleg recording of a legendary show was discovered and posted online would you watch it?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass."

Unless you count that recording of Legally Blonde as a bootleg-which I don’t believe it is because it was legally filmed and shown on MTV-no, I don’t actively seek out bootlegs. To me, legendary shows are already made into movies that are available for anyone to watch I.e. My Fair Lady, Fiddler On The Roof (my personal favorite, I love Topol as Tevye), The Sound of Music. I was raised on these. And I have absolutely no desire to see some grainy, poorly filmed recording of a revival when I appreciate the movies. I guess for other people it depends on the show and the time period. However, I’m taking voice lessons and sometimes when I look for a backing track, bootlegs do come up. Usually the people I want to see have performed songs in person at events and they have been legally recorded- Alison Luff performed She Used To Be Mine on Broadway.com? I think? And that’s what inspired me to see her. Not a bootleg. 

[bryan2]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 7:31am

Didn't Streisand use a "bootlegged" copy of her in Funny GIrl on her greatest hit album..

I have no problem with bootlegs and most here that do are on youtube watching them ...

 

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/23/19 at 8:23am

bryan2 said: "Didn't Streisand use a "bootlegged" copy of her in Funny GIrl on her greatest hit album..

I have no problem with bootlegs and most here that do are on youtube watching them ...

"

Why would you assume that people are watcbing them? Not everyone has this need to watch a show whenever they want if they can't afford it. Never assume anything like that. They may pop up when I'm looking for vocal backing tracks for my voice lesson but do I watch? No. if it's a show from a while ago? Maybe. But I'm not actively searching the depths of YouTube for a bootleg of a currently running show. Do people just not care about respecting actors anymore? That it's against the law and enforced multiple times throughout the show that recording is illegal? Is you watching a bootleg more important than respecting the actors? Are you more important? AND also, just because an actor uses something in their work, that does NOT give universal approval on bootlegs. That's not an angle for this discussion. 

[LRey95]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 8:47am

magictodo123 said: "bryan2 said: "Didn't Streisand use a "bootlegged" copy of her in Funny GIrl on her greatest hit album..

I have no problem with bootlegs and most here that do are on youtube watching them ...

"

Why would you assume that people are watcbing them? Not everyone has this need to watch a show whenever they want if they can't afford it. Never assume anything like that. They may pop up when I'm looking for vocal backing tracks for my voice lesson but do I watch? No. if it's a show from a while ago? Maybe. But I'm not actively searching the depths of YouTube for a bootleg of a currently running show. Do people just not care about respecting actors anymore? That it's against the law and enforced multiple times throughout the show that recording is illegal? Is you watching a bootleg more important than respecting the actors? Are you more important? AND also, just because an actor uses something in their work, that does NOT give universal approval on bootlegs. That's not an angle for this discussion."

It’s hard to take the “respecting actors” thing seriously these days since many (not all) seem very much into bootleg culture themselves, mainly younger actors. A bunch of the Once on this Island cast routinely posted bootleg videos on Instagram - namely Loren Lott, Alex Newell, Hailey Kilgore, and Tyler Hardwick. In Mean Girls, Ashley Park and Kate Rockwell posted an Instagram video story asking fans for video of some onstage mishap or joke, basically saying “We don’t condone bootlegs at all... BUT if you were recording during ‘Stars’ tonight please send it to us!” Daryl Tofa had also posted a short video of his Kevin G debut (from the wings) which seemed to have been removed the next day. Ashley Park also posted The King and I footage that she asked a swing to record for her, albeit in memory of Marin. I also recall seeing Kimberly Truong posting a video or photo of herself on stage as the first Vietnamese Ellen (understudy) in Miss Saigon. 

And these are just shows that I avidly follow. 

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 9:36am

LRey95 said: "magictodo123 said: "bryan2 said: "Didn't Streisand use a "bootlegged" copy of her in Funny GIrl on her greatest hit album..

I have no problem with bootlegs and most here that do are on youtube watching them ...

"

Why would you assume that people are watcbing them? Not everyone has this need to watch a show whenever they want if they can't afford it. Never assume anything like that. They may pop up when I'm looking for vocal backing tracks for my voice lesson but do I watch? No. if it's a show from a while ago? Maybe. But I'm not actively searching the depths of YouTube for a bootleg of a currently running show. Do people just not care about respecting actors anymore? That it's against the law and enforced multiple times throughout the show that recording is illegal? Is you watching a bootleg more important than respecting the actors? Are you more important? AND also, just because an actor uses something in their work, that does NOT give universal approval on bootlegs. That's not an angle for this discussion."

It’s hard to take the “respecting actors” thing seriously these days since many (not all) seem very much into bootleg culture themselves, mainly younger actors.A bunch of the Once on this Island cast routinely posted bootleg videoson Instagram - namely Loren Lott, Alex Newell,Hailey Kilgore, and Tyler Hardwick. In Mean Girls,Ashley Park and Kate Rockwell posted an Instagram video story asking fans for video of some onstage mishap or joke,basically saying “We don’t condone bootlegs at all... BUT if you were recording during ‘Stars’ tonight please send it to us!” Daryl Tofa had also posted a short videoof his Kevin G debut (from the wings)which seemedto have been removed the next day. Ashley Park also posted The King and I footage that she asked a swing to record for her, albeit in memory of Marin. I also recall seeing Kimberly Truong posting a video or photo of herself on stage as the first Vietnamese Ellen (understudy) in Miss Saigon.

And these are just shows that I avidly follow."

I understand what you're saying, but the general rule of theater, no matter what an actor may say, is that you are not allowed to film shows. No exceptions. It doesn't matter if an actor asks for something or posts something themselves. I'm guessing they got permission from someone higher up to do so. Audience members do not have that. You're straight up never allowed to record a show. That's the bottom line. And yes, you're basically saying, my recording the show and potentially distracting the actors is more important than living in the moment and watching the show live, the way it was meant to  be seen. Just look at how many tweets there are every week regarding people filming shows, verses how many actors ask for a recording. That number is miniscule, and I personally rarely see that. 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 9:57am

magictodo123 said: "Fosse76 said: "magictodo123 said: "Why do you think it's not stealing? You are illegally taking someones work."

No, it's not. Theft/stealing have very specific legaldefinitions. Recording a copyrighted show is not theft, no matter what you think."

Then what is it? You’re literally taking something that doesn’t belong to you-isn’t that what stealing is?


“Stealing: “take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.”


^ is that not what you’re doing when you bootleg a show? You’re taking the property of the artists, everyone who worked on the show."

Stealing is a physical act. Bootlegging is copyright infringement. Two totally separate legal acts. If you want to continue to be ignorant that's your choice,  but the law makes a differentiation. 

[bryan2]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 10:44am

really.. " I stumbled across it on youtube while i was researching" lol... and you lecture about not watching them and state that I may watch it...such hypocrisy….1/2 of the videos that are on are from the cast members...Josh Lemon from the Prom posted many last show videos...is he stealing????  and don't give me "he may have got permission"  please ...he did it for his fans ..Bless him!!

While I may not think it is the coolest thing to do , I will watch them and admire the performaces 

that I wasn't fortunate enough to see..and admit I did search them out. Do you really think the actors get anything from the profit that the producers make...they get a salary that's it ...if I hurting an actors pocket then I may think otherwise but we all know that it doesn't...

 

[Justin D]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 10:45am

well I love a good ole youtube bootleg, when you live in the middle of nowhere like I do, shows come and co with out ever getting the chance to see them live, yea i would rather see them live, but its not always possible.

I wouldn't film one myself, but i'm sure guilty of watching many.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 12:29pm

bryan2 said: "really.. " I stumbled across it on youtube while i was researching" lol... and you lecture about not watching them and state that I may watch it...such hypocrisy….1/2 of the videos that are on are from the cast members...Josh Lemon from the Prom posted many last show videos...is he stealing???? and don't give me "he may have got permission" please ...he did it for his fans ..Bless him!!

If I know that an understudy or something performs at an event like, say, Broadway Under The Stars, and then I continue to look up their PROFESSIONAL performances of songs from shows, then yes, eventually I stumble across bootlegs., Do I watch them? Honestly? I'd be lying if I said I hadn't watched one. But that's of CLOSED shows. It doesn't matter who says it's okay or shares them--watching a bootleg of a closed show? Fine. Recording a show? Please, please don't. It IS disrespectful to the actors. They SEE you. You're not invisible. Are you more important than making sure the actos do their best work? 

Bootlegs are such a taboo subject-well, filming a show is. Just because you live far away, that is absolutely not a reason to say recording shows is okay. Check out the twitter of Mariah Rose Faith who is playing Regina George on the Mean Girls tour. Think about how Lin-Manuel Miranda reacted when someone was recording his performance in Puerto Rico. Sara Bareilles called someone out when they were filming, Alison Luff called someone out, need I remind you about Patti LuPone??? As someone said...who do you think you are that recording shows is okay???

 


While I may not think it is the coolest thing to do , I will watch them and admire the performaces

that I wasn't fortunate enough to see..and admit I did search them out. Do you really think the actors get anything from the profit that the producers make...they get a salary that's it ...if I hurting an actors pocket then I may think otherwise but we all know that it doesn't...

"

 

Updated On: 10/24/19 at 12:29 PM

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 1:17pm

Fosse76 said: "magictodo123 said: "Fosse76 said: "magictodo123 said: "Why do you think it's not stealing? You are illegally taking someones work."

No, it's not. Theft/stealing have very specific legaldefinitions. Recording a copyrighted show is not theft, no matter what you think."
 

Copywrite infringement isn't any better. You're taking the work of the people who have worked on the show. They're not getting paid. It isn't any better and it's still not okay.


Then what is it? You’re literally taking something that doesn’t belong to you-isn’t that what stealing is?


“Stealing: “take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.”


^ is that not what you’re doing when you bootleg a show? You’re taking the property of the artists, everyone who worked on the show."

Stealing is a physical act. Bootlegging is copyright infringement. Two totally separate legal acts. If you want to continue to be ignorant that's your choice, but the law makes a differentiation."

 

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 1:35pm

Also, stealing doesn't have to just be physical, What if you have an idea for something and someone else takes it? 

[JBradshaw]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 4:57pm

If done properly they don’t see you and all the people around them, so I’ve been told  

“Recording a show? Please, please don't. It IS disrespectful to the actors. They SEE you. You're not invisible. Are you more important than making sure the actos do their best”

"

"

 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 7:31pm

magictodo123 said: "I want to have a civil discussion about this. I will not lash out at people, I just wanted to get this off my chest first. I will go into this with an open mind."

This was in your initial post when you started this thread. You have not had an open mind at all during ANY of the discussion here, and you have lashed out at pretty much everyone.

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 7:53pm

FWIW, the main losers are the holders of the copyrights on the show. There can be separate copyrights on the play as a whole, on the music and on the choreography. Under the law passed by Congress in the mid-70s, copyrights are good (with some exceptions) for 70 years after the death of the initial holder of the copyright. (This would meant the composer of the music.)

Not strictly relevant here, but many feel the 70 year period is too long to tie up that art from the public domain. A not-exactly-prospering musician I spoke to last night brought up with a bit of ire that last year Yoko Ono had succeeded in being named co-writer of "Imagine." meaning that her children and heirs could still be receiving royalty payments on the use of "Imagine" for 70 years after her death.

My own thoughts have been that the Broadway business model does not work when only 1 in 5 shows recoups. That may seem all right now but in the next recession there may be a sharp pullback in investments. The eight shows a week helps to send top stars to La La Land for a few years for rest and recuperation and large paychecks.

I saw Kristin Chenoweth and Peter Gallagher four times in Roundabout's On the 20th Century (I subscribed that year). Even the English critics for whom Kristin was a bit much had to praise her performance in a role so difficult physically and vocally. But she hasn't been back here since then in a show.

Broadway has a product that is not meeting demand. Thousands of tourists fly in every year just to catch these expensive musicals. What about the thousands who can't? Those who live in the Pacific Northwest, which includes a high percentage of well-educated and theater-hungry art lovers, and can't fly in for the weekend are deprived of ever seeing the shows live. To them a filmed version is better than nothing. And they pay less for the reduced experience.

My idea was to film a show and, after a decent period had expired, a year at least for a popular show, market the film at a reasonable price. I can't say for sure if the guarantee of seeing a first class recorded version a year or two out will cut down on bootlegs. Seems reasonable to try.

[LLW2]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 8:18pm

magictodo123 said: "Also, stealing doesn't have to just be physical, What if you have an idea for something and someone else takes it?"

Ideas can't be copyrighted so there would be no legal recourse in that case. (The phrasing of the question and the obvious answer makes me fear I really am dealing with a troll but who knows.)

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 10/24/19 at 10:50pm

OlBlueEyes said: "FWIW, the main losers are the holders of the copyrights on the show. There can be separate copyrights on the play as a whole, on the music and on the choreography. Under the law passed by Congress in the mid-70s, copyrights are good (with some exceptions) for 70 years after the death of the initial holder of the copyright. (This would meant the composer of the music.)

Not strictly relevant here, but many feel the 70 year period is too long to tie up that art from the public domain. A not-exactly-prospering musician I spoke to last night brought up with a bit of ire that last year Yoko Ono had succeeded in being named co-writer of "Imagine." meaning that her children and heirs could still be receiving royalty payments on the use of "Imagine" for 70 years afterher death."

And expect that period to be extended even further soon. Mickey Mouse (specifically Steamboat Willy) is currently set to become public domain in 2024. Even with Disney still maintaining control over later versions of the character, you know they aren't going to lose control of his original incarnation without a big fight.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/25/19 at 7:32am

OlBlueEyes said: "FWIW, the main losers are the holders of the copyrights on the show. There can be separate copyrights on the play as a whole, on the music and on the choreography. Under the law passed by Congress in the mid-70s, copyrights are good (with some exceptions) for 70 years after the death of the initial holder of the copyright. (This would meant the composer of the music.)

Not strictly relevant here, but many feel the 70 year period is too long to tie up that art from the public domain. A not-exactly-prospering musician I spoke to last night brought up with a bit of ire that last year Yoko Ono had succeeded in being named co-writer of "Imagine." meaning that her children and heirs could still be receiving royalty payments on the use of "Imagine" for 70 years afterher death.

My own thoughts have been that the Broadway business model does not work when only 1 in 5 shows recoups. That may seem all right now but in the next recession there may be a sharp pullback in investments. The eight shows a week helps to send top stars to La La Land for a few years for rest and recuperation and large paychecks.

I saw Kristin Chenoweth and Peter Gallagher four times in Roundabout's On the 20th Century (I subscribed that year). Even the English critics for whom Kristin was a bit much had to praise her performance in a role so difficult physically and vocally. But she hasn't been back here since then ina show.

Broadway has a product that is not meeting demand. Thousands of tourists fly inevery year just to catch these expensive musicals. What about the thousands who can't? Those who live in the Pacific Northwest, which includes a high percentage of well-educated and theater-hungry art lovers, and can't fly in for the weekend are deprived of ever seeing the shows live. To them a filmed version is better than nothing. And they pay less for the reduced experience.

My idea was to film a show and, after a decent period had expired, a year at least for a popular show, market the film at a reasonable price. I can't say for sure if the guarantee of seeing a first class recorded version a year or two out will cut down on bootlegs. Seems reasonable to try."

I am a firm believer that theater is meant to be experienced LIVE, as that is its purpose. However, I agree that once a certain period of time has elapsed, maybe they could do collections of shows (not sure how they'd decide on how to separate them--maybe award-winners in one collection? Just a thought) and sell them on DVD. I still believe that shows should be experienced live, as that's the whole point of them, but for those who can't afford to travel (for example, I'd love to see Waitress or The Prince of Egypt on the West End but there's no way I can afford it, but I won't be asking for someone to illegally record it) it might help their immediate need, their urgent need to see a show right when they want to-of course depending on how long they wait to release said recordings. . 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 10/25/19 at 9:48am

I think that most would agree with you that theater is best experienced live, but if you say LIVE OR NOT AT ALL to people who want to purchase a film then you are taking money off the table that everyone on Broadway could use. If people on the other coast have no access to New York productions, they will start doing their own productions, with Broadway talent. 

Example: Chicago Lyric Opera now presents one major musical a season. In 2015 they produced Carousel borrowing top talent Steven Pasquale and Laura Osnes. Like many talented New York based actors, they didn't find many New York productions beating a path to their doors. Many thought the Chicago production better than the ill-fated revival in New York with its six month run. And you can be pretty certain that anyone who saw the Chicago production didn't come to New York to see the other. Los Angeles and Las Vegas usually have high quality stagings of the big Broadway hits.

To finish up on the legalities of bootlegging, Filming a bootleg in a theater, or selling them knowing that they are bootlegs, are crimes. They just don't come under the category of theft. The violation is called copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is considered a rather harsh act that can carry big penalties upon conviction. In reality though, the criminal justice system in New York does not have the time and resources to go after small players. But anyone who built a large business around bootlegs is flirting with trouble.

In addition to criminal, there is also a civil action from the person whose copyright was infringed upon to directly sue the violator for money damages. But you can only sue if you are the lawful holder of the copyright. No actor suits!

Updated On: 10/25/19 at 09:48 AM

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/25/19 at 12:44pm

Exactly, though. People can see performers like Laura Osnes in settings outside of Broadway shows, which would then inspire them to buy a ticket to the next Broadway show she's in. And that performance is perfectly legal, like what she has done with the....has she done anything with the New York Pops? Performances like that. Those types of things inspire people, and they're NOT bootlegs, they're not illegal. Saying bootlegs are the only way people get into theater is totally not accurate.                                                                                                                                      What's your stance on people who sell bootlegs, because I know there's a market for that....?                                       

Yeah, I've never heard of an actor suing...however, there are many other things they do when people are recording their shows that make it so you cannot argue that they're okay with it. First line of defense? Ushers. In my experience, that role works like a swing in a show; they have different tracks and positions in the theater, and sometimes there are very few of them left by the end of a performance, so there are less people to stop people from filming. I do not understand people who say "if they notice you, you're doing it wrong" because you're doing it wrong anyway--simply by doing it in the first place!!! When did we get to such a spoiled society that believes that because we can't afford something, distracting actors is more important than letting them do their best work?             What do you think people did fifty years ago, sixty years ago, when people just had to deal with not being able to see what they wanted? That happens. You can not expect to see every single thing you want to see. Life doesn't work that way. And I'm not speaking as someone who sees a show every other week and has my Aunt Mabel pay for my tickets. I work a full time job and can barely afford to pay for some of lifes necessities, so I just deal with not being able to see shows. I wanted to see American Son, I'm a native New Yorker and I never got to see it-I couldn't afford it! The final show of SpongeBob, to see The Prom again, to try the Wicked lottery again, The Temptations, Tina..so many shows I want to see, but do I? Do I ask someone to film it? No, Because I know I have to suck it up. This comment is NOT directed at anyone, so please do not say I'm targeting someone or attacking someone. I'm stating facts that people don't seem to understand (no one specifically in this post). I won't harp on the "stealing" terminology--I guess I was stuck on it because a performer called it that when they were ranting on social media about someone recording the show they were in.                                                                                                           I guess bootlegs aren't what bothers me...it's the blatant disrespect people have now and how we're so used to getting things when we want them, that we expect something special like a theatrical production to be the same. Am I the only one upset at this? 

[Fetus]

Posted: 10/25/19 at 2:19pm

magictodo123, you've spent all month talking in circles in this thread. I'd admire the dedication if I could wrap my head around why anyone would waste the energy on debating this. If you don't like them, avoid them. There really isn't any need for much discourse on the matter beyond the initial thoughts you shared weeks ago.

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/25/19 at 3:52pm

Fetus said: "magictodo123, you've spent all month talking in circles in this thread. I'd admire the dedication if I could wrap my head around why anyone would waste the energy on debating this. If you don't like them, avoid them. There really isn't any need for much discourse on the matter beyond the initial thoughts you shared weeks ago."

If you don’t like me talking about it, avoid my comments? I’m trying to prove we can debate this in a civilized manner. I got a little snippy at a point but I think it’s gone well and if you have a problem you can leave this specific thread. No ones forcing you to stay on it or read it. 

[magictodo123]

Posted: 10/25/19 at 3:53pm

I get frustrated whenever an actor calls out an audience member for recording. So sue me. It’s not a crime.