CARRIE Reading? — Page 7

Oh Jesus >.< I could only imagine that would be humorous.

Sorry I'm hounding you for questions, but I am a Carrie NUT after directing it as a drama and having seen both films 943495994 times, read the book (backwards and forwards) and seeing every Carrie the Musical bit possible.

But I have to ask: from the reading, was it implied they will lift it to Broadway/Off-Broadway/Encores(?) or is it too early to tell??

---

Jeffery Seller said at first he was thinking Off-Bway with a late at night showing but, That was a few years ago when the talks first began.

With the size of the show they are now looking at Broadway. Talks are happening right now for an early spring full workshop and a Fall 2010 opening. ;o)

R ;o)

That makes me so happy. I would expect Broadway as well, but I didn't know how quickly they'd be able to jump back into it.

---

"what else is there to really discuss? "

I think you should discuss this a little:

"These people were paid NOTHING to bring these performances to life and their talent should be protected. "

How is a recording damaging?

---

See I agree that their talent should be protected. I just think our definition on what that means differs. To me, the performances should be protected as in preserved. We are, after all, talking about a show whose entire accessibility to this point has been through various bootlegs. If you've seen or heard Carrie at all and you weren't one of those lucky enough to attend its original run, then you've either listened to an illegal copy or watched those videos. Both of which the actors, writer, director, and various others involved got no pay for. I realize that this staging differs from the original since the actors were not paid anything to do it and since it it's in an entirely different setting. It is simply my opinion that if a recording exists of this it should be heard. And that a recording should exist. In this day and age with our economy as bad as it is, who knows if this small production will ever see the light of day? This could be our last (and perhaps best) version of a show so many of us solely know from recordings.

Updated On: 11/26/09 at 02:10 AM

Because the actors were contracted by the producers of the reading on a certain contract that prohibits recordings. That's it. If recordings were allowed per the contract - the actors would have been actually paid well for their time. Get a clue.

I'm sure, since this was an AEA reading, that AEA demanded SOME compensation.

A recording is "damaging" simply because these people gave their talent to a specific AEA contract and recordings are not allowed. If they thought that recordings of their performances would reach any kind of distribution - they would have negotiated different agreements.

Are you all community theatre novices? Professional actors have a union to protect their talent for a reason.

They would have known the reading was recorded illegally, I doubt they're that naive.

But what you're talking about isn't *damage*, you're basically explaining why it shouldn't be recorded, not what the effects of an illegal recording (the act of, or listening to one) is. If I listen to an illegal recording or not, NOTHING changes. Hence, there is NO damage.

---

Updated On: 11/26/09 at 02:25 AM

If you all can't see the importance of protecting a professional actor's work - we're all doomed.

Yes, we are all doomed. All doomed because we want to hear a revision of a huge 80's mega flop. Nothing else will doom us as bootlegs do.

Hey fairies, I own 2 Carrie soundboards, a workshop, AND a full Stratford video.

Doesn't that just grind your gears?

Faries.

Well, firstly, I think it's strange you would 'conclude' one or two members' opinion's here are representative of the entire board.

And secondly, It's not about whether I agree with 'protecting a professional actor's work' or not at all. It's about you not able to support your claim..

You claimed basically
* If you listen to a bootleg then you will damage the actors etc.. professionally.

But you haven't actually showed why. If I listen to a recording in my room, alone - nothing happens in terms of damage. There will be no change in effect whether I listen or not (so it seems strange that I should 'DESTROY' the recording straight away, when listening to it doesn't apparently change anything.

I can see why you could claim that listening to a recording kind of supports the illegal activity of bootlegging, which is wrong because the actors didn't agree to it. But this isn't DAMAGE. This is just explaining why you think it is wrong. Especially in the case of the CARRIE reading, illegal recording or not wouldn't have changed anything. For someone to claim 'damage' there has to be 'damage', i.e. (since it has already happened) the bootlegs should have damaged the 'professionals' somehow. So if these bootlegs weren't recorded, how do you think the actors etc.. would be less-damaged now?

(I'll try to make it simpler. Basically you claim If recorded then damage occurred. We know it was recorded so damage must have occurred. What is this damage? (The easiest way to show this is by showing the difference in cases between recording and not recording..))

So an example of damage

* The actors find out about the recordings, decide to quit the production (damage). [If they did this and explicitly said that the bootleg recordings were the reason, then It would be convincing for example in this case that the recordings caused damage].

Look. I love it that you think you're 'sophisticated' and all, but from my perspective (not surprisingly), you're a close minded person who has jumped on the "omg piracy/bootlegging causes damage!11" bandwagon, without actually thinking why.

I'll leave you with an analogy: record labels claim an X amount of $$ of lost revenue in Piracy each year because people download their songs illegally. No doubt you'd probably agree with this argument. (Let's say cast recordings to keep it 'closer to home')

But the problem with claiming that piracy caused this 'damage' is you can't necessarily say that for each illegal download someone would have bought the song instead.

I think you have to look at it a little more objectively, and consider that the 'theft' of intellectual property is a specific type of 'crime' that is a little bit distinct from stealing. Because if you literally stole all those CDs they would have indeed lost money, as the physical item has been taken, that we'll assume would have been sold otherwise. Or stealing the physical cash from Marin Mazzie's hands is a bit different than recording her voice without paying her.

And it would be very 'unsophisticated' of you to infer from my post that I'm condoning it or whatever at all; I'm just trying to look at it a bit objectively.

So the final thought is not to think that because I don't think 'stealing' and 'copyright infringements' etc.. are the same, that I think copyright infringement is morally correct or anything, or I'm trying to 'excuse' it. I'm just saying that if you want to claim it is 'damaging' something you should think about why/what is being damaged..

I think the example I gave above was a pretty one, the two cases:

Case A: Illegal bootleg recording of the CARRIE Reading

Case B: No Illegal bootleg recording of the CARRIE Reading

If you can't show that Case A and Case B have different effects on the actors 'talents' or whatever, in terms of damage - then I don't know how you can claim there is any damage.

---

Updated On: 11/26/09 at 02:56 AM