Whenever those who are supposed to know are asked why bootlegs are illegal, or why DVDs do not appear, first we are told that it is illegal. Thanks for that. Now let's go to the reason that it is illegal. Here the answers grow quickly to vague assertions about the difficulty in getting the copyright owners, the unions, the musician's union, and on and on. I get the feeling that some 1926 federal court ruling in a case brought by one of the unions made certain copies illegal under certain circumstances and no one has bothered to challenge it over the last eighty years.
To get down to one specific example that you might answer in a detailed manner, take the 2010 live broadcast of South Pacific as part of the Live From Lincoln Center series. Since the original production was not recorded and the film was notable mostly for Mitzi Gaynor, to many of us this 2008 South Pacific, of which Ben Brantley wrote
I know we're not supposed to expect perfection in this imperfect world, but I'm darned if I can find one serious flaw in this production.
should be the official finest production of a top ten musical classic. It should be public. Never mind the fact that Lincoln Center Theater and Live From Lincoln Center are supported by private donations by members of the public and by public taxes. Never mind the fact that viewers could have and did record their own version on DVR. But, as you say, the show should be represented by the best possible recording, as in a HD DVD, not a home-baked DVR.
So why is it that PBS stations cannot even replay the original live broadcast? Why no DVD? Can you give a sensible answer to these questions, not that it's illegal or there would be union problems?
"
The reason PBS stations can't replay this is contracts. Those creatives, cast and presumably crew who were involved were paid something for their participation. Live From Lincoln Center or PBS presumably made a deal for one airing and one airing only. Because the production of South Pacific was broadcast, that means it falls under the SAG/AFTRA, DGA and WGA contracts, which means that if it were to be reaired, then all those individuals who fall under one of those contracts would be owed some amount of residuals. That's where this comes down to stealing. It's copyright law. If you violate it, you are taking money out of someone's pocket.
Take She Loves Me for instance. If someone downloaded the official broadcast of that, then Benanti, Levi et al would receive (a little) bit of money for that. However, if somebody made their own bootleg of the show and watched that instead of the official capture, then they're keeping money from going to the people who could and should be getting paid for their participation.
It's no different than people who download the pirated episodes of the upcoming season of Orange is the New Black and watch them. By not waiting and watching them through Netflix, you are depriving Netflix of recognizing you as a viewer of said content. Thus, depending on how the residual contracts are written, you not being recognized means less money into the pockets of those involved who get residuals based on the number of hits or downloads.
The assertion that copyright law hasn't changed since the 1920s is just inaccurate. It's constantly being updated and rewritten to better protect creatives as new technology becomes available. That's what the whole Napster copyright battle was about 15 years ago. The bigger problem is that attitudes toward copyright have changed. Now that things are infinitely more accessible in terms of becoming aware of them and the technology to share them, somehow a plethora of attitudes have come to believe that because people from all over the world can be interested in "experiences" -- ie -- shows, movies, performances -- then they have the right to consume them. And unfortunately the law (nor ethics) support that philosophy.
That's why the author called out bootlegs as stealing. Because the law (and FBI) consider it intellectual property theft.
