What is so bad about bootlegs?- Page 4

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:38pm

'I've never sold a bootleg in my life, so up yours, Miss Defensive.'

HA! That's up there with "'I never sold a bag of coke in my life!' she said with a suspicious powder all over her nose!"

I don't give a SH*T about what you do, frankly. I don't care if you rub one out while watching every Elphaba on record, trying to figure out which riff at the end of Defying Gravity will finally make you climax. I care about the fact that you are profoundly incapable of disagreeing with someone without being insulting. And because of it, your genuinely intelligent posts about music and theater go disregarded because you cannot even pretend to behave like a decent human being.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:46pm

I don't care if you rub one out while watching every Elphaba on record, trying to figure out which riff at the end of Defying Gravity will finally make you climax.

Just a quick pause in the music to tell Robbie that I love him.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:48pm

If that's what you think, that's your right; I find your comments and responses generally defensive, nasty, and condescending (without the smarts or insights to warrant condescension) on a level of that which people accuse After Eight of doing. So?

You seem think it's adult or entertaining to respond to a comment that isn't specifically about you with a personal insult, and then accuse the one you insulted of being insulting. And that's your prerogative.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:57pm

Lie no more, lady. Lie no more.

'This idea is utterly and perfectly American - "There's no way I'll make an additional cent from this closed production, but I'll be furious if anyone else gets $10 for it!"'

That's what I responded to. It was posted directly after my post and was absolutely in response to what I said. It's also a distortion of what I said, but I don't really care about that.

I still don't understand why you can't argue something passionately without denigrating people around you. Even I, who is 'generally defensive, nasty and condescending' could at least recognize that you know a great deal about music and have shared that knowledge here. But you...you're incapable of that. It's almost pathological. And, if I can drop whatever kind of 'bitchy gay' thing I sometimes employ, it actually makes me sad. It makes me sad that someone who has a lot of knowledge shares it in such a way as to alienate others. You have the power to expand the conversation but instead, you just end up metaphorically kicking it in the nuts. And that's sad.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 12:58pm

So it was the bootleg's fault?

How very...NRA.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:04pm

How very...NRA.

Gun takes a life, bootlegs truly harm no one. Movies you can make a case for bootlegs harming, but watchers of bootlegs are either not in the position to see these shows being hundreds of miles away or they ARE paying to see the show and want a video for after the show is long since gone.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:06pm

I need to have a liquid lunch. And not come back to this thread.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:08pm

Come off it, Robbie J - my initial comment may have followed yours, and even been inspired by it, but I didn't descend to your level of sandbox dialectic ("piss off," "hang your head," and accusations of being a foul bootleg-seller).

I think you should avoid the insult direct and accusations of being "pathological." The house just has too much glass. I participate levelly with those who are capable of it; you can't seem to read a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment about the hypocrisy of American materialism and dollar-grasping without clutching the pearls and acting as though your virtue were irretrievably besmirched. And it turns what was an interesting conversation into idle and dull bitchery. Frequently. Which illustrates why I've been here so rarely of late.

Updated On: 9/16/13 at 01:08 PM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:11pm

This sanctimonious comparing of bootleg Broadway DVDs and the selling of cocaine is hysterical in both senses of the word.

There is clearly a demand, albeit from a public which is currently quite small, to see productions which are unavailable- either because they are too far away, or long closed. The underlying fault- if there is one- lies with producers and unions who lack the vision, energy and courage to develop a new market which would bring additional revenue to those who created/ appeared in the show. Should be call them burglars for stealing the potential profits from the creatives who don't get to earn a few more dollars from a recording of the show?

The reason the demand has risen for bootlegs is simply because they can exist- technology has made them available. And it is quite natural in this media-savvy age for people to wish to access recordings of shows now closed.

There are so many students, for instance who could benefit from watching recordings of stage classics; the Lincoln Centre archive testifies to the value of such recordings. Sadly, however,only a tiny community has access to be able to appreciate this learning resource.

Again, teachers who wish their students to see a recording of Zero Mostel in 'Fiddler' or Julie Harris in... anything... are not selling crack or murdering infants: they are taking a pragmatic approach to the fact that there is no commercial avenue to legitimately paying for the archive resources.

Free up supply and people will happily buy an official, legal, clean copy. Then the artists can get the money people want to be able to pay them!

At present, though, the bootleggers are not depriving people of money- that suggests they are diverting it away from its legitimate route: the point is, even without the bootlegs, the artists would be getting zilch. Nobody from the OBC of 'Big Deal' would be earning more money from the show if weren't for those pesky bootleggers!

So get into the 21st Century, rights-holders, and earn more money for your properties.

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:20pm

As an academic, the current standing theory on Shakespeare's folios and circulation of his play scripts holds that none of the copies that we have today are actually sourced from his actual work at all- rather, they are based on "bootleg scripts" circulated by bootleggers who would transcribe the shows to sell the scripts.

I'm not going to say one way or another about the morality or ethics of the bootleg market as it exists, because it's hypocritical and most of us have been down that road at least once. But I WILL point out that theatre is a niche genre in the twentieth century, and look at the way the major entertainment forms have reacted to bootlegs.

Networks like the BBC are searching desperately for bootlegs of their old programs, such as the "lost episodes" of Doctor Who. The NFL will pay huge amounts for bootlegs or unauthorized VHS tapings of games, particularly Super Bowls, that have been lost throughout the years. Bootlegging and concert taping have received endorsements from many major music acts, with additional numbers now providing digital downloads for free or very cheap to anyone who attends the concert.

Bootlegs plus time plus historical significance have ALWAYS equalled archive.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:23pm

devonian, I thought that was excellent. Thank you.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:32pm

I want to know which shows Robbie was in that he says were bootlegged. I can see if I have any of them - then rub one out fantasizing that he's the cute one with his shirt off hitting that high note.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 1:36pm

they are based on "bootleg scripts" circulated by bootleggers who would transcribe the shows to sell the scripts.

In a manner of speaking. But there wasn't the understanding of "ownership" or "copyright" or getting paid for your work that we're familiar with today.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 2:08pm

I will leave out any sandboxery and simply say this. I don't think there's anything hypocritically materialistic or money-grasping when someone who has created a product (in this case, a work of the theater) complains when that work has been recorded and disseminated without their permission. I also think that, though there are very strong arguments for the recording of theatrical performances for posterity, the attitude of 'I want to see it, therefore I should be able to see it' seems the height of entitlement...another supposedly American trait that seems to not be coming under attack in this thread.

And, for the record, I did not take my shirt off. But I did hit the high note.

[Phan#24601]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 2:45pm

everythingtaboo:
Unfortunately, no. I have yet to see a show that I have watched a bootleg of on stage, but I would see "next to normal" if it decided to make its way to L.A. sometime. For me, bootlegs are mostly a good way to see shows that are:
A) too far away, and
B) too old (for specific casts, and people who were born in the 90's or later).
This is basically what everyone has already been saying, but I also believe that people who like the theatre enough to post on this website in the first place would probably be the same people who would be inspired to see a show live even after they have seen the bootleg, if it was made possible for them.

[Salene]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 3:20pm

EDIT:

(Copy/paste deleted.)

As I said below, I haven't previously been able to find the article online. Yes, I should have looked one more time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/08/arts/critic-s-notebook-bootlegging-as-a-public-service-no-this-isn-t-a-joke.html

Updated On: 9/16/13 at 03:20 PM

[Salene]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 3:26pm

***

Updated On: 9/16/13 at 03:26 PM

[Salene]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 3:28pm

*** Updated On: 9/16/13 at 03:28 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 3:30pm

Phan#24601, there was a production of Next to Normal in Los Angeles County this June. The tour with Alice Ripley was at the Ahmanson in 2010.

So you would totally see Next to Normal if it made its way to Los Angeles a third time for in 3 years, but of course bootlegs and personal laziness have nothing to do with the fact that you've missed it at least twice already.

Updated On: 9/16/13 at 03:30 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 3:46pm

Salene, some would call reposting someone's entire article on another website without linking to the original source a form of "bootlegging".

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 3:56pm

blah blah blah INFINITUM.

It's illegal. that's what's wrong with it. After that, this thread and the discussions are extraneous material. I'm sure all of you just LOVE bootlegs. Fine.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 4:04pm

'Salene, some would call reposting someone's entire article on another website without linking to the original source a form of "bootlegging".'

That's why I started giggling like a schoolgirl.

[Salene]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 4:05pm

I typed up this article years ago. (As in, not too long after it was published.) At the time it wasn't online, and I've searched for it several times since then so I could just link directly. It was sloppy of me not to try one more time before posting. Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/08/arts/critic-s-notebook-bootlegging-as-a-public-service-no-this-isn-t-a-joke.html

[Phan#24601]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 4:07pm

Oh, sorry, I will catch it next time...even if I have to wait for like 10 years.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 9/16/13 at 4:10pm

I don't know why you're being so snarky, Phan. If you really wanted to see Next to Normal so badly that you'd spend money on an illegal copy (or watch it on YouTube or whatever), why wouldn't you have picked up tickets to the tour or to the more recent production in June? You can do the research to find the underground version, you're telling me you didn't do the same amount of research trying to find an actual production you could catch?

And then people in this thread want to say bootlegs don't impact ticket sales. Ha.