A lot of things are illegal, Jane. Legality doesn't make something right or wrong. The thing is that a lot of producers don't seem to care. YouTube is full of bootlegs and they're not even unlisted. They're very easy to rid the public space of, but they're still there. Online Trading circles should be very easy to break up, but they're still there.
I'm more interested in the legal connotations surrounding this issue. Perhaps our legal eagles (Henrik or broadwaydevil?) can address the issue of copyright protected designs. For example, If a costume or scenic design is copyright protected, does that somehow make the viewing of it on an unauthorized video -- or photo -- an illegal action?
Very interesting that Jane and others try to close down the argument with a simplistic sweeping statement.
I guess anything that is illegal just now cannot be subject to revision. Interested to know your attitude on same sex marriage for instance. "It's illegal- end of"?
Don't forget that inter-racial marriage and voting women were once illegal. I suppose that those things were wrong then, but are right now that they are legal.
Adultery is officially illegal in many states. In New York, it's against the law for two or more people to gather in public while each wears a mask or any face covering which disguises their identity. Is discussion of the various ramifications of those also irrelevant?
"The thing is that a lot of producers don't seem to care. YouTube is full of bootlegs and they're not even unlisted. They're very easy to rid the public space of, but they're still there. Online Trading circles should be very easy to break up, but they're still there."
Equity used to have an agreement with Youtube where Youtube would pull any video that Equity flagged and notified them of. That has since been abandoned, though I don't remember if it was a decision by Youtube/Google or if Equity gave up because it was akin to cutting the head off of a hydra (cut off one, two more pop up in its place).
I KID! I don't want anyone to think I'm saying Liza still does coke. I, however, did coke this weekend while Liza was playing on the Victrola! So it's kinda the same thing.
"Very interesting that Jane and others try to close down the argument with a simplistic sweeping statement."
that's because it is indeed very SIMPLE. The thread asks the question what is so bad about bootlegs? My SIMPLE answer is that they are illegal. Why make a mountain out of a molehill. If you and the others in this thread want to discuss your experiences with bootlegs and how important they are, be my guest. I answered the question with my SIMPLE AND SWEEPING answer.
"I guess anything that is illegal just now cannot be subject to revision."
Really? Was that question asked to me? I don't remember even mentioning revision in any form.
" Interested to know your attitude on same sex marriage for instance. "It's illegal- end of"? "
Oh, this is simple. Anyone who knows me here or elsewhere knows that I am a huge homophobe and don't think any of them gays or lezzies deserve to be here, let alone get hitched.
To say something is 'wrong' simply because it is illegal is terribly shallow reasoning. That argument has no depth, no substance, 'no life'. It's not thoughtful and it's boring. There is no excuse.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
All this talk of cocaine and Liza on the bootleg thread got me to thinking: I've never seen a video bootleg of The Act available anywhere. I would LOVE to see video of that. Was 1978 too early in the bootleg video history of things? If anyone can point me in the right direction please private message me.
In Texas, every time I perform fellatio on my partner (or acquaintance, total stranger, random homeless person) I'm doing something illegal. But I bet the religious conservative Republicans in this state would much rather I buy a bootleg. Unless it's one starring Liza which probably counts the same in their book as sucking dick.
Either you misunderstood or I didn't clearly state my premise (probably the latter).
My hypothetical was as follows: in cases where it isn't possible for the viewer to see a production (because of age, distance or money), then how does anyone lose money from the viewing of a bootleg?
The answer is: they don't. They only lose money if viewing a bootleg prevents someone from buying a ticket to a live show. I'm on record as stating I don't think that happens very often.
***
While we're on the subject, I'm a lyricist by trade and most of my work is done by not-for-profit groups. Such groups are notorious for not paying performance royalties--they figure if they buy the sheet music they have paid for the right to perform the material, but they have not.
Or they add a song of mine to an album and decide they don't owe me royalties unless the CD makes money (which such recordings rarely do).
Do I go after such groups? No. In the first place I'm supporting a not-for-profit group; in the second, their performances and recordings publicize my work. Why should I embarrass them?
Who knew, Gaveston! Would I have heard any of your lyrics? I've always been a fan of yours on this board. If there's a song of yours on youtube please link us!
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 agree, Robbie. And I have no problem when a creator pulls his/her work from You Tube. His/her work; his/her prerogative.
I'll even go so far as to say if you want to PM me a list of your shows that have been bootlegged, I will promise not to watch them.