What is so bad about bootlegs? — Page 5

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?

To reference back to an earlier post I made, I think cocaine is WAY more fun than bootlegs!

^ This is why bootlegs suck. Because experiencing it live is WAAAAAAAAAAY better.

Robbie, does that mean she'll do it live for me?

"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'll settle for a video of Joey Luft snorting adderall.

And it's Joe Luft now, not "Joey." He dropped the "Y" when he lost his hair.



Joe Luft, Margaret O'Brien, a wax figure of Judy Garland, and Munchkins Elizabeth Marenghi and Jerry Maren

---

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.

---

Updated On: 9/16/13 at 06:10 PM

Are you addressing me? Because if you are, I will respond.

---

I was actually talking to golbineau, but never mind.

It's my own fault for even getting involved when I see I'm misunderstood and then have to go through hell trying to be clear. I've learned something.

bye bye, thread I'm going to finish enjoying my birthday

---

"...then who is losing money?"

The authors. Or their estate. That's who.

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?

"Happy Birthday, Jane! For a present, I will send you a bootleg. Which show would you like?"

thanks, but no thanks. There is nothing you have that I want.

---