What is so bad about bootlegs?- Page 9

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 11:39am

You're right. Very often the people accused of missing the point have not. They have simply chosen to ignore the point.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 11:51am

Or merely disagree, based upon their knowledge, experience, and priorities.

[Kad]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:20pm

Well, next time that bootleg of the OBC of Follies is posted, I hope whoever shares it is labeled a thief and driven out.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:27pm

Isn't that Pal Joey?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:39pm

I'm going to go to the bank and withdraw a million dollars today. When they point out I don't have that in my account that with all of my knowledge and experience I have arrived at a different series of priorities so they better hand over the money, or else.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:44pm

Brilliant.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:48pm

... Or those who disagree are just in favor of breaking numerous copyright laws.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:50pm

Well, I mean, if that's YOUR priority...

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:52pm

I'm above the law, Namo. I'm a theatre fanatic stuck in Wyoming with absolutely no way to access Broadway. I'm entitled to this illegal bootleg, damnit.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 12:57pm

Harping continuously on only the issue of legality avoids discussion of the question "does legal always mean right?"

It's a question that's been posed before, and avoided.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:01pm

Historically, that's more been a line of discussion around starving people stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children. I mean, if your priorities are such that you WILL SIMPLY DIE IF YOU DON'T SEE AN ILLEGALLY SHOT VIDEO, then please have at it.

[Kad]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:03pm

Well, I hope no one in this thread smokes pot.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:05pm

"Historically, that's more been a line of discussion around starving people stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children. I mean, if your priorities are such that you WILL SIMPLY DIE IF YOU DON'T SEE AN ILLEGALLY SHOT VIDEO, then please have at it."

Still avoiding a direct answer.

And there have been many questioned laws that had nothing to do with starvation. Most of them, probably. Like to hear a few? (I imagine not.)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:07pm

Yeah, sure, spill. Do any involve ignoring somebody's copyright?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:09pm

I'd be happy to give you a direct answer: you will survive without a bootleg, you will be able to live your life without a bootleg, you will not die or become sick or be damaged for not watching a bootleg, you'll be okay. If you can survive without a bootleg, there is no need to break a law over it. If you are questioning the copyright laws, perhaps you should take it up with the Supreme Court.

[loliveve]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:15pm

^ Copyright law is statutory, and very few cases go to the Supreme Court. But trust me, the law will change again as soon as Mickey Mouse is not going to be protected any longer...so look for extensions of ownership being implimented prior 2023.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:16pm

Nope. But that's not my point. My point is slavishly accepting that "legal" means "right" (which is the argument being given a lot in this thread) never improves anything.

Here are some things that were once illegal and now aren't (at least in some places in the US):

Marriage between two adults of the same sex
Marriage between two adults of different races
Women voting
People of color voting
Drinking
Women's right to choose (reproductive rights)
Teaching evolution
Oral sex
Assisting escaping slaves (like intellectual property, they "belonged to someone")
Conscientious objecting

You'll probably reply that none of these things are remotely like the topic under discussion here; you may be right. My point, however (again), is the argument "it's wrong because it's illegal" isn't cogent.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:22pm

What I'm telling you is that copyright laws exist to protect the copyright holder or owner of intellectual property. There is a reason they exist; they are not nonsensical, archaic, or pointless.

If you think it's perfectly acceptable to secretly record a paid performance without: waivers or release/consent forms signed by those on stage, approval from the designers who hold copyright over the intellectual property seen on stage, or authorization by the authors who would typically earn royalties for a commercial filming.... then I guess you're really as clueless as I suspected.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:28pm

"Clueless" because I disagree with you? I think not. I just disagree. It's just too bad you can't hear that without getting all bitchily name-cally rather than merely discussing different points of view. I don't think you're "clueless." You just have different opinions on this topic than I do. Wouldn't it be nice if we could discuss it without name-calling? That may be asking too much.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 1:51pm

I think it is 'right' for a person who creates a work of art to have that work of art protected via copyright if they so choose. Artists have, indeed, given it away for free often. But if an artist chooses to protect their work so that others may not copy nor distribute said work, I think it is wrong for someone to go against the express wishes of the creator.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 2:12pm

Also, let's remember that this thread is titled "What's so bad about bootlegs?" People have answered what's so bad about them and a lot of people have responded with "No it's not!".

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 2:15pm

I'd also like to point out that I've shared a personal story of how an 'archival' recording of a show can be used in a way that is detrimental to the people whose work is seen on that recording. And it happens way more than anyone realizes. Or is willing to admit.

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 2:50pm

thank you Namo and headband for a couple of choice posts on the previous page. xox!

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 3:59pm

"If you think it's perfectly acceptable to secretly record a paid performance without: waivers or release/consent forms signed by those on stage, approval from the designers who hold copyright over the intellectual property seen on stage, or authorization by the authors who would typically earn royalties for a commercial filming.... then I guess you're really as clueless as I suspected. "

Interestingly enough, it is the authors, composers, playwrights, designers, directors and actors in the shows who are the most grateful for and the first to buy bootlegs of the shows they are working on. If you believe that a lot of them aren't thrilled that their work is being preserved with something other than clips and still photos then you are equally as clueless.

[Jane2]

Posted: 9/27/13 at 4:29pm

"Interestingly enough, it is the authors, composers, playwrights, designers, directors and actors in the shows who are the most grateful for and the first to buy bootlegs of the shows they are working on. If you believe that a lot of them aren't thrilled that their work is being preserved with something other than clips and still photos then you are equally as clueless. "

I don't think someone is clueless if they don't know the above.