Playing devil's advocate here...
I understand the legal arguments and copyright laws...(::cough::) but legality and monetary issues aside (::cough::)...who is actually being hurt? In my experience (I've had access to a dozen or so videos over the years...no, no...didn't tape them myself) and the quality of the recordings are such that only someone theater-obsessed would take the time to watch. JCS is so "jumpy" than I need to take a dramamine if I'm going to watch it. Full Monty has someone's head moving back and forth blocking the field of vision. Jane Eyre and Charlie Brown are pretty much unwatchable...out of focus and a lot of ceiling shots.
Do the tapes keep me from seeing a show? Not at all...if anything, they make me want to go back again. Their deepest value to me becomes apparent after a show that I loved closes. I love my Urinetown video now, but I'm sure I will treasure it even more a few months from now. And video or not, I plan on seeing the show a couple more times before it closes. Videos also allow me to remember the performances of non-lead actors far longer than something not visual.
I would gladly pay for an officially sanctioned video, but that's not a possibility, so I make do. In my perfect world, all shows (including Off and Off-Off B'way) would be videotaped and sold officially, so that the money would go to appropriate people. Small shows and short runs would have a chance to be seen by a wider audience. Big shows, hoping for long runs, would be helped as well. Someone in the midwest planning a vacation in the city might be more inclined to see a show live (after having seen the tape) if they are familiar with it...the non-theater crowd is more likely, IMO, to plunk down several hundred bucks to take the fam to a show with which they are acquainted.
That being said....there is still nothing like a live performance.
Sueleen Gay: "Here you go, Bitch, now go make some fukcing lemonade." 10/28/10