A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: peterromer on February 03, 2025, 01:14:20 PM
-
Hi
I wondered if Mr Ed (and the rest of you) has an explanation as to how this bootleg recording (DS Zurich 91´) could end up in the ordinary music stores as an official live album ?
Plus: Have you guys other examples of DS/MK bootlegs being able to enter the shops as official material ?
I saw this particular one in a shop here in Denmark back in 91´or 92´, and of course bought it right away.
I was disappointed of the sound quality and learned later from the guy in the shop, that they were told it was fake and removed from the shelves. Some time later OTN arrived.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HsWxTPwN/Live-Zurich-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wz1vcCB6/Live-Zurich-1.avif) (https://postimg.cc/gXQ5vSkn)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNf8RXL8/Live-Zurich-2.avif) (https://postimg.cc/14zw6mLn)
-
I always wondered how I managed to buy "Golden Demos" at the largest music store in Chicago :)
-
During the late 90's it was very usual.
I bought many bootlegs in ordinary music shops, more than half of my big collection.
-
mostly it was due to a legal loophole being exploited in Italy which "allowed" them to produce and sell these.
i bought that exact same (and many others) boot back in the day and to me it was VERY clear that this was not an official release
I am not sure as to how you expect Ed to explain how this was possible as this was not his "business model"
the only thing he did was not forbid taping (THNX ED!)
-
I bought "Live USA" in a supermarket and also "On The Road To Philadelphia" in a record store. This Zürich one I was able to order from jpc back in the day, I guess Pottel will know jpc. Even the big double size Basel Box I bought in a totally mainstream record store in my hometown.
LE
-
mostly it was due to a legal loophole being exploited in Italy which "allowed" them to produce and sell these.
i bought that exact same (and many others) boot back in the day and to me it was VERY clear that this was not an official release
I am not sure as to how you expect Ed to explain how this was possible as this was not his "business model"
the only thing he did was not forbid taping (THNX ED!)
I am not expecting anything. As I wrote I am curious if He knows something that we dont.
-
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
In the UK since I've been collecting I've never seen any unofficial material in name brand shops until the last few years (Brexit any coincidence I don't know). Now from the likes of HMV or Juno you can easily get hold of the "radio broadcast" concerts, which by the way in some instances were never actually broadcast, they are just losing a loophole that I would love someone to explain to me.
Text here re Basel and the "protection gap" bootlegs of the late 80s, early 90s:
By 1992, all three functioning first-generation European CD bootleg labels
were having their fair share of problems. Swingin' Pig was finding it
increasingly difficult to get their product into record stores. The
German division of the IFPI was seizing on the slightest breach of the
country's hazy boundaries of copyright. In one instance, Schubert
apparently escaped a lengthy legal battle with E M I by providing
evidence that their retail chain H M V was stocking his titles, a clear
case of double standards. A case resulting from a Doors live in
Stockholm C D , one of Swingin' Pig's first releases, also hung over
Schubert's head throughout the early nineties, pending a decision
from the Supreme Court (the set was unquestionably recorded after
Sweden's ratification of the Rome Convention). A double-set of
Dire Straits recorded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1992. also resulted
in an interim judgement against Swingin' Pig, on the grounds
that Dire Straits were citizens of the EC and were entitled to the
same protection as German nationals.
Source: whole book download here "Bootleg"
https://monoskop.org/images/a/a4/Heylin_Clinton_Bootleg_The_Secret_History_of_the_Other_Recording_Industry.pdf
-
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
In the UK since I've been collecting I've never seen any unofficial material in name brand shops until the last few years (Brexit any coincidence I don't know). Now from the likes of HMV or Juno you can easily get hold of the "radio broadcast" concerts, which by the way in some instances were never actually broadcast, they are just losing a loophole that I would love someone to explain to me.
Text here re Basel and the "protection gap" bootlegs of the late 80s, early 90s:
By 1992, all three functioning first-generation European CD bootleg labels
were having their fair share of problems. Swingin' Pig was finding it
increasingly difficult to get their product into record stores. The
German division of the IFPI was seizing on the slightest breach of the
country's hazy boundaries of copyright. In one instance, Schubert
apparently escaped a lengthy legal battle with E M I by providing
evidence that their retail chain H M V was stocking his titles, a clear
case of double standards. A case resulting from a Doors live in
Stockholm C D , one of Swingin' Pig's first releases, also hung over
Schubert's head throughout the early nineties, pending a decision
from the Supreme Court (the set was unquestionably recorded after
Sweden's ratification of the Rome Convention). A double-set of
Dire Straits recorded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1992. also resulted
in an interim judgement against Swingin' Pig, on the grounds
that Dire Straits were citizens of the EC and were entitled to the
same protection as German nationals.
Source: whole book download here "Bootleg"
https://monoskop.org/images/a/a4/Heylin_Clinton_Bootleg_The_Secret_History_of_the_Other_Recording_Industry.pdf
Thanks for sharing your insight.
-
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
Well I had already listend to the Basel and the Nîmes concerts to death before OTN was released.
Uncle Ed would probably give some explanations (I think he already did) about why not release as soon as 1993 an extended OTN live CD boxset instead of of this shortened 1CD + 1maxi single CD combo.
-
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
Well I had already listend to the Basel and the Nîmes concerts to death before OTN was released.
Uncle Ed would probably give some explanations (I think he already did) about why not release as soon as 1993 an extended OTN live CD boxset instead of of this shortened 1CD + 1maxi single CD combo.
Commercial reasons obviously.
The 1992 tour ended in October 1992, and MK and Guy wanted to handle it directly, althought it was only Guy who did it apparently, and with all the preparations needed, no way to release it before 1993.
And then, for commercial reasons, it was impossible to release it double, and by the time, cdsingles were usual so they took advantage of it to release some more songs in a maxicd.
I don't see any mystery there.
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
Thanks Chris!. Also from my perspective as a fan, the bootlegs are almost like gems, they offer different versions of the songs (even new unknown songs if we were lucky), different solos, different performances that overall would never see the light of day, because as you say the finished product would probably be error free or "perfect" in a general sense. Your point is spot on with the one that I posted, the Zurich 92´ bootleg, because it was low quality and DS/MK and the management behind them would NEVER had released such a product. The shop I bought it in (FONA), was the largest supply chain in the country for CD/LP´s at the time, so impressive that they got it sneaked in.
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
I always considered that, obviously they are illegal, but they are like a biography of a band, and usually is the only way for fans to know how concerts of a band were during all his career, how songs evolved, came and went out, etc etc etc. Let's say it's an unauthorised biography but a very loyal to reality one.
And also, in the end, doesn't harm anyone as, like MK always say, people who buy bootlegs already have the official stuff.
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
And yet, the Basel 1992 bootleg which is a direct capture of a live radio broadcast is a more satisfying listen than the On The Night album that poor Guy spent months tweaking... BY FAR!
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
And yet, the Basel 1992 bootleg which is a direct capture of a live radio broadcast is a more satisfying listen than the On The Night album that poor Guy spent months tweaking... BY FAR!
Bootlegs are more loyal to what a live concert is, and both Basel and Nimes broadcasts are favourites against OTN which sounds over produced and unnatural.
But commercially releases need that standard as a product, while bootlegs are fresh and loyal to the real thing.
-
Which real thing.
Live shows change every time they are performed.
A studio record is designed to be a historic document played over and over for many years. A live show is an immediate experience, begi=un then gone in two hours.
the problem with cell phones and bootleg recordings is that artists start playing safe, stop pushing the envelope, experimenting.
You used to be able to do warm up shows before tours, now everything goes global a few hours after the show (Youtube).
This IS the point - the audience, the fan loses, because artists play it safe every time they lay live now.
It is a fact and has been happening for at least ten years now.
-
Which real thing? The one that happens on stage, the one that people at the gig lives.
That's why fans gets multiple bootlegs, to enjoy the differences between each gig, the real thing that happens every night.
-
I know what 'fans' want, I'm just pointing out the negative aspect of it - for the fans.
It is meant to be ephemeral. A fleeting moment that we all share together, band and audience. Once you record it it changes. And what has ACTUALLY happened is that bands have started playing safe, not pushing the envelope and not experimenting.
-
Chris, don't get me wrong, I get your point, but I'm talking about the bootlegs of DS that were very prior to what you're talking about regarding bands nowadays playing safe.
By the way, playing safe is a choice if you give so much importance to people recording you. You can ignore them and play what you want as you want.
-
I know. I was answering the point about why bands didn't like bootlegs, why they weren't sold in shops and why they weren't more widely available. Using the cell phone revolution as an ultimate example of the negative of allowing permanent access to what is meant to be an in-person moment between musicians and audience.
No, playing it safe isn't a choice? Have you ever done anything creative - taken a photograph, drawn a picture, recorded a song demo and not wanted anyone to see or hear it and comment before you were happy with it? It's human nature.
Personally, I have seen live clips on Youtube and seen hundreds of comments below the video saying how bad the playing is, or how out of tune the singing is, etc, etc... So that's why artists don't like it.
Again, you 'can ignore it' but it's not human nature.
Artists also like to control the quality of the recording. Bootlegs are either hand held recorder (by audience member), or a feed off the desk, neither of which produces an accurate or best quality audio copy of what you heard in your seat at the show.
-
"...neither of which produces an accurate or best quality audio copy of what you heard in your seat at the show"
There is one exception. MK concerts recorded and sold officially after the concert. (Five concert tours) :)
-
MK concerts recorded and sold officially after the concert.
Which then obviously aren't bootlegs, or unofficial in any way.
-
MK concerts recorded and sold officially after the concert.
Which then obviously aren't bootlegs, or unofficial in any way.
Yes, I didn't think about bootlegs ;)
-
I know what 'fans' want, I'm just pointing out the negative aspect of it - for the fans.
It is meant to be ephemeral. A fleeting moment that we all share together, band and audience. Once you record it it changes. And what has ACTUALLY happened is that bands have started playing safe, not pushing the envelope and not experimenting.
The best argument I have heard! Thank you Mr. C.
I have been to many live shows and I was blown away by the performance, but I was surprised when I listened to random recordings from the same concert and I noticed mistakes which eluded me when I was in front of the stage and broke the spell of the live experience. So I understand that post production has to be applied in order to make up for the missing excitement of actually playing live.
So I quite agree with it, but since die hard fans already know the limits of their fav artist, they also adore their mistakes, because exactly the are not meant to be seen/heard. Because they are out of the ordinary and they already know the ordinary. And artists should not be afraid to push the envelope, live, because the excitement of the live performance is there for those who paid the ticket. And nobody pays a ticket to boo the artist!
But yes, live performances that are unofficial may carry said mistakes, which didn't matter much in the physical product era, but now with youtube it hurts the artist when are heard by indifferent people. So a new balance should be found, to please both the artist and feed the fan.
-
Thank you.
Also, there is a difference in performing for video and record. Playing live, in the moment, many of us push the boundaries, experiment.
That is how some songs like Sultans and Romeo went from 5 minute recordings to 12 minute live epics.
But you don't get to that point overnight. Mistakes might be made along the way. Someone might come up with a bit (a keyboard intro) that turns out to be amazing, or it might turn out to be a bad idea, a wrong turn.
This is how shows evolved before every performance appeared on Youtube within a couple of hours of the last note being played.
I just did a tour and two shows (back to back) were recorded for a live album.
The first night I played as perfectly as I could. It was my banker. Having played the correct version of every song, the second night I pushed the boat out, was a bit more experimental. This gives the artist the choice to pick the version they prefer.
Sometimes you make a mistake or your experiment goes wrong, in which case you really need to have registered a perfect version of the song, otherwise you can't put it on the live album, or you are into extensive and expensive post production fixes and overdubs.
-
Thank you.
Also, there is a difference in performing for video and record. Playing live, in the moment, many of us push the boundaries, experiment.
That is how some songs like Sultans and Romeo went from 5 minute recordings to 12 minute live epics.
But you don't get to that point overnight. Mistakes might be made along the way. Someone might come up with a bit (a keyboard intro) that turns out to be amazing, or it might turn out to be a bad idea, a wrong turn.
This is how shows evolved before every performance appeared on Youtube within a couple of hours of the last note being played.
I just did a tour and two shows (back to back) were recorded for a live album.
The first night I played as perfectly as I could. It was my banker. Having played the correct version of every song, the second night I pushed the boat out, was a bit more experimental. This gives the artist the choice to pick the version they prefer.
Sometimes you make a mistake or your experiment goes wrong, in which case you really need to have registered a perfect version of the song, otherwise you can't put it on the live album, or you are into extensive and expensive post production fixes and overdubs.
So you are talking about a THE THE Live album here?
LE
-
Hi everyone
Friend of the forum and all round good guy Ed Bicknell has provided yet more responses, the below are all from him.
-
Well, well, well.
For the first time since I engaged with you lucky people, YOU are telling me something I didn’t know!
So as usual I’m going to go thru the posts in this thread by number ( because it’s the only way I can follow my own mental process!) starting with Peter’s but before that, this is a case of “ follow the money ”.
Nothing new there then.
The simple answer to the legit shops thing is I have no idea! None.
Back then I didn’t care about bootlegs - they were just part of the way things were and impossible to stop.
I recall once meeting with a v v high up UK Gov drugs official who explained how bootlegs =cash=drug trade , but this was quite a while ago……90’s.
So you had “ fan “ bootlegs and also “ professional “ bootlegs which were sold for money via whatever outlets made themselves available eg the shop Peter refers to.
This applied to any big act ie where there was a demand.
My pal Peter Grant was one of the few who would go into shops selling Led Zeppelin BL'’s and cause a bit of havoc ( he was 350 lbs back then!) but as even he said to me, “ it’s a waste of time. The minute I’ve gone they’re back at it ” … so I took the opposite position….I would ENCOURAGE it - if people wanted to record, film, take unlimited photos then fine.
The venues were sometimes a problem because of “ policy ” but as far as my team eg tour manager, road crew/caterers etc were concerned - if they saw anyone recording fine, let them get on with it.
Now of course some of the pea brains in the record cos protested - “ it’s affecting our sales” ( if they were illegal bootlegs how did they know? ) and that’s where Mark’s line about fans having already got the records came into play.
I wonder where he heard that ? 🤡
As you must have realised by now I had nothing but contempt for the senior management at Polygram. NOT the people who did the work, not Warners in the US, I mean the idiots in Baarn in Holland and London running the thing who had NO comprehension at all of what’s it’s like to be a “ fan “ or as far as I could tell, ever listened to music ( well maybe a bit of Ravel’s Bolero during their once a year sex with a rubber doll).
So, here we go starting with Peter’s post.
No idea. I’ve never seen or heard of that one or how it would find its way into a legit shop. The fact the staff didn't realise suggests to me it came in via some record co channel ( not sold to them over the counter) but that seems unlikely. So no idea.
I always wondered how I managed to buy "Golden Demos" at the largest music store in Chicago :)
I’ve never heard of Golden Demos, only showers.
During the late 90's it was very usual.
I bought many bootlegs in ordinary music shops, more than half of my big collection.
Not very common in the UK but in the non multiples chain “independent” shops, yes, they would appear.
-
mostly it was due to a legal loophole being exploited in Italy which "allowed" them to produce and sell these.
i bought that exact same (and many others) boot back in the day and to me it was VERY clear that this was not an official release
I am not sure as to how you expect Ed to explain how this was possible as this was not his "business model"
the only thing he did was not forbid taping (THNX ED!)
Hmmm…never heard of that “ loophole”. Thank you for getting me off the hook!
I bought "Live USA" in a supermarket and also "On The Road To Philadelphia" in a record store. This Zürich one I was able to order from jpc back in the day, I guess Pottel will know jpc. Even the big double size Basel Box I bought in a totally mainstream record store in my hometown.
LE
Don't know any of these or how they got into shops. You’d have to follow the money back then.
mostly it was due to a legal loophole being exploited in Italy which "allowed" them to produce and sell these.
i bought that exact same (and many others) boot back in the day and to me it was VERY clear that this was not an official release
I am not sure as to how you expect Ed to explain how this was possible as this was not his "business model"
the only thing he did was not forbid taping (THNX ED!)
I am not expecting anything. As I wrote I am curious if He knows something that we dont.
Ha! It appears you know something I don't!
You don't need a capital H on “He”. I am not God. (Yet.)
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
In the UK since I've been collecting I've never seen any unofficial material in name brand shops until the last few years (Brexit any coincidence I don't know). Now from the likes of HMV or Juno you can easily get hold of the "radio broadcast" concerts, which by the way in some instances were never actually broadcast, they are just losing a loophole that I would love someone to explain to me.
Text here re Basel and the "protection gap" bootlegs of the late 80s, early 90s:
By 1992, all three functioning first-generation European CD bootleg labels
were having their fair share of problems. Swingin' Pig was finding it
increasingly difficult to get their product into record stores. The
German division of the IFPI was seizing on the slightest breach of the
country's hazy boundaries of copyright. In one instance, Schubert
apparently escaped a lengthy legal battle with E M I by providing
evidence that their retail chain H M V was stocking his titles, a clear
case of double standards. A case resulting from a Doors live in
Stockholm C D , one of Swingin' Pig's first releases, also hung over
Schubert's head throughout the early nineties, pending a decision
from the Supreme Court (the set was unquestionably recorded after
Sweden's ratification of the Rome Convention). A double-set of
Dire Straits recorded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1992. also resulted
in an interim judgement against Swingin' Pig, on the grounds
that Dire Straits were citizens of the EC and were entitled to the
same protection as German nationals.
Source: whole book download here "Bootleg"
https://monoskop.org/images/a/a4/Heylin_Clinton_Bootleg_The_Secret_History_of_the_Other_Recording_Industry.pdf
Educational.
I can 100% tell you WE ( DS or any of my acts ) did NOT bring any legal action against anybody for any reason anywhere EVER in my period of management that I can recall .
Every artist who came to see me was told that we do not sue anybody EVER on your behalf. Waste of time and money and nearly all agreements in music are unenforceable anyway.
Until now I have never heard of this release or the Swingin' Pig label.
So it follows I was not bothered by OTN being undermined ( I was more concerned it was coming out at all 👺).
Radio broadcasts I know nothing about and back then if you were going to broadcast anything audio or visual you knew it was going to be copied.
Interesting text. It looks to me like these companies eg SP, were being sued/injuncted by either Polygram ( in our case) or the IFPI, most likely the latter.
-
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
Well I had already listend to the Basel and the Nîmes concerts to death before OTN was released.
Uncle Ed would probably give some explanations (I think he already did) about why not release as soon as 1993 an extended OTN live CD boxset instead of of this shortened 1CD + 1maxi single CD combo.
Sorry. Are you dead?
Am I an uncle to someone who died listening to DS? That would be a first.
My condolences anyway if you are a ghost 👻.
I can't recall what I said. I think we decided not to duplicate songs which had been on Alchemy as far as possible and as per LOG I did not want the audience to have to pay a higher price for anything other than a standard CD plus single.
Not you lot..I mean the “general fan”
In the event OTN sold 5 million + pre streaming which for a live album is excellent.
These releases from early 90s were known as "protection gap" bootlegs. There is a book about bootlegs which references Dire Straits bringing legal action against "The Swingin Pig" label for the production of the "European Tour" album, which was recorded at Basel and which would have undermined the On the Night album. Clearly though DS had no problem with fans recording for their own purposes as is documented elsewhere on this forum.
Well I had already listend to the Basel and the Nîmes concerts to death before OTN was released.
Uncle Ed would probably give some explanations (I think he already did) about why not release as soon as 1993 an extended OTN live CD boxset instead of of this shortened 1CD + 1maxi single CD combo.
Commercial reasons obviously.
The 1992 tour ended in October 1992, and MK and Guy wanted to handle it directly, althought it was only Guy who did it apparently, and with all the preparations needed, no way to release it before 1993.
And then, for commercial reasons, it was impossible to release it double, and by the time, cdsingles were usual so they took advantage of it to release some more songs in a maxicd.
I don't see any mystery there.
Funny…I should have read b4 I answered above. Yes…you are saying what I’m saying just differently. As you say, no mystery.
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
CHRIS!!!! My goalkeeper and correct as always.
No legit record store or chain back then would stock bootlegs precisely because of the legal position, the power of the major labels to literally put them out of business, copyright issues and just not a good thing to do ethically.
Soho was another place small shops would sell BL’s.
Chris’ last bit is entirely correct.
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
Thanks Chris!. Also from my perspective as a fan, the bootlegs are almost like gems, they offer different versions of the songs (even new unknown songs if we were lucky), different solos, different performances that overall would never see the light of day, because as you say the finished product would probably be error free or "perfect" in a general sense. Your point is spot on with the one that I posted, the Zurich 92´ bootleg, because it was low quality and DS/MK and the management behind them would NEVER had released such a product. The shop I bought it in (FONA), was the largest supply chain in the country for CD/LP´s at the time, so impressive that they got it sneaked in.
For my part I am SO glad BL’s exist, especially of the NHB’s tours ( and visual) and I completely get what Peter is saying…..it all comes back to being a true fan... ..the “adventure" of it I've referred to before.
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
I always considered that, obviously they are illegal, but they are like a biography of a band, and usually is the only way for fans to know how concerts of a band were during all his career, how songs evolved, came and went out, etc etc etc. Let's say it's an unauthorised biography but a very loyal to reality one.
And also, in the end, doesn't harm anyone as, like MK always say, people who buy bootlegs already have the official stuff.
he big record co’s and organisations like the IFPI/BPI etc justifiably saw the mass pirating of their artists as a problem. I mean organised, drug related, mafia type operations ( which certainly went on).
We are talking about something a bit different here I think, though the idea that Woolworths ( RIP) might stock illegal bootlegs ( they didn't) would certainly have bothered me back then.
Like most of us I have an ambivalent view of how it’s gone.
I haven’t PAID for music in years.
Ah yes, the Sage of Chelsea and he is/was correct…good listener 🤪.
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
And yet, the Basel 1992 bootleg which is a direct capture of a live radio broadcast is a more satisfying listen than the On The Night album that poor Guy spent months tweaking... BY FAR!
Yep.
-
As far as I'm aware it is always illegal.
My brother worked in a record store for years and they would never stock an unofficial release. Obviously some did.....in order to make money and probably presuming record labels and bands wouldn't patrol every record store on earth in order to catch out the rare instances of a bootleg being sold.
I do know artists would go to Notting Hill markets in London and confiscate cassette bootlegs in the 70's and 80's.
A recording is a permanent record. So as an artist you don't want to release recordings from a gig where your guitar was out of tune for a couple of songs, or you had a nightmare show because the monitoring was bad....etc...etc.....
Before the iPhone, concerts were fleeting affairs. Any mistake or tech issues came and went in the blink if an eye.A Dire Straits bootleg is like a novel that hasn't quite been finished, with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, or a rough cut of a movie that is 2.5 hours long instead of 1.5 hours. That goes for every artist.
Of course, completist fans love to hear the 'work in progress', but it's no surprise that music artists (and novelists and film makers) don't want anyone to see or hear their creative product until it is FINISHED.
And yet, the Basel 1992 bootleg which is a direct capture of a live radio broadcast is a more satisfying listen than the On The Night album that poor Guy spent months tweaking... BY FAR!
Bootlegs are more loyal to what a live concert is, and both Basel and Nimes broadcasts are favourites against OTN which sounds over produced and unnatural.
But commercially releases need that standard as a product, while bootlegs are fresh and loyal to the real thing.
Yep x 2. You know my views re OTN ( versus, say, Alchemy which was recorded in way more bootleg conditions…way more SWEAT and less deodorant.)
Which real thing.
Live shows change every time they are performed.
A studio record is designed to be a historic document played over and over for many years. A live show is an immediate experience, begi=un then gone in two hours.
the problem with cell phones and bootleg recordings is that artists start playing safe, stop pushing the envelope, experimenting.
You used to be able to do warm up shows before tours, now everything goes global a few hours after the show (Youtube).
This IS the point - the audience, the fan loses, because artists play it safe every time they lay live now.
It is a fact and has been happening for at least ten years now.
Correct 100%. Technology has unintentionally removed the SOUL of too many performances.
Which real thing? The one that happens on stage, the one that people at the gig lives.
That's why fans gets multiple bootlegs, to enjoy the differences between each gig, the real thing that happens every night.
The Real Thing were a great UK soul/vocal group who MK used on his production Of Tina’s “ Paradise Is Here” written by Paul Brady.
I know what 'fans' want, I'm just pointing out the negative aspect of it - for the fans.
It is meant to be ephemeral. A fleeting moment that we all share together, band and audience. Once you record it it changes. And what has ACTUALLY happened is that bands have started playing safe, not pushing the envelope and not experimenting.
Nothing to add. He’s right.
-
I know. I was answering the point about why bands didn't like bootlegs, why they weren't sold in shops and why they weren't more widely available. Using the cell phone revolution as an ultimate example of the negative of allowing permanent access to what is meant to be an in-person moment between musicians and audience.
No, playing it safe isn't a choice? Have you ever done anything creative - taken a photograph, drawn a picture, recorded a song demo and not wanted anyone to see or hear it and comment before you were happy with it? It's human nature.
Personally, I have seen live clips on Youtube and seen hundreds of comments below the video saying how bad the playing is, or how out of tune the singing is, etc, etc... So that's why artists don't like it.
Again, you 'can ignore it' but it's not human nature.
Artists also like to control the quality of the recording. Bootlegs are either hand held recorder (by audience member), or a feed off the desk, neither of which produces an accurate or best quality audio copy of what you heard in your seat at the show.
I agree with what Chris is saying from HIS perspective but if I was managing NOW 🤮 I would adopt exactly the same position as I used to ( missionary).
Yes I know the very act of bootlegging has changed, phones etc …but let the audience do what the fuck it wants and if the musicians don't like fine let them find someone who can stop it.
That person does not exist.
"...neither of which produces an accurate or best quality audio copy of what you heard in your seat at the show"
There is one exception. MK concerts recorded and sold officially after the concert. (Five concert tours) :)
And do that as well.
MK concerts recorded and sold officially after the concert.
Which then obviously aren't bootlegs, or unofficial in any way.
This is like watching a game of chess! Hilarious 👅
MK concerts recorded and sold officially after the concert.
Which then obviously aren't bootlegs, or unofficial in any way.
Yes, I didn't think about bootlegs ;)
Knight to Bishop. Checkmate I think.
I know there’ll be more of this but that’s my take.
One other thing.
Unspoken but I think alot of artists didn't like bootlegs because their performances might be SO bad ( and consistently so) that they didn’t want to get “ found out ” ( pre auto tune etc).
I'm sure we’ve all see performances by artists we admire/collect that were truly appalling , I mean mind bogglingly so. Bob Dylan anyone?
-
on that last note, the Dylan bit, i have multiple, and i mean multiple (ok, gotta check now before i make a statement) 2727+ recordings of Dylan in some form or another, and as much asi t contains truly horrible performances, there are also quite A LOT of great performances, where the voices does not put one off from the performance and where his band performs as stellar as they mostly do.
i do have to say artists like MK and Gilmour are WAY more consistent in their perfomances.
-
Ed and I are (as usual) in full agreement.
All I would add is that yes, right from the days of VHS and cassette-radios, if you were being recorded or filmed for local tv or radio, you KNEW it was going to be copied and distributed worked wide.
The only difference now is that it isn't one or two people bothering to copy something iff tv, it's a few hundred people filming you at every gig and it's instantly uploaded.
I saw Paul McCartney's warm up gig (in Frome) the night before his last Glastonbury appearance. We were all asked (going in) not to bring our phones out, let alone video or photograph. There are a coupe of thousand people attending and no one did. I don't think I've ever seen an unauthorised photo or video from that gig.
Touring with The The recently, Matt asked people not to film. For the most part people obeyed his request.
It's MORE than not wanting to see your show uploaded to Youtube with shaky camera work and poor quality sound. It's actually disappointing putting your heart and soul into a live performance only to see most of the audience looking at their cell phone, making sure it's in focus and the audio is recording. I have done shows like this and instead of connecting with thousands of human faces, you are looking at thousands of iPhones. It is NOT great.
-
"You know my views re OTN ( versus, say, Alchemy which was recorded in way more bootleg conditions…way more SWEAT and less deodorant.)
Fantastic comment Ed :) But many of us will defend On The Night, because for many of us this is where the real with DS adventure begins ;)
I would never have thought that I would live to see the time that I would receive answers from the musicians of my beloved band. Thanks Chris, thanks Ed :)
-
I have bought many of that CD-Sets by Dire Straits back in the early 1990 in Germany in various record-shops, incl. the Media-Markt departementstores. Much of them were made in Italy, Luxembourg and so on. Yes, in a special time-span, those discs were legally available between the official stuff in the cd-shelfs. I´m not sure to 100 percent, but it can be, that the copyright laws changed somewhere in the 1990 and "over night" all of those discs dissapeared from the record-stores. Now they are be found on record-fairs, sometime on fleamarkets or thrift-stores with many luck and it is "dangerous" to sell them on the well known online marketplaces, especially in Germany, because there are some specialized lawyers, who are searching for those records systematically. It can be very very expensive, to sell such discs, now. Most of such records on the CD format or on vinyl are in the hands of the collectors.
-
I have bought many of that CD-Sets by Dire Straits back in the early 1990 in Germany in various record-shops, incl. the Media-Markt departementstores. Much of them were made in Italy, Luxembourg and so on. Yes, in a special time-span, those discs were legally available between the official stuff in the cd-shelfs.
I can't remember a time when bootlegs were legally available. Certainly record companies have waged a 70 year war on unauthorised releases and copies. Ed is right, bands and management didn't have the time or resources to chase down illegal releases, and many bands didn't really care one way or another.
I played a show in LA in November. Waking around outside I came across multiple guys selling unauthorised t-shirts and merchandise. I mentioned it to our official (tour) merchandise seller and he said he wouldn't be trying to stop them as he didn't want to get knifed.
-
I remember an italian law from Mussolini time, that allowed bootlegs, as far as the record company put a certain amount of money per copy in an accounnt, supposedly for the owner of the rights, and as far as I recall, if in x time nobody claimed for that money, they get it back, thats the reason why many bootleg record companies were operating from Italy in the 90's.
If anyone remember this story more accurately than I, please correct me.
-
Hi Chris, hi Jules. Interesting facts. The sale of unofficial T-shirts after concerts is very remarkable. In Cologne for example on the ground of the well known "Lanxess-Arena", also known as "Köln-Arena" are some sings, printed with an explicit note, that it is forbidden to sell such articles on the ground of the concert-venue. I saw such unofficial shirts in Germany in the past on many concerts, for example at Springsteen-shows, David Gilmour-shows and also on some Mark Knopfler-gigs. To my opinion, the sellers are very well organized, and they have shirts in various sizes.
As far as i can recall, in the years between 1990 - 1993, i have found many bootleg-cds in the regular stores. After 1993 around, they disappeared from the stores.
Interesting fact with the Italian laws. Never heard about that.
-
I bought a fake programme at a Prince gig. It might have been the first gig I ever went to so I was pretty naive, 14 years old. Quite annoying.
-
Obviously people are buying bootleg merchandise because it's cheaper than the official stuff.
-
Obviously people are buying bootleg merchandise because it's cheaper than the official stuff.
Hum hum
When I started buying vinyl Bootleg a single LP was costing 50% more than an official LP and a double bootleg LP was almost twice the price a single bootleg LP.
To give you figure converted into euro, an official LP was €12, a single bootleg Lp was €18 and a bootleg double Lp was €34.
But the music on these was LIVE!!!
And you got some full show uncut.
-
Obviously people are buying bootleg merchandise because it's cheaper than the official stuff.
Hum hum
When I started buying vinyl Bootleg a single LP was costing 50% more than an official LP and a double bootleg LP was almost twice the price a single bootleg LP.
To give you figure converted into euro, an official LP was €12, a single bootleg Lp was €18 and a bootleg double Lp was €34.
But the music on these was LIVE!!!
And you got some full show uncut.
I guess Chris was talking about unauthorised t-shirts ("bootleg merchandise"), not about bootleg records which indeed are far mor expensive than regular stuff
-
Obviously people are buying bootleg merchandise because it's cheaper than the official stuff.
In my case it was because I was an idiot kid and didn’t realise it was a bootleg.
Now I’m an idiot adult I rarely buy bootleg merchandise.
-
Hum hum
When I started buying vinyl Bootleg a single LP was costing 50% more than an official LP and a double bootleg LP was almost twice the price a single bootleg LP.
I said 'merchandise' - key word.
Obviously people bought bootleg albums because they offered something not otherwise available.
-
I guess Chris was talking about unauthorised t-shirts ("bootleg merchandise"), not about bootleg records which indeed are far mor expensive than regular stuff
Exactly! :)
-
My bad.
I never bought bootleg T-shirt but a few bootleg poster simply because they looked great.
For the official merchandising it was very expensive and thankfully wasn't really offering interestings things for me.
Still I used to buy the official program to keep a souvenir of the tour.
My only regret now is the golden heart but by the time I attended it was already sould out.
Edit : the Golden Heart I am speaking about refers to the jewelry not the tour book
-
Yes tour programms.. great stuff and maybe a nice idea to reproduce them as a fan service item in future deluxe Box Sets. I have a few but the real thing is of course that it reminds you that "you were there". Love the Golden Heart Tourbook, much information and great pictures.
LE
-
On the McCartney tour (89/90) everyone got a free programme.
-
Golden Heart Tourbook. The only one I don't have :(
-
I mostly bought such tourbooks, because you will get interesting information and professional photos, sometimes a coffee-mug, some buttons, pins or key-rings. That is allright for me as a tour-souvenir. Same game with other artists, whose concerts i have attended. AC-DC for example had a lot of different merchandise-items for sale on their stands, some other artists, like Bob Dylan or ZZ-Top nearly nothing. I don´t really know if the artists themselves are always involved in the development of merchandise-articles, or not.
-
Some may find this article more useful background to the stuff I posted earlier in this thread regarding bootlegs
HOT WACKS BOOK SUPPLEMENTS
Legal Issues - The End?
BLACK FRIDAY
By John Carm
John Carr is the Editor of 'Sticky Fingers Magazine which is dedicated to the Rolling Stones and their music. John Can can be reached at Sticky Fingers, P.О. Вох 3474, Granada Hils, CA 91344 Send 54 for sample issue or $20 for a 1-year subscription
in the last week of January, Friday the 31st, the venerable Rolling Stones bootlegger Swingin' Pig (TSP) announced to their dealers That they were closing up shop permanent ly this time. Some on the internet saw this as a clever marketing ploy, since Swingin' Pig had shut down twice before, only to resurrect themselves once again. Others. Ike myself, saw it as the end of an ens
In the past few years the legal position of the bootleg industry has changed substantially since the Recording Industry Association of America's copyright noose tightened around The European Economic Union, ending the so-called Protection Gapi-a loophole which alowed the creation of an entire bootlegging market in a number of European countries In 1985 a German court decision (later upheld in 1990) said that, Under German Copyright Laws, foreign artists cannot claim protection in Germany against the sale of unauthorized recordings, if the performances take place in countries that are not signato nes to the Rome Convention. The US, due to pressure from the American Record Industry and their tool the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA), never signed the Rome accord. And refused to accept it's validity over American music copy ights
A lawsuit brought by Phil Collins in Germany, regarding the bootleg CD of "Live USA" caused the intervention of a law court outside the national court system to decide whether the Treaty of Rome copyright protection for artists outside Germany should override local copyright laws, primanly protecting German artists. A judgment in late 1993 in favor of Phil Collins, meant that German Copynght taw now applied to all European Community artists, regardless of where the recordings took place thus, the sale of and manufacture of bootleg recordings became illegal in Germany, the home of Swingin' Pig records Fortunately, Swingin' Pig was actually based in Luxembourg (probably for just this contin gency), Italy, one of the most prolific bootlegging countries in the earty nineties, followed Germany in 1996, when the government (due to increased pressure hom the big labels and FRIAA) caused the SIAE the Tallan equivalent of ASCAP, which collects royalties for musicians) to stop collecting from live (read bootleg) CDs.
The Swingin' Pig and a few other intrepid labels moved to Luxembourg, where lax laws and a long history of relaxed copyright and banking laws, has allowed this tiny country to prosper. But the RIAA and it's lackeys have not let up. In early February of 1996, oficials in Luxembourg confiscated a number of new titles and even put a few imprints out of business. Thes increasing harassment, I'm sure, had much to do with Swingin' Pig's recent decision to finally close its doors.
This was verified by the following post on Sticky Fingers Joumal Issue 107, Feb. 11, 1997: "A very reliable source from Swingin Pig's home of Luxembourg stated that he did not know for sure why the Pig shut down all operations so suddenly, but is aware that they are currently facing customs problems in Luxembourg. He didn't come out and say it, but I read that to mean one thing if you can't ship your product out of the country (without having it seined), then your business is pretty much finished"
Hot Wacks. December 1997
-
Don't forget that for the most part bootleggers are profiting from musician's work and creativity....in a relationship where the creative musicians receive NO income.
As I said before..... I get it, fans want to hear bootleg concert tapes, but often bootlegs of official album releases are sold too.
-
in a relationship where the creative musicians receive NO income.
As I said before..... I get it, fans want to hear bootleg concert tapes, but often bootlegs of official album releases are sold too.
Hi Chris,
You are right but from my point of view two different markets.
I mean I use the word "bootleg" for illegal release of otherwise unavailable material
Countefeiting official availalble stuff is just counterfeit. I know the law doesn't make the difference.
But we are not talking about official available material.
As Dire Straits did not issue their show on sale this money simply doesn't exist, bootleg or not. You have to understantd that this kind of bootleg is something that the artist does not indented to sell and that was sold by someone else.
If the law had been respected these records would have never existed - simple as that and still $0 in the artist pocket.
The only thing is that the artist was seeing someone else making money with his music - that I admit is hurtful.
I bought the Atlanctic City bootleg because the Rolling Stones didn't put it on sale until a few years back.
And as a fan I did buy the official release. So in the end the artist got the money. And my only regret is all these wasted years while my hearing declined !!!.
So for god sake stop saying artist are losing money on that.
Just put it out on the market and we will buy it.
But now the important question : CHRIS WHERE ARE THE F*CKING TAPES ?
-
So for god sake stop saying artist are losing money on that.
Just put it out on the market and we will buy it.
I always said it was a twofold issue.
As the creator of the art, the artist has the right whether to distribute it or not. When bootleggers sell live albums they aren't doing it for artistic, altruistic reasons, they are doing it because it makes them money. End of story.
OR, they would offer the tapes for free - like modern people do now, uploading live shows to Youtube.
-
Just one example when the artist went smarter than the bootleggers : Wings Over America.
The musical industry should have learned from that.
-
Was it not a standard live album?
Bands regularly release live albums from successful tours.
I think the move that outsmarted the bootleggers (or copyright infringers) was Mark's decision to allow digital downloads of his solo shows.
-
Nobody says that the bootlleger are there for altruistic reasons.
So let talk about money and artist and altruisty
The recording industry is also there to make money and many decisions are not "artistic" but only for the money.
How can I get happy when Mark Knopfler started to release his new album in multiple formats with music exclusive to the £100 super upper deluxe ?
Don't you think I felt betrayed like a squeezed citron ?
Where is the artistry in this ?
I was so happy to buy single with exclusive track but moving to the big box from Get Lucky onward, one later album with exclusive music a german download service or another exclusive to vinyle edition you had to buy two £100 box. Crazy!
Even if this not Mark himself that is behind that this is his name on the box. And this is the time I said stop to that dirty game - I am out!
-
Was it not a standard live album?
Bands regularly release live albums from successful tours.
I think the move that outsmarted the bootleggers (or copyright infringers) was Mark's decision to allow digital downloads of his solo shows.
Wings Over America was meant to be a double album only but then a bootleg started to spread and it was the full show.
So decision was made to release Wings Over America now as a triple album featuring the full show :clap
Without bootlegging industry WOA would only have been a 2 lp record :think
Regarding Mark releasing his shows on downloads was a positive move.
And that say that he wasn't afraid to put live music with imperfection in his playing.
But the time I stopped to have to rely on buying bootlegs was Internet and forum : fan sharing with fan. No more profit money involved.
The difference between the bootlegger time and the youtube time is that you really had to like the artist then to access this music.
The other thing now and I don't know how much it affects younger generation but I am from before the autotune time.
So imperfection was part of the game and was also something we liked and forgave.
Now that a generation has only known auto tune their approach of live music may be different.
I am very concerned that great bands such as the Eagles are faking their show.
But other did it since a long time. ZZ Top at least in the early 00's already did fake singing live on Legs...
-
Wow, I simply love these sort of discussions. Thank you Mr. C and ds1984 for initiating this.
I always wanted the chance to talk out of the box about such issues with people on both sides of the fence. I really haven't made my mind up, but I do have an opinion to add to the debate.
I think what complicates matters is the moral and logical barrier that the music industry has created by lobbying laws to extend their control and money making potential on recordings.
I mean that the first copyright laws for artists that their work could be replicated and sold in many copies, had a certain logic behind them: that the creators would be incentivized to create new, original works, that if they were published and become successful, they would bring them monetary rewards for a specific period of time. It is crucial that the logic behind the law, was that an artist should benefit from his creations, for a period of time. It is a mental work, that takes time, talent and effort to be created and this should be recognized, by having an exclusive gain for a period of time. Effectively a monopoly. This period was initially 30 years, from the first publication, but this got extended in two ways. (The recorded music came later in the game, when books were already moving from a 30 year copyright period, from first publication, to a 50 year period and later on to a 70 year period.) The laws for books had a second "technical" extension, when the 70 years were no longer after the first publication, but after the death of the writer! The law makers had a new reasoning behind this too. That the children of the authors should benefit from the sales of their parents. But 70 years is a long time, it probably benefits grand children as well.
Now, the music industry took these laws and used them as a blueprint for the recorded music. Bear in mind that until the early 50ies, the shellac medium for music was limited and quite fragile, so it allowed a much smaller degree of profit for the music industry. The music industry made most of its money from selling sheet music and copyright from live performances, radio and a bit later jukeboxes. This of course changed with the coming of the 7'' singles and the LPs, especially from the late 50ies and acts like Elvis.
Now it is very crucial to see that since 2000, the US copyright laws (in the EU there are different laws) have extended the copyright for recorded music, from 70 to more than 100 years from the commercial issue of the recording. (It is known as the Sonny Bono clause, since Sonny Bono, ex husband of Cher and well known composer of many fine songs, became a senator and introduced this law) The only thing that they did not do, is the technical extension that the books got - ie. 70 years copyright after the death of the artist. But I expect them to try to do it eventually, since we just passed one of the golden artists - first recordings Louis Armstrong, while we are getting close to the dates of one of the first geese with the golden eggs, Frank Sinatra and then Elvis and then the Beatles. Who would have thought, that what we considered disposable music, would become so profitable, even 100 years after. Plus the added bonus of samples, that are the building blocks of contemporary music would probably force the record companies to lobby for a further extension.
Sony has been known to rush releasing Bob Dylan unpublished recordings in the minimum required number, and cheap looking editions, to reset the clock of copyright, so they gain time to prepare a more presentable official edition later on. Dylan, has sold his rights for physical editions already. Springsteen did the same and lately Pink Floyd as well.
The Beatles are doing the same reset the clock thing with the new remixes. A new remix is considered a new work and resets the clock. Of course the original mixes and recordings older than 50 years, in the parts of the world that have not followed the US copyright laws, are considered public domain, so you can find them quite cheaply. It goes without saying that one may question the quality of said editions, since the master tapes are still the property of the original company or artist, but still... On the quality matter, after the MoFi scandal a couple of years ago, which in my opinion was more of a technical foul than a quality one, many people's perspective have radically changed. After all how many people can afford to buy records that cost 100 Euros, when their entry level turntable costs as much? But this is another interesting topic for discussion.
A curious thing can be witnessed in some of those cheaper issues. The sleeves are different, because the copyright laws for printed works is still 70 years in EU!
To bring matters to a conclusion, I find the excess of 100 years of copyright, in music, to be not only counter productive for the world, but also a travesty of logic. One can argue that the streaming services (that amount to close to 90% of the music industry revenue) allow people to have access to as much music they have time to listen, yet these streaming services are known to pay very little to the actual artists, even those with millions of streams and also are known to be easily manipulated, to produce profits for artists nobody actually wishes to listen. And the streaming services are law abiding.
So this leaves us with the physical product, which is 5% CDs and 5% vinyl records. With their manufacturing cost actually only going up, for various reasons, stock holders revenue being the main one (Dylan, Springsteen, Pink Floyd etc selling their rights for physical products) , the records are priced as collectibles right from the factory. Who can pay 40+ euros for the latest Taylor Swift album? And as ds1984 correctly notes, as a fan, who can afford to buy all editions to get all the recorded material? Is this a marketing ploy that someone can dismiss by saying:"Nobody forces you to buy it", when exactly said editions target specifically the fans and the fans only? So the recordings that the artist has not decided to issue, probably deeming them not too commercial for a wider audience, should remain unpublished forever? Destroyed? And taking them a step further, never to be recorded? Would this be a loss to the collective knowledge of mankind? Or should we just consider them as merely disposable fun and not care for them, unless there is a financial interest behind them? Is the logic of the copyright a way to prevent information - knowledge to be wide spread, or to award the creator with some financial incentive - by creating a monopoly for specific amount of time?
I am really asking, these are not rhetorical questions.
I think that the corporate greed that we experience nowadays, should make us look at the bigger picture with different eyes. One may ask, that if I was a musician, would I not mind if my work is bootlegged, so I don't gain anything from the sales? ds1984 replies in the part where the artist has no intention of releasing specific recordings anyway. I could say, that these laws direct our whole society to specific ways of viewing the world, our relations with other humans, our very own humanity and logic. And the results are not very promising, with the current way of doing things. So, yes, this is only a tiny flaw in the society machine, and we can not solely blame the copyright, when the whole machine is collapsing. We need a new machine. That will reward the creative people, but not in excess. That will value creativity, but also see the value of everyday productive work. One that values the works of the mind, but also pay fairly for the manual labor. I don't want to sound political, I just write these, in order to emphasize that the ever expanding copyright laws, in all aspects of life, from copyrighting seeds, genes, to extending copyright of computer programs, useful patents, down to music, literature and photography, are taking their toll on society and are a part of the bigger problem, because they twist fundamental logic. The ones that gain from them after all are only shareholders. Even the musicians are not benefited on average. Only a few very prolific and successful composers. The rest are on the losing end as well, working from day to day to make ends meet.
-
Ironically, most of the points you make were invented by the tech industry to line their pockets, transferring great wealth from thousands of musicians to a hand full of tech barons like Bezos and Daniel Ek.
Copyright is too long? You will struggle to find any artist that agrees with your view. The tech industry actually violated copyright in order to establish the dominance of Youtube and Spotify. I have been arguing against piracy, then streaming for years and the (tech invented) bullet point claiming copyright is anti-innovation and anti-consumer has been thrown back at me thousands of times.
New vinyl LPs ARE expensive (over priced), that's because they have become fashionable, often as a result of online forums and social media.
I could buy the new Taylor Swift album on CD for £15 maximum, often less ($20-ish). I regularly buy new release CDs for £12 to £15. Classic albums like Rumours or Brothers In Arms sell on CD for £8 to £10.
The cheapest (legal) way to access music today is CD.
-
Ironically, most of the points you make were invented by the tech industry to line their pockets, transferring great wealth from thousands of musicians to a hand full of tech barons like Bezos and Daniel Ek.
I agree.
Copyright is too long? You will struggle to find any artist that agrees with your view.
We are talking 70 years, even 100 years after their DEATH.
So in your view, in 2025 Ravel's Bolero should still not be public domain ?
Or Mickey Mouse ?
We are talking about long time dead artists.
Come on Chris, these extension laws are not to support artist but the business and the corporates making money that you just pointed in first sentence.
The tech industry actually violated copyright in order to establish the dominance of Youtube and Spotify. I have been arguing against piracy, then streaming for years and the (tech invented) bullet point claiming copyright is anti-innovation and anti-consumer has been thrown back at me thousands of times.
You are touching a true point : the music industry only defend artist when the interest goes the same way, but othewise still the same song : I am the producer, I am the one who put the money, I am the one that takes all the profits. The artists are my feeding slaves.
I am aware of how records company are using their trick to collect money through clauses on contracts the way not to have to give the artist their due.
And lets talk about I thnk Warner who illegally copyrighted Happy Birthday and collected money for decade...
New vinyl LPs ARE expensive (over priced), that's because they have become fashionable, often as a result of online forums and social media.
I think that LP trend is the addition of several factors, yes fashionable is one of them. I am not into LP anymore but I got friends that are so happy with vinyle.
I could buy the new Taylor Swift album on CD for £15 maximum, often less ($20-ish). I regularly buy new release CDs for £12 to £15. Classic albums like Rumours or Brothers In Arms sell on CD for £8 to £10.
The cheapest (legal) way to access music today is CD.
CD or legal download from a single track.
-
Artist estates want copyright of 70 to 100 years.
The absolute main issue is about exploitation, not money. Paul Mccartney for example is angry that his songs are being used to promote products he doesn't agree with (like meat products). His children feel likewise (Stella, Mary, James etc).
You see someone like the current president of the USA unable to play most music at his rallies, other than that made by a couple of supporters.
That's why people value copyright. It is about controlling your art and your legacy.
Your take on record labels is very old school.
Very, very few records are made with label money these days. The home studio and music software revolution has led to artists making their own records, without the meddling of record labels. Then they either release as an independent, or if they are a very commercial artist, they license their music to a big label, where it will achieve a much wider promotion globally.
Whatever you say, you won't find many artists criticising copyright. Copyright was trashed by the tech industry and ever since then records have been virtually worthless and the majority of musicians much poorer.
-
Copyright is both about control AND money.
Yourself talked first about money as bootleg record money not going to the artist.
Money is the blood, without money nothing is possible.
The main question is how the money irrigate the body.
You can't separate money form control and control from money.
So let's talk about Paul McCartney and control over the Beatles songs.
I will sum up the story so everybody can understannd what happened.
The detailled story is way more complicated but in the end what I am writing is what happened.
First
Editors rights
When you are writing song you are selling your editor rights to a company to edit your songs.
And basically this is the editor right that have control on what you can do with the song or what you can't.
Contractual clauses.
Second
Taxes.
An individual earning money from your work such as author rights are way more taxed than being a share holder of a company.
That means that artist have better to get revenues through a company.
Paul controled 15% of the shares in the company that was owning the Lennon McCartney publisihing rights (Northern Song Ltd).
Things turned bad over the control of the company and as a result Paul and John sold their share in October 1969 for £3.5 million.
From that point he had lost his editor rights on the songs he wrote.
This is why today his Beatles songs are being used to promote products he doesn't agree with (like meat products)
Paul has learned the hard lesson, for his successful career as Wings or solo he put up MPL Communication and earned editor right control over his post Beatles songs.
May I have to explain the MJ episode ?
What I want to say is that current copyright system is not primarily beneficing for artist.
The current copyright system is mostly beneficing to corporate business first.
In this system artist only comes second don't you think :think
-
Then why are artists all in support of copyright?
Things only changed for McCartney after the Michael Jackson acquisition. Until then no Beatles song had been used in advertising.
Nothing is exclusive is it? I said artists want control over their work, which is achieved by copyright.
They also want to be recompensed for their work.
There are many copyrights involved - the composition is one copyright, the recording is another, separate copyright.
The record labels owned the recordings in the past, that's why they pursued bootleggers and pirates.
-
Then why are artists all in support of copyright?
Things only changed for McCartney after the Michael Jackson acquisition. Until then no Beatles song had been used in advertising.
Nothing is exclusive is it? I said artists want control over their work, which is achieved by copyright.
They also want to be recompensed for their work.
There are many copyrights involved - the composition is one copyright, the recording is another, separate copyright.
The record labels owned the recordings in the past, that's why they pursued bootleggers and pirates.
Paul's family will already still getting the money 70 years after Paul's passing.
Do you understand the word DEAD ?
How many workers are still feeding their family after their death?
That IS copyright.
So I ask you again do you find relevant that in 2025 Ravel's Bolero is now part of the public domain ?
-
Blimey. What a very unfriendly forum this really can be at times.
-
Expressing opinion may not always sound friendly.
But Billy what is your opinion about Ravel's Bolero entering the public domain?
Or the way the music industry is still organized to spoil the artists?
-
Expressing opinion may not always sound friendly.
But Billy what is your opinion about Ravel's Bolero entering the public domain?
Or the way the music industry is still organized to spoil the artists?
All very interesting, but these two topics are taking another direction than my original post.
-
Or the way the music industry is still organized to spoil the artists?
And what is your job in the music industry?
Again, artists support copyright 100%. You cannot get away from that fact.
Going back to the original post.....
Bootlegs in regular shops was extremely rare. Artists don't generally like their live shows to be distributed without their permission. But aren't motivated to try and stem the tsunami. Record labels do not like illegal copies of released albums to be sold by bootleggers.
-
Blimey. What a very unfriendly forum this really can be at times.
Have I missed something? Seems like a good discussion based on facts and opinions?
-
Or the way the music industry is still organized to spoil the artists?
And what is your job in the music industry?
Again, artists support copyright 100%. You cannot get away from that fact.
Going back to the original post.....
Bootlegs in regular shops was extremely rare. Artists don't generally like their live shows to be distributed without their permission. But aren't motivated to try and stem the tsunami. Record labels do not like illegal copies of released albums to be sold by bootleggers.
Hi,
I do not work directly for the music industry but I have been surrounded by artist including one that reached the N°1 spot on french RTL radio chart, an independant record producer, the owner of an independant label, and an ex Warner France executive that is also credited on records production team and receive royalties for that.
I will answer other questions later.
-
Again, artists support copyright 100%. You cannot get away from that fact.
Of course copyright system is supported by artists.
Still my question about Ravel's Bolero remains unanswered...
-
Going back to the original post.....
Bootlegs in regular shops was extremely rare. Artists don't generally like their live shows to be distributed without their permission. But aren't motivated to try and stem the tsunami. Record labels do not like illegal copies of released albums to be sold by bootleggers.
During the 90's the bootlegs spreaded through regular shops in my country.
The French FNAC enseigne ( equivalent to the UK HMV stores) was even raid by the SACEM.
Well they had a favour treatment. A regurlar shop would be heavily fined - I know some, and I personaly witnessed a raid.
But the Fnac being the Fnac, they were only asked to remove them and case closed.
But FNAC is selling bootlegs again in 2025, look at this : DIRE STRAITS feat. Mark Knopfler - Radio Transmissions Coffret 6 CD (https://www.fnac.com/a19860966/Dire-Straits-Radio-Transmissions-Coffret-CD-album)
Again I exclude illegal copies of released albums from the discussion.
This activity is just basic counterfeiting and way more destructive.
-
During the 90's I easily found bootlegs in any record shop in Valencia, and in Barcelona there is a street full of record shops and all of them had bootlegs at the time, they still have!
-
In the 90's local stores and supermarkets in. Spain had pile upon pile of writable CD's for sale.
I think largely so people could illegally copy computer games, but also music.
Ravel's Bolero? I have no clue. Can you cite any human being that has been hurt or life degraded because of Ravel's Bolero?
From what I can see it can still be performed by orchestras. It gained a lot more exposure when Torvill and Dean used it as their music on the way to Ice Dancing gold medal in the Olympics.