Ebay Thread

[dmg]

We should also bear in mind when discussing ethics that when we purchase an official recording only a tiny percentage actually goes to the artist actually making the music.  Instead we are fattening the already fat wallets of the record companies.  Mark spoke out about this in the early 90s referring to portions of a pie which were "dubious to say the least" or something like that.  This maybe explains the Grateful Dead statement regarding fans recordings and I suggest most artists will probably agree because they get screwed by their record companies at every turn.  Is Privateering available in the USA yet?

[twm]

I will not get into the legalities, ethics or efficacy of bootlegs, nor the definitional aspects (that is, what is a "bootleg" and how it differs from "counterfeit" and so on).

"Great White Wonder", which appeared in the late summer of 1969 in the USA,  is reckoned to be the first ROCK bootleg album but it was not the first example of bootlegging recorded music.

Over 100 years ago, a guy called Mapleson, who had been given a recorder by Edison and was the librarian at the Metropolitan Opera Hose in New York, would record brief snatches of performances in the venue. The Mapleson Cylinders, albeit individually brief in content and poor in sound quality, are now regarded as of historical importance.  In the years after WW2 and into the 1950s, commercial bootlegging began to grow - classical music, operas, jazz, blues - taken from radio broadcasts, live performances, old 78s not available on LP, "original soundtracks" from films that were not available officially, and so on. 

Many of the early private recordings of Dylan were not made with a future commercial value in mind. Individuals simply made recordings for their own use, for playing to friends or for copying for friends. Dubs of studio recordings were made for similar reasons. Sometimes, acetates of those recordings were passed around to encourage other singers to record the songs. Copies of copies of all of these were passed around between fans, anxious to hear "everything" (or as much as possible) recorded by their favourite artist. In more recent years, it appears that concerts are recorded by bootleggers, on top-notch equipment, with a view, from the outset, of making and selling bootleg CDs.   

Finally (and I hope I haven't said this before), it is not unknown for big record companies to bootleg competitors' output - not as a whole but in part, at least.  I can't find my note on the subject but, as I recall, Columbia Records discovered, after the event, that they had failed to record the whole of one orchestral piece. These recordings, when made in the studio, are done in sections and then the various sections are joined together to make the final record - and they found they had a gap! Since it would have been almost impossible to bring everyone together again to record the missing section (and, doubtless, disproportionately expensive, too), their solution was to "borrow" (for which read, "steal", "misappropriate", "nick" etc)  the missing part from a recording made by someone else for another record company. Not aprevalent practice, I'm sure, but if it happened once, it may well have happened on other occasions.

[vgonis]

twm, I would really love to read your point of view for the aspects you avoid to get into. It is not a poll, but a valued opinion from a man that has been around all this time and can have an insight the rest of us fail to see.   What I can gather from your post is that regardless of the legality or morality of the bootlegs, the outcome (Mapleston cylinders) tends to justify the means.

[twm]

There are literally 100s of Dylan bootleg albums and I don't "collect" them as such. That does not mean that I haven't purchased a few over the years. I have, maybe, 15-20 bootleg LPs (including the "grey area" ones that came out of Italy and were sold in regular record shops). I have a great number of cassettes (live and in-studio) that I've swapped with friends over the years, so many that I've lost count. I have more bootleg CDs than LPs but mainly for the convenience - in order to have reference copies for my article writing. This latter category included two series of double-album sets that document Dylan's earlier output - in studio and and live stuff, respectively. I also have a fair number of CDs that people have made for me, on request, mainly in return for past favours or out of friendship.

In Europe, the "50 year rule" applies. This means that, as of 1 January 2013, anything recorded (?) or released (?)by Dylan up to the end of 1962 can be legally released by other companies. I'm not quite sure how this rule  applies to material recorded in 1961 and 1962 but not officially released until years later. However, I note that the companies involved have omitted this "released later" material from their compilations, so either they're not sure and don't want to take a chance or they are sure and keep well away from those tracks.

I take no moral high ground in all this at all. If I happen to have some bootleg recording of something that Dylan subsequently issues officially, I don't think I've ever failed to buy the official release. I suppose that I could say that, therefore, I'm not depriving him of income but I'm not saying that.

I have never derived an income from bootleg material or releases and I have been very selective in what I've bought. Again, no defence if it came to court but I feel comfortable with that.

I don't get worked up about the subject at all.

[vgonis]

Thank you twm!

[twm]

The document reproduced below is worth reading.  Because it exceeds the maximum number of characters, I have split it into several parts (4 parts in fact).

I don't have much truck with the Republican Party views in the USA but this was posted on-line just under a month ago by The Republican Study Committe by Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of this committee (and under the name of Paul Teller, its Executive Director). The telephone number given is 202 226 971 and the e-mail address (?) as rsc.jordan.house.gov.

The RSC Staff Contact is: Derek.S.Khanna   e-mail: Derek.Khanna@mail.house.gov    tel: 202 226 0718

The document was apparently withdrawn from its original website not long after it was posted but somebody has now posted it here:

http://marylandpirates.com/wp-content/uploads/rsc_policy_brief_--_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012.pdf

In case this happens again, I reproduce the document in whole here, as near as possible to its original formatting, but without any indication or confirmation from me that it is genuine and true. I just thought it might be worth a read in the light of the foregoing posts in this thread:

PART 1:

Page | 1

RSC Policy Brief:

Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it:

November 16, 2012

RSC Staff Contact: Derek S. Khanna, Derek.Khanna@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-0718

This paper will analyze current US Copyright Law by examining three myths on copyright law and possible reforms to copyright law that will lead to more economic development for the private sector and to a copyright law that is more firmly based upon constitutional principles.

1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content:
It

[twm]

PART 2:

Page | 2

maximum

[twm]

PART 3

Can we ever have too much copyright protection?:

Page | 4

Yes. The Federal government has gotten way too big, and our copyright law is a symptom of the expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.

Today

[twm]

PART 4

Page | 8

actually infringing. The court has said that their needs to be

[twm]

It's a lot of reading, guys, and I apologise for that - but I, for one, found it interesting in the light of some of the recent posts in this thread.

[vgonis]

Very interesting twm! Thank you! Before the last segment with his proposal of 46 years, I was thinking that the author had a bunch of google stocks! But his suggestion is fair, it is more or less what we used to have in Greece until 1995. After that the 50 year limit after the death of the author (which was too much, but the logic was that the time spent in writing his work was time his children were deprived...) was raised (for written/literature works) to 70 years after the death of the author!  In music the law is a bit more logical, giving only 50 years (I think it still stands) from the original day of recording but I think there might be a bit of legal technicality here, so it might also be the day of release. People should be able to live with their earnings from their work and there is some logic in compensating the children, but there are other aspects of all these "businesses" that are as unfair. The way they distribute the profits from the radio and TV broadcasts. The new contracts for artists, that completely tie them down. The way the internet is used, etc. And once again, dare I say that knowledge alone does not make you a human being. And this proposal although focuses on the loss of incentive and money and productivity and fails to analyse other factors. In a free society, the word is not productivity but offering. And even though this would be a nice start for reducing the corporate mega profits and their evergrowing influence in politics and everyday life, we should also take into consideration that with this proposal the economic system stays intact, and it is just a matter of time to create new leeches. 

[vgonis]

Also the link in the text contains a very intresting paper about the internet copyrights. A few days ago we had this discussion on another thread. Facebook is a gigantic corporation that its size and popularity has allowed it to do unethical things and break the law! By doing this, and because of its size, it sets a new set of rules, ethics and if it goes unnoticed and without protest, a new set of laws :
" I have recently removed all my photos from facebook     (I had more than my flickr account)  as a protest against the rules that were brought to my attention after the buy out of instagram.
After the sale of Instagram, I checked again the terms of facebook use. I found out that the photos, personal data, preferences etc.  of the members can be SOLD without their concent and without any compensation!
The user agreement states,

[twm]

In respect of Reply # 168, I believe the law will change in Europe later this year, so that the "50 year rule" will become a "70 year rule".

Sony have just released 100 copies (reputedly 100 copies across the whole of Europe, I understand) of a 4 CD set of Dylan out-takes and alternate takes (plus some live material) from 1962. That's 86 tracks in all, none of them previously released officially. Most of them have been available to collectors before (though I don't know if the quality is better on this new "release") but over 20 are not currently circulating.  Though I've not seen a set, I'm told that they are in fact CD-Rs (though professionally produced) and they come with a typewritten list of tracks with recording dates and matrix numbers. Already copies are appearing on eBay at a large mark-up. Most likely, these will end up being bootlegged (and possibly "counterfeited" - that's, made to resemble exactly one of the original 100 copies).  They are also avaialble in some countries as a download.  "Why?", you might ask, "Are they doing it all? And why are they producing these physical copies as well as the download?" Rumour has it that the few shops that have sold this CD set have been required to provide photocopies of the sales receipts. Again, you might ask, "Why?"

Look again at what I wrote in #168. I said that, amongst those manufacturers that have taken advantage of the "50 year rule" in Europe to produce Bob Dylan CDs of material from 1961, there has been a reluctance to include recordings from that year that were not actually released until much later in time. This 4-CD set appears to be a legal move by Sony: by releasing this material now, just ahead of the 1 January 2013 deadline, Sony are setting out to prevent these European manufacturers from issuing "new" Dylan material from 1962. 

As I said, it isn't clear to me whether the "50-year rule" applies to this later-released material (that is, material not released at the time but released more recently) or not. Sony have taken the view that, by issuing this officially unreleased material now, albeit in small quantities, it will now be covered by the "50 year rule" starting now. They are building their case for any legal battle that might take place.

Interestingly, Sony has made a decison that it is in their interests to prevent the legal release of this material through regular record shops and on-line sources (quite likely in quite large quantities) and that they are prepared to accept that the recordings will get circulated on bootleg CDs to the more ardent and active Dylan fans (but underground and in much smaller quantities).

I stress that I am no copyright lawyer (indeed, not a lawyer of any kind) but this is the way I see it.

[vgonis]

If I remember correctly the 50 year law in music has to do with the day of the original recording, regardless of the day of the release.  This is why the Beatles tried to tackle the situation by throwing in the market remastered and (to some extend) remixed versions. Their strategic move has also included an advertising  plan of selling the records mainly as boxsets rather than individual records, although there were issued seperately as well. I guess they had to be certain that one way or another they could win the case or bypass the law.
The Sony incident you present is very intresting and in the same vein, but of course a lot cheaper to execute. I wonder if Dylan has an opinion on this. I mean if he is allowed to have a saying, or the recordings are owned by Sony exclusively.
The big issue is this: if the law is clear on this the only reason for doing all these acts would only be to force them to change the law (as the US congress has already done twice! since 1976-the latter being the "Sonny Bono" act that expanded the rights from 90 years to 100 years!!!! No new free public domain music until 1923 then!)  .
If their sales have dropped considerably the last 13 years, these practices won't bring them back up. I guess Dylan has steady sales but not that big to be used as an example. They probably use him only because of his status. I surely hope they don't change the law. 70 years means that we will again lose Miles Davis, Billy Holiday (later work), Charlie Parker, Gerry Mullighan, and many many more from that great era. And all that because of Elvis.The original issue was raised by RCA, since Elvis is the best selling artist  of all time and his 1955 recordings were to become public domain.
twm is there a counter-movement? Is there something we can do ? This two standard thing gives me the creeps. I am beginning to thing that if there is public outcry, they will pass the law regardless, but at least in return fight the corporate terms of agreement like the ones from facebook. Of course this would only be a well orchestrated corporate movement to make these changes seem logical, so   I guess the only way to fightit is not buying any new music anymore.     

[Pottel]

interesting post by someone over on ER:

I think Sony know exactly what they are doing. This was not released in order to have new "product" in the stores, this was released so that Dylan's people/Columbia/Sony have legal leverage to go after and stop out-of-copyright/public domain releases of this material that are legal in Europe (like FREEWHEELIN' RECORDING SESSIONS 1962 due for release in February from BDA). This was a very clever move and I wonder why other artists/record companies have not thought of this before.

This Sony release is more against Bob Dylan as artist than against eventual third parties. According to current EU Directive, if the recording company doesn't use the recordings for 50 years, the artist can legally regain the unusued masters from the label. Practically Bob Dylan could legally get hold of the unusued tapes in the Sony vaults and resell in the UE market. Substantially Dylan could sell the Freewheelin' albums, using the alternate takes.For example, Bob could grant the use of an alternate take of Blowin In The Wind in a movie or a compilation. In this case, Sony Records couldn't have anymore the right to get his share. With this release, Sony records can try to keep his rights on the recordings for other 70 years against claims by Dylan and his eventual heirs. But within the european jurisdiction of the single states, I doubt that a so limited and instrumental release can legally block eventual claims or actions of Bob Dylan and his family.