(It is safe to read-on this is NOT an anti-Greg thread!)
Yesterday afternoon I was somewhat surprised by Greg Brooks’ revelation that "The fan who PROVIDED the bootlegs for QOL. He was paid."
link
Queen Archivist wrote: ...The fan who provided the bootlegs for QOL. He was paid.
Now, although I have not, and will not change my stance against downloading illegal official material, this revelation has certainly made me sit-up, and rethink my stance as far as bootleg downloads are concerned.
First; given the timeframe and geographical extent of QOL’s ‘100 Greatest Bootlegs’ project, it is a given that this paid fan (or fans) could not possibly attend all these gigs. Therefore, the poor sods who physically recorded this material have been by-passed, and the first generation masters have not been employed. So why is it illegal to record and share these bootlegs – when middle-men are paid – simply for supplying a copy?
If the original owner of such tapes could prove that QOL are purchasing his (or her) wares from an illegal middle representative, could they counter-suit QPL for reproduction without permission? Certainly, if middle men can be rewarded for this service, why not the original owners also?
Second; although QOL claim that the fees from this project are donated to charity, it seems that some fees have been spent up-front to secure some kind of bootleg brokerage deal. This I personally find morally abhorrent, particularly when it flies in the face of both UK copyright laws – and a sense of ‘British fair play’.
Either what QOL is doing is illegal, and they should be hoisted upon their own petards, or it is perfectly legal, in which case, it must be open season for all - as they do not own the original tapes, in which case anyone who supplies these must be protected by the very same laws which allow QPL’s suppliers to be remunerated – they can not have it both ways.
Would I therefore be wrong to conclude that this revelation breaks the strangle-hold of QPL – and that better sourced, better quality bootlegs could be freely downloaded WITHOUT the fear of reprisal, and finally sound the death-knell for such a backward looking exercise anyways?
John
i've wondered for years about the whole "who owns the bootleg" argument.
I would hazard a guess that in law, the situation is this:
When you buy a ticket for a gig, you are entering into a contract - you are only purchasing the right to attend and listen the gig on that night. The conditions of purchase on the back of the tickets clearly state "no cameras, and no recording equipment of any kind" - so anyone recording a gig is breaking the law.
So if a "legger" records the gig - he/she is breaking the law. the tapes they produce are not legally their own. so in effect the performers still own the work...no matter WHO recorded it! - QPL have just used very strange methods to secure a copy of their own work - but none of this will change the legal aspects of bootlegging.
I think Brenski has a good point here. Record company's will certainly have taken steps when bootlegging became very populair. I mean just look at how security has been tightend over the last couple of years when visiting a concert. I heard that back in the old days you could pretty much walk in with a Super 8 camera on your neck and nobody would look surprised. These days you have to go through several security stations before actually entering the bulding.
It's pretty obvious that record company's want to avoid people making bootlegs so I'm pretty sure that they also have a sort of backup plan for if security should fail and people still bootleg a show.
My input for what it's worth...
Record companies generally have little to do with a band's tour - certainly a band the size of Queen. Tours are normally organised by the band's management talking to the various promoters. This suggests that it is the artists themselves who have tightened up on security - note how many bands (U2 and Counting Crows spring to mind) who are almost encouraging taping these days.
And as far as ownership of bootlegs goes, there is no court in the world that would uphold a taper 'owning' a recording he made of someone else's work, especially when the purchase of a concert ticket enters him or her into a contract NOT to record it. Boots tend to fall into a weird grey area that can't really be policed, so taping continues almost at the discrection of the artist. If it came to it, the artist would own the bootleg.
QOL PAID the guy who supplied the bootlegs for their top 100??
They PAID for that crap????
Sheesh, wish it had been me. At least I'd have provided some concerts of better sound quality.
stark wrote: (...) note how many bands (U2 and Counting Crows spring to mind) who are almost encouraging taping these days.
Sorry for my pointless input - but I thought I'd add that U2 aren't "almost" encouraging taping. They've already said openly they do support and encourage anyone who wants to tape their concerts, as long as they make no profit from the bootlegs.