Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net
 


       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
shakalakababy

Your opinion on bootlegs

now i'm not talking about trading or anything like that so i think this follows the rules. if it doesn't feel free to delete.

So anyways this is something i've been thinking about lately. What is your opinion on bootlegs? Specifically, bootlegs of musicals. Are you for or against them? discuss
Cake_in_Song

I'm conflicted. I'm against movie bootlegs, and buy DVDs rather than downloading boots. But at the same time, I totally download music, and for a person in a remote corner of Canada like me, boots are basically the only way I can have any taste of what's happening in New York or London. I honestly would love to pay for a DVD of a show, as I have many times before. But not enough shows were legally recorderd.
Robinflamingo

Cake_in_Song wrote:
I'm conflicted. I'm against movie bootlegs, and buy DVDs rather than downloading boots. But at the same time, I totally download music, and for a person in a remote corner of Canada like me, boots are basically the only way I can have any taste of what's happening in New York or London. I honestly would love to pay for a DVD of a show, as I have many times before. But not enough shows were legally recorderd.


Does iTunes and Walmart.com not work in your remote corner of Canada?

I'm totally against bootlegs of any kind. It's hard enough to make a living in the arts without people stealing your income.
lesmisloony

My opinion on musicals bootlegs is that the show is never the same twice, so I have no problem with them. The cast changes; little nuances of the performance change. Sticking with my area of expertise, I saw the revival of Les Mis two nights in a row, and the barricade boys behaved drastically differently each time. And since Nehal left the cast before I was introduced to these forums, I never got the chance to watch his reportedly hilarious antics throughout during the ensemble.

I don't like it when people bootleg cast recordings or films because they could easily buy them. But I will gladly argue for bootlegs of musicals, because seeing/hearing a bootleg only makes me want to experience it live.
Quique

I lurves musicals bootlegs. I won't make them myself though. Well, at least not anymore, lol.
Orestes Fasting

I don't object, as long as the recording and trading are conducted discreetly. Unlike, say, people selling $5 Taiwanese knockoffs of major feature films, bootlegging live performances doesn't detract from legit ticket sales: the people who record these things are the people who spend a lot of time and money at the theatre, and the people who trade for them, if they aren't of the same breed, are usually the ones who wouldn't otherwise have access to these shows.

Not to mention Loony's point that bootlegs don't replace live performances, or even reduce the demand for tickets. I've never heard anyone say they skipped out on a chance to see a show because they already had a boot of it--and I used to be heavily involved in the trading community.

Even if a complete cast recording were released for every show that made it to Broadway, there would still be a demand for bootlegs as well as the cast recordings. Replacement casts. Understudies. The "live vibe." Flubs and improvs. Performers changing from the beginning to the end of a run. None of that is on cast recordings. I've had Les Mis replacements and understudies email me to ask for recordings of themselves, because otherwise there'd be no way for them to hear their own performances.

Bootlegs, legit recordings, and ticket sales fulfill different needs in the market. None of the three hurts the demand for the others.

I understand that a lot of people just don't like the idea of bootlegs, but I don't think a discreet barter trade in them is harmful, quite honestly. If you don't like them, ignore them.

(That said, I personally volunteer to rip out the eyeballs of anyone who distracts the performers with clumsy, obvious filming attempts--or who sells their bootlegs for cash.)
jackissensational

lesmisloony wrote:
My opinion on musicals bootlegs is that the show is never the same twice, so I have no problem with them. The cast changes; little nuances of the performance change. Sticking with my area of expertise, I saw the revival of Les Mis two nights in a row, and the barricade boys behaved drastically differently each time. And since Nehal left the cast before I was introduced to these forums, I never got the chance to watch his reportedly hilarious antics throughout during the ensemble.

I don't like it when people bootleg cast recordings or films because they could easily buy them. But I will gladly argue for bootlegs of musicals, because seeing/hearing a bootleg only makes me want to experience it live.


I couldn't agree more.
shakalakababy

I agree with the above as well.

Personally I live in California and can't afford to fly out to NYC all the time so if I ever want to see the original broadway cast of something (or just a cast i like a lot), bootlegs are my only option. It never detracts me from seeing the show, i'll see a show a million times. Seeing it recorded and seeing it live are totally different things.
Cake_in_Song

Robinflamingo wrote:
Cake_in_Song wrote:
I'm conflicted. I'm against movie bootlegs, and buy DVDs rather than downloading boots. But at the same time, I totally download music, and for a person in a remote corner of Canada like me, boots are basically the only way I can have any taste of what's happening in New York or London. I honestly would love to pay for a DVD of a show, as I have many times before. But not enough shows were legally recorderd.


Does iTunes and Walmart.com not work in your remote corner of Canada?

I'm totally against bootlegs of any kind. It's hard enough to make a living in the arts without people stealing your income.


I didn't mean bootlegs were my only access to entertainment. I can and do purchase many albums every year. However, it's my only access to Broadway and West End performances. I really don't have enough money to head out to New York every year.
musikal_geek

It really depends for me.
If I don't have to pay for it I don't feel as bad- people aren't getting money for something that's not technically theirs. And I'm the kind of person who will still gladly pay big bucks to see a show on Broadway even if I've already seen a bootleg- it's totally different live.

Idk... from a fan's point of view I'm ok with it, but when I think about it from an actor's or producer's point of view, I know I would get really mad. So I'm definitely on the fence for this one.
Beagle On Stage

As a published playwright, I get paid every time my work is performed, and I feel pretty raped by the thought of people watching videos of it for the rest of eternity that I'm not getting royalties for.

And as a performer, I see my appearance onstage as a service rendered to the theatre company. People pay the organisation in order to see me go on. If you don't show up with a ticket when I'm in the building about to do my stuff, you don't get to see it. I don't like the idea of people enjoying a tape of me (that might put my performance in an unflattering light by being of low quality) anytime they feel like it.

On a more universal level that focuses on common sense and not legalities, showing up is one of the responsibilities that an audience member has. While I can understand that proximity is an issue, it's up to you to get there. If you can't, I believe the expression is S-O-L.
lonewriter

I also can't condone bootlegs. I am a writer and I have had my work used for profit that I never saw a penney for. It pissed me off. That being said, I wish their was a way for more shows from Broadway and West End to be put on DVD, I would buy them. I have never been to Broadway or West End and I have always wanted to see a show. Hopefully, I will get to go to London this January, if so, I am going to see Oliver!
Lepitot

I don't feel bad about it at all. I watch bootlegs of movies online all the time. I simply can't afford to pay 8 bucks at the theater to see a movie as many times as I would like.

As for musicals...I think they should make a professional DVD of every show, and rent them out so that people CAN watch them legally. You don't have to sell them to the general public. Make it a difficult thing to come by, so that only legit theater fans get to see it and appreciate it for what it is, instead of just selling it to everyone and therefore lose ticket sales. Even if someone isn't a big theatre fan, but who is willing to take the steps to obtain the recording, could watch it.

As for music, I download it all the time illegally. It's jsut easier. THe way I look at it is: You listen to the radio free every day. I don't listen to my music in big groups...it's just for my own entertainment. How is it different? I'm not paying to hear their songs on the radio.
Beagle On Stage

Lepitot wrote:
How is it different? I'm not paying to hear their songs on the radio.


But the radio station is paying to broadcast it to you. When you download music illegally, is the person who made it available paying the record label?
Orestes Fasting

I wonder what would happen if theatres started following in the footsteps of certain rock bands and selling CDs recorded off the soundboard after each show. The technology certainly exists to have the CDs ready to go very quickly after the show ends--within a quarter of an hour, even. Fans get live recordings, producers/writers/actors are duly compensated for the recordings, you could probably get a pretty sizeable heap of extra money off it, and it would drastically reduce the amount of bootlegging.

I'm guessing it's not feasible because the unions would all throw fits, but it would be an interesting experiment. Keep tabs on how many people buy them and for what price, whether it affects ticket sales (either positively or negatively), whether the number of punkass amateur bootleggers caught by ushers goes down. It would also be a great way to preserve smaller shows that might not get a cast recording.
Set_Buildin_Dad

Bootlegs are wrong. They are stealing, plain and simple. People who make bootlegs are distracting to the performers as well as their fellow patrons. The bootlegs are also so lousy in quality for the most part I don't know why anyone would bother doing them. Instead of fiddling around trying to surrepticiously make a bootleg, you should sit back and enjoy the show you spent good money to see.
lesmisloony

Quote:
I wonder what would happen if theatres started following in the footsteps of certain rock bands and selling CDs recorded off the soundboard after each show. The technology certainly exists to have the CDs ready to go very quickly after the show ends--within a quarter of an hour, even. Fans get live recordings, producers/writers/actors are duly compensated for the recordings, you could probably get a pretty sizeable heap of extra money off it, and it would drastically reduce the amount of bootlegging.

And I just died of squee at the mere mention of it.

Quote:
I don't feel bad about it at all. I watch bootlegs of movies online all the time. I simply can't afford to pay 8 bucks at the theater to see a movie as many times as I would like.

This I disagree with. There's a big difference between "scraping up eight dollars and walking down the street" and "somehow managing to catch a train/bus/plane to NYC/London and buying a decent seat in an expensive theatre (not to mention hotels/cabs/meals)."

I know I'm a bit biased. I've been able to see movies free in theatres since I was sixteen due to constantly being employed at said theatres. At the risk of sounding like an asshole, if you can't come up with eight dollars to see a film... maybe you should... get a part-time job. See if your local cinema is hiring.

And if the issue is needing to see said film repeatedly, wait until it comes out on DVD. If it's good enough that you need to see it more than once, why not buy the DVD to support the actors/writers/directors? They're generally less than $20.

As for me, I buy any DVD of any film I liked enough to watch repeatedly. And if I love a show, I buy the cast album(s). And if I fangirl a show, I buy other random paraphenalia. In addition to random various bootlegs.

Because no, I can't afford to see every Broadway show--or really any shows at all now that I'm paying my college tuition--which is the main reason I have bootlegs. But if I like something, I generally want to support it and keep it going so other people can get a chance to like it too, so I try to do what I can in that respect.

/partially-coherent sermon
lonewriter

Quote:
How is it different? I'm not paying to hear their songs on the radio.


It's called theft. When that asshole stole my story and gave it away to his friends, I lost money and that is how I pay my bills. I don't work my ass off so someone can take it for free.
Cake_in_Song

The people most hurt by music downloads are actually record companies, as well as Top 40 "artists" like Britney Spears. Fans of indie and alternative acts are still pretty likely to buy the album. That's why even big names like Radiohead are going independent. There's a rumour that the digital downloads of Radiohead's last album were going for something like $2.25 a piece (fans paid whatever they wanted to), which seems crappy, until you take into acount the absence of a middleman. It's big corporations that need CDs to be 20 bucks, not bands. And for me, cost is a huge issue. I'm trying to pay for my education, and I just don't have enough money to buy albums if I haven't listened to the artist for a while. Downloading can actually be beneficial to bands, because it opens up so many windows for them to be discovered. I never would have bought a Mountain Goats album if I hadn't become a fan through illegal downloads.
Orestes Fasting

How is an act that doesn't deprive the owners of anything they were actually offering "stealing, plain and simple?" Copyright infringement, perhaps, but not theft; and copyright law is rarely plain and never simple.

Quote:
People who make bootlegs are distracting to the performers as well as their fellow patrons.


Can I just clear up this misconception here? No bootlegger with an ounce of common sense will even be noticed, let alone a distraction. Getting audio is virtually undetectable; filming shouldn't be any more obtrusive than watching the show through opera glasses. Anyone who engages in stupid behaviors, such as leaving the little red 'recording' light visible where even the performers on stage can see it, deserves to be caught and made to stop annoying everyone else.
Mumsytype

lonewriter wrote:
Quote:
How is it different? I'm not paying to hear their songs on the radio.


It's called theft. When that asshole stole my story and gave it away to his friends, I lost money and that is how I pay my bills. I don't work my ass off so someone can take it for free.


Exactly. I've worked for the MCPS in London, the body that monitors radio playlists worldwide and ensures that royalties are paid to the relevant companies, and it's amazing how much money is lost through illegal broadcasting and recording.

The writers/performers of works, whether live theatre, songs, or writing, make a living out of people paying to experience those works. If someone makes a recording and sells it on, they are stealing income from the writers/performers.

That's criminal activity, which is why this site will not EVER condone or encourage bootlegging, nor permit trading to take place in the forums.
mastachen

I collect bootlegs. If your work is being performed in NY or elsewhere, you're not gonna earn any of my money by my being in LA. So I watch your shows through bootlegs, and it's not like you lose any money if I do go to NY because, as Orestes says, people rarely say that they wouldn't watch a show because they've already seen a bootleg of it.... and I'm one of those people.
shakalakababy

yup i agree. I have lots of bootlegs of broadway performances but if i went to NYC i would see as many shows as possible. i wouldn't say "oh well i've already seen the video of the show, i don't need to see it again." In fact seeing the bootleg would probably make me want to see it more.
Theaterfan101

Theft is wrong, no matter what it is. Unless of course, your Jean Valjean, stealing to keep you and your family from starving. That is understandable. Stealing to stay alive. Not stealing just because you can't afford it or its inconvenient.

There used to be a pre-preview thing at local theater that showed people stealing cars, purses, and DVDs. It said. You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a life, downloading pirated DVD's is stealing.

this is the same thing. Seriously people, you should be ashamed.
mastachen

Theaterfan101 wrote:
. Seriously people, you should be ashamed.


Wow. And you're the first person to publicly judge all of us.

Just wanted to point that out.

Kthx.
Theaterfan101

mastachen wrote:
Theaterfan101 wrote:
. Seriously people, you should be ashamed.


Wow. And you're the first person to publicly judge all of us.

My respect for you just plummeted.

Kthx.


well I can't respect you if you steal, so I guess we are equall
mastachen

What, exactly, do I steal, if I watch a bootleg of someone else's performance? Their work? It's not like they lose their ability to perform if I watch their bootleg. Their money? How am I any richer for watching a bootleg? If anything it just makes me want to watch the show live more and spend over a thousand dollars on a trip to NY. I already did that once and I don't have the resources to do that again. I'm sorry I'm not Beagle, who has mommy and daddy to pay for everything, or you, who went to private school all your life so you have a coddled view of the world.

I make do with what I have. I still watch shows live. After watching a bootleg of the Doyle production of Sweeney Todd, I wanted to watch it live so much that I forced my roommate into going with me to watch it at the Ahmanson theatre... for 20 bucks. So what exactly, did I steal? Is Patti Lupone and Michael Ceveris or John Doyle or Stephen Sondheim any less talented or any less richer or hurt in ANY way because I watched one ---- bootleg? I didn't think so.
Theaterfan101

just because the harm is not visible or enormously affect the person you stole from does not make it okay. Let me tell you a little story.
My dad went to West Point, the army academy. There they have an honor code. It means if you cheat, steal, or lie you get expelled no matter what. Also if you know that somebody cheat, stole, or lie your punishment is the same. While he was there one student borrowed a pen from another and accidentally took it back to his room. He realized he had it and said "he won't notice". Many people knew about this incident. They all got expelled along with the student who had the pen. Now you say Its just a pen, why does it matter if he stole a pen? The answer is stealing is stealing and the army doesn't need thieves or liars.

Also if you are writing an essay and plagiaries, just because the author wouldn't have gotten paid if you quoted him any way does it make it okay?

And, just because I went to private school doesn't mean I was coddled. I am very worldly aware thank you very much.
Quique

I've also been contacted by performers who wanted a copy of their performances. One of them was the Christine alternate from the Mexican production of The Phantom of the Opera, and another was a former 3rd NT Valjean.

I've seen boots of shows that I or anyone else will never get to see. At least there's some record of it. Such a pity if said performances were to be lost forever.
mastachen

Plagiarizing and stealing a pen is totally different from collecting bootlegs.

Stealing a pen = taking something that belongs to someone else. Collecting bootlegs = watching a performance of someone you love and admire with the hope of seeing them live one day.

Plagiarzing = taking someone else's idea and pretending it's your own idea. I spent a while trying to figure out how it's analogous to bootlegging. So if I watch a performance of Les Mis, and then I walk around saying I'm Lea Salonga... maybe that's it?

Besides, making up stories about what happens at West Point doesn't help your argument at all. I don't doubt that your dad went to West Point or that the Army has an honor code, but your story sounds stupid for a variety of reasons.
Theaterfan101

mastachen wrote:
Plagiarizing and stealing a pen is totally different from collecting bootlegs.

Stealing a pen = taking something that belongs to someone else. Collecting bootlegs = watching a performance of someone you love and admire with the hope of seeing them live one day.

Plagiarzing = taking someone else's idea and pretending it's your own idea. I spent a while trying to figure out how it's analogous to bootlegging. So if I watch a performance of Les Mis, and then I walk around saying I'm Lea Salonga... maybe that's it?

Besides, making up stories about what happens at West Point doesn't help your argument at all. I don't doubt that your dad went to West Point or that the Army has an honor code, but your story sounds stupid for a variety of reasons.


First off is the story is true. And both connect to bootlegs because it doesn't directly hurt the person, which is your main argument. I'm sure the author will live with you not quoting them, and the guy could survive West Point with one less pen, but it is a matter of principle. If you want something you have to pay for it. Life isn't made to be fair or easy so if you live in LA, get over it. There is plenty of good theater in LA you can go to or you can save up money and take a trip to New York.
mastachen

Both directly hurt the person. Unless the guy with the pen got it for free, he takes a financial hit once he loses that pen. You may say that it's not a lot of money and he can live without a pen, but like you said, it's a matter of principle. But the problem with your argument is that it's not the same principle. Plagiarism deflects credit off of the author. Again, the only comparison it can make is that if I watch a bootleg of Company, I start walking around saying that I wrote it instead of Sondheim. And besides, like Quique says, some performers actually appreciate their performances being recorded.



And, omfg, are you lecturing me? Of course I know there are good theaters in LA. I just got back from a production of Miss Saigon tonight. My school is 20 minutes from the Ahmanson theater and 25 minutes from the Pantages theater. The Geffen Theater is a block from my school and Reprise! actually performs AT my school. Save up money to go to NY? I did that for 5 years and I finally had enough money to go for 5 days during my winter break. Now I actually need my money for other shit too like books and school and stuff, because my parents aren't paying for that. Any other useful advice?
Theaterfan101

Great. were on the same page. LA has great theater you can watch. See that. Stop doing illegal things.
Xxmcfly85xX

I am personally fine with watching musical bootlegs. As people have said before, its a distance, cost and location thing. I'm not really able to go to New York or London to see shows because...
1. I live in Australia
2. Two hours from Melbourne.
3. Although musicals in Melbourne seem to be getting more popular, they're limited seasons and there isn't very many.

I think I'd have a different point of view if I were a playwrite or actor. But as a viewer, I treat bootlegs at advertising. When the show comes, I'll be looking forward to seeing it because of what I've seen.
wicked_boy

I'm to stick to watching youtube videos of musicals.

I don't get the chance to see shows on Broadway and by simply watchin a clip of a show on youtube, it's made me go out and BUY the cast recording (I don't like downloading CR's too often, I like to have the case and the booklet Laughing). So, they're gaining from bootlegs from me.
Lepitot

lesmisloony wrote:


I know I'm a bit biased. I've been able to see movies free in theatres since I was sixteen due to constantly being employed at said theatres. At the risk of sounding like an asshole, if you can't come up with eight dollars to see a film... maybe you should... get a part-time job. See if your local cinema is hiring.

And if the issue is needing to see said film repeatedly, wait until it comes out on DVD. If it's good enough that you need to see it more than once, why not buy the DVD to support the actors/writers/directors? They're generally less than $20.



Hmm, that's why I spend all my weekend nights at the movie theater for five hours, thank you very much. I *do* work at a movie theater, and since then I *haven't* watched it illegally online.

And, some movies wait like 6 months to come out on DVD. And, I *DO* buy the DVD. But I am impatient and I would like to see the movie before then.

And, if I didn't work at the theater, it would still be a pain to go see it, becuase it's 30 minutes away, and with gas being what it is, getting there, then paying 8 dollars for a ticket, would be quite pricey. Granted, not as pricey as going to a show by any means. But, it's not a mere 8 dollars.
Lepitot

Theaterfan101 wrote:
just because the harm is not visible or enormously affect the person you stole from does not make it okay. Let me tell you a little story.
My dad went to West Point, the army academy. There they have an honor code. It means if you cheat, steal, or lie you get expelled no matter what. Also if you know that somebody cheat, stole, or lie your punishment is the same. While he was there one student borrowed a pen from another and accidentally took it back to his room. He realized he had it and said "he won't notice". Many people knew about this incident. They all got expelled along with the student who had the pen. Now you say Its just a pen, why does it matter if he stole a pen? The answer is stealing is stealing and the army doesn't need thieves or liars.

Also if you are writing an essay and plagiaries, just because the author wouldn't have gotten paid if you quoted him any way does it make it okay?

And, just because I went to private school doesn't mean I was coddled. I am very worldly aware thank you very much.


Sorry for the double post, but...

First off: You are SUPPOSED to quote people in essays. If you credit them, and you only use the portion of their essay that builds your point, like a sentence or two, you are fine.

Secondly: West Point sounds ---- retarded. It IS just a pen. It's probably two bucks at the MOST, and probably less than that! And, West Point also inspires that lovely "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bullshit. So, tell me THAT isn't wrong??? Actually, don't tell me, becuase that will change this subject. But, just think about it.
Joshua

Theaterfan101 wrote:
Great. were on the same page. LA has great theater you can watch. See that. Stop doing illegal things.

jesuiscommejesuis

I think its funny when people watch bootlegs of shows and then claim that theyve seen them live. Razz
wicked_boy

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
I think its funny when people watch bootlegs of shows and then claim that theyve seen them live. Razz


LMAO! That's something a friend of mine would do.
Cake_in_Song

Theaterfan101 wrote:
The answer is stealing is stealing and the army doesn't need thieves or liars.


Then the thieves and liars are fools, as there are thieves and liars enough to make their own army, and beat and hang all the honest men.

I would bet my grocery cashier's measly paycheck that you've done something someone else thought was immoral or illegal. You ever wear a bathing suit in public? Many societies think that's wrong. You ever disobey your parents in the slightest way? The Jehova's witnesses would tell you not to. Ever sip alcohol before the age of 21? That's a no-go in the US.

How many times do I have to say this: Morality is not black and white! Jesus Flipping Christ, people. Pull your heads out of your asses, step down from that preachy high horse, and realize that everything good in the world was bad once. Get a life. My watching Les Mis on YouTube isn't going to make Broadway stars any poorer. Me spending a quarter of my tuition to fly to New York isn't going to make them any richer. Theatre NEVER paid well. Actors in Ancient Greece were a little on the poor side, and it's not like anybody was videotaping them.
Chevstriss

trust me, performers love bootlegs. While any taping of a copyrighted show is illegal (because of the licensing and the unions) people would love to have a record of their work.

I've been a professional actor since 1977. What do I have to show for my life's work? some playbills, posters, and 4 badly disintegrating badly focused VHS bootlegs. No audio AT ALL.

I know Bwy replacement actors who have never seen their work other than some random cel phone caps by their family. again ILLEGAL STEALING.

who loses money from this? Well for some reason Samuel French, MTI, Tams, and other rental companies SEEM to think they do. How they are losing said monies defies logic.

It's the stupid laws that need to change. People's desire to capture a live show for later viewing is not going to go away.

I was going to bring this up in a previous thread everyone engaged in about "watching your own performance".

uhhhhhhh how did you all come to see these performances? I haven't even seen a bootleg of myself since 94.
Orestes Fasting

Chevstriss wrote:
who loses money from this? Well for some reason Samuel French, MTI, Tams, and other rental companies SEEM to think they do. How they are losing said monies defies logic.


Interesting. I always thought it was the unions and producers who were the most interested in stopping bootlegging--but it makes sense that the licensing companies would be the ones to think they're entitled to a cut every single time someone lays eyes or ears on their 'property.'

Performers and bootlegs... my friends and I were like the resident drug dealers at the Les Mis stage door after somebody found out we record audio. It was kind of funny.
Beagle On Stage

Orestes Fasting wrote:
Chevstriss wrote:
who loses money from this? Well for some reason Samuel French, MTI, Tams, and other rental companies SEEM to think they do. How they are losing said monies defies logic.


Interesting. I always thought it was the unions and producers who were the most interested in stopping bootlegging--but it makes sense that the licensing companies would be the ones to think they're entitled to a cut every single time someone lays eyes or ears on their 'property.'


They don't "think" they're entitled, they are entitled. Again, as an author, I'm supposed to be paid every time my work is performed for an audience. If people are out there watching bootlegs of it instead of being patrons of theatres that present it, thereby encouraging them to continue paying me for it, I'm being raped.
Chevstriss

Orestes Fasting wrote:

Interesting. I always thought it was the unions and producers who were the most interested in stopping bootlegging--but it makes sense that the licensing companies would be the ones to think they're entitled to a cut every single time someone lays eyes or ears on their 'property.'



Producers often DESPARATELY try to get permission to tapes their shows, and 99% of the time are denied.

We tried to get a tape of The Brecht File becuz the director wanted to enter us in a Berlin Play Festival. a video was required to be considered. the director was German and didn't understand what hoops would have to be jumped thru. We tried to do it legally. We were denied. We could not enter the festival.

Woulda been much better if we had simply taped it illegally. I've never been to Berlin.
Orestes Fasting

Beagle On Stage wrote:
Orestes Fasting wrote:
Chevstriss wrote:
who loses money from this? Well for some reason Samuel French, MTI, Tams, and other rental companies SEEM to think they do. How they are losing said monies defies logic.


Interesting. I always thought it was the unions and producers who were the most interested in stopping bootlegging--but it makes sense that the licensing companies would be the ones to think they're entitled to a cut every single time someone lays eyes or ears on their 'property.'


They don't "think" they're entitled, they are entitled. Again, as an author, I'm supposed to be paid every time my work is performed for an audience. If people are out there watching bootlegs of it instead of being patrons of theatres that present it, thereby encouraging them to continue paying me for it, I'm being raped.


Nobody in their right mind would watch bootlegs instead of going to the theatre. They do it in addition to patronizing the theatre, or because they would never be able to see it in person. Bootlegs != loss of ticket sales.

Also, comparing real or imagined loss of financial compensation to rape is just trashy.
Chevstriss

Orestes Fasting wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would watch bootlegs instead of going to the theatre. They do it in addition to patronizing the theatre, or because they would never be able to see it in person. Bootlegs != loss of ticket sales.

Also, comparing real or imagined loss of financial compensation to rape is just trashy.


unless they are someone's bedridden granny. Too bad you can't grab a quick VHS from the wings to let granny have a gander at you playing Gaston out in the provinces. Can't she get her lazy incontinent ass outta that nursing home and fly cross country to Iowa to come see a live performance of her favorite grandson? Granny, stop RAPING Tams-Witmark!!
Quique

This thread makes me wanna go out and rape some poor artist via boot trading.
Beagle On Stage

Orestes Fasting wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would watch bootlegs instead of going to the theatre. They do it in addition to patronizing the theatre, or because they would never be able to see it in person. Bootlegs != loss of ticket sales.


It may be your opinion that this would never happen, but that doesn't make it true. And even if it were...what the bootleg advocates of this thread don't seem to understand is that this is not an assumption that everyone is either attending a performance or watching bootlegs, one or the other. It's the fact that something I'm supposed to be paid for every time is being captured on tape and replayed for free over and over. If you don't see why that's not fair, there's nothing more I can do to help you understand.

Quote:
Also, comparing real or imagined loss of financial compensation to rape is just trashy.


I'm sure we can all call names and make personal jabs if that's what this is coming to, but hopefully we can all be a little more mature than that. Furthermore, to claim that it's not a perfectly valid comparison is to not even understand the etymology of the word. The same word is used for both theft and sexual assault for a reason, which is that they are very similar in nature to the victim.
lonewriter

mastachen wrote:
What, exactly, do I steal, if I watch a bootleg of someone else's performance? Their work? It's not like they lose their ability to perform if I watch their bootleg. Their money? How am I any richer for watching a bootleg? If anything it just makes me want to watch the show live more and spend over a thousand dollars on a trip to NY. I already did that once and I don't have the resources to do that again. I'm sorry I'm not Beagle, who has mommy and daddy to pay for everything, or you, who went to private school all your life so you have a coddled view of the world.

I make do with what I have. I still watch shows live. After watching a bootleg of the Doyle production of Sweeney Todd, I wanted to watch it live so much that I forced my roommate into going with me to watch it at the Ahmanson theatre... for 20 bucks. So what exactly, did I steal? Is Patti Lupone and Michael Ceveris or John Doyle or Stephen Sondheim any less talented or any less richer or hurt in ANY way because I watched one ---- bootleg? I didn't think so.


well by that logic, it's ok to walk into a store and steal DVD off the shelf.
lonewriter

Lepitot wrote:
Theaterfan101 wrote:
just because the harm is not visible or enormously affect the person you stole from does not make it okay. Let me tell you a little story.
My dad went to West Point, the army academy. There they have an honor code. It means if you cheat, steal, or lie you get expelled no matter what. Also if you know that somebody cheat, stole, or lie your punishment is the same. While he was there one student borrowed a pen from another and accidentally took it back to his room. He realized he had it and said "he won't notice". Many people knew about this incident. They all got expelled along with the student who had the pen. Now you say Its just a pen, why does it matter if he stole a pen? The answer is stealing is stealing and the army doesn't need thieves or liars.

Also if you are writing an essay and plagiaries, just because the author wouldn't have gotten paid if you quoted him any way does it make it okay?

And, just because I went to private school doesn't mean I was coddled. I am very worldly aware thank you very much.


Sorry for the double post, but...

First off: You are SUPPOSED to quote people in essays. If you credit them, and you only use the portion of their essay that builds your point, like a sentence or two, you are fine.

Secondly: West Point sounds ---- retarded. It IS just a pen. It's probably two bucks at the MOST, and probably less than that! And, West Point also inspires that lovely "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bullshit. So, tell me THAT isn't wrong??? Actually, don't tell me, becuase that will change this subject. But, just think about it.


stick on the topic please, not your haqtred of West Point.
Chevstriss

ooooooooh look what I found HERE kiddies:

http://musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=67628&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24


scroll down to Beagle's statements. Quick! before he realizes he's contradicted himself and edits the former posts!!!

sooooooooo Monsieur Le Beagle, How did it feel to RAPE that poor defenseless rental company? or were you just a VOYEUR, not a true criminal? according to your posts here, even WATCHING these boots makes you RAPIST.

I hope at least you bought poor Samuel French a nice dinner first.
Lepitot

I don't hate West Point at all. She was calling someone off on doing something wrong and using WestPoint as an example of the right thing to do and honesty. And, it was just amusing, that's all.
Chevstriss

Quique wrote:
This thread makes me wanna go out and rape some poor artist via boot trading.


well go out and find me that Robber Bridegroom boot before I curl up and die from longing.

He was at his most beautiful that year. Talk about pulchritude!
Pannic

Chevstriss wrote:
ooooooooh look what I found HERE kiddies:

http://musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=67628&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24


scroll down to Beagle's statements. Quick! before he realizes he's contradicted himself and edits the former posts!!!

sooooooooo Monsieur Le Beagle, How did it feel to RAPE that poor defenseless rental company? or were you just a VOYEUR, not a true criminal? according to your posts here, even WATCHING these boots makes you RAPIST.

I hope at least you bought poor Samuel French a nice dinner first.
Maybe he paid money every time he watched the recording?
musikal_geek

I doubt it. Who would?
Quique

I'll let you know as soon as I locate my lists. Wink I have them stored on a disc somewhere.

I thought my brother would have it for sure. He used to record every show that was broadcast on television. I wonder why he didn't catch that one. What year was it broadcast?
Chevstriss

Quique wrote:
I'll let you know as soon as I locate my lists. Wink I have them stored on a disc somewhere.

I thought my brother would have it for sure. He used to record every show that was broadcast on television. I wonder why he didn't catch that one. What year was it broadcast?



I think 1980, but I have a 1979 Circus of the Stars where he is introduced as "star of Showtime's Robber Bridegroom" and its also possible that this Circus is alot older than that - supposedly he met Candy Clark on this, and Red Ryder was filmed in 78 - so sometime between 77 - 80. All the dates are fuzzy on this stuff. plus its possible they film stuff a long time before it airs.

I personally don't know anyone who subscribed to Showtime back then - maybe it wasn't available everywhere.
Beagle On Stage

Chev, I do not claim never to have done it. A reformed prostitute, however, is more qualified than a virgin to denounce prostitution.
EponineMNFF

Orestes Fasting wrote:
I wonder what would happen if theatres started following in the footsteps of certain rock bands and selling CDs recorded off the soundboard after each show. The technology certainly exists to have the CDs ready to go very quickly after the show ends--within a quarter of an hour, even. Fans get live recordings, producers/writers/actors are duly compensated for the recordings, you could probably get a pretty sizeable heap of extra money off it, and it would drastically reduce the amount of bootlegging.

I'm guessing it's not feasible because the unions would all throw fits, but it would be an interesting experiment. Keep tabs on how many people buy them and for what price, whether it affects ticket sales (either positively or negatively), whether the number of punkass amateur bootleggers caught by ushers goes down. It would also be a great way to preserve smaller shows that might not get a cast recording.


I think this is probably the best post in the entire thread. I would TOTALLY buy a live cast recording if I enjoyed the show.
mastachen

lonewriter wrote:
mastachen wrote:
What, exactly, do I steal, if I watch a bootleg of someone else's performance? Their work? It's not like they lose their ability to perform if I watch their bootleg. Their money? How am I any richer for watching a bootleg? If anything it just makes me want to watch the show live more and spend over a thousand dollars on a trip to NY. I already did that once and I don't have the resources to do that again. I'm sorry I'm not Beagle, who has mommy and daddy to pay for everything, or you, who went to private school all your life so you have a coddled view of the world.

I make do with what I have. I still watch shows live. After watching a bootleg of the Doyle production of Sweeney Todd, I wanted to watch it live so much that I forced my roommate into going with me to watch it at the Ahmanson theatre... for 20 bucks. So what exactly, did I steal? Is Patti Lupone and Michael Ceveris or John Doyle or Stephen Sondheim any less talented or any less richer or hurt in ANY way because I watched one ---- bootleg? I didn't think so.


well by that logic, it's ok to walk into a store and steal DVD off the shelf.


How does that follow my logic?
Beagle On Stage

Besides, I call them MOTHER and Daddy.
Buff Daddy

In my opinion, it is a matter of respect - respect for the law, the performers and authors of the work.

Every show I have been to has the annoucement that use of cameras etc is prohibited. Whether you agree with that or not, show some respect - it's the law.

In the Les Mis forum, there was a thread where Lea Salonga posted her annoyance at looking out into the audience and seeing people recording. Show them some respect.

As for the arguments that "I can't afford to travel to NY/London to see the show", that's life - get over it. Try living in Australia and worry about travelling. I live in one of two states in the country that doesn't have any professional theatre. I'd love to be able to see professional shows regularly, but that's life. If and when I get to London/NY I'll make sure I'll see at least one show and enjoy it.

Buff Very Happy
Mumsytype

EponineMNFF wrote:
Orestes Fasting wrote:
I wonder what would happen if theatres started following in the footsteps of certain rock bands and selling CDs recorded off the soundboard after each show. The technology certainly exists to have the CDs ready to go very quickly after the show ends--within a quarter of an hour, even. Fans get live recordings, producers/writers/actors are duly compensated for the recordings, you could probably get a pretty sizeable heap of extra money off it, and it would drastically reduce the amount of bootlegging.

I'm guessing it's not feasible because the unions would all throw fits, but it would be an interesting experiment. Keep tabs on how many people buy them and for what price, whether it affects ticket sales (either positively or negatively), whether the number of punkass amateur bootleggers caught by ushers goes down. It would also be a great way to preserve smaller shows that might not get a cast recording.


I think this is probably the best post in the entire thread. I would TOTALLY buy a live cast recording if I enjoyed the show.


Now that the technology exists to do this, I agree - it's a really good idea, and would give people a meaningful souvenir at reasonable price, and stop most of the bootlegging.
home

bootlegs are the best

without those i wouldnt even know about half of the shows you guys talk about.
Robinflamingo

I think I can sum up the "moral" standpoint: Lepitot, it's interesting that you have the quote in your siggy, Actions speak louder than words. Because as most of us who ever took a law class know, INTENT is the key to most crime. And it isn't the pen, it's the intent.

Would I tape a school production if the contract with my name on it said not to? No, and I never have. Therefore, I did not get to see my school's production of "Into the Woods" this weekend because I'm housebound with my cancer treatments when it comes to crowds.(except school. The germs at school all know me.)

However, I have watched youtube cuts of songs. Does this mean there was some lost ticket revenue? Interestingly enough, in my case, yes. I decided not to waste money on certain shows because of youtube. Had I not seen some of the numbers, I would have dropped 80 bucks, and everyone would have gotten paid.

When this thread started, I stated that bootlegs were wrong. I still believe that. I've never illegally downloaded recorded music or sheet music, because that DOES directly affect the artists. I even feel a little bad watching entire sanctioned episodes on TV websites, knowing that the actors and writers aren't getting compensated.

So I don't know if I made this clear, but I feel better. Laughing
Lepitot

I just thought it was over the top to kick several people out over that. I mean, they definately deserved to be punished, but to be suspended? I don't know, a pen is just a pen. The person probably thought, "This isn't right, but, they probably have ten of these, so why would they care? If they do care, I'll apologize and return it. No harm done."

Yes, it is the intent, but sorry, there is a HUGE difference between stealing a pen and say...stealing a purse with thousands of dollars in it.
bigR

Most performers do love bootlegs. I don't care about Lea's particular opinion (although I seem to remember that she was bottered by the little red lights going on and off and the distracting flashes distracting, not about the fact that they were boots of her around).

I have only been trading boots for a few months and I've already been contacted by a couple of actors asking for videos of their own performances.
Even more telling. In the case of one of these performers the show she was in closed more than 10 years ago and yet the actors don't have any legal way to watch their own performances. That's simply ridiculous.
As some people have said, people who trade bootlegs are mostly people who have been to the show or people who would never go to see it, for whatever reason

I also download all kind of music and movies and I feel happy doing it for 2 reasons.
First, in my country, by law, when you buy a CD, DVD, USB device, computer, mobile phone, mp3, etc, you have to pay what is called a "digital canon" that goes directly to the "Author's Association". It is a canon intended to compensate them for the illegal copies you may or may not make with the articles you bought.
This law does not only treats everyone as a robber, but it means that even if I use the cd to record my own private pictures or my own written work, even if a record a video of my family or if I use the computer to play a CD I’ve already payed for at a store, I have to pay this “Author’s Association” people. Is them, musicians, movie directors, producers, etc, who are legally stealing me of my money. With every electronical device that I buy.
Since they steal money out of me I feel not only entitled but I feel that it is my civic duty to fight them stealing as much as I can from their royalties.
Second, a singer should make a living by singing live. I feel insulted when someone who only plays in a live concert now and then, and records a cd once every 3 years, sells it at an abusive price (more expensive than a movie) and wants me to buy it so that he can live a life of luxury for the next 5 years out of a 3 months work. They try to cheat me, I cheat them.

Oh, and I am a published author myself, I receive my royalties every year and I frankly don’t care at all if some people (mainly students with a limited budget) make copies of my stuff instead of buying it… I don’t feel as if they were stealing me…
Salome

I stronly believe in video taping shows for archival purposes..without that you lose any record of the production. history must be preserved.
Chevstriss

Mumsytype wrote:
EponineMNFF wrote:
Orestes Fasting wrote:
I wonder what would happen if theatres started following in the footsteps of certain rock bands and selling CDs recorded off the soundboard after each show. The technology certainly exists to have the CDs ready to go very quickly after the show ends--within a quarter of an hour, even. Fans get live recordings, producers/writers/actors are duly compensated for the recordings, you could probably get a pretty sizeable heap of extra money off it, and it would drastically reduce the amount of bootlegging.

I'm guessing it's not feasible because the unions would all throw fits, but it would be an interesting experiment. Keep tabs on how many people buy them and for what price, whether it affects ticket sales (either positively or negatively), whether the number of punkass amateur bootleggers caught by ushers goes down. It would also be a great way to preserve smaller shows that might not get a cast recording.


I think this is probably the best post in the entire thread. I would TOTALLY buy a live cast recording if I enjoyed the show.


Now that the technology exists to do this, I agree - it's a really good idea, and would give people a meaningful souvenir at reasonable price, and stop most of the bootlegging.


the technology is not the problem, the law is the problem. Anyone in the theatre making a sound copy from the soundboard is making a bootleg as far as the law is concerned.
wicked_boy

Salome wrote:
I stronly believe in video taping shows for archival purposes..without that you lose any record of the production. history must be preserved.


Excactly! I 100% agree.

I'd hate it if they never recorded a pro shot of Wicked and in 50 years time *if* it closed all its productions, I'd never be able to see it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most Broadway shows get filmed proffesionally and then these clips are used for press releases etc. and then stored away in a New York library or something, so when reviewers don't get the chance to see the show, they can base of review on the that? And I presume, the people involved in the show (actors, techies, creative team etc.) get a chance to watch it?
Chevstriss

wicked_boy wrote:
Salome wrote:
I stronly believe in video taping shows for archival purposes..without that you lose any record of the production. history must be preserved.


Excactly! I 100% agree.

I'd hate it if they never recorded a pro shot of Wicked and in 50 years time *if* it closed all its productions, I'd never be able to see it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most Broadway shows get filmed proffesionally and then these clips are used for press releases etc. and then stored away in a New York library or something, so when reviewers don't get the chance to see the show, they can base of review on the that? And I presume, the people involved in the show (actors, techies, creative team etc.) get a chance to watch it?



No. the ruling is they are allowed to film 30 mins total of various scenes for commericals. and alot of commercials are taped from rehearsel footage, again less than 30 mins total allowed. Alot of the retail DVDs you see of Bwy shows were actually filmed in Canada.

Sondheim has somehow gotten around this law and usually gets his shows professionally filmed. but he's Sondheim.

if you are working anywhere doing a licenced rented production you cannot EVER tape more than 30 mins. sometimes dance numbers are taped so that the dance captain can review them that night but they must be destroyed daily.

These laws are archaic and quite insane.

That's why you have performers scrambling and going crazy for any bootlegs someone might have of their performance, most people have NEVER seen anything but a still of themselves onstage.

someone posted Betty Buckley's final scene in Sunset on youtube, it was a bad cel phone cap. In watching, I realized a good friend of mine was in the scene with her - he was on as u/s that night as Max. I showed him the link and he was thunderstruck - it was 10 yrs ago and he had NO images of his performance - he immediately was able to link to this YouTube for casting directors and agents.

Equity found out and removed the link - to "protect" the performers. How did this protect him? He now has nothing of himself on YouTube. Was Betty Buckley really losing revenue by allowing a fuzzy image of herself posted from which she did not get residuals from a show that closed many years ago? Perhaps you want to erase everyones fuzzy memory as well.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY. Bootlegs are nothing more than publicity for the show, and should be viewed as such.
wicked_boy

Oh.

That's bad.

Can't AmDram groups apply for licenses to get shows filmed?
musikal_geek

wicked_boy wrote:
Oh.

That's bad.

Can't AmDram groups apply for licenses to get shows filmed?


I actually believe so. But it's BIG bucks.
Monsieur D'Arque

I do a lot of work for Michael Lavine, finding bootlegs of shows that were never archived, to preserve some record of how they looked. These are shows that closed years ago, many of which the people involved have forgotten (or wish they could forget). Without these records, these shows would barely be known to exist.
Salome

most of he theatres I work with have permission to video tape for archives. this doesnt cost more than a few bucks and a written letter.
Orestes Fasting

Chevstriss wrote:
Mumsytype wrote:
EponineMNFF wrote:
Orestes Fasting wrote:
I wonder what would happen if theatres started following in the footsteps of certain rock bands and selling CDs recorded off the soundboard after each show. The technology certainly exists to have the CDs ready to go very quickly after the show ends--within a quarter of an hour, even. Fans get live recordings, producers/writers/actors are duly compensated for the recordings, you could probably get a pretty sizeable heap of extra money off it, and it would drastically reduce the amount of bootlegging.

I'm guessing it's not feasible because the unions would all throw fits, but it would be an interesting experiment. Keep tabs on how many people buy them and for what price, whether it affects ticket sales (either positively or negatively), whether the number of punkass amateur bootleggers caught by ushers goes down. It would also be a great way to preserve smaller shows that might not get a cast recording.


I think this is probably the best post in the entire thread. I would TOTALLY buy a live cast recording if I enjoyed the show.


Now that the technology exists to do this, I agree - it's a really good idea, and would give people a meaningful souvenir at reasonable price, and stop most of the bootlegging.


the technology is not the problem, the law is the problem. Anyone in the theatre making a sound copy from the soundboard is making a bootleg as far as the law is concerned.


Just out of curiosity, is this the law, or contractual obligations to the licensing companies?
Mistress

I don't mind bootlegs...there I great way for people to preview a show or even see it if they can;t afford tickets...but than again I'm not ann actress onstage trying to to earn money, so I am a little biased on that.
lonewriter

bigR wrote:
Most performers do love bootlegs. I don't care about Lea's particular opinion (although I seem to remember that she was bottered by the little red lights going on and off and the distracting flashes distracting, not about the fact that they were boots of her around).

I have only been trading boots for a few months and I've already been contacted by a couple of actors asking for videos of their own performances.
Even more telling. In the case of one of these performers the show she was in closed more than 10 years ago and yet the actors don't have any legal way to watch their own performances. That's simply ridiculous.
As some people have said, people who trade bootlegs are mostly people who have been to the show or people who would never go to see it, for whatever reason

I also download all kind of music and movies and I feel happy doing it for 2 reasons.
First, in my country, by law, when you buy a CD, DVD, USB device, computer, mobile phone, mp3, etc, you have to pay what is called a "digital canon" that goes directly to the "Author's Association". It is a canon intended to compensate them for the illegal copies you may or may not make with the articles you bought.
This law does not only treats everyone as a robber, but it means that even if I use the cd to record my own private pictures or my own written work, even if a record a video of my family or if I use the computer to play a CD I’ve already payed for at a store, I have to pay this “Author’s Association” people. Is them, musicians, movie directors, producers, etc, who are legally stealing me of my money. With every electronical device that I buy.
Since they steal money out of me I feel not only entitled but I feel that it is my civic duty to fight them stealing as much as I can from their royalties.
Second, a singer should make a living by singing live. I feel insulted when someone who only plays in a live concert now and then, and records a cd once every 3 years, sells it at an abusive price (more expensive than a movie) and wants me to buy it so that he can live a life of luxury for the next 5 years out of a 3 months work. They try to cheat me, I cheat them.

Oh, and I am a published author myself, I receive my royalties every year and I frankly don’t care at all if some people (mainly students with a limited budget) make copies of my stuff instead of buying it… I don’t feel as if they were stealing me…


Now I have read it all. You think you are entitled to steal? Wow.
bigR

Yes.
We have an old saying that roughtly translates as: "if you steal from a thief you earn 100 years of forgiveness". That's how I feel when I download music.
They steal from me when the make me pay a "canon" for a CD that I use to store my personal pictures. All right. I download their songs instead of paying for them.
They try to sell me a CD they recorded in a couple of weeks for 25 euros. All right. I dowload it instead of paying for it.
They insist on promoting their work through insuferable playbacks on tv shows and don't bother to sing life. All right. I dowload their work instead of paying for it.
Song are meant to be sung. They don't want to do it? All right. I don't want to pay for their canned work.

And I feel happy and proud about it.
Set_Buildin_Dad

OK, time to weigh in again. Get ready for a rant.

Theatrical shows are products. They are owned by their producers. They are sold or otherwise distributed as the producer's wishes. The show may be free to see and duplicate at the producer's whim, but it is that producer's choice.

A producer puts out a lot of cash to stage a show. He/she is an entrepeneur. He/she hires directors, actors, musicians, technicians, artists, etc. in order to create the show. This costs a lot of money to do, and the producer is entitled to reap the benefits of their investment. Not all shows make a lot of money for their producers (just ask Rosie O'Donnell). All producers (successful or not) deserve the same protections of their property under the law. Just because you have produced a wildly successful show doesn't mean you aren't entitled to the same protection as someone who is barely scraping along.

Once a show is created it is copyrighted. This is the same protection that is in place for music or literature. Copyright laws are there to protect artists and their creative works. Copyright is deemed so important to the furtherance of the creative process that it is incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. The copyright holder (or his/her licensee) has control by law over duplication of his/her intellectual property. Un-authorized duplication is known as infringement or sometimes intellectual property theft. There can be severe penalties if you are caught stealing someone's copyrighted material. Bootlegs are copyright violations!

Some posters have said that actors have asked to have bootlegs made of their performances, but remember - that performance is owned by the producer, not the actor. The actor is performing within the context of the rest of the show. The actor is an employee of the producer. Employees are not able to take property from their employers even if they work to create that property. That is known as stealing. I can sympathize with the actor who would like to have a copy of their performance for a variety of reasons, but it is ultimately up to the producer whether to allow a copy or not.

Posting unauthorized bootlegs online diminishes the value of the product. Many have said this is really just free advertising. If so then it is up to the producer to decide when he/she wants to advertise. Many choose to do so, but it is not up to some bootleger to make that decision for the production's owner. That is the producer's right and their's alone. Many put websites up with clips from their shows. If they think they need more content they will add it themselves.

Many posters have argued for that bootlegs should be allowed because that is the only way they have access to these shows. Sorry, but free access to the shows is not a right you have. A show is like any other product that you might like to buy. If you want to see a show you need to make time and spend the money to go see it. If you can't afford it that's tough, but there are many things that you or I would like that we can't afford either. I would love to own a private jet - should that be my right?

Just because the internet allows easy distribution of multimedia content doesn't mean you are entitled to that content. This just means that it is acting as a poorly policed pawn shop that is trafficing in stolen goods.

This was a long rant, but I am passionate about this issue.

Bottom line: bootlegs = stealing.
Beagle On Stage

bigR wrote:
We have an old saying that roughtly translates as: "if you steal from a thief you earn 100 years of forgiveness". That's how I feel when I download music.


The idea behind that saying (which I don't approve of anyway) is that someone who has stolen should not be allowed to keep what they stole. When you download music illegally, you both just have copies of it. That saying does not apply to this situation.

Quote:
They steal from me when the make me pay a "canon" for a CD that I use to store my personal pictures. All right. I download their songs instead of paying for them.


Are you saying that you're being stolen from because blank CD's to store your photos on aren't provided to you for free?

Quote:
They insist on promoting their work through insuferable playbacks on tv shows and don't bother to sing life. All right. I dowload their work instead of paying for it.


If you don't want to see their work broadcast on television, and you have a problem with non-live music, why would you want a copy of it, legal or not, in the first place?

Quote:
Song are meant to be sung. They don't want to do it? All right. I don't want to pay for their canned work.


Are you actually saying that if people are charging money for something and you don't feel like paying for it, it's okay to steal it?

Quote:
And I feel happy and proud about it.


For shame.
Chevstriss

Set_Buildin_Dad wrote:

Theatrical shows are products. They are owned by their producers. They are sold or otherwise distributed as the producer's wishes. The show may be free to see and duplicate at the producer's whim, but it is that producer's choice.



But many producers DO want to tape their show so that the cast can have a copy, and are forbidden by both Equity (protecting the actors? keeping our fuzzy images off of a DVD protects us?) and the licensing agents.

Again, that is why many of the retail DVDs are taped in Canada. (Fosse, Joseph) The last Kiss Me Kate was taped in England, not US, even tho it was the US transfer. the ONLY shows I know of being legally taped here are the Sondheim shows, and he pretty much owns the whole ball of wax. But woe be to any regional theatre that tries to tape THEIR version of a Sondheim show.

I know that the producers often surreptitiously tape the shows but never tell the cast so that word doesn't get out. The licensing agent will fine them and refuse to rent to them again.

I've HEARD there are boots out there of me. Guess I'll never see them tho. Maybe I really DO suck onstage - I can't begin to guess.
Beagle On Stage

Chevstriss wrote:
But many producers DO want to tape their show so that the cast can have a copy, and are forbidden by both Equity (protecting the actors? keeping our fuzzy images off of a DVD protects us?) and the licensing agents.


One of the reasons for licensing agents not to permit it is to protect the authors. There's no way of knowing what kind of quality the production is, and no one wants video floating around of a bad production of their work that casts the show in an unflattering light.
lonewriter

Set_Buildin_Dad you are 100 percent correct, thank you. bigR, one day you are going to get caught and then maybe you will change your mind about stealing.
Set_Buildin_Dad

Chevstriss wrote:

But many producers DO want to tape their show so that the cast can have a copy, and are forbidden by both Equity (protecting the actors? keeping our fuzzy images off of a DVD protects us?) and the licensing agents.


I'm not aware of the Actor's Equity restrictions and I'm not sure why they would want to promote such a restriction. It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of their membership. I agree with you there.

As for regional producers, they are not the owner's of the copyrighted material. They are licensees and are subject to the restrictions of the terms and conditions of their license contracts. These are usually negotiable, although you would probably have to pay a heafty fee to be able to tape and distribute copies of copyrighted works.
mastachen

lonewriter wrote:
Set_Buildin_Dad you are 100 percent correct, thank you. bigR, one day you are going to get caught and then maybe you will change your mind about stealing.


More judgemental posts!

Just argue your side of the debate like Set_Building_Dad, Chev, and the other people are doing.



It's funny how the UCLA monitors downloading of illegal music. UCLA monitors what websites we go on and the web traffic flowing in and out, and if they suspect someone of downloading music or movies illegally, they report the students to the RCAA... or MPAA. I've heard that other universities actually protect their students from RCAA and MPAA lawsuits. Hmm.
shakalakababy

Set_Buildin_Dad wrote:
Chevstriss wrote:

But many producers DO want to tape their show so that the cast can have a copy, and are forbidden by both Equity (protecting the actors? keeping our fuzzy images off of a DVD protects us?) and the licensing agents.


I'm not aware of the Actor's Equity restrictions and I'm not sure why they would want to promote such a restriction. It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of their membership. I agree with you there.


I know AEA is making a huge deal about bootleg clips on youtube. They even have an agreement with youtube where they are allowed to take down ones they see. I know I got a message from them to take down videos from one of the shows i had up...
lonewriter

mastachen wrote:
lonewriter wrote:
Set_Buildin_Dad you are 100 percent correct, thank you. bigR, one day you are going to get caught and then maybe you will change your mind about stealing.


More judgemental posts!

Just argue your side of the debate like Set_Building_Dad, Chev, and the other people are doing.



It's funny how the UCLA monitors downloading of illegal music. UCLA monitors what websites we go on and the web traffic flowing in and out, and if they suspect someone of downloading music or movies illegally, they report the students to the RCAA... or MPAA. I've heard that other universities actually protect their students from RCAA and MPAA lawsuits. Hmm.


I'm not judgemental, I am just telling the truth, if you don't like it, tough.
Beagle On Stage

mastachen wrote:
It's funny how the UCLA monitors downloading of illegal music. UCLA monitors what websites we go on and the web traffic flowing in and out, and if they suspect someone of downloading music or movies illegally, they report the students to the RCAA... or MPAA.


Wickedness must be punished, punished, but good.
Set_Buildin_Dad

shakalakababy wrote:

I know AEA is making a huge deal about bootleg clips on youtube. They even have an agreement with youtube where they are allowed to take down ones they see. I know I got a message from them to take down videos from one of the shows i had up...


I completely understand AEA's objection to bootlegs that appear on the internet, I just don't understand what their objection would be to a legitimate taping of the show that could be sold to benefit the copyright owners and producers. The actors could then purchase (or be gifted by the producers) a legitimate copy of their work.
mastachen

lonewriter wrote:


I'm not judgemental.


Sure.
Theaterfan101

Set_Buildin_Dad wrote:
shakalakababy wrote:

I know AEA is making a huge deal about bootleg clips on youtube. They even have an agreement with youtube where they are allowed to take down ones they see. I know I got a message from them to take down videos from one of the shows i had up...


I completely understand AEA's objection to bootlegs that appear on the internet, I just don't understand what their objection would be to a legitimate taping of the show that could be sold to benefit the copyright owners and producers. The actors could then purchase (or be gifted by the producers) a legitimate copy of their work.


this I completely agree with.
shakalakababy

mastachen wrote:
lonewriter wrote:
Set_Buildin_Dad you are 100 percent correct, thank you. bigR, one day you are going to get caught and then maybe you will change your mind about stealing.


More judgemental posts!

Just argue your side of the debate like Set_Building_Dad, Chev, and the other people are doing.



It's funny how the UCLA monitors downloading of illegal music. UCLA monitors what websites we go on and the web traffic flowing in and out, and if they suspect someone of downloading music or movies illegally, they report the students to the RCAA... or MPAA. I've heard that other universities actually protect their students from RCAA and MPAA lawsuits. Hmm.


wow, that is unbelievable.
I hope UC Davis doesn't do that or i'll be screwed.
lonewriter

mastachen wrote:
lonewriter wrote:


I'm not judgemental.


Sure.

think whatever you like, you are now on my ignore list.
Beagle On Stage

mastachen wrote:
lonewriter wrote: