do concert videos / bootlegs = warez?

[housepig]

Okay, since I couldn't post as a reply in the thread (it got locked in between hitting "reply" and "submit post"), I'm asking for a read from Baldrick or the mods.

someone was asking questions about correcting image problems in a bootleg concert video. immediately jumped on as warez, locked, kicked and spat on, etc.

I think there is a distinction between a pirate copy of a commercially-released work, and a recording (unofficial or not) of a concert.

and if the answer is "because the video recording was illegal in the first place", well, so is beastiality, a subject that crops up quite a bit on these boards...

and, as always, if Baldrick wants to just drop a blanket "not allowed" on it, so be it, but I'd like to see some discussion on why...

(edited for clarity)

[gitreel]

He said it was a bootleg.

An unofficial copy of a musical recording, or an original but illegal recording. Sometimes referred to as pirate.

[housepig]

gitreel -

yes indeed, he did. and I was aware of that, that's the point of my post - I don't think that bootleg concert videos should be treated as warez.

there is a difference between a concert bootleg and a pirated copy of "Finding Nemo".

[gitreel]

I am going out on a limb here but

A bootleg is a bootleg is a bootleg.

It is still illegal and in my mind warez.

[Capmaster]

and if the answer is "because the video recording was illegal in the first place", well, so is beastiality, a subject that crops up quite a bit on these boards...

Because it's not illegal or against the AUP to discuss news events, such as the one in OT a while back about the Dutch laws against bestiality.

It is against forum rules to seek help with an admittedly bootlegged piece of video, as was the case with that thread.

[waheed]

there is a difference between a concert bootleg and a pirated copy of "Finding Nemo".

What Please explain how you come to that stupid conclusion. So in another words, you're saying all pirates copies are different, so a software pirate is different to a movie pirate copy... I dont think so



As gitreel says, a pirate is a pirate

Period

[/quote]

[dphirschler]

Unauthorized concert recording = illegal? It may get you kicked out of the venue, maybe even your tape confiscated. But it won't get you in jail.

However, if Baldrik doesn't like it, we gotta live with that. It's his site.


Darryl

[Capmaster]

Unauthorized concert recording = illegal? It may get you kicked out of the venue, maybe even your tape confiscated. But it won't get you in jail.

However, if Baldrik doesn't like it, we gotta live with that. It's his site.


Darryl

Good post that touches on the heart of the matter. You may not agree with the forum rules, but think of it as the same as being invited over to Baldricks house to sit in his living room and chat about video stuff. His house, his board, his rules.

Think of the moderators here as the private security Baldrick has hired ....in the background for the most part, giving the occasional finger wag if someone gets too rowdy, but also there to act as a bouncer if someone seriously misbehaves.

[Guest]

I am going out on a limb here but

A bootleg is a bootleg is a bootleg.

It is still illegal and in my mind warez.

I concur,unless it is condoned/promoted as with the Dead.

[Alan69]

Unauthorized concert recording = illegal? It may get you kicked out of the venue, maybe even your tape confiscated. But it won't get you in jail.

However, if Baldrik doesn't like it, we gotta live with that. It's his site.


Darryl

Um, how do you think it could be even a little bit 'not illegal' if they can confiscate your tape?

And no doubt they could get you thrown in jail, no different than if you camcorder a movie. They just don't generally hassle with it.

Their production their rules, they no doubt have their own videographer. They can even choose to not release it if they don't want to. Don't like it, then don't buy tickets to concerts that won't let you tape.

This part isn't even up to Baldrick's choice, it's not even a gray area of the law..

Alan

[Rookie64]

In general, it would most likely infringe on copyrights...but not always.

bootleg is a term referred as unauthorized recordings or footage...but tends to cover stuff that isn't used commercially by the artists.

sometimes the artists or people who are close with the artists leak these recordings to the public and don't want royalties for them.

piracy is referred more to the people who actually produce, distribute or sell bootlegs...the two terms have different meanings.

a lot of bootlegs are considered public domain and fall under "The Berne Act" for not being protected by American copyright laws.
I'm not really referring to live bootlegs - that may fall more into the piracy category (depending)

It depends on what the bootlegs are - where they originated and how long they've been in circulation.

Many artists are not against unauthorized recordings of their material and the record companies don't own the rights to most bootlegs...so it's not exactly the same as downloading something commercially available like an album or movie.


IMO, bootlegs are not a bad thing - they tend to help more than hurt the entertainment industry, even though they aren't technically legal.


I personally wouldn't call bootlegs warez...but if you want to play it safe, you can say it falls into that category just to keep everyone satisfied.

[Capmaster]

If we didn't ban all of it we'd have to spend all of our time researching copyright laws, bootleg origins and legality every time someone posted a "I need help with this download". I think the other mods would agree with me that we aren't in the research business. If it looks like it's bootleg, or warez, or whatever you want to call it, it'll be removed.

[Cobra]

I agree with Capmaster. The rules are quite clear.

In this case, the poster actually said "these are bootleg" - this implies that they are illegal. As soon as a mod sees that, the knee-jerk is to shut it down. It does not matter if it is not clear - we must keep this site free of warez.

I notice that Capmaster did not hand out any warnings. Again, this was a good call because the reality of this was not clear.

The original poster brought it on himself.

Cobra

[housepig]

first off, let's be clear - when I say "bootleg", I am referring to a video or audio recording of a live concert, not officially sanctioned by a record company. I differentiate that from piracy, which would be a copy of, for example, the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" concert video (commercial release).

"bootleg" is a common name for these videos, and doesn't imply piracy (to me) in the way we normally use it on this board.

What Please explain how you come to that stupid conclusion.

here's a perfect example - I have videos from tons of bands that I shot myself. in all cases, I talked to the bands before filming, and got their approval to shoot it. as far as the band is concerned, I'm allowed to trade those tapes, but not sell them for profit.

so they are unofficial, and as far as the record labels they are unauthorized. warez or not?

[indolikaa]

Do you know how many bands are on record (no pun intended) as being neutral to the existence and proliferation of bootlegs?

The record companies lose a lot more money to bootlegs than the artists would. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most bands make their money from live shows and merchandising? I thought, in general, their revenue from record sales was paltry, at best.


I say trading bootlegs is fine. Profiting from them would be another story.

[Craig Tucker]

The word bootleg does not necessarily automatically imply warez.
Example
http://www.sonymusicstore.com/store/catalog/MerchandiseDetails.jsp?merchId=9543&mname=CD

[RoopeT]

Do you know how many bands are on record (no pun intended) as being neutral to the existence and proliferation of bootlegs?

There are hundreds of such bands. Some allow just audio taping while some allow video too. Some examples:

- Metallica used to have a reserved area for tapers on their shows
- Black Crowes has allways encouraged audience taping
- Gov't Mule is taper friendly too
- Grateful Dead was taper friendly too
- Allman Brothers has allowed taping for decades, but are against sharing their bootlegs on net. Trades via ordinary mail are allowed.

Take a look at www.sharingthegroove.org. The only bands that have contacted the site and asked not to share their material are:

The following bands have emailed Sharing the Groove asking that you please do not host their shows on the site. Out of respect for the artists and their record labels, we ask that you please respect their polices.

Allman Brothers Band
Bill Frisell (Trio)
John Scofield
Widespread Panic (Video)

Some bands even have their own web sites for distributing unofficially recorded material, for example Widespread Panic shows can be found @ www.digitalpanic.org

[Capmaster]

The word bootleg does not necessarily automatically imply warez.
Example
http://www.sonymusicstore.com/store/catalog/MerchandiseDetails.jsp?merchId=9543&mname=CD

Good one, furry guy

[waheed]

here's a perfect example - I have videos from tons of bands that I shot myself. in all cases, I talked to the bands before filming, and got their approval to shoot it. as far as the band is concerned, I'm allowed to trade those tapes, but not sell them for profit.

OK, for this case, as you have specifiaclly asked permission for the recordings, i would not consider this to be bootleg. this is quite legit as permission is given. Though actual permission should be sought from the copyright holder, i still dont consider this to be bootleg. Maybe it is a GREY AREA, as can be disputed.

first off, let's be clear - when I say "bootleg", I am referring to a video or audio recording of a live concert, not officially sanctioned by a record company. I differentiate that from piracy, which would be a copy of, for example, the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" concert video (commercial release).

"bootleg" is a common name for these videos, and doesn't imply piracy (to me) in the way we normally use it on this board.

However, i disagree here. bootleg and piracy are similar expect for the case where piracy is done for making profit. you are right in saying bootleg doesn't imply piracy.

basically for both cases copyright permission is not given so :

bootleg = illegal but not for profit making
piracy = illegal and for making profit

however, say for example someone takes a camcoder into the cinema and records the movie, this is illegal and breaking of copyright laws regarding of whether the recording is for his personal use or not. Now the movie is considered bootleg (not piracy as no profit making, for personal use)

If such as person was to come to videohelp.com asking for help to convert the bootleg movie to DVD, the person would get a warning and even kicked out.

as for bootleg movies and piracy movies, differentiate. piracy is exactly the same case as bootleg expect where someone does it for profit. either way, bootleg or piracy, IT IS ILLEGAL.

so whats the difference in a recording from a band where permission is not obtained and recording in a cinema - NONE, BOTH ILLEGAL

[gitreel]

Waheed,

I couln't have said it better myself.

[housepig]

so whats the difference in a recording from a band where permission is not obtained and recording in a cinema - NONE, BOTH ILLEGAL

again, I disagree - there is a difference between recording a concert that is not going to be released commercially by a record company, and recording a motion picture that, by virtue of being shown in a theater, already is being released commercially.

live concerts are ephemeral, irreproducable events - a film is a fixed, endlessly repeatable article. it is the same every time, whether it was copied from a screener, copied from a rental, or copied with a cam in the theater.

the only way you can make movie piracy and concert bootlegging an apples-to-apples comparison is if person A makes a film, projects it one time while person B camcords it, and then destroys the original film.

[Guest]

Do you know how many bands are on record (no pun intended) as being neutral to the existence and proliferation of bootlegs?

The record companies lose a lot more money to bootlegs than the artists would. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most bands make their money from live shows and merchandising? I thought, in general, their revenue from record sales was paltry, at best.

I say trading bootlegs is fine. Profiting from them would be another story.

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9905/06/public.enemy/

[gitreel]

so whats the difference in a recording from a band where permission is not obtained and recording in a cinema - NONE, BOTH ILLEGAL

again, I disagree - there is a difference between recording a concert that is not going to be released commercially by a record company, and recording a motion picture that, by virtue of being shown in a theater, already is being released commercially.

live concerts are ephemeral, irreproducable events - a film is a fixed, endlessly repeatable article. it is the same every time, whether it was copied from a screener, copied from a rental, or copied with a cam in the theater.

the only way you can make movie piracy and concert bootlegging an apples-to-apples comparison is if person A makes a film, projects it one time while person B camcords it, and then destroys the original film.

It depends on the band.

Some bands end up putting the concerts on dvd. Look at Rush in Rio.

That would be commercial and would blow holes in your argument, housepig.

[indolikaa]

Do you know how many bands are on record (no pun intended) as being neutral to the existence and proliferation of bootlegs?

The record companies lose a lot more money to bootlegs than the artists would. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most bands make their money from live shows and merchandising? I thought, in general, their revenue from record sales was paltry, at best.

I say trading bootlegs is fine. Profiting from them would be another story.

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9905/06/public.enemy/

The seeds of rebellion have been planted. And if that breeds loyalty among fans, the Labels are in deep shit. Public Enemy figured it out, let's see how many others follow...

[Treebeard]

Not to hijack b/c its sort of on topic.

Opinions on the practice of tape/dvd trading for old tv episodes and out of print material recorded from TV. Is it legal or not? And is it allowed to be discussed here?

[Capmaster]

Not to hijack b/c its sort of on topic.

Opinions on the practice of tape/dvd trading for old tv episodes and out of print material recorded from TV. Is it legal or not? And is it allowed to be discussed here?

If they are legal copies you can trade them, give them away, whatever you want. And you can discuss the legality of any issue, even warez and such. Just don't advocate it, aid in acquiring it ...well, you know the rules

But I wouldn't suggest posting the ads here. Nobody wants to see the forum turned into an e-bay.

I would suggest doing it via PMs or e-mails.

[Supreme2k]

Live concerts are ephemeral, irreproducable events - a film is a fixed, endlessly repeatable article. it is the same every time, whether it was copied from a screener, copied from a rental, or copied with a cam in the theater.

That doesn't matter. You still did not get permssion. It would be the same as taping a broadway play, where on night there's a substitute for the star. Still illegal. Or a motivational speaker. Even if he's selling his books and audio CDs, but no video, it's still illegal. It's still not legal to pass around a post-production screener (a la The Hulk) which is somewhat different from the final product, simply because it is an "irreproducable event."


Treebeard,
I'm not completely sure, but trading and such is a little beyond the scope of this site, even for off-topic, since it has a specific purpose (whereas most OT posts will be one-shots). There's plenty of "Trading Post" sites for enthusiasts of specific shows or genres of video.
I think it's more of putting the video on the media here, rather than distribution after the fact.

EDIT: I started before Cap, but was "interrupted" in the process.

[housepig]

It depends on the band.

Some bands end up putting the concerts on dvd. Look at Rush in Rio.

That would be commercial and would blow holes in your argument, housepig.

true, but if I'm the only person in the room with a camera, the argument stands.

if, for example, Macabre's record label wants to put out a concert video from the October '93 show in Virginia, they are going to have a hard time doing it without getting it from me... I had the only camera.

and of course, if there was a commercial crew at a show, and that show gets released, it changes the status of any unofficial footage... the same way, to reference another recent thread, that finding out Traci Lords was underage made all of her movies illegal, overnight.

[dphirschler]

Um, how do you think it could be even a little bit 'not illegal' if they can confiscate your tape?

And no doubt they could get you thrown in jail, no different than if you camcorder a movie. They just don't generally hassle with it.

Venue rules and band rules do not equal the law. The law says that selling bootlegs is illegal. I don't believe it says anything about making a recording not authorized by the band or venue... only selling it.

Let me ask you this. If you are in Boston and you see the Ben Fanklin look-a-like walking around posing for snapshots for a small fee. Is it against the law to take his picture without paying for it? I say no. Now publishing the photo without his permission may be, but not taking the picture. Same goes for taking pictures or videos of flashing girls at Mardi Gras.

Or what if you video a birthday party while a "public performance" of Happy Birthday is being sung? Is that video illegal?

And even then each state's laws may each be different. For instance in New York they can only ask you to leave or take your media or batteries, or I think they can take your camera, but return it after the show.

But just because the band or venue wishes you didn't do that, doesn't mean you can't still legally do it. If I don't want people to say the words "Niagra Falls" around me, are they breaking the law if they say it? Certainly not!


Darryl

[Headbanger's Ball]

Bootlegs are not warez (to me anyway.) Bootlegs are just unofficial recordings. Piracy is the duplication of released materials. A bootleg of a Rush show is VERY different than a pirated warez copy of Rush in Rio. Concert videos & cd-rs are sold openly at record shows. Aside from Guns N Roses' photophobia (ie. the St. Louis riot) bootlegs are more of promotional material than pirated material. An 80's hair band named Icon actually used a bootleg video to make an official release.

someone was asking questions about correcting image problems in a bootleg concert video. immediately jumped on as warez, locked, kicked and spat on, etc.

Someone should apologize if that happened. And the thread about the guy wanted to "back-up" his video store's rentals for his own personal use that ran for more than 1 page should be locked & warning given to the persons who "helped" in an illegal activity & a ban to the creator of the thread.
There is starting to be too much paranoia about copyright violations on this site.
And if moderators are still in a mood for warnings.....
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=156126&highlight=