CARRIE and the Ethics of the Bootleg

Great Debates
1

I considered GD or IMHO, but the topic seemed a little to weighty for IMHO even though I’m asking for opinions.

I collect obscure musicals. I love 'em and I’ve got a pretty impressive collection. One of my two or three “holy grails” has been Carrie: The Musical (yes. Stephen King’s Carrie). I’ve wanted them to release a recording for about a decade. They haven’t and one of the people involved says he’ll do his best to stop any release of one.

I have a chance to buy a bootleg recording of it.

As far as I’m concerned, pirating is stealing. I don’t want to go through the whole, dull, oft-repeated “Stealing intellectual property isn’t really stealing. Information must be FREE!” arguement, please. As far as I’m concerned, it’s theft, plain and simple. I’m taking the artist’s work and not paying for it. Let’s not go here. But I’m not sure that a bootleg is entirely the same thing:

With a pirate recording, a copy of an available recording is sold at a much lower price. A bootleg is a copy of a work that’s otherwise unavailable.

I’m torn. There is NO legitimate way to get this recording, and presumably there never will be. Please, take it on faith that even if I do decide to get the bootleg, should a legit recording ever come out, I’d buy it, even though I had a copy. I’ve even half-heartedly thought about sending a few bucks to…someone…the composer or the lyricist, or someone should I get it, just so they get something out of the deal.

If a legitimate recording was available, even at a premium price, I’d never consider getting this, but since there’s no other way to get it…

On one hand, this whole line of reasoning assumes I have a “right” to hear it somehow. Thinking about it, I don’t know if I do. Does an artist have the right to destroy or hide his own art? Kafka’s wishes were (luckily) ignored and his work was preserved against his wishes.

On the other hand, I’m sure that I’m rationalizing at least a bit.

Opinions?

Thanks!

Fenris

2

would like to help you out Fenris but you’ll have to do better than (boiled down)

  1. I really, really, really want this.

  2. There’s no way to get it legally.

  3. Therefore I’m justified in obtaining it illegally, since (see #1)

Sorry. that’s IMHO.

The owner of the property has the right not to sell it. Perhaps their heirs will have a change of heart (it worked with Dr. Suess)

3

I think it does boil down to this:

Since you have already been told that it will not be released, obviously the owner has some reason for not wanting others to hear it. I don’t think that gives you (or somebody else) the right to buy it against their will.

Is it stealing? Yes. Does it have the same effect as other types of bootlegging (or Napstering)? No. But that doesn’t make it any better.

If I write a book, but then decide, after showing it to a bunch of people, that I really don’t want anybody else to see it or have a copy of it, that is my right. None of the people I showed it to has the right to make a copy of the book and distribute it just because they know others might be interested and they can make money doing so.

4

  1. You already know that MAKING a bootleg is theft. BUYING a bootleg is receiving stolen property.

  2. You don’t have a “right” to an artists work if it’s their desire to keep it hidden. An artist certainly has the right to maintain control over his work unless he sells those rights to another party.

  3. In spite of that, I don’t think it’s a big deal to buy a $10 bootleg of some obscure musical that you can’t get anywhere else.

  4. Don’t send any money. You could expose yourself to certain legal entanglements.

5

Fenris, if this bootleg is something you wanted to get, why would you ask what the people here thought? You know your gonna get scolded. . .

Anyway, I will (pretty much) defend your choice to obtain the bootleg (should you make that choice).

I agree, despite the objections of the Napster crowd. If the owner of a property (intellectual or otherwise) says “don’t use this” and you use it anyway, it is stealing. It is not, however, necessarily wrong. Regardless of your decision the producers of the show will be unaffected, while the person selling the bootleg would presumably be happier if you bought it, as would you. Who else works into the equation? Others may argue that it would be wrong because bootlegs would hurt the producers if purchased by everyone. While I’m not even convinced that this is true (in this case), the simple fact is that not everyone purchases bootlegs, and that (regardless) your purchasing of one bootleg will in no way harm the producers (and writers, etc.) of the show.

I’m sure this will draw several objections, so I’ll keep it brief and respond as necessary.

6

I don’t think it can be boiled down that easily. I think it’s a difficult question. I know you don’t want this to turn into another Napster thing, and I won’t mention Napster again after this, but really your problem and the Napster problem have the same root cause- intellectual property rights are not like other rights.

They do not derive from natural rights, and they were written into the Constitution for a specific purpose, which was to promote the arts and sciences. When you try and equate them with basic property rights, strange and confusing things happen, and people who knowingly or instinctively treat them like the means to an artistic end they actually are will reach conclusions that will consternate you because they actually don’t make sense in terms of property rights.

We should be clear about what is bothering you. Is it the illegality of the purchase, or that it might be unethical? There’s not really any question about if it’s legal or not… it isn’t. So yeah, you’re rationalizing an illegal act. We do that a lot, though. I think the important questions are as follows:

  1. Is the act itself intrinsically unethical?
  2. Are the effects of the law you are breaking more unethical than the act itself?
  3. Are your efforts to change the law via legal means likely to succeed?
  4. Who stands to be harmed?

No matter how I turn this problem over in my head, I can’t get past the basic error of equating copyright infringement with theft. It’s not theft, and it’s not plain or simple. It’s like you’re trying to equate libel with assault.

If you are willing to make the error of equating copyright infringement with theft, then a bootleg is pretty much the same thing as a pirated recording.

If copyright infringement is theft (you stole my abstract intellectual property), then bootlegging is vandalism (you damaged my abstract intellectual property).

Copyright holders (who are usually not the artists themselves) hate bootlegs because inferior bootlegs of what they consider inferior copyrighted material lessens the value of the oeuvre as a whole. So if I may squeeze your bad analogy until it screams, you won’t actually be stealing anything, you’ll just break it and leave it where it is.

Buy it. Stop beating yourself up, in ethical terms you are probably party to far worse things just by shopping at the mall. I believe you would buy it if I was released officially, because I’m made the same promise and delivered on it when it happened.

The basic process of creating music or stories cannot occur without borrowing from others. You can’t make music if you have never heard music. You can’t tell stories if you have never heard stories. Yet our IP rights provide no means for those who inspired financially successful works to benefit financially from them. This is a far greater crime than a little copyright infringement on the part of a devoted fan.

If they do, then other people have the right to preserve it or keep it around for their own uses. Private ownership of something like music, which is inherently something that must be shared to have meaning and value, will only work as long as you have the technical means to enforce your artifical boundaries of ownership. When the technology gets ahead of the legal distinction, human instinct takes the reins… and bootlegs flourish. Happened around the turn of the century with piano rolls, with vinyl in the late sixties, early seventies. It’s positively exploding right now with widespread file sharing, and those IP rights are hurtin’, because they go against our most deeply held beliefs about what makes music vital and alive, and the wind they need to be practical isn’t behind them right now.

So I guess that’s a hefty dose of (I)MHO.

-fh

7

There is a different between *counterfeit recordings[p/i] and bootlegs as far as the music industry is concerned.

Counterfeit recordings, for a time in the early '80s, could be bought on the streets of New York for a fraction of the cost inside Tower Records. Overseas, people were making tons of illegal copies of actual records, and the industry really attacked that. And nobody questioned it.

Bootlegs are a bit different. Yes, they are technically illegal, however, most artists understand the difference between a recording of a concert and a record they made and released for the public. In fact, many artists, from Metallica to modern-day Dead Heads, openly invite folks to tape their concerts. Yes, some people such as Kiss have gone out of their way to prosecute and confiscate qualtities of bootlegs, but they are the monority. Even artists who do not embrace the idea tolerate that it will happen and appreciate that only real fans who already have everything available in the stores would think of owning boots.

So, I wouldn’t have an ethical problem if I were you.

Incidentally, since no discussion of this type can be held without invoking the name Napster, the music industry looks at file-sharing as the former, not the latter, though when Metallica did its much-publicized search for Napster users who downloaded Metallica stuff, they eliminated people who did, in fact, download Metallica MP3s if those files were from bootlegs.

8

I prefer to look at ethical questions in terms of empathy. A simplified model of this interaction has 3 active “participants”: you, the bootlegger, the artists (if you permit lumping the various artists , producers, director, etc. together for simplicity).

The bootlegger wants to distribute. To do so, he has violated the expressed wishes of the artists. In doing so, he has reduced them to simple means to his own goals. I find treating human beings as simply material assets, against their wishes, to be unethical (a failure of empathy).

You want the music. To obtain it, you would have to be complicit in the bootleggers dehumanization of the artists. You are in conflict because your appreciation for this art is strong enough, and the “harm” involved in bootlegging abstract enough, that you are tempted to let the balance swing to personal gratification.

The artists created a work through their own efforts. They made that work available to the public under well understood terms of use. (i.e. you paid for the live performance, not the right to make and distribute copies.) For whatever reasons, the artists have declined to transform their ephemeral artwork into a more permanent medium. The artists do not wish that moment to be preserved and distributed. Aside from any question of material compensation, it is those wishes which the bootlegger and his customers are declaring invalid.

Think of a reduced example. Say that without your awareness or consent I take a photo of you picking your nose. It’s an artistic photograph, and I send you a copy. You, perhaps understandably, do not wish me post copies of it, with your name attached, all over the internet. Am I ethically obligated to respect your wishes?

9

Spiritus,
For the sake of argument, I would be willing to concede that the bootlegger’s actions are somewhat less . . . riteous than they ought to be (though how do you know that he has reduced the artists to means towards his goals? Maybe he’s just a music lover who wants everyone to be able to experience a given work with ease, or perhaps he really feels in his heart that intellectual property should be free and is just doing his part while recouping his losses. Probably not, but I’m just trying to throw a little bit more gray into the picture).

This assumes, of course, that there is any harm involved to begin with. If you believe that violating a given moral dictate – in this case, “don’t steal” – is inherently and universally wrong, than the discussion really ends here; follow your conscience and skip the bootleg. I, of course, would contend that no such universal dictate could exist. As soon as we can imagine a situation in which it is acceptable (or even morally preferable) to lie, than it only becomes a matter of where to draw the line, and I think “harm” is a pretty good place to draw that line. The artists will, in this case, be unaffected by your decision (unless you listen to your bootleg in lieu of going to the show [bad], or your bootleg piques the interest of a friend enough for that person to decide to see the show [good]). You and the bootlegger, as I asserted, would both be happier if the transaction were completed. However you feel about the actions of the bootlegger (or about your actions, for that matter), his happiness does matter (as does yours).

(Dr. Bentham, paging Dr. Bentham. . .)

10

Not sure if this adds much to helping you make a decision…but I unwittingly purchased a botleg album. I’m not sure if I should feel dumb or not. On my honeymoon in Ireland, I visited a record store in a Galway mall. There was a Nanci Griffith CD in the bins titled “Speed of Lonliness” I had never heard of that CD, but knew that rtists sometimes release certain material to different markets. After listening at home, I found that this was a live recording (good quality actually) of a concert in the Royal Albert Hall.

I inquired on a Nanci Griffith list serv about the album, and was told of the bootleg nature of the CD…which surprised me at first blush because (1) The CD “looked” legit…normal label etc… (2) It was sold in a regular chain record store…not on the streets.

I feel so dirty :slight_smile:

11

Valos Is it your claim that if the artist is unaware of the bootleg, they are not harmed? wouldn’t that be like the cheating husband who thinks that as long as the wife won’t find out, it’s ok?

I also like Spirtus’ analogy of the picture. Certainly your face is your own, and some one taking your picture certainly isn’t harming you, but you do expect to have some amount of control over what they do with the picture, don’t you?

12

wring I mean this as a compliment: for just a split second there, you sounded like my mom (“Well I don’t care if all the other kids are bootlegging. It’s still wrong.”) I want to whine “But I really, REEEEALY want it”. But I won’t. :smiley: . I think you summarized most of the issue in a nutshell.

David B and msmith I agree with what you’re saying in practice, but…to discuss the theory, at what point, if any, does the preservation of art trump the artist’s desires: The Kafka example for instance. Is it wrong to read his stuff, given his very clear instructions that he didn’t want his work preserved?

vardos I asked, in part, to get some help with an ethics situation. And I haven’t been scolded yet. (One reason, I suspect, is that I asked before getting it)

Anyway, I disagree with one of your points: you said

It’s hurting the people involved in the show. The performers did a job and aren’t getting paid. An analogy would be if I hired a carpenter to build something and I didn’t pay him for his labor.

hazel-rah

Per your question: I’m concerned about the ethics of the situation more than the legality. Putting aside the copyright violation != theft discussion, I’m still concerned that the bootlegger is profiting and the people who did the work aren’t.

Also you asked “Who’s harmed”: Two ‘groups’ #1) The people who did the work aren’t getting paid for my use of their work and #2) Apparently the reason that the musical won’t be released is that the composer(? I think…someone involved, in any case) feels that it’ll damage his/her reputation to have it released.
Everyone
The issue becomes a bit more complicated: apparently, per a friend of mine, the bootleg can be found with a bit of searching on Napster. He grabbed a couple of tracks and sent 'em to me…aargh…they’re good.

Does the fact that it’s out there on Napster change anything in the sense that since it’s out there, having one more person downloading it doesn’t hurt anyone. (I realize that this arguement is similar to “But all the OTHER kids are doing it”)

Fenris

13

First and foremost: Why can’t anyone get my screen-name right?!?!?!??? wring says “valos” (and should really know better by now), Fenris says vados (???) . . . and it’s not just this thread. Half the people on the board seem to suffer from the same disease. I’ve seen “Varlobs” and “vardoz” more times then I care to count. Please, people, read my screen name before writing it. It’s VarlosZ. Varlos, VZ, or (in a pinch) “Jer” will do just fine. Yeesh.

Look, my Philosophy paper is due in 2 hours, then I have class for another 90 minutes. I promise I’ll come back after that and deal with something else. In them meantime, I shouldn’t even be here.

– Jer

14

Fenris this is your mother speaking
(just kidding, no, I wasn’t insulted, unless of course you don’t like your mom).

Unless you don’t count the harm you do to yourself by doing something you seem to feel is immoral.
(I know, I know, ain’t it a bitch asking for my opinion?)

15

First and foremost: Why can’t anyone get my screen-name right?!?!?!??? wring says “valos” (and should really know better by now), Fenris says vados (???) . . . and it’s not just this thread. Half the people on the board seem to suffer from the same disease. I’ve seen “Varlobs” and “vardoz” more times then I care to count. Please, people, read my screen name before writing it. It’s VarlosZ. Varlos, VZ, or (in a pinch) “Jer” will do just fine. Yeesh.

Look, my Philosophy paper is due in 2 hours, then I have class for another 90 minutes. I promise I’ll come back after that and deal with something else. In the meantime, I shouldn’t even be here.

– Jer

16

I’m sorry VarlosZ. My only (feeble) excuse is that my eyesight isn’t the best and tho’ I have the screen set to the highest font size, sometimes I misread (especially) names. But the good news is, that once you’ve hit me over the head with the proverbial 2 x4, I rarely forget again.

17

VarlosZ

I think you missed my point. The bootlegger’s motivation is unimportant. In order to achieve his goal, he has dehumanized the artists, treating them as mechanisms of production, not as human beings with desires and goals of their own. I may think that the way you make love with your partner is too artistically magnificent to hide from public view. I may believe to my corps that the free exchange of visual images was a noble and just cause. Neither of those grants me the ethical license to tape you in your bedroom and post the movies on the Internet.

Perhaps I was unclear. I believe the “harm” occurs when one makes the decision to subjugate empathic understanding to individual desires. By doing so, you are reducing another human being to a mechanism for your gratification.

The “harm” in teh end purchase lies both in the subsidation of the bootleggers initial act and in the perpetuation of whatever effects the artists initially desired to avoid.

To me, the compexity in the issue comes from a shift in perspective. After all, the artists are also placing their indiviual desires to not have this work preserved above teh bootlegger’s desire to preserve it. This is really where the issues of intellectual property, artistic self-determination, personal privacy, etc. enter the equation. I think we can all agree that the positions of the bootlegger and the artists are not directly parallel with respect to the work of art, but if you really wish to we can examine the assymetries in detail.

18

Technically, we’re not talking about the right of artists to decide whether their work will be distributed at all, but whether or not they have the right to specifically control how their works are distributed. If artists don’t want their work distributed at all, there’s nothing stopping them from keeping it hidden.

In order for someone to have made a bootleg copy of a piece of music, that piece must have been performed, which would indicate that the artist wants others to hear it, but simply doesn’t want copies of it available for sale.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it legal to use copyrighted material against the artist’s wishes if you pay a certain royalty which is far higher than the going rate?

19

We are talking about the ethics involved in teh decision to purchase a bootlegged copy of a work that the artists have expressly stated they do not wish to have distributed.

The sexual exploits example was not intended to be analagous to the bootleging case (though there are surface similiarities). It was drawn in response to **VarlosZ’s ** suggestion that the motivations behind an act are the sole (or primary) determinant of the morality of the act.

The analogy that I drew more directly to the bootlegger was the “nose-picking photograph”.

20

It has been established that it is illegal. In terms of moraly it’s is on the negative side, but not very far(yeah I’m an ethical relativist so sue me).

The bast way to descibe my view is through a situation in my life. On a typical day I leave work, and go pick up Big Bacon Classic & Biggie fries. On the way back to work I drive by several islands with homeless people holding ‘need food’ signs. Now I’m sitting there with the BBC & Bf sitting in the bag, and feel guilt about my $5.00 meal. I’m aware that I could buy generic Balony, and crap-brand bread, and meet my lunchtime caloric requirement about 50 cents. I may make excuses about there being better ways to get help, and skepticism about how they are going to spend the money, but I am very aware that there is a very good chance that they really need food. The real reason that I get the BBC & Bf is that I want it. I’m a big fat guy, and food is one of my particular indulgences. In my own ‘personal utility’ from the situation, it is worth it to eat the BBC & Bf and deal with the guilt.
Now I’m pretty sure there is no law that says I have to eat balony and give my lunch money to a guy with a sign, but I would put it on worse moral level then the bootleging problem. In the bootlegging you arn’t taking anything physical from the guy, you are using his work in a way he might not want, but in the BBC & Bf it is potenttally endangering someone’s well-being.

The whole matter comes down to your ‘personal utilty’. Would your enjoyment from listening to the bootleg outweigh the guilt you have from the illegal act. (I’m guessing that since you started this thread you already know the answer to that. :wink: )