I’d like to add to spiritus’s post…
It is not, in this instance, that stealing is or is not wrong in all cases.
return 0}
}
As one of Satan’s aforementioned “modern-day Dead Heads”, I should point out that a cornerstone of the liberal taping policies of bands like the Dead, Phish, Widespread Panic, etc., is that the recordings are not sold for profit. The Dave Matthews Band is the only one I know of that has really cracked down, and that makes sense–they had such an explosion of fans all at once that many of them didn’t realize the same live show for sale at the record shop for $60 (often with dismal quality and hilariously misnamed songs) could be had for the cost of blanks from a kind trader if you asked nice. Phish and Dead fans are generally aware of that, so their boots don’t sell very well anyway.
You never mentioned from whom you were buying the recording; are they selling it at a profit? That’s what I would have the biggest problem with.
As for compensating the artist, my philosophy on the live bootleg thing is that if I have a significant number of a band’s live bootlegs, I feel obligated to own all of their legitimate releases. I do own most of what Phish has released, a good deal of Panic, and more Dead than I can listen to (there’s just so damn much available!). On that front, you might just make it a point to purchase some legitimate material by the same artists.
I say buy the damn thing, mostly because I want to hear what “Carrie–The Musical” is like. 
Dr. J
Ack, sorry about the double post earlier. (My rant was, of course, tongue-in-cheek with a winking smiley.)
Spiritus,
Interesting points. After some thought (which tends to help), I’m inclined to agree with you, at least in principal. So purchasing a bootleg in this instance would represent complicity in an immoral act. A few mitigating factors:
– The artists that we are speaking off are made up of writers, directors, producers, actors, musicians, etc. Surely they are not all of one mind on this issue. Perhaps a large number, or even a majority, of the artists think that it is unreasonable to refuse to release a recording of their show. It would only take a handful of people (if they were the right people) to block said release. Surely some feel that their art should be more widely distributed: why should their wishes be ancillary to the expression of their own art? (Aside: Better word than “ancillary”? I can’t think of one, but it must be out there somewhere.) Would it make a difference if Fenris were buying his bootleg from one of the artists? From a group of them? From most of them? Anyway, the point is that the purchase of the bootleg, while certainly an affront to at least some of the artists involved, may actually be conducive to the artistic wishes and expression of some others.
– Why won’t there be a release of the music? If it is being withheld for artistic reasons, then it would be wrong to purchase or distribute bootlegs, but what about some manner of contract dispute? If the artists want to release a soundtrack but certain unfortunate contractual obligations make this imprudent, is it wrong then? Is Fenris beholden to the artistic wishes of the market? To the wishes of a law firm? The motivation behind holding back a soundtrack does matter. An artist (or, more likely, a record company) may oppose the downloading of songs off of Napster because it costs them money on the whole. That means that it is wrong to download a CD (that you presumably would have otherwise bought) and burn it onto a blank disk. That does not, however, make it wrong to download a few tracks of a CD you would not be inclined to buy for the purposes of sampling it. I can think of three CDs that I have bought in the past year that I would not have bought without first sampling music from Napster (college student’s budget, have to be careful). Would the artists actually object to this?
– Taking the above into account (as well as all the rest of the countless mitigating circumstances that we could never fully understand), I think that at a certain point we have to trust an individual’s moral judgement. If Fenris decides to buy the bootleg, I’m willing to assume that he knows more about his moral universe and the choices therein than I do. The benefit of the doubt is, on a personal level, an astoundingly useful moral tool.
Fenris:
You might convince me that it’s hurting the artists in the abstract way that Spiritus describes, but I don’t think this works. A better analogy (yes I thought about it, but this is the best I could do): if I fantasize about the girl across the hall while masturbating, is it morally wrong because I’m not paying her for being my private dancer? Your carpenter analogy works if you were to steal an approved soundtrack from Tower Records.
wring:
For what it’s worth, whether the artists are aware or not of this particualr bootleg doesn’t matter since, if for no other reason, they are certainly aware that bootlegs do exist. Regardless, I don’t think that the cases are very similar (though my arguments from utility in each case are).
By the way, how’s your head?
I think Varlos makes a good point - why was this recording not available? Are we all sure that it is only because that the artist(s) strongly did NOT want it released? That may be so, but so often it is something else - like legalities, or a record label that is unwilling.
I collect soundtracks, particularly by composer Jerry Goldsmith (“The Omen”, “L.A. Confidential”, “Alien”, etc.) I am always a loyal customer who ALWAYS buys the legal recording when it is available. But sometimes he writes a score that is rejected from the final cut of the film (and sometimes he writes a score after another composer’s work is rejected. Picky, picky producers!) Anyway, one of these “rejected” scores is from the film “Two Days in the Valley”. Now, since Goldsmith wrote the score to be heard in the film, and since it was rejected, (against his wishes, I presume) and since there would be no CD - do you really believe that he desperately WANTS no one to hear it? I doubt it. It was a lot of hard work, and it was a good score. I am sure he’d prefer that the “Two Days” CD be released legitmately, but I cannot fathom that he’d be offended that his loyal fans are hearing the score. It’s a great score (I got it off eBay) and rather “L.A. Confidential-esque”. (A score that was nominated for an Oscar, by the way…)
Also, most of Goldsmith’s CDs are 30-40 minutes long - even though he sometimes wrote over an hour of score for the film. I read somewhere that for some legal or technical reason, it is not possible to make some of the CD soundtracks any longer than 30-40 minutes. So do you think Goldsmith is terribly offended if his loyal fans pick up the extra tracks somewhere else? They did their best, they bought the CD, but they want to hear the rest of music (that can be heard in the film.) Is this terribly wrong - for the fans to get the “missing” tracks where they can, so they can admire them? If Goldsmith is feeling ripped off - who do you think he is feeling ripped off by - his fans, or the record company?
I don’t know all the details of the “Carrie” soundtrack, but I am more inclined to think that there was some sort of legal or technical snafu that is preventing it from being released, more than the express desires of the artist to prevent it from being released. As a veteran of soundtrack collecting, I know this is often the case.
No, artistic creation doesn’t work that way. Show me somebody who wrote a hit song without ever hearing music before. Music, particularly American popular music today, is highly derivative.
If you are unable to produce hit records without having to listen to other people’s music, you no longer have any natural claim to ownership- you aren’t making something out of nothing… you are participating in a cultural process where the most basic act is borrowing from the work of others. I’m not just talking about sampling and looping, either.
Since a musician needs the support of the community in order to make music, both in the sense of needing musical themes to base their own work on AND needing an audience to make their work meaningful, intellectual property laws do not merely codify existing natural rights of individuals to ownership of intellectual property, because in a natural sense, you can’t own a melody or a lyric like you can own a chair. If these things belong to anyone, they belong to us all.
Laws like copyright exist to strike a balance of ownership between single musicians and the musical community (including both fans and musicians) in a way that will most encourage growth and innovation in the arts given other facts of life such as needing to make a living and eat instead of playing your guitar all day.
Being able to make money by selling or exercising your copyright to music you have written was never intended to be anything but a means to the end of encouraging the arts. IP laws can and should be more plastic than laws which derive from natural rights.
Furthermore, music and other forms of art are not like physical property. Sharing them doesn’t diminish their artistic utility, it increases that utility.
-fh
It doesn’t seem to be the case here: CARRIE was never recorded in a studio: the only recordings I’m aware of are from tape recorders that were snuck into the theater.
I don’t know about the wishes of the performing artists (Betty Buckley, who played Margaret White, has sung several of the songs in concert), but yeah, the composer wants this musical buried and forgotten. (As far as I know…that’s what word of mouth is at least and I’ve found some corroborating evidence in a book about the musical.)
CARRIE is the single most expensive disaster in Broadway history and easily the biggest flop. Since CARRIE came along, every bad musical has been compared to it…the phrase “Not since CARRIE…” has become a standard catch phrase (there was even a book by that title about Broadway disasters), in the same way a SF fan would describe a bad movie as “Not since PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE has there been…”
Careers were ruined and a staggering amount of money lost by this musical and I understand why the composer would be happier if it were forgotten.
Unfortunately, I believe that by withholding it, he’s building up the mystique even further. Based on the couple of tracks I’ve heard that a friend grabbed from Napster, it’s not all that bad and one of the tracks was actually good.
Fenris
So he doesn’t want “Carrie” to be released because he’s ashamed of it (or at least because he doesn’t want to forever be associated with it)? Understandable, but do you think he would object to your having a copy for personal use because you enjoy the music (as opposed to, say, inviting friends over to laugh at your silly novelty bootleg)? Just a thought.
So, whatcha gonna do, Fen?
Sorry 'bout that, VarlosZ:
Here’s what I decided to do.
I couldn’t get comfortable with buying the bootleg. When it came down to it, it seemed like everyone was profiting, (the bootlegger with my money and me with the enjoyment of having the CD in my collection) except the people who did the actual work (the performers). If I could have figured out a way to get them some money, I might have gotten the thing.
However, I’m only human: I downloaded the songs from Napster, listened to them once (most of the songs were so-so, a few were really good and a couple were really, really bad), and deleted them. Still not entirely right, by my standards, but far less wrong than having the CD available for repeated listenings. And having heard it, at least my curiousity is satisfied.
Thanks to everyone for their advice
Fenris
Resurecting an old one.
A different dilemma, but similar. There was movie from the 60’s that I’d wanted to see again, re-release was not likely, it had appeared on video many years ago, but the only way to rent it even was to go through one of those rent by mail outfits and pay something silly (like $100) for it. anyhow. Knew that somewhere there were copies, just not available for purchase at this point. Saw them on e-bay every now and then, finally scored one. Got it delivered yesterday.
It’s pretty obvious (now that I see it) that it’s a copy of some old version of it. (ie, a legal version was illegally copied). I knew nothing, I swear, of it (there were other sellers of this same movie that I’ve noticed keep on putting out ‘one more copy’ of it, so it’s obvious to me those are illegal copies, and I chose not to buy it from them)
what to do now?
Three choices:
1)Keep it. You bought it in good faith, at this point, you’re stuck with it. You might as well enjoy it.
2)Contact the seller and demand a refund: he returns your money, and once the money’s back in your hands, you’ll return the tape to him. Explain that you don’t buy bootlegged material. Once you’ve gotten the refund (if you do) then tell him that if you see him selling pirate material on eBay you’ll report him.
3)Contact eBay and…whatstheirnames: the anti-film-piracy org. and report the guy. In this case you’ll probably be out the tape AND the money.
I say option 2 is probably the best one. Note that if he doesn’t respond or tells you no, it still leaves option 1 and 3 open.
(What was the movie, BTW?)
Fenris
Bunny Lake is Missing I hadn’t seen it since I was a teen, and remember the delighful creepy feeling. It’s an Otto Preminger, stars Keir Dullea, Carol Lynley, Sir Lawrence Olivier. watched it last night. Just as creepy as I recall.
The tape has no marking on it - looks like a blank tape like you’d buy - no sticker or remnant of one identifying the movie. The case has a xerox copy of the liner from the original (which doesn’t by itself mean it’s a bootleg, but coupled with the lack of stickers on the cassette… 
)
Seller is in Canada, which makes all of this even stickier. grrrrrrr. I wouldn’t have bid on it if I’d known it was a bootleg.