From: David.T.Greenfield@dartmouth.edu (David T. Greenfield)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Hey Jude
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:38:52 GMT
 <1992Jul29.045343.1773@menudo.uh.edu> 
 <1992Jul30.153131.2117@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Jul30.174426.18165@menudo.uh.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Jul29.045343.1773@menudo.uh.edu>
edc@evolution.bchs.uh.edu (edward s. chen) writes:

> It is not only "not officially sanctioned", it is being done without the
> permission of the Beatles, EMI, or Capitol, and the boys receive no money
> from the sale of the disc.
>
> >I will attempt
> >to fish the info on this thing out of the trash.  If I recall, the going
> >price was $70 and included an alternate shot of the cover (not all that
> >exciting when one considers Ethan Russell has been
> >peddling his pix through outlets like Rockaway Records for some time now). 
> 
> Not to mention that the CD is mastered from a vinyl disc.  Can we say
> "counterfeit" (or alternatively "pirate") boys and girls?  [...and much
> like "Yesterday...and Today", not even an interesting one]  A very definite
> avoid at all costs.


In article <1992Jul30.153131.2117@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
David.T.Greenfield@dartmouth.edu (David T. Greenfield) writes:

> Is this legally different from "bootleg"?  Do I detect a new morality
> emerging in this group?

In article <1992Jul30.174426.18165@menudo.uh.edu>
edc@evolution.bchs.uh.edu (edward s. chen) writes:

> Further, there is most definitely not a "new morality" emerging in this
> group.  Speaking only for myself, I don't care what people want (or don't
> want) to purchase.  It is just that I can see no justification for spending
> $70.00 - $80.00 for a CD created using a commonly available vinyl record as 
> the sound source.

OK, OK.  I don't mean this to be a personal attack against any
individual.  It's the general attitude (though expressed in the first
quoted paragraph above) that gets me.  I get the impression that people
eagerly buy the "quality" bootlegs with clear conscience but react with
indignation towards the piraters and counterfeiters.  The message that
I get is that "it's OK to rip off The Beatles, EMI, Capitol, etc, but
don't try to rip off me".

In one sense I think that bootlegs are at least as offensive as the
others because not only are their profits misdirected and their quality
undependable, but also source material is released that may have been
intentionally withheld in the first place by the choice of the artist
and/or record company.  I'm referring to bootlegs other than public
and/or broadcasted performances.  By buying these bootlegs we are, in
many cases, cooperating in the subversion of the artist(s)'s right to
privacy in the creative process, a process I consider sacred,
especially in the case of The Beatles.  Being smitten, as we are, by
the Beatles, we eagerly gobble up every crumb of their lives that we
can get our hands on.  If some sneaky bootlegger pulls back the window
blinds for us and we just can't resist the urge to peak in are we
really any better than the pirater or counterfeiter (or the bootlegger,
himself)?

Now I'm not trying to be holier than thou, because I have indulged in
some peeking myself.  My point is can we really say that bootlegs are
any better and therefore more acceptable than the pirates or
counterfeits?  I don't think so, and there seems to me (IMHO) to be
some hypocracy on this issue that I think that we (including me) should
recognize.  Just writing this has helped me see the issues more
clearly.

Sorry if I have dredged up a worn out subject.  If it has been
previously dealt with perhaps it's time to think some more about it.

Now, where's my asbestos suit? ;-).

David
david.t.greenfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles