From elephant-talk at arastar dot comThu Sep 21 12:25:52 1995 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 08:02:05 +0800 From: elephant-talk at arastar dot com Reply to: toby at cs dot man dot ac dot uk To: elephant-talk at anthor dot arastar dot com Subject: Elephant-talk digest v95 #222 E L E P H A N T T A L K The Internet newsletter for Robert Fripp and King Crimson enthusiasts Number 222, Thursday, 21 September 1995 Today's Topics: SPECIAL ISSUE: Tape trading [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] POSTS: Please send all posts to toby at cs dot man dot ac dot uk ARCHIVES: The ET archives are: WWW: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/elephant-talk.html FAQ: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/et/elephant-talk-faq.html FTP: The Americas: ftp.qualcomm.com, in /pub/et FTP: Rest of world: ftp.cs.man.ac.uk, in /pub/toby/elephant-talk EMAIL: Send "index elephant-talk" to listserv at arastar dot com [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Hi everyone. I've made this a special edition of ET to avoid hassling those folks who aren't interested in the on-going debate about the ethics of botlegging. Thanks for Dan for his efforts on collating and publishing the results of his survey. If you have a response to make to any of the points here, please mark your subject line "BOOT" so I can readily distinguish these from the ususal ETchat. Thanks. -- Toby [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 17:03:30 BST From: Dan Kirkdorffer (DanKirkd at aol dot com) Subject: Tape trading Fellow ETers, A couple of weeks ago I asked you to send me your responses to a number of questions regarding bootlegging and trading. The intent, which I may not have made very clear at the time, was to head off a war of words on a very heated topic of discussion, and instead compile an overview of opinions on either side of the issues in a more focused format. Well, 42 ET readers responded, and I may be wrong, but I believe that some responses came from people who have never posted to ET before, which was nice to see. Only after I started receiving the responses did I realize I also didn't make it clear that I'd be compiling comments as well. The "anonymous" comments below were made by people that did not respond to my "mind if I quote you" follow up query. I have organized the responses by question, with comments on each following the totals. Like Malcolm Humes pointed out, the results of this survey are really not as important as the opinions being expressed, although it would seem that on some questions the level on consensus was rather high. I will leave further analysis to the ET reader. I'd like to make a few comments of my own before leaving you to the survey results. First of all, many thanks to all of you who responded - if there is ever a next time I hope I can formulate my questions more clearly. Secondly, I agree whole heartedly with Malcolm's comments about slanderous remarks in ET. Surely we can all argue our opinions without resorting to personal attacks, at least that's what this "self-righteous whining toady" thinks. Finally, perhaps we could attempt more "special issues". I think focusing things in ET on a single topic could be interesting, and more than one of you thought so too. Perhaps this isn't the format we'd use, but I think some other topics could be attacked in this way. I'll end on that note. Dan Kirkdorffer (DanKirkd at aol dot com) (P.S. On a totally unrelated note, I thought you'd like to know that I sent R. Fripp the complete set of gig reviews as compiled from ET on the May-July THRAK tour. Inspiration for the upcoming gigs? Maybe.) ------------------------------------------------- Here are the results of the boots/trading survey: 1) Are you in favor of trading copyrighted material (when *no money* is involved)? Yes - 25 (59.5%) No - 17 (40.5%) Comments: > In favor of is strong wording. I am not opposed to this and see no harm in it. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > copyright is for lawyers, not art. - mtownsend at interramp dot com (Michael Townsend) > I favor trading concert and other recordings that are not available through legitimate means. I am not in favor of selling such recordings (although I am guilty of occasionally buying them), or in trading or selling recordings that *are* available through legitimate means, no matter what the cost. - Anonymous > Yes. (I assume here you're talking about taping friends' CDs and such, since live performances -- unless recorded or notated in some way -- are not copyrighted. The exception I make here is for artists that I *really* want to support financially, such as KC, XTC, Joni Mitchell, Peter Gabriel, etc. In that case, I always buy their product and encourage others to do so.) - tbernhardt at aga dot com (Bernhardt, Todd) > What exactly are you referring to? If you mean copying material that has already been released, I'm against it. If you mean making recordings at concerts, I'm in favor until the band releases a concert album from that tour. Once the material is officially available, I'm against further unlicensed duplication. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > If this means copying & trading a sanctioned release, No!!!!! - lbh2 at cornell dot edu (Bruce Higgins) > Of equal value? Legally owned? Sure. - poeea at centum dot utulsa dot edu (Ed Poe) > Quite frankly (and with no hostility whatsoever, just an observation), I think this is a loaded question. I don't necessarily object to such trading, particularly when it is done for the purpose of hearing music by an artist that the listener has not previously had access to. I have traded tapes (or made them for friends) on and off for years, mainly to expose others to artists I like that they may not be familiar with (or may have what I perceive as an incorrect impression of). I know most people don't do this, but I include the relevant labels and catalog numbers when I make such tapes, so that the recipient will be able to search out the commercially available recording if desired. - tntmusic at halcyon dot com (Kevin J. O'Conner d.b.a. Tinty Music) > Both Yes and No - Yes, if the copyrighted material being traded is on an authorized/legal copy. No, if the copyrighted material being traded is an unauthorized (read: illegal) copy - PhilCYa at aol dot com (Phil Yandel) > I am in favor of trading live music when no money is involved. - Anonymous > N, but I recognize that sometimes this occurs, particularly when a beginning trader has nothing else to offer. - ASchulberg at aol dot com > No, because only tapers would have material to trade. This would exclude alot of people. - KEVPOST at aol dot com > In *favor*??? More like, not opposed ... - dac at cosmic dot physics dot ucsb dot edu (David A. Craig) > sometimes I send a tape to my friends living far from me to show them what I have. If they R interested in the material, they will buy it. - tajthy at ind dot eunet dot hu (TAJTHY Tamas) 2) Are you in favor of trading copyrighted material (in exchange *for money*)? Yes - 4 (9.5%) No - 37 (88.1%) Maybe - 1 (2.4%) Comments: > I view trading goods for goods and trading goods for money as basically the same. Either way, value is assigned to the goods. But I personally prefer trading tape for tape with no cash involved. - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > I can resell a copyrighted recording I've purchased. - mtownsend at interramp dot com (Michael Townsend) > I've no problem if the material isn't available anywhere else, but I do have a strong problem if it is available commercially. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > Sounds like buying or selling a used CD to me. Sure. - poeea at centum dot utulsa dot edu (Ed Poe) > Another loaded question, I'm afraid. If we're talking about taping commercially available recordings in their entirety, then the answer is no. If we're talking about taping hard-to-find commercially available recordings, I am sometimes willing to do so, with the understanding that it is a stopgap until the other person can find a legitimate copy - and I only accept enough to cover the cost of the blank tape ($2 to $3, usually) and postage (usually about $1). If we're talking about material that is out of print, then I am perhaps a little more willing to do so than if the material were still available - but I will still not accept more than is necessary to cover the costs of a blank tape and postage. - tntmusic at halcyon dot com (Kevin J. O'Conner d.b.a. Tinty Music) > I do not agree with this or the trading of live music in exchange for money. - Anonymous > No, the artists should profit from their performance, not the bootleggers - KEVPOST at aol dot com 3) Would you *purchase* an unauthorized bootleg recording? Yes - 16 (38.1%) No - 23 (54.8%) Maybe - 3 (7.1%) Comments: > Yes if no authorised versions are available. - K dot Geppert at cit dot gu dot edu dot au (Karl Hagen Geppert) > Yes, but I'd prefer to trade tape for tape. But I don't condemn other people for purchasing bootlegs rather than trading---it's their choice. - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > Yes, if it was from a concert not recorded and released by the band, and depending on the quality of the boot and what band it was of. - tbernhardt at aga dot com (Bernhardt, Todd) > Only if I really couldn't get it otherwise (before the Dire Straits live disc came out I bought a recording in Europe that I'm pretty sure was a concert they almost used for the "official" release. Besides, it was legal there.) Define "unauthorized." - poeea at centum dot utulsa dot edu (Ed Poe) > Yes. A pirated recording I would not, but I have purchased bootlegs before. - tntmusic at halcyon dot com (Kevin J. O'Conner d.b.a. Tinty Music) > No. Never have. I have owned in my lifetime over 5000 LPs. and currently have over 400 CDs - KEVPOST at aol dot com > I have never bought such a material of any group, but I can imagine, that I find a very special recording. Who knows? - tajthy at ind dot eunet dot hu (TAJTHY Tamas) 4) Would you *trade* an unauthorized bootleg recording? Yes - 29 (70.7%) No - 10 (24.4%) Maybe - 2 (4.9%) Comments: > If by this you mean: would *I* make a copy and trade/give it away: NO. If by this you mean: would *I* trade/give away something in exchange for a bootleg: Maybe. - PhilCYa at aol dot com (Phil Yandel) > (YES, by all means) Especially for a show that I attended. - Anonymous > I would never tape a performance. - KEVPOST at aol dot com 5) Do you believe that an artist has an ownership right to music performed live? Yes - 25 (62.5%) No - 12 (30%) Maybe - 3 (7.5%) Comments: > How - could music could be "owned"? - Anonymous > this is a vaguely worded question. I believe an artist has rights to control commercial use of their material. I also see no harm in a concert go-er "taking notes" on the experience to refresh their memory or re-live the experience. What is ownership when it comes to something that happens between artist and audience, and when the audience has paid for that experience. If I paid for it and get to experience it once - does the artist own my memory of the music? If I use a recorder to take notes to enhance my memory, is what I captured part of the experience I already paid for? I think the artist owns the right to edit and release music they perform and record. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > Hmmm....this is a tough one. I'd say Yes. However, many artists don't own the rights to their music---their record company owns the rights. In which case, then, the record company would own the rights to the performance. - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > do I have ownership rights to my farts once they're released? - mtownsend at interramp dot com (Michael Townsend) > No. (By playing live, the artists has agreed to share his or her art with the audience. If the artist cares enough about copyright or sales, then they will record and release the performance themself.) - tbernhardt at aga dot com (Bernhardt, Todd) > Yes, and the music is being shared with the audience for a one- time listen. - martz at shaft dot fc dot hp dot com (Paul Martz) > Yes. Which is why I'm against trading material that has been officially released. The way I see it, if an artist doesn't release some material, he obviously doesn't want to make money from that material, so he's not losing anything if it's distributed through other channels. On the other hand, if it is released, then it indicates that he does want to earn his share, and it would be (in my opinion, anyway) theft to distribute illegal copies. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > NO - how could they, WE pay for it. - jbosco at dasw dot com (John Bosco) > Y (I wish they would exercise it by releasing more live recordings, if they don't, well... - lbh2 at cornell dot edu (Bruce Higgins) > Abso-freaking-lutely. - poeea at centum dot utulsa dot edu (Ed Poe) > Well, now we're getting into one of those grey areas. As an artist myself, I firmly believe that music and the recorded representations of music are two separate things. Music itself cannot be owned or possessed, because it has no fixed, tangible form. It is invisible, has no mass, and is weightless. In fact, without someone to perform it, music doesn't even exist. Therefore, I would say that the answer to the question as you've asked it is most likely no. Recordings of music, on the other hand, are different. They do have physical form, and can be owned or possessed. If the artist makes a recording of a performance, then yes, the artist has the copyright for that recording - it's automatic, as I'm sure you know. If the artist does not, but someone in the audience has made a recording for their own use, then I think the answer becomes less clear. I would think that, provided the person who possesses such a recording does not then distribute copies, there are no problems. After all, the laws are such that it is not illegal to own a bootleg, even though it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, and sell such recordings. - tntmusic at halcyon dot com (Kevin J. O'Conner d.b.a. Tinty Music) > Yes. By this I mean that they have a right to release and make profit off any live performances. Let me also say that I don't agree with Fripp's views that going to a concert is akin to sex or a personal unreproducible event between performer and audience. The audience does not perform- all they have to do is receive in most settings. With stuff like his solo performances it's different, and perhaps that's his ideal setting, but in most concerts it just doesn't happen. - eraserhead at iglou dot com (David Lynch) > Yes, to the extent of any monies that are involved from the distribution of that artist's work. - Anonymous > The artist (or owner of the copyright rights) should exclusive control over the publication of his/her material, whether in a live public performance or not. - PhilCYa at aol dot com (Phil Yandel) > They have a right to the money collected at the door, but a tape made at a show in my opinion is owned by the person who made the tape. - Anonymous > Don't know enough about copyright laws. - ASchulberg at aol dot com [Hurl your URL to http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/overview.html - It contains the full US Copyright statutes. - Dan (courtesy of Phil Yandel)] > I have a problem with anyone owning art. Of course we pay to listen either in concert or on record/CD. But if I tape a record or concert for a friend, I have problems seeing the "sin". - m dot d dot chapman at farmasi dot uio dot no (Mark D. Chapman) > well ... i believe an artist has the right to be the one making the decisions regarding who is making *money* from their performances. - dac at cosmic dot physics dot ucsb dot edu (David A. Craig) 6) If you answered "Yes" to #5, would you still willfully trade or purchase bootlegs? Yes - 19 (61.3%) No - 9 (29%) Maybe - 3 (9.7%) Comments: > I'm not sure what my answer to the vague question above is. I would still willfully trade live recordings regardless of any percieved ownership of the content. In my personal ethical universe this is harmless. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > Yes. I justify my trading bootlegs with the following practical reasoning: anybody who collects bootlegged concert recordings by "Artist X" already has purchased all of the legitimate albums released by "Artist X." Therefore, in most cases, bootlegging doesn't cut into an artist's royalties. No fan of Artist X would buy a bootleg in favor of one of Artist X's legitimate albums. This fan would buy the legit album, and use the bootlegs to suppliment his collection. Do you see what I mean? - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > A perfect example is the "Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe" tour. I purchased a few bootlegs of this tour. Once an official release of the tour came out, I stopped looking for further bootlegs, and I will no longer trade any material from that tour. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > This is a toughie. Some bands (like that Dire Straits above, also Pearl Jam and others) have more than a little hand in their "bootlegs" - are those illegal? - poeea at centum dot utulsa dot edu (Ed Poe) > The word "willfully" makes this yet another loaded question. But, since I have purchased bootlegs in the past, the answer would have to be yes. - tntmusic at halcyon dot com (Kevin J. O'Conner d.b.a. Tinty Music) > Yes. Explanation: I wouldn't trade recordings of material legitimately released. However, if said music is not going to exist in any commercially available form, I think it would be better that it be traded among those interested in it. See Fripp's own views on this in a 1978 interview on the official Crimson web page (3rd interview). - eraserhead at iglou dot com (David Lynch) > Again, Maybe - but at least I wouldn't pretend I was doing something perfectly ethical - PhilCYa at aol dot com (Phil Yandel) > Y, assuming the band does not release this material also, this does not diminish the income to the band. See Ed Korczynski's excellent analysis of this point in this issue of ET. - ASchulberg at aol dot com 7) If Fripp & Co ask us not to record his performances should we heed their wishes? Yes - 25 (62.5%) No - 13 (32.5%) Maybe - 2 (5%) Comments: > And company hasn't voiced their opinion as far as I've heard. As to "we", ethics are a matter of personal choice and values. Your belief or Fripp's belief of what is right and wrong don't have much bearing on my personal ethics. I can't speak for "we" I can only speak for me. If Fripp tells me it's absurd to want to hear a recording of him live and then tries to sell me one, should I buy it? I see too many paradoxes in Fripp's opinions. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > Yes, if the artist explicitly asks us not to do so, then we should obey the artist's wishes. It should be noted that many artists don't really care if their shows are recorded by audience members. Some artists encourage it. Some artists specifically ask the audience not to do so. - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > why doesn't RF "respect" my right to record? - mtownsend at interramp dot com (Michael Townsend) > Long after they're gone, future generations will be pleased for the documentary record of the shows - ralph at atmos dot washington dot edu (Ralph Foster) > People should act to their own conscience. - Anonymous > I don't record but I listen, hypocritical probably but.... I go for the experience of being there, I don't think you can ever capture the true essence of a show except by being there, but if you don't get a chance to hear the music.... - ecerb at indra dot com (Elaine C. Erb) > I don't use flash cameras at KC concerts because I know Fripp dislikes them and they are a distraction. However, no one except the people next to you know if you're recording or not, so it hurts no one. - tbernhardt at aga dot com (Bernhardt, Todd) > If the artist specifically states that he doesn't want something released, then that's different. I isn't tacitly deciding to forgo the profits from the music, but actively wants to eliminate the material altogether. On the other hand, I've seen some Fripp interviews where he discusses the many bootlegs he's heard over the years, and seems to appreciate the work that goes into them. As for "& Co", I don't think everyone in the band has that opinion. In a very recent interview (in Notes From The Edge - a Yes newsletter), Bill Bruford had a very different opinion. He didn't approve of people copying released stuff, since that actively takes money away from the artists, but he seemed to like the idea of fans trading live recordings and sharing memories of favorite concerts. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > NO - at $40 a ticket, I'm bringing the show home, much like I tape a movie on Cable to save. - jbosco at dasw dot com (John Bosco) > The forbidden fruit is the sweetest... - lbh2 at cornell dot edu (Bruce Higgins) > No. See "The Story of the Letter U and the Number 2" by Negativland for rationale. - eraserhead at iglou dot com (David Lynch) > Yes, its their music. - sanderse at cs dot man dot ac dot uk (lizzy sanders) > No. (Actually the question should say "If Fripp asks..." Bruford doesn't mind it; in fact he recently called it charming.) - CptnApathy at aol dot com (Jeremy) > Taping a performance in no way takes away from the: 1. Amount of money received by the musicians, 2. Sound quality enjoyed by the people at the concert, 3. Fun of being at the show. - Anonymous > This is a tricky one but I am not a sycophant.Further, I myself do not tape. - ASchulberg at aol dot com > I think it's a personal moral issue...you listen to the artist's argument and then decide if it holds water. In general, I feel that for Fripp to ask us not to make/listen to recordings made illicitly is akin to a famous painter asking art lovers not to use certain colors. It's a misunderstanding over the love of music. - Anonymous > Yes but I would not RECORD his shows, only obtain recordings - voprey at mercury dot interpath dot net (Randy Long) > Does robert behave according to *my* wishes? This is a more complex issue than this survey can do justice to. - dac at cosmic dot physics dot ucsb dot edu (David A. Craig) 8) Should ET be used as a forum for trading unauthorized bootleg recordings? Yes - 8 (19.5%) No - 28 (68.3%) Maybe - 5 (12.2%) Comments: > This is a poorly phrased question, like number 1. ET shouldn't have a focused charter as a forum for trading tapes, but it also shouldn't be censored if it's at all possible to avoid doing so. I've stated my concerns about advertsing in a post to the list. I'm nore annoyed by Fripp & Company using it as a billboard for merchandising than I am by folks trying to line up tape swaps. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > Yes, it's a public area, and anything KC related should be discussed--even bootlegs. - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > YES and NO I think that short requests for trades are OK, but only if they remain at about the current level. Fripp is opposed to trading, but is an infrequent participant and I would not to offend him too much. - Anonymous > It's long enuf as it is, with people blathering on, giving reviews, and basically trying to prove that they're as smart as RF. I read it to learn tidbits about the band, not to conduct commerce. - tbernhardt at aga dot com (Bernhardt, Todd) > ET digests are big enough without a load of "psst, wanna buy a record?" posts. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > On the Richard Thompson list, it is permitted to say, "I have" or "I am looking", as long as the ensuing discussions occur off-line. I think that is a reasonable model to emulate. - lbh2 at cornell dot edu (Bruce Higgins) > No. That's what regular e-mail is for. - poeea at centum dot utulsa dot edu (Ed Poe) > That's Toby's call. - eraserhead at iglou dot com (David Lynch) > N, unless Fripp & Friends say OK - jthornton at UCSD dot EDU (Jason Thornton) > If Toby wishes to assume the legal responsibilities/implications of providing a forum for what could be construed as illegal activity, that's HIS decision - PhilCYa at aol dot com (Phil Yandel) > I would like to see a tape trading forum instead. - Anonymous > Given that Fripp doesn't approve of them, it's undeniably in poor taste to discuss the existence of such recordings in an open forum such as ETalk. In other words, those who wish to "bootleg" should do so out of sight. - Anonymous > Mainly because of space and problems with sorting the good guys from the bad! - m dot d dot chapman at farmasi dot uio dot no (Mark D. Chapman) > At least not blatantly. A little private trading by DeadHead-style tapers is mostly harmless, at least in the USA where blank tape is taxed and the tax revenue goes to record companies to compensate them for unauthorized taping of copyrighted material. Unfortunately, that money never seems to trickle-down to the artists, who are more likely to feel trickled-upon. - (Nick Douglas) > Where better? - dac at cosmic dot physics dot ucsb dot edu (David A. Craig) 9) What city/town *not* covered by the first KC tour should the band most consider to play at in the future? Choices: Stockholm, (any city in Scandinavia) Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane (any capital city in Australia) Vancouver, Canada Manchester, England Anywhere in the UK except London!!!! Budapest, Hungary Tijuana, Mexico Oslo, Norway Cardiff, Wales Boulder, CO - 2 Des Moines, Iowa Louisville, KY Portland, ME Chapel Hill, NC Ithaca, NY Pittsburgh, PA - 2 Memphis, TN Nashville, TN Houston, TX Austin, TX 10) Do you think there should be an enforced rule on signatures in ET? Yes - 14 (38.9%) No - 21 (58.3%) Maybe - 1 (2.8%) Comments: > Maximum of 2 lines. - K dot Geppert at cit dot gu dot edu dot au (Karl Hagen Geppert) > No, I don't think the list should be censored, nor do I think Toby should be bullied into trimming sigs. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > do empty lines make a difference? - Anonymous > Yes, definately! Long sigs waste space. Some people pay to download their email. Courtious Elephant Talkers should limit their sigs to their name and email address. Discourtious E.T.'ers should also limit their sigs, but everyone knows that discourtious people are going to do what they damn well please regardless of what anyone says. :-) - bksst6+ at pitt dot edu (Brandon K Snavely) > Short signitures only to cut down on file size and expense for those who must pay directly for the traffic. - Anonymous > Some are way tooo long, just switch 'em off folks! - ecerb at indra dot com (Elaine C. Erb) > Signatures are a minor problem compared to all the off-topic discussion that takes place in ET, such as the recent bootlegging thread. I would look to limit such discussions before I would edit out people's .sig files. - martz at shaft dot fc dot hp dot com (Paul Martz) > Sigs should be truncated to the one or two lines that contain the poster's name and e-mail address. Even that could be eliminated if the moderator will make sure the "from" line on each post matches what the original signature had. - david at visix dot com (David Charlap) > 4 lines or less. - eraserhead at iglou dot com (David Lynch) > Definitely, they should be banned. I always skip over them, just a waste of space. - sanderse at cs dot man dot ac dot uk (lizzy sanders) > Just use common courtesy - Toby has enough work without adding even more - PhilCYa at aol dot com (Phil Yandel) > (Who cares) I don't have a problem with the bandwidth personally, it's only disk space. :-) - Anonymous > As I read incoming ETs, I delete the signatures. - KEVPOST at aol dot com > If U say don't use signatures the others will decide to use or not these.Depend ing on the guy. Look at my signature. It is a middle sized, but it contains an important info: my CI$ address. Can B useful. - tajthy at ind dot eunet dot hu (TAJTHY Tamas) General comments: > In my opinion morals and ethics are personal values and are highly subjective. It's rather absurd to foist judgement on another because your beliefs differ from theirs. It's like trying to argue that christianisty or buddhism is better or that one is right. Fripp may have strong moral integrity to some, in some ways - but his sexual morality in years past would be found highly offensive to some persons of other moral fibre. He claims to have strong business morals, yet I've seen him slander a journalist I know in a fashion that was in my opinion unethical as it was an unfounded personal attack that sidestepped the claim by the journalists opinion and didn't recognize that it was an mereley an opinion. Arguing subjective morals is futile and the stuff many great wars and religous crusades were founded on. - mal at emf dot net (Malcolm Humes) > define the rules first, then ask for a vote. words have a way of meaning many differing things to people. some very 'big' words have been bandied about lately, in my opinion, in a careless way. ethics, rights, ownership are concepts that will probably never be agreed upon, yet discussion needs to continue, for what it's worth. by stopping discussion on a subject, the world moves in worrisome directions. if that doesn't bother the people at elephant-talk, far be it for me to challenge. although there are a few other subjects, words & opinions that i wish to bring forward as needing to be ceased ... ;-} - Anonymous > Although I'm clearly against the distribution of bootlegs for the special case of Crimson (mostly because of Mr. Fripp's beliefs - I do own several bootlegs of other bands) I don't think it is good to censor or otherwise prevent people from sending *anything* over the internet. Maybe that should have been a question on your poll, because it seems that that is really the same issue, and for me personally, a strong one. Even though I might not like what I see, I can't let personal tastes or whatever dictate how other people chose to exercise their freedom of type. - jmc at sdr dot utias dot utoronto dot ca (James MacKenzie Crawford) > A bad recording of a good show can be a bad represtation to virgin ears. One must honor Fripp's quest for quality control. - dixross at tenet dot edu (Dixie Gene Ross) > I am fairly new to ET (starting with #210). I have been collecting and trading tapes for over 10 years. I was introduced to tape trading with the Grateful Dead of course and have about 300 (soundboards) of the group. I have made alot of friends and basically have had alot of fun trading tapes. (I also own most if not all of their released material!) I would probably have little or no interest in the Dead were it not for the tapes. If I only had the released material to listen to, I would be very bored. I believe any group can easily increase their following by allowing taping. For the Dead and Phish this was/is a good thing. For KC on the other hand, having a following and being a tour band does not seem to be the goal. RF has a totally different perspective on the subject of recording than most of the other musicians I listen to. I love KC though and just wish there was a better source for tapes, especially soundboards. IMHO, when a group allows recording, it can help inspire them to be more spontaneous and even take more risks while they are playing in hopes of producing that rare version of a cut that stands out. This worked well for the Dead since their material is based so heavily on improvisation (most of the time the whole band would be improvising, not just one individual). The music of RF generally does not have the same type of "room" for the individual musicians to play with. That could be the reason he seems to be nervous about tapers. Their precise, precalculated riffs, are so exacting, that a flaw really shows through ( I am assuming this ), and they don't want people focusing on that. I think that flaws can actually be used positively by the musician and can result in a better version of a song than when it is played exactly the same every time. I think that RF should just lighten up a bit and just allow taping. He would find out in time that it will do nothing except increase, if anything, the number of people who attend shows, and buy his released material. Sorry for the long ramble. - Anonymous > You didn't include a question if we find it reasonable that RF and others don't want us to tape (I never had the chance!!). Generally I don't understand that musicians should mind! We want to enjoy there music. RFs views on the relationship performer/audience I so far feel as a bit philosphical. If I turn on my tape machine and then totallly conentrate on the music it doesn't influence the realtionship. Listning to the tape will of course never be like the live situation. But it will give me joy. Isn't that one of the important things with art: giving joy?? - m dot d dot chapman at farmasi dot uio dot no (Mark D. Chapman) > [...] now that I've read the BB interview recently posted [...] I agree wholeheartedly with his comments on the subject. - tbernhardt at aga dot com (Bernhardt, Todd) > I am very strongly AGAINST Boot CDs, and very much for tapeing. I belive that I should have the right to tape anything I want, as long as I don't make money from it, just like tapeing your favorite TV show from cable no different. - jbosco at dasw dot com (John Bosco) > Although I'm philosophically against bootlegging, or at the least, against bootlegging for a profit, I do buy an occassional bootleg CD, just out of "necessity," because I want the material so badly. Unlike legitimate releases, however, I'll copy these "albums" freely to anyone who wants them. I'm more neutral towards fan bootlegging. As long as the artist has no objection, I think it should be allowed - in fact, I believe a strong community of fans trading tapes of different shows would greatly diminish the demand for the illegal $30.00 CD's supplied by these low-life sharks who are simply ripping-off both the performer and the listener. - jthornton at ucsd dot edu (Jason Thornton) > However, bootlegging for swapping and exchange use only, and collector's items, I think is rather charming. I think the idea that kids should swap different nights and have versions of different tunes and try to collect something special I think is rather charming, I don't have any trouble with that at all. But I must confess I'm no expert on the subject. If it's just stealing from me I get a bit pissed off with it. - Bill Bruford - reprinted from ET#219 interview as suggested by ASchulberg at aol dot com > The most cogent argument fripp has presented against live recording seems to me to concern the sanctity of live performance. This is something with which i wholeheartedly agree (obviously, i reach different conclusions >from these similar roots, a situation common when arguments are founded in moral principles.) However, for whatever reason, fripp himself seems willing to interpret that sanctity in such a way that live recordings *controlled by the band* are permissible. This, it would seem, undermines any purely moral argumentation suggesting that live recording is fundamentally incompatible with the sacred spaces opened by music. The question appears to revert to the issue of *control* ... a much more dodgy situation, particularly when it is merely devoted listeners exchanging tapes within their own community. While the creators of music we love may feel annoyed (and who is to say unjustly?), even violated, by the uncontrolled trading of their music, i simply do not grant that i have a moral obligation to be subservient to all of their feelings. Yet, i fulfill what i *feel* (meaning, it is difficult to argue moral imperatives into being) to be an absolute responsibility to living artists, that i would never *sell* their work. Most of us trade and listen to live music out of love and devotion to the grace and beauty of music. We do not imagine that a tape is a time and space machine, transporting us inside a distant concert hall. As such, tapes are yet a primitive technology! Rather, tapes are a qualitatively different way of listening, different even (to me, at least) from record or cd. The music is, say, a spirit traveler, visiting from another space. Perhaps one could say the tape transports the distant concert hall into us .... - dac at cosmic dot physics dot ucsb dot edu (David A. Craig) [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] The views expressed in Elephant Talk are those of the individual authors only. Elephant Talk is released for the personal use of readers. No commercial use may be made of the material unless permission is granted by the author. Toby Howard, Elephant Talk editor. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/staff-db/toby-howard.html toby at cs dot man dot ac dot uk [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]