Originally Posted by
carlo
I 100% agree with you on this. In recent years, there have been a small handful of unreleased tracks that have very obviously been leaked from [record company's name redacted] vaults, which is proven by the superior sound quality of the digital files that have been circulated. It seems it is ok to privately circulate unreleased tracks among a chosen few [and one of those will send the song to a dozen others, but then says 'don't share this', and then it gets out to hundreds of fans], but it's not ok to purchase a bootleg. It's also ok for fans to post music on Youtube that they do not own the rights to, and artist royalties will not be earned from each play, but it's still not ok to purchase a bootleg. Like you said, it's selective morality. I have seen this situation play out with tons of artists' catalogues.
I am generally not ok with bootlegs either, but if it's clear that it's a situation where the music is not being released, such as is the case with The Supremes' catalogue at this point in time, then hey...
I have a hard time imagining that any of the die-hard fans who purchased a Reflections Expanded Edition from Ben [I don't know if he was selling those, but let's assume yes] are going to turn around and say that they are not going to bother purchasing the official physical release, once Universal's top-execs finally roll over in bed.
The logic is that bootlegs prevent the real product from being released and negatively impact sales. I would also generally agree with that. However, do I agree that this same logic applies to a very small fan-base, on a niche product, that only appeals to die-hard fans? No.
I would argue that Flo Ballard's solo album only ended up getting an official release due to the recordings that were circulated and talked about amongst fans.
Should another fan be illegally profiting off of other artists' work? No. Should a copyright-holding company be intentionally and semi-perpetually withholding artists' work, in order to guarantee a bigger profit down the road, once they pass away? Should a record company be issuing cease and desist notices to fans who are sharing their copyrighted property on their Youtube accounts, Facebook groups, fan sites, etc., in order to maintain the value of their property and preserve sales?
Selective morality. That's capitalism for ya.
Bookmarks