Padraig wrote:Some good points made above, I'd like to try to extract a few more.
I'll respond where I can, and then I'm done. This is an old argument, and one that will not be resolved by you and me.
Let me preface by saying that I find the morality of bootlegs to be dubious. Not repugnant. Not anethema. Just dubious. I would rate them somewhere between exceeding the speed limit and cutting in line at the bank. This should be translated loosely as "not worth getting into a fight over."
Padraig wrote:I'm not sold on the assertion that increased bootleg trading is causally connected to decreased profit from official offerings. If these shows are not being offered on a mass scale by the band then the illegal boots are not competing with anything. I'd also suggest that those people who are willing to suffer through a bootleg already have the official offerings such that a concern with demand for the product is less than one would imagine.
Quite so. One could also argue that these are a brilliant opportunity for a band (or their label) to judge relative demand for new offerings, etc. One could also make the argument that allowing for legal free downloads of tracks provides the same service - a trackable way to judge interest in the material, and to help "prime" the market for a real release.
It's difficult to determine where the hand-waving "The Internet/Bootlegs are destroying the creative industries" and the "technology and fan demand are forcing innovation onto a stale and stagnant business model" hysteria have valid points or are instead spinning fiction as fact.
It is my belief, however, that the creative industries don't care about the market data to be gained from trading of bootlegs, and instead simply persecute (and prosecute) the traders, and the band often gets screwed.
Padraig wrote:Well I won't claim to know everything about what bands' rights are and I'm also confused as to how you are using the term 'rights.'
You had said<blockquote><blockquote type=cite>Obviously, people who make a profit from distributing bootlegs are infringing on the bands' rights to sell their own work</blockquote></blockquote>I had thought I was referring to their "rights" in the same way. I had understood this use of "rights" to mean "the band's ability to choose how their work will be consumed"
Padraig wrote:Is it in the sense of how the laws of the specific country dictate the transmission of a bands' or in a more metaphysical sense suggesting that the band ought to be able to determine how their material is disseminated?
The latter.
Padraig wrote:It seems unlikely that you mean both because as you note bands are forced into ugly contract arrangements that they probably regret later on. Anyway, when someone doesn't reap a monetary profit off their swapping of a bootleg I'm not sure how this does infringe a bands' rights. Maybe you could explicate this further.
That's the same argument people often use to trade out-of-print albums, etc. It may be valid, but I tend to disagree with it.
I think that people deserve to be paid for their work. I work in the software industry and believe that people should pay for software that I work on. If I choose to create software and give it away (which I often do) then that is <i>me</i> making a conscious choice about how a product of my creativity will be consumed - not a consumer of it deciding what is right for my work.
I am also a photographer. I make money selling photographs of things (one of them was just used on the cover of Nature Genetics ... Cool!). Sometimes I choose to let a person (or an organization) use one of my photographs free of charge; sometimes I charge people for them. If my photographs are reproduced and given away, they are directly impacting my ability to earn a living by deciding how my work should be dissiminated regardless of what my own wishes are.
I think that bootlegging concerts, albums, movies, etc falls into the same bucket - the artists should have the right to decide how their work will be consumed.
Padraig wrote:I infer from the posts in the Fora that you are a relatively rational person and meet most of the standard criteria for "normal" personhood.
You flatter me.
Padraig wrote:Most normal people abhor things that they find distasteful and "morally repugnant." By disassociating yourself from this are you suggesting that you are in fact in favor of morally repugnant things or merely neutral?
You're trying to draw me into large blanket statements (much more so than I've already made). That's not playing fair.
As I said previously - I find bootlegging to be morally dubious. I am ambivilant to it. In my record and CD collection there are even a few bootlegs present.
I do not condemn bootlegs as a scourge, nor do I condone them. They simply are.
Padraig wrote:DzM wrote:It's not up to me to pass moral judgement on how fans choose to express their fandom.
You are the administrator of this website and regularly make judgments regarding the moral/ethical content of a persons post on this site. You decide what content is appropriate in light of the guidelines you have posted in the Announcements section. If a person were to express their fandom while simultaneously espousing bigoted epithets you would (I assume) remove their post.
It would depend a great deal on the context of their post.
You'll notice that I specifcally try to avoid passing moral judgement on people's posts. Instead I've set (and try to maintain) a certain community standard of behavior that makes the largest number of people feel welcome. I rely on the community at large to let me or the moderators know when these standards are being violated.
What you're describing is widely out of context for this discussion though. Any moderator or administrator of any forum will have to make a choice at some point - govern the users and content and risk becoming a tyrant, or release the controls and wait for chaos to slowly take over. It's rare that the moderation or administration has anything to do with morality or ethics. It's usually enforicing civic standards and little else.
Padraig wrote:Furthermore, (I will apologize in advance for the example I am about to use, its the best I've got right now.) the logic you use when you say "I'm perfectly happy to give them the tools they need - it's up to them to decide where they draw the moral line that turns "right" into "wrong" (or the other way around)" is disturbing. Because I only told that terrorist where they could get a nuclear bomb, it was up to them to decide whether or not to use it. (Yeah that was bad, I'm sorry and please don't think that I am comparing you with a terrorist)
That's a completely contemptable argument, but at least you already have acknowledged it as such.
You're taking a statement and using it out of context, exagerating it to the point of breaking. Fine. It's not worth responding to any more than this.
Padraig wrote:Finally, I would appreciate it if you told us the bands policy on taping - you thank a number of the Pogues for their input on this site and you represent them to a certain extent (or not?) and for you to provide a link to a bootleg (made illegally and against the bands wishes?) seems to betray their trust and (possibly) harm them in the ways you suggested above.
I have never made any claim to being a representative of The Pogues, or to being privy to their wishes and desires regarding bootlegs. The only participant in these fora capable of addressing the band's collective attitude toward taping, and how it may (or may not) affect the band is Mr. Chevron.
[quote="Padraig"]Some good points made above, I'd like to try to extract a few more.[/quote]I'll respond where I can, and then I'm done. This is an old argument, and one that will not be resolved by you and me.
Let me preface by saying that I find the morality of bootlegs to be dubious. Not repugnant. Not anethema. Just dubious. I would rate them somewhere between exceeding the speed limit and cutting in line at the bank. This should be translated loosely as "not worth getting into a fight over."
[quote="Padraig"]I'm not sold on the assertion that increased bootleg trading is causally connected to decreased profit from official offerings. If these shows are not being offered on a mass scale by the band then the illegal boots are not competing with anything. I'd also suggest that those people who are willing to suffer through a bootleg already have the official offerings such that a concern with demand for the product is less than one would imagine.[/quote]Quite so. One could also argue that these are a brilliant opportunity for a band (or their label) to judge relative demand for new offerings, etc. One could also make the argument that allowing for legal free downloads of tracks provides the same service - a trackable way to judge interest in the material, and to help "prime" the market for a real release.
It's difficult to determine where the hand-waving "The Internet/Bootlegs are destroying the creative industries" and the "technology and fan demand are forcing innovation onto a stale and stagnant business model" hysteria have valid points or are instead spinning fiction as fact.
It is my belief, however, that the creative industries don't care about the market data to be gained from trading of bootlegs, and instead simply persecute (and prosecute) the traders, and the band often gets screwed.[quote="Padraig"]Well I won't claim to know everything about what bands' rights are and I'm also confused as to how you are using the term 'rights.'[/quote]You had said<blockquote><blockquote type=cite>Obviously, people who make a profit from distributing bootlegs are infringing on the bands' rights to sell their own work</blockquote></blockquote>I had thought I was referring to their "rights" in the same way. I had understood this use of "rights" to mean "the band's ability to choose how their work will be consumed"[quote="Padraig"]Is it in the sense of how the laws of the specific country dictate the transmission of a bands' or in a more metaphysical sense suggesting that the band ought to be able to determine how their material is disseminated?[/quote]The latter.[quote="Padraig"]It seems unlikely that you mean both because as you note bands are forced into ugly contract arrangements that they probably regret later on. Anyway, when someone doesn't reap a monetary profit off their swapping of a bootleg I'm not sure how this does infringe a bands' rights. Maybe you could explicate this further.[/quote]That's the same argument people often use to trade out-of-print albums, etc. It may be valid, but I tend to disagree with it.
I think that people deserve to be paid for their work. I work in the software industry and believe that people should pay for software that I work on. If I choose to create software and give it away (which I often do) then that is <i>me</i> making a conscious choice about how a product of my creativity will be consumed - not a consumer of it deciding what is right for my work.
I am also a photographer. I make money selling photographs of things (one of them was just used on the cover of Nature Genetics ... Cool!). Sometimes I choose to let a person (or an organization) use one of my photographs free of charge; sometimes I charge people for them. If my photographs are reproduced and given away, they are directly impacting my ability to earn a living by deciding how my work should be dissiminated regardless of what my own wishes are.
I think that bootlegging concerts, albums, movies, etc falls into the same bucket - the artists should have the right to decide how their work will be consumed.[quote="Padraig"]I infer from the posts in the Fora that you are a relatively rational person and meet most of the standard criteria for "normal" personhood.[/quote]You flatter me. :)[quote="Padraig"]Most normal people abhor things that they find distasteful and "morally repugnant." By disassociating yourself from this are you suggesting that you are in fact in favor of morally repugnant things or merely neutral?[/quote]You're trying to draw me into large blanket statements (much more so than I've already made). That's not playing fair.
As I said previously - I find bootlegging to be morally dubious. I am ambivilant to it. In my record and CD collection there are even a few bootlegs present.
I do not condemn bootlegs as a scourge, nor do I condone them. They simply are.[quote="Padraig"][quote="DzM"]It's not up to me to pass moral judgement on how fans choose to express their fandom.[/quote]You are the administrator of this website and regularly make judgments regarding the moral/ethical content of a persons post on this site. You decide what content is appropriate in light of the guidelines you have posted in the Announcements section. If a person were to express their fandom while simultaneously espousing bigoted epithets you would (I assume) remove their post.[/quote]It would depend a great deal on the context of their post.
You'll notice that I specifcally try to avoid passing moral judgement on people's posts. Instead I've set (and try to maintain) a certain community standard of behavior that makes the largest number of people feel welcome. I rely on the community at large to let me or the moderators know when these standards are being violated.
What you're describing is widely out of context for this discussion though. Any moderator or administrator of any forum will have to make a choice at some point - govern the users and content and risk becoming a tyrant, or release the controls and wait for chaos to slowly take over. It's rare that the moderation or administration has anything to do with morality or ethics. It's usually enforicing civic standards and little else.[quote="Padraig"]Furthermore, (I will apologize in advance for the example I am about to use, its the best I've got right now.) the logic you use when you say "I'm perfectly happy to give them the tools they need - it's up to them to decide where they draw the moral line that turns "right" into "wrong" (or the other way around)" is disturbing. Because I only told that terrorist where they could get a nuclear bomb, it was up to them to decide whether or not to use it. (Yeah that was bad, I'm sorry and please don't think that I am comparing you with a terrorist)[/quote]That's a completely contemptable argument, but at least you already have acknowledged it as such.
You're taking a statement and using it out of context, exagerating it to the point of breaking. Fine. It's not worth responding to any more than this.[quote="Padraig"]Finally, I would appreciate it if you told us the bands policy on taping - you thank a number of the Pogues for their input on this site and you represent them to a certain extent (or not?) and for you to provide a link to a bootleg (made illegally and against the bands wishes?) seems to betray their trust and (possibly) harm them in the ways you suggested above.[/quote]I have never made any claim to being a representative of The Pogues, or to being privy to their wishes and desires regarding bootlegs. The only participant in these fora capable of addressing the band's collective attitude toward taping, and how it may (or may not) affect the band is Mr. Chevron.
