posted on January 2, 2001 02:59:21 PM new
I turned in an auction that was clearly selling television recorded material, and safeharbor refused to shut the auction down. When asked to clarify I recieved the following response:
"We do not end auctions unless we can clearly tell from what is presented
in the listing that the item is potentially infringing. However, we
will end an auction if we receive a request to end the auction by the
content owner. "
So I guess the actual rules are that as long as the seller is crafty and knows how to use the right wording, they're free to sell bootlegs to their heart's content.
In some cases though, they WILL shut it down without any checking or notification from a copyright owner citing 'potential' copyright infringement. That was the wording they used when they shutdown my 100% legal, factory produced set of tapes
If you want to see a real obvious bootleg that eBay does not want to deal with for whatever twisted reason they have, check out this thread "Proof of a Double Standard? (LONG!)".
posted on January 2, 2001 03:30:02 PM new
Speaking of bootlegs...
1. RB - In regards to the "Proof of Double Standard" thread, it's very interesting that you need to LOCK a thread just because someone disagrees with you - but is it really necessary for you to call people names? ("Bootleg Degenerates"?) A very immature and unprofessional way to deal with people, in my opinion.
2. I don't understand why you don't focus on your own sales and stop obsessing about what other people are doing. You cannot control other people. You can only control yourself. All that negative energy you put into tracking other people and whining and worrying about them and arguing about it could be used on your own ideas, auctions and sales. Furthermore - it's not nice to be a "snitch". It's bad karma. The universe can take care of itself, it doesn't need you trying to butt in and control it.
Well, I'm going to go watch my 1965 live Beatles video now, the "degenerate" that I am...
Rocker
posted on January 2, 2001 03:36:09 PM new
Sorry nycrocker, but I have zero use for video bootleggers. You Napster folks I have no problem with as I believe downloading and distributing music files actually has a benefit to album sales (although those Mettalica guys might disagree - they haven't got enough $$ yet). That other thread was starting to take a downhill turn when the kids started their retaliation posts, so I ended it.
Whether you realize it or not, people who sell bootleg videos are making the studio releases more expensive for the rest of us, and the people who are buying them in good faith are getting ripped off with garbage reproductions. They can't even report the sellers, 'cause they'll be hauled into court too.
PS - It's not negative energy that I am using to combat these vile vipers. I happen to enjoy hearing and reading about the results of my vendetta against these bootlegging varmits on the MPAA Anti-Piracy pages and similar sites run by honest video producers, sellers, and renters. I'm just doing my part to keep my hobby safe from those dastardly brats.
posted on January 2, 2001 03:56:11 PM new
RB -
The "kids" meaning Twinsoft and I?? That's what it looked like to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I believe you and I are talking about two different things. I'm not talking about garbage reproductions of movies, yes that is a rip off. I'm talking about live vintage rock concerts I buy because they are NOT available anywhere else, the record companies do not make them available, and these are the kinds of things I like to watch and own. The only way I can attain them is through bootleggers and there are some very good ones, as I've said, to a lot of us, it is a lost art. And buying them does NOT make studio releases more expensive for the rest of you because there ARE no studio releases. This is an entirely different thing I am talking about. I have been in the music business for over 20 years, trust me, I know what I'm talking about in this department. As far as copying/ bootlegging movies or CDs you could otherwise buy brand new, that is another story, and yes those bastids should be hung. Rocker
posted on January 2, 2001 04:08:14 PM new
Not twinsoft
I support your logic with the concert vids. As a fan, you have no other way to get these. I do not support the blatant rip off of commercially available movies and television episodes though, and I will keep 'reminding' eBay that they are knowingly abetting a criminal activity by allowing these auctions to continue.
posted on January 2, 2001 07:36:22 PM new
Back OT, skruggie, the only party that can actually demand a copyrighted-item auction be shut down is the copyright owner. Anybody can report the auction to ebay, but shutting it down is then pretty much at ebay's discretion.
You might try contacting the copyright holder of the item in question. We did this once, and bam! Those auctions disappeared pronto
posted on January 2, 2001 09:05:46 PM new
I too would have to agree with nycrocker. It's an important distinction between pirated and bootleg items; the pirated stuff is a direct knock-off that presumably takes sales away from the official-licensed product, while the bootleg stuff is of things not available commercially and not displacing any sales. It can safely be said that any fan who pays premium $ for something like a Beatles VHS that may not even be of great quality is a dedicated fan who already has all the official stuff. It was a full 24 years between the time the Beatles broke up and when Capitol/EMI FINALLY went in the vaults to do the "Beatles Anthology" 2CD series. And even though a lot of that stuff had been bootlegged before, the CDs still sold extremely well. Even fans with the bootlegs bought it...if they lived long enough to see the release.
As for eBay's actions taken against sellers, one who has run afoul of them told me that eBay sometimes does its own sweeps of material, deleting and warning on items the most vocal VEROs have complained about repeatedly in the past. And of course they react to VEROs case-by-case.
Non-VERO "snitches" may not get as much attention as they used to because I'm sure it's been abused by some who have ulterior competitive motives. A number of bootleg sellers across all media are now based outside the U.S., for example. With less potential legal heat because the laws in their home country differ, a few of the less scrupulous of these guys might consider it a "free shot" to complain about a competitor offering the same item (using a different e-mail than their registered one...maybe a Hotmail account?).
posted on January 2, 2001 09:23:58 PM newNYCRocker - an off topic question - do you know much about bootleg vinyl? I have a bootleg Zep vinyl (complete with a very interesting jacket) that I'm real curious about - it was given to me as gift - I know it's illegal, but I'm just curious about it's worth and whether I should hold onto it or pass it on to my nephew.
I'm a die-hard Zep fan, but I don't have any way of playing vinyl anymore, but it is a nice piece.
You can email me if you want instead of tying up this thread with something off-topic. ([email protected])
Thanks!
Jane
(edited cuz the migraine pills are kiccking in and I'm not thinking clearly - ergo - not typing clearly!)
[ edited by jmjones6061 on Jan 2, 2001 09:25 PM ]
posted on January 2, 2001 09:32:13 PM new
Actually eBay's policy works both ways. It protects sellers from arbitrary judgement as well. Although eBay ignores this kind of complaint, there are some types of items that are prohibited from the start. eBay doesn't allow "promotional" items to be sold, and will end an auction for a screener or promo video.
This year Pink Floyd's "The Wall" concert was released on 2 CDs, 20 years after the actual concerts. (Still waiting for the video.) I bought a copy of the commercial release, even though I have a poorer-quality bootleg. If the recording companies were really concerned about lost revenue, they would put out material that the fans want. What's the point of keeping recordings in a vault for 30 years? That's why a lot of BBC stuff is coming out now. Frank Zappa released a dozen live CDs in a "Beats The Boots" series; the Dead also has released a dozen live discs in the past few years.
Unless your ad explicitly states that the item is illegal (as in, "this video is a bootleg" ), eBay will ignore complaints except by the copyright holder.
posted on January 3, 2001 02:55:28 AM new
I know David Bowie rather sees bootlegs beeing sold instead of fake autographs
---------------------------
Not DaMNiT on eBay! ICON, the last change for hope!
posted on January 3, 2001 04:53:26 AM new
twinsoft: "eBay doesn't allow "promotional" items to be sold, and will end an auction for a screener or promo video."
Exsqueeze me What do you call an Emmy Consideration tape??? Do a search for "emmy video" and come back here and tell us how eBay deals with these ...
posted on January 3, 2001 05:45:00 AM new
eBay's TOS clearly states that the selling of bootlegs and CD-R material will not be tolerated. Yet, people from the Type O Negative official website message board (of which I am a moderator) have all registered complaints with eBay regarding this issue, as several sellers have been offering bootlegged and CD-R merchandise, in some cases, some have sold fraudulent material. One member of the band had taken it upon himself to contact eBay directly, only to receive the standard 'We're looking into it' reply.
A woman in California was recently arrested and convicted of selling fraudulent rare coins on the auction site - since the merchandise was government issue, eBay had no qualms against taking immediate action. Makes me wonder if eBay's TOS is nothing but a convenient figurehead.
The board members and I are drafting a letter to eBay, which we will also forward to the FTC regarding this issue. Bootlegs take money away from the artists, and any auction site that tolerates the selling of fraudulent merchandise needs to be called on it.
posted on January 3, 2001 08:17:50 AM new
twinsoft: "This year Pink Floyd's "The Wall" concert was released on 2 CDs, 20 years after the actual concerts. (Still waiting for the video.)"
I think I saw this somewhere officially released on DVD. I could be wrong though, as "all things Pink Floyd" are now just a blur for me, just like it was 20 years ago
If it IS out on DVD, it should also be available on tape ... Good Luck.
posted on January 3, 2001 10:36:14 AM new
RB ahhh we are in agreement.
Jane - It's hard for me to say what the Led Zep vinyl is "worth". Why don't you maybe put it up for auction and see what it goes for - but with a reserve price on it so you don't have to let it go if you feel it's not getting what it's worth to YOU, or if you would rather give it to your nephew. Or - what I personally suggest is do what I did - buy a turntable I missed hearing all my old vinyl so I got a good deal on a turntable on eBay. Now I listen to all my old records again and love them as much as I always did.
posted on January 3, 2001 01:15:28 PM new
Thanks for the tip, RB. What do you know about creating your own DVD? Can you make your own DVD at howm like a CD? Are there software programs for converting video files to DVD?
posted on January 3, 2001 01:30:18 PM new
I don't think I've ever been a buyer in a bootleg LP auction that got yanked...they don't seem as concerned these days about those -- probably since you can't make duplicates without degradation in quality. Acts like Led Zep and the Beatles have had more than a proportionate share of ended auctions on the CD front, though.
Bootlegs are to eBay what computer porn is to AOL: something to denounce and hold at arm's length with nose pinched, but much more valuable to the bottom line than the parties would care to admit.
posted on January 3, 2001 01:34:53 PM new
twinsoft ... yes, you can make your own DVD's. The DVD burners wholesaled for 18 to 20K about a year ago, dropped to around 8K six months ago, and they are now around the $3500 to $4000 range. Too expensive, even for the bootleggers (so far!).
This is why those "DVD" movies you see coming from Hong Kong aren't really DVD's ... they are VCD's but most people don't know the difference until they play them.
posted on January 3, 2001 02:16:54 PM new
I understand that this very hot debate is probably not going to be solved anytime soon. As the niece of a recording artist you might have actually heard of, however, I thought there's a perspective that's being missed.
Unlike everyone else, I do not believe "true bootlegs" are morally OK at all. The artist (and his/her record label) are the ones who own the performance. If they choose to record and distribute it, they should be able to. If they choose not to, I believe fans should respect that decision.
My aunt has seen several repercussions from the failure of people to respect her this way:
1) Obviously, this is her performance and she makes not a penny from it. The old-style flea market bootleg sales didn't hurt so much, but the Internet has sent theft of intellectual property soaring into the hundreds of millions. Only a fraction of the victims are big-name rich performers who can "afford it."
2) Artists often catalog material for a long time and then release it for sale. It is not at all uncommon for live tracks to be held for years, then compiled and released through legitimate channels. If those tracks had been in wide circulation, wouldn't that hurt sales? (This one doesn't affect my aunt so much.)
3) There are several inferior recordings circulating, including one that is VERY popular that she finds DEEPLY embarassing. She cringes everytime she hears about this. Her one attempt to recover some of these sent the price into the stratosphere. It was one of a very few times I ever saw her weep. (I was witness to this because I had posted her request on a now-defunct fan message board, and naively id'd myself as her niece. It's why I'm NOT identifying her now.)
EVEN IF I bought the argument that rarities - as opposed to pirates of released material - were legit to copy and resell, there's no good way to distinguish between the two, is there? Why is her right to her performance diminished because she didn't deem it worthy of release, and how does the need of "fans" ever outweigh her basic right?
If you have an answer that's outside the "well, it isn't commercially available so we're not hurting anyone" genre I'd love to hear it. Because my view is, it's not commercially available because the artist doesn't WANT it to be commercially available, and that should be their choice.
posted on January 3, 2001 02:37:41 PM newmsincognito, you make it sound as if every bootleg collector is stealing a quarter from your aunt. I don't know about your aunt, but the recordings I am interested in are from big name entertainers like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. There has always been and will always be an interest in their unreleased or "unpublished" recordings. That is not because fans want to rip off the artists, but because fans want more material than the official studio releases.
I personally draw the line when there is an issue of compensation to the artist. In the case of rock music, Jimi Hendrix or Jerry Garcia are not in a postition to complain about bootlegs. If your aunt's own sales are being affected, I wouldn't blame her at all for trying to shut down the infringing sellers.
posted on January 3, 2001 02:41:18 PM new
It's a Video Compact Disk. Apart from being slightly useful in a game of Torture Frisbee, they are not worth much else to those who like quality. They use a lighter compression method to encode data and you cannot fit as much information on a single disk. For example, the bootleg copy of Stephen King's tv mini of "The Shining" requires 3 VCD's to hold the entire movie. They look the same as a DVD or a CD and will play in most DVD players. Many of the movies being sold in this format on eBay include English sub-titles (dialogue has been dubbed in Chinese or some other language). The picture quality is about the same as an average 1st generation home recorded VHS tape. Forget about surround-sound and 'extras' on most of these.
There is a definite market for VCD's - just make sure you ask questions before you buy what is purported to be a DVD. You may not like what you get.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:02:11 PM new
msincognito -
Very good points... but... here is the other side of the same coin.
When someone makes the decision to be a performer and to be in the public eye, it is sad but true they are no longer in control of everything that is seen in public. I don't know who your aunt is, I don't know that I have or have not yet reached the same level of fame as she has, but I can tell you from my own experience as an artist even if it is on a smaller scale, that this is a choice you make when you become a performer. I have seen my own music sold on ebay (I was happy to see it), I have seen MANY photos of myself in the press I was NOT happy about and was NOT consulted about, I have even been misquoted by the press which to me is the most frustrating of all. Unless I wanna go around suing people, which I don't have the energy and money to do and probably wouldn't win in most cases anyway, I chalk it up because that's part of life when you're in the public eye. You have to give up one thing in order to have the other. Do you think I'm thrilled when a bad-hair-day photo of me reaches a few thousand people? Does it make me happy when one of my worst shows (in my opinion) is circulated on a bootleg video? Uhhh NO. But is it enough to make me quit my profession or fight every person who has their hands on something I'd rather they didn't? Hell no. It just comes with the territory. Your aunt may need to develop a thicker skin if this is the profession she has chosen. I am not signed with a major label because that would be giving up FAR too much control for me, and I still want full creative control over my own music. But then there are things in life which we cannot control. (Serentity prayer: Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.) I have learned to laugh at myself, not take it all so seriously, and to just be happy there are fans who find these types of recordings so valuable - whether I may hate a particular recording or not. I did it, I put it out there in the public, so, there it is.
Rocker
posted on January 3, 2001 03:02:19 PM newtwinsoft My aunt has plenty of money. It's not the money. Even if it were the money, where would you draw the line? Are talented artists who have financially rewarding careers supposed to be penalized by that success by losing control of their own work? Do they lose control if they live in a mansion instead of a nice house - or if they can buy a new car every two years, instead of every three?
In my aunt's case, she finds it deeply humiliating that her least-worthy performances (in her eyes) are being valued so highly. To her, it's as if someone started selling the stuff in the back of her lingerie drawer -- and she has no recourse. The bottom line: These performances are copyrighted by the artists, be they rich or poor. Making unauthorized recordings of those performances is stealing, and distributing them just compounds the theft.
I got hold of one tape that was actually copyrighted by the creature that made it!!!! My aunt's friends have been threatened when they tried to stop bootleggers!
And I think I didn't make my other basic point, anyway. Current law makes no distinction between rarities and copies of released recordings, and I'm not sure there's even a way to do that.
But I guess my bottom line response is this: Fans can want these recordings. They can want to walk into my aunt's house and have Sunday dinner with her, and they've tried. That doesn't mean they're entitled to anything, especially to break the law.
posted on January 3, 2001 03:57:17 PM newmsincognito, your point about an artist having control of their work is important. But if an artist is going to be putting their material "out there" in the public eye, via web, tv, radio and satelite, in fact splashing their face in the media, then they must expect some fans to record, copy and save their works. Popular entertainers can't have their cake and eat it too. As far as "where do you draw the line?" I can tell you what I'm sharing on Napster: Beatles Christmas Messages, Keith Emerson with The Nice (1968) and an Israeli pop tune from 1980. None of which could be found in any record store. (I do admit I've downloaded some commercial tunes.) It burns me up to see someone bootlegging commercial videos at $45 a pop; that's excessive.
posted on January 3, 2001 04:37:35 PM new
Ok....at first I was starting to feel a bit guilty for even owning a bootleg lp. But I've sat here reading this and thinking about it and my conclusions are:
I don't have this album for financial gain - nor am I trying to cheat anyone out of anything! When I was growing up in the 70's, I was completely enamored of Led Zep - I would have done anything to see them live - unfortunately, Bonzo died before that was possible. This album was given to me a few years later by someone who knew of my obsession - I have probably listened to it twice. Because - I didn't want to damage it as it was irreplaceable to me. It may not be their best recording, but it does capture the essence of a live performance that no commercially recorded item could.
Also, owning this item has not prevented me from also owning every commercially produced recording of theirs (at least stateside). So - there goes the arguement that it has hurt their 'real' sales.
From a fan's standpoint - that is important. Also, I think it's also a case of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Or, in this case - 'beautiful music is in the ear of the listener'!
I think ultimately, the fans decide what they perceive is a good performance, versus what the performer perceives. Most artists I know - whether visual or musical - are much more critical on themselves than their fans. And the fans equate sales ultimately.
One more point - how is this so different from reselling a commercially produced item? The singer, producer, etc do not get royalties from resale of these items?
<whew> Sorry - that was kind of long winded - going back to my headbanging mode.....
posted on January 3, 2001 04:57:57 PM new
RB, PF "The Wall" was a rock concert performed in LA and NY in 1980. The live tour was filmed for an eventual concert flick, but never released. "The Wall" starring Bob Geldoff is something else, not a live concert movie. I'm talking about the concert footage. Is there some reason record companies are making everyone wait 30 years to see these tapes?
Rocker
