|
Setting
Levels
|
||
|
Edited
by Paul "Pro" Pearson,
Ph.D.
|
||
|
Bootlegging or Picking on the Fan? By now you are probably aware of Metallica's lawsuit against Napster, an online repository of downloadable music files. (If you haven't, see the link below for more info…) Over 300,000 online music fans have been fingered by the popular hard rock band and subsequently booted from Napster's user roles for violating Metallica's intellectual copyrights. Although Metallica may not be a jamband, this issue is one that hits home to thousands of jamband fans who regularly trade mp3's online. This is also a serious issue that cuts to the root of the question of free trading vs. bootlegging. Since the beginning of time (circa late 1960's when people began taping the Grateful Dead) the issue of bootlegging has been at the center of the free music trade zone. The Dead and Phish and hosts of other bands (including Metallica, who offered tapers tickets to many of their concerts in the past) have allowed taping and trading of their live music, while others have restricted and actively discouraged it as a violation of their creative rights. Many of the bands that do allow trading have subsequently enjoyed the supreme benefits of the free 'word-of-mouth' advertising that trading provides. Unfortunately, the goodwill line in the sand has always been rubbed out by unethical individuals that have chosen to profit from the work of these artists without compensating them. Whether it is the illegal sale of live recordings ("bootlegs") for profit, or the current lawsuit by Metallica brought about by easily accessible free downloads of copyrighted works, the question remains-once an artist has created something, who owns it and how can it be used? Clearly this is an issue that will not go away-and draws clear opinions from artists and music fans alike. (I'm sure many of you think you know who is 'right' in this fight.) From the guy in New York City who dubs "Titanic" and sells thousands of copies in the streets, or the taper who packaged the Phish show from last year at the Target Center in Minneapolis and sold it to the local record shop in Rochester, MN (where it carries a $65 price tag), bootlegging is clearly ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL. In my heart, I believe that it is unethical to SELL live or studio recordings to someone else and I won't do it-and I won't support those who do. But, I'm also a fan and I want access to those recordings. I don't LIKE it that the Vaughan family doesn't allow free trading of Stevie Ray's performances (and I believe this has encouraged illegal bootlegging, rather than restrict it), but I respect it. Trading is at the very HEART of the jamband community, and rightfully so. Reliving the spontaneity of a seminal live performance is one of the few perks that jamband fans enjoy over fans of other types of music. We can go to a show and then recapture the magic and emotion of that show years later, just by popping in a tape or disc that we took the time to trade for. We can do this, because the artists are willing to share it with us. They are willing to give us those experiences in tangible form to enjoy for perpetuity. We should be thankful for that privilege. We should support those artists and buy their discs, and we should follow their rules. What's at issue here is not the FREE trading of live music (be it tapes, DAT's, CD's or mp3's) within the bounds of the artists' discretion. What is at issue here is the ethical and legal implications of individuals and corporations providing COPYRIGHTED material which otherwise would require a direct purchase that the artist gets a chunk (however small) of. Whether these individuals benefit directly from the sale of that material, or indirectly from advertising generated by free access to that material, it's still illegal and unfortunately it's the artists that lose out. Artists-whether a local starving guitarist selling his CD's in a coffee shop or a multi-million dollar enterprise like Metallica-are trying to make a buck to stay alive. This is their artistic creation, their product, and their livelihood. If their COPYRIGHTED material is recorded illegally and available for free online, who's going to buy it and support them? When 90% of the population eventually has access to the internet, and one person buys a CD and posts it to sites like Napster, who in their right mind is going to PAY for a disc? How do the artists make a living? Who in their right mind will put their art out there for free? On the other side, it's easy to sit back and throw stones at Metallica. They're a big name band that's made a shit load of money off of their fans. Who cares if they lose $.50 a disc on a few thousand discs-they've made millions, right? The internet and subsequent compression technology like mp3 has opened a new world for the music fan. No longer do we have to actually go to a store and pay $16 for a disc or wait weeks for trades to come through. A simple email or visit to a website and a CD burner is all you need. Granted, the bands do benefit (if not directly from a monetary standpoint) from the spread of their name and their music. Who can argue that the Grateful Dead did not benefit from the trading of their live shows? Who can say that Phish hasn't made countless millions from the underground network of tapers and traders that have enjoyed their live shows second-hand and then attended concerts or purchased their CD catalog? How many bands have gone from a struggling local or regional act to a bonafide phenomenon because people trade their music? Whether you have your mind made up or not, I ask that you take your opinion on the Metallica vs. Napster issue and place it in your left hand. Let your mind go blank and listen to what one artist-an artist that I have an the utmost respect for, both musically and personally-has to say… Only One-John Jordan Most of you probably have not heard of the Chris Duarte Group, let alone John Jordan. He can usually be found with sweat dripping from his balding head, furiously plucking and pounding a monstrous seven-string Conklin bass with his freakish fingers in front of a rapt crowd at a dingy blues joint. Driving countless hours six or seven days a week to play his ass off at 300+ shows a year all over the country, he's resorted to renting a keyboard to play a gig when his left hand was broken between amp cases during loadout. He and guitarist Chris have had their gear stolen, their lives nearly taken when their tour van was hit by a semi on icy roads, burned through approximately 14 drummers since 1990, had a couple of minor radio hits ("My Way Down" and "Cleopatra"), been under-represented and dropped by a major blues label and recently picked up by another (Rounder Records). Through all of this, John Jordan has remained an exceptional artist and a true human being that I'm pleased to call my friend, even though we've never shared more than a couple of hours in the same bar on a couple dozen occasions, or a few minutes out back. John and I exchanged email addresses when CDG played in Omaha in April, and I received the following email about a week ago from John regarding the Metallica/Napster issue: "I think Metallica must've thought carefully about this move, knowing that they would inevitably be cast as ungrateful gazillionaires. The fact is, however, that if creators don't take a stand, the whole thing is going to get away from us, to the general detriment of an already blighted culture. To understand why they're doing this, you have only to imagine it's something you made that is being ripped off. I tolerate bootlegging mainly because there's not a goddamn thing I can do about it. I know most people do it with only good intentions, but I also know (I have seen) people making money off of the blood we've shed--without any notion of giving us even the perfunctory hand job some record companies might offer. That is immoral. That is wrong. If you think I'm worrying about all this, I'm not. We're allotted a pitifully small amount of time to get things done as it is, and it's not on my schedule to fret about Metallica--or myself, for that matter. My bargain with our true (and beloved) fans is to reach as far down as I can and try to bring up something real. My comment to thieves and people with their ethics conveniently shut down as they may pertain to art is: See you in hell.
yours in music, John's perspective may be easily overlooked by the selfish fan in this issue. As someone who is participating in the creation of music to eventually (hopefully) be sold, I've thought about the technology and the unfettered flow of music on the net. As unpopular as it may be in your mind, I've pondered this issue and I also happen to think Metallica is ultimately right in what they are doing. On the surface it may appear to be millionaires fighting over pennies, but I think it boils down to the protection of intellectual property under the law. I asked John his thoughts on tapers/traders that are ethical and are not violating any laws by sharing the music, and the good that they do. "Upon rereading my Metallica meditation, I realized I could have been a lot clearer about distinguishing between tapers and bootleggers. I agree with your assessment that taping actually serves as a defense against illegal releases-there are also aesthetic gains for the artist. As you know, it focuses the mind wonderfully when you know tape is rolling, and, though I personally don't much want to hear my performances (I remember every bonehead thing I did as it is), I invariably learn something every time I do listen. Strangely, it always sounds better than I remember it. Which is to say, bless those people with their tape machines and their beautiful love of music, and fuck the motherfuckers that rip off intellectual (or any other kind of) property. As (the CDG song) "Crimino" says, "Some destroy, some create, what will you do?" Which is why I really don't sweat the whole thing that much. Our gig is to make something, and when all is said and done, there's just the music we made. Metallica is doing us all a favor by hiring the suits, spending the bucks, and taking the heat. The vast majority of musicians live far closer to the margins than Metallica, and all this comes down to a need for better definitions of artist's rights in this brave new world.
yours in music, Next month, I will explore John's role as bassist for the Chris Duarte Group, his relationship with Chris and a drummer-to-be-named-later on stage, his growth as a musician and his philosophy on what it truly means to jam. Maybe I'll bore you with a long story on how I met these guys and how, using perfect 20/20 hindsight, I found one of my favorite jambands before I knew what a jamband was. In the meantime, visit the Levels Links below to find out more about CDG and to purchase a disc I think any jamband fan, especially one who truly appreciates blues and jazz, should have-"Only One" by John Jordan with Chris Duarte and Frosty Smith. Comments? Pro Pro@jambands.com
Or email your comments directly to the artist himself- Metallica vs. Napster- http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1847464.html Chris Duarte Group Fans (and John Jordan) http://www.chrisduartegroupfans.org This one is so new, I haven't even been home to see it yet. In the spirit of free trading (and hopefully not in violation of the Grateful Dead's trading policies) this offer is only good for newbie traders with 20 hours of jamband tapes or less.
Grateful Dead/11-03-91 Polo Field, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, Ca. (SUN)
*with John Popper on harmonica **with John Fogerty on guitar and vocals To participate in this offer, you must: 1-Have less than 20 hours of jamband tapes TOTAL. This month, it is non-negotiable. 2-This is a B&P (blanks and postage) offer. Contact me by email ( pro@jambands.com), then send me one DIGITAL AUDIO CDR with self-addressed envelope with sufficient postage and a copy of the email confirming your request. Computer CDR's will NOT work. 3-Promise to be an ethical trader and use this disc to spread the love and build your collection (without profiting from it and ripping off the artist).
|
||