The look on her face was priceless. When my wife saw the discs, she was shocked. "You don't buy bootlegs!," she exclaimed, "what are these doing here?!?"

I understood her confusion. The three CD-Rs that had just arrived in the mail sure did look like bootleg concert recordings of the pirated, illegal and unethical variety. The labels in the jewel boxes were almost professional quality; a full color picture of the Moab, Utah venue where one show took place graced two of the discs, and a shot of the performer in action at an upstate New York festival -- where the set was recorded -- was on the other. The same photos were on stickers on the discs themselves. Tracks had been separated and numbered: all of this information -- as well as scanned pictures of the tickets for the shows -- was (accurately) on the packaging. And the disc that was playing, like the other two, was sonically perfect.

"They are not bootlegs," I assured her. This was just the brave new world of live music trading. It's the same thing I've been doing for years, trading for interesting concerts to add to my collection. It is just in a new medium that offers greater convenience and much higher fidelity than the analog cassettes I have been using. The performer had authorized the original DAT recordings (made direct from the soundboard) of the concerts in question. No money or other payment had changed hands for me to acquire the discs. I simply sent blank discs and return postage to a fellow taper I know from an on-line forum. He had already created the computer graphics, so all he had to do was burn the discs, print the packaging, and mail them out.

Still she was skeptical. "This is too much. Shouldn't the artist get something for these?"

"He does," I explained. "It is the same set of benefits that taper-friendly artists have always received. First off, the taper had bought tickets to the shows he recorded. Second, as the show circulates, others are going to have their interest in the music either renewed or piqued for the first time. That means more tickets will be sold -- you know we'll be seeing the band when it comes to the Bay Area next -- and increases the likelihood that someone will want to buy the official releases too -- as we always do."

"But can't these discs be sold in the bootleg music market?"

"Yes, they could be. But they won't be," I assured her.

I explained to her that both my friend and I subscribe to the unwritten code of ethics that has governed legitimate tape trading circles since the advent of widespread recording and trading of live concerts in the 1950s.

Legitimate tapers, regardless of medium, do not trade music for any profit what-so-ever. The music is circulated amongst collectors through direct one-for-one trades or "blanks and postage" offers. The latter occurs when a taper agrees to copy a recording in lieu of a trade, as long as the recipient sends the number of blank tapes required and sufficient return postage. An ethical taper has absolutely no right to charge for time, equipment costs, shipping and handling, or anything that implies profiteering. (Note: Reasonable exceptions may occur in instances of international trades where proper return postage may be difficult to acquire.) Taping -- though the name may change as the mediums evolve and "tape" becomes less and less of an issue -- is a labor of love that must be carried out only in these non-profit terms. To do otherwise is to live as a parasite, profiting off the art of others.

Now my wife has seen CD-Rs before. The list of artists I've collected in this medium is growing rapidly. All that separated these discs from the others was only in the quality of the packaging. But the issues she was concerned about are not unique to her alone.

The RIAA, the trade organization of the six multi-national conglomerates who monopolize the recording industry (posing as any number of "major labels"), is very concerned, as are many independent labels and artists, especially many jambands. More than one jamband organization is reportedly divided deeply over the issue. At least one officially asks their fans not to burn or trade CD-Rs.

But the industry and taper-friendly artists will find that they have no control over the medium on which these authorized field recordings will ultimately circulate. In fact, they may even have less luck in preventing the proliferation of CD-Rs than those artists who do not allow taping at all, often resulting in a greater demand for bootlegs and pirated material.

For example, Bob Dylan does not allow his shows to be taped at all. Because of the intense interest level in Dylan's music, however, almost all Dylan shows are stealth taped and do circulate widely. But because of the underground nature of such recordings, and because so many of those people who would like to obtain Dylan concert recordings can not do so easily, the consensus in the on- line community of Dylan fans seems to allow -- even embrace -- pirated material circulating on a for-profit basis. A similar sentiment seems to be present in the Van Morrison fan community.

This implies that the actual prohibition of live concert taping actually increases the social acceptability of bootlegging. This paradoxical result works directly against the original intent of the restriction, which is to prevent concert recordings from circulating at all.

There is a lesson in all this. First of all, as anyone who ever smoked pot can tell you, prohibitions do not work. Live concert CD-Rs of taper-friendly bands do circulate in trading circles, including performances by the band that asks their fans not to do so. All the prohibition does is potentially increase the distance between the group and its fans, as the fans must lie about what they are doing if the band asks about it. It also increases cliques and in-crowds within the fan-base: those who can and do trade CD-Rs and those who can't or won't become at odds with one another over the issue.

The end-result of the prohibition of live taping and trading is an increase in the potential cash value of CD-Rs in a bootleg market. Unenforceable prohibitions always subvert their own intent.

If one can't get something that is easy enough to produce (and very enjoyable to own) in a legitimate, above-ground, not-for-profit way, people are far more tempted to go to underground sources for said goods. There a band has even less control of the situation than they would if they simply worked in cooperation with their tapers. And if such a situation becomes normalized, be it of CD-R or grass prohibition, the underground market gains legitimacy. The black markets gain defenders who portray the dealers as providing a public service rather than the preying off the art of others or as "criminals."

On the other hand, if not-for-profit-only trades and `blanks and postage' deals are the norm, people will have no reason to want to pay for bootlegged recordings because they can already have them for free. You don't buy the cow when you get the milk for free.

What this all means is that those bands that are queasy over the advent of CD-Rs are going to have learn to live with them. They can not stop them, but they can help channel the energy into ways that will not allow others to profit off their music. All of the original benefits of authorized concert taping will still accrue to them. While these benefits may seem indirect, they are, nonetheless, tangible.

There are other implications as well. In the age of the CD-R, internet trading, and MP-3 compression, the taping community must renew its self-regulating commitments to not-for-profit taping and trading, regardless of medium. When we are allowed to tape and trade, we must be vigilant to defend our interests. They happen to have become the same interests that the artists have!

It also means that collectors of live recordings have an obligation to buy the bands' official releases. There is no band that will continue to allow taping in any form if the tapes supplant interest in the discs that the band offers for sale. We must respect the bands' copyrights to this material as well, by not allowing others to dub official releases. Rather, you should encourage others to buy their own copies, making those purchases directly from the band whenever possible. Bands allow taping -- on one important level at least -- as a form of self-interest. It is free advertising for the actual product that band offers -- music -- which is typically delivered in real-time as a live concert performance, or as a recorded work on a studio packaged CD.

If the taping detracts from, rather than enhancing, a group's commercial viability, they will have no reason to encourage or even allow it. On the other hand, the taping community and taper-friendly bands have a lot to offer each other if they can work cooperatively.

The bottom line is simple. As new recording mediums increase the availability and fidelity of live recordings, tapers and bands must work *in concert* with each other. Any alternative to harmonizing the interests of artists and archivists will surely work to the detriment of all of us. As Ben Franklin put it over 200 years ago, "either we all hang together or we all hang separately."

CORRECTION FROM LAST MONTH'S COLUMN: In describing some of the new companies that are emerging from the jamband scene, I incorrectly identified RANDEX COMMUNICATIONS. I hope you and they will accept my apologies for the error.

Want to read more of what da Flower Punk thinks about music? Click here <http://pauserecord.com/> for a slew of Flower Punk CD reviews.