Bootlegging...some research and a few thoughts

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the Blogger statistics often direct to me to posts and ideas written long ago on a range of subjects including bootlegging and piracy. As @lyndahere loads up a bootlegged talk by Alan Doyle at his first author talk (also recorded by CBC radio for airing in the Canadian Fall) onto YouTube, the post was a timely reminder of where I have come and where I am going with the distribution of bootlegged and pirated material that has plagued this fandom.

Some aspects have remained the same. For example, it is not the first time @lyndahere has bootlegged and distributed content on YouTube including entire concerts, specials and interviews in competition to professionally recorded broadcasts. As I have said before I am not a fan, nor do I approve of her endless bootlegged and pirated material of any kind continually popping up on YouTube. Perhaps what I don’t like is @lyndahere controlling what the fans will and won’t see and hear. I have always found it well worth the wait for official content involving the professional creators, even if it means not being part of the current social media chit chat and having to wait.

“The effects of piracy upon the music industry. A case study of  bootlegging” by academic Lee Marshall in Media, Culture and Society is an interesting piece of research on bootlegging (as distinct from piracy) in the music industry published in 2004. The article defines the different types of piracy including bootlegging, who consumes bootlegs, the scale of bootlegging and what affects they may have upon the music industry. Although written in 2004 and before the rise of YouTube and other social media sites that distribute sound recordings and videos many of the observations, discussions and arguments made by the author and those he interviewed are still valid today.

The author highlights the need for research on piracy across a wide range of settings. In 2004 the number of music fans interested in bootlegs was estimated to be between 100 000 and 200 000. They were only available at special record fairs and through mail order catalogues. Today, with YouTube anybody with an Internet connection can create, distribute and consume bootlegged material. The author raises the issue that some bootleggers in 2004 wanted to be paid for their recordings. As a consequence it would legitimise bootlegging. (Although in other articles for the same time I have read genuine bootleggers are only interested in trading not selling). Today YouTube pays account holders for their content including bootlegged material and in a way it seems quite legitimate to watch it.

The author makes some interesting comments about bootlegging. For example, the author argues that artists don’t lose royalties because the fan bootlegging had bought a ticket to a concert or merchandise. I have made this point before in I believe a ticket to a concert does not include the fan’s right to extras including making bootlegged recordings. The author argues bootlegging does not compete with traditional sales of music in 2004 however, ten years later the way we access music has changed considerably and this is not so. When discussing the disadvantage of bootlegs the author did not raise the issue of the artists and control over the quality of their product and how they are viewed and consumed by fans. Today many of the advantages bootlegs played in connecting fans to music have been replaced by social media and the artists themselves. 

Marshall, L (2004) ‘The effects of piracy upon the music industry: a case study of bootlegging’ in Media, Culture and Society 26(2) (no copyright infringement intended)

Edited due to length and copyright.

….”bootleg albums contain recordings that have never been given official release. The vast majority of this officially unreleased material is of two types: live concerts (the result of either an audience member smuggling a recorder into the venue, or of a ‘line’ source, such as a feed from a radiobroadcast); and ‘out-takes’ (studio recordings of songs that did not make it on to the finished album, or alternative versions of songs that were released). The material contained on an artist’s bootlegs is thus not the same as that on their official albums.

The official industry has regularly portrayed the bootleg industry as a high-level, large-scale crime. The claim is always that these are all collectors, that they just do it for the sake of the music, that they only do 1,000 or so of each tape, and that a 10,000-unitrun is like the maximum they’ve ever seen. That may be true for some small segment of the bootleg population. But there’s definitely big-time commercial criminals involved. They’re not investing in four-color glossy jackets for a1,000-copy run; they do major runs, they do 50,000 to 100,000 units of someone’s product.

Bootlegging is a relatively small-scale activity. The individuals who collect bootlegs are in general the most committed fans that an artist has: ‘bootlegs appeal most to die-hard fans who want everything’. 

The sales of bootlegs are comparatively small because the number of fans interested in them is also comparatively small: Heylin estimates the number of fans buying bootlegs worldwide to be between 100,000 and 200,000.

The individuals who collect bootlegs are in general the most committed fans that an artist has: ‘bootlegs appeal most to die-hard fans who want everything’…The people who buy bootlegs are extremely committed fans who use bootlegs as a way of maintaining an ongoing, meaningful relationship with their favoured artists or bands. What is important here is to highlight that it is fans rather than casual consumers who are the market for bootleg records”.

Arguments against bootlegging

• The two main arguments are that bootlegs detract from officially released record sales; and that recording artists and songwriters do not obtain any royalty payments from the sale of a bootleg.
• The fact that artists being bootlegged obtain no financial reward for their work. Also, he’s [the artist, sic] being cheated financially in very severe terms, because every (bootleg) record that is sold bypasses the artist completely. He receives no royalties, no payment whatsoever. The artist has been deprived of any opportunity to earn an income from his creative efforts.
• The majority of bootlegs are of live performances and these tend to involve someone smuggling a recording device into the venue and recording the show. If this is so, then the artist (and his record label) has received payment for that performance in the shape of ticket sales (not including the revenue generated from sales of concert souvenirs such as T-shirts).
• Many current bootleggers desire a return to the situation whereby they are granted some rights to put out the bootleg by paying mechanical royalties. The record industry is against this, however, for it would confer some legitimacy on bootlegging. They had no role in creating the content.
• The attitude and loyalty of these fans also works against an argument made by Schwartz that bootlegs may detract from future sales: ‘a record company may find that its own plans to someday release performances from the past have been derailed by pre-emptive bootleggers’.

The benefits of bootlegging

• The three potential benefits of bootlegging re: bootlegs enable the industry to hold on to a particular type of fan; bootlegs act as underground promotion for both established and upcoming acts (this is related to notions of artistic authenticity, which are crucial in determining the value of the officially released commodity) and bootlegs have acted as an impetus for a large number of official (and successful) releases.
• One positive effect is that bootlegging helps maintain a consumer attitude among a demographic group that conventionally buys fewer records. Music is not the dominant consumer force it was in the1970s and, with many other competing leisure attractions, the declining consumer attitude towards popular music is a problem for the industry.
• Bootlegging at least maintains one (small) segment of consumers who would probably be lost to the industry otherwise, because it keeps collectors in the habit of buying new records. Bootlegs give these fans a product to consume, and keeps them in touch with other forms of music consumption (e.g. ticket sales).
• Bootlegs help maintain the relationship during the artist’s ‘off’ period, thus maintaining a stable market for when any new album is released. So one way that bootlegs help the industry is that they keep interested in music people who would normally have moved away from record buying.
• A lot of bands see tapes made by fans as free advertising.
• Bootlegs act as underground promotion because there is a critical kudos attached to being bootlegged. Being bootlegged labels you as a live act, which is important for notions of authenticity within rock music.
• These notions of authenticity are extremely important in creating the value of the artist’s official releases. Although the majority of bootlegs are of established and successful stars, bootlegs can also help up-and-coming bands develop a following and a critical reputation.
• There are many tapers who record bands like this as one way of documenting a music scene.
• Through the critical kudos attached to being bootlegged, and the way that this will feed into official record sales and concert ticket sales, bootlegs can actually feature as a good form of publicity for both established and new artists.
• The final way that bootlegging can be seen to have a positive impact upon the official industry is by acting as an impetus for official releases. This is particularly the case in the last ten years when the language of bootlegging has become commonplace within the official industry.