Off Topic Messages

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:14 am

I think bootlegs that are obviously done with love are OK, but I think they deserve some monetary reward or there would be no way for a lot of this stuff to come out. I am pretty pro artist and think they should be paid fully for any kind of official release, but bootlegs (or at least the best ones) are valuable for both fan and artist. Downloading-as long as the right people see the profits (bootleg or official) it is fine.


All this is just my view on it, or take on it.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:23 am

poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:Yes, FTD provides more than enough material. But certain things will NEVER be officially released, yet tapes were played for book authors. And "transcribed." And sometimes there would be two different transcriptions!

So, I would like to hear such recordings for myself, *without* the "general public" hearing something they do not have the context to understand.

This applies as much to "Apollo 13" ;) as to "Man In The Moon." And other, less controversial stuff.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


While we might like to hear something that exists that doesn't mean we have a right to - in the same way that, just because outtakes of EOT exist, we don't have a right to expect them on DVD. Twenty years ago many people on this board would have been literally orgasming at the thought of what we have had given to us over the last fourteen or so years from FTD. But now we have it people are just interested in getting hold of the stuff they can't have. To be frank, it's both ridiculous and greedy. The material doesn't belong to us. Buying bootlegs equate to buying stolen goods. Fifteen years ago we could justify it perhaps, but now? No.


My point was that when people like Peter Guralnick wrote their books, they got to hear the tapes that are now available to us out here in fan-land. So, at the time, we read his transcriptions of what was said or sung on the tapes, and had nothing else to go on. He was more "special" than us, and so we were to trust his transcriptions. But some were not precise - sometimes, significantly so. And my feeling is that if HE has "the right" to hear the tapes, then other researchers, perhaps without his fame-credentials, also have a right to do so. But there's no way Ernst could let every one of us who wants to hear the stuff, do so. It would be rather time-consuming, to say the least! So, you might say, well, there's FTD for that, or Sony.

But for certain things, that is not an option, for a good reason. There are certain things that must heard by people who really know the context! You can't play the Apollo 13 show for "Joe-Shmow-I-Kinda-Like-The-Beatles-MP3-Buyer" because he will hear something . . . very harmful to Elvis' legacy. And Ernst is trying to reclaim that legacy. Stuff like that is only for the serious fans who know the backstory, and care. Otherwise there's an old expression that comes to mind: "Not in front of the Klingons." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Leonard Nimoy is Jewish, and it was an in-joke, a play on the real expression: a 'shande fur de Goyim' which means "a shame in front of the gentiles." Certain things must be kept ONLY amongst the real fans! And so, these kind of releases fulfill that need, and our "right" to hear for ourselves what actually was said or sung on the tapes. And not just what a famous writer says he heard, but what WE hear.

That's the dilemma, and there's only one solution I can think of. I don't think Ernst has any kick about Houston on a boot; it will never be released before the wider public, and it should not be. But we have that right, I think. We shouldn't have to "trust" a famous author; we should be able to hear it for ourselves. Under the circumstances, this is the only way I know.

rjm

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:41 pm

WMarkJ wrote: I'm talking about from the standpoint of the downloader, not the uploader. How is my downloading what someone else has uploaded hurting anyone. I grant you the uploader has done something wrong.

If you get a file via a torrent - which is usually the way people get these things - then at the same time as you are downloading, you are also uploading. It's the way the software works. Of course you may be able to switch off the upload feature, but if everyone did that then nobody would be able to download in the first place.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:54 pm

The Pirate wrote:
WMarkJ wrote: I'm talking about from the standpoint of the downloader, not the uploader. How is my downloading what someone else has uploaded hurting anyone. I grant you the uploader has done something wrong.

If you get a file via a torrent - which is usually the way people get these things - then at the same time as you are downloading, you are also uploading. It's the way the software works. Of course you may be able to switch off the upload feature, but if everyone did that then nobody would be able to download in the first place.

You're name is Pirate? Irony. You are digging too deep into the technology and losing sight of the question as it pertains to the downloader (vs uploader). Actually, at this point I withdraw the question. Time to get back to my music.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:35 pm

rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:Yes, FTD provides more than enough material. But certain things will NEVER be officially released, yet tapes were played for book authors. And "transcribed." And sometimes there would be two different transcriptions!

So, I would like to hear such recordings for myself, *without* the "general public" hearing something they do not have the context to understand.

This applies as much to "Apollo 13" ;) as to "Man In The Moon." And other, less controversial stuff.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


While we might like to hear something that exists that doesn't mean we have a right to - in the same way that, just because outtakes of EOT exist, we don't have a right to expect them on DVD. Twenty years ago many people on this board would have been literally orgasming at the thought of what we have had given to us over the last fourteen or so years from FTD. But now we have it people are just interested in getting hold of the stuff they can't have. To be frank, it's both ridiculous and greedy. The material doesn't belong to us. Buying bootlegs equate to buying stolen goods. Fifteen years ago we could justify it perhaps, but now? No.


My point was that when people like Peter Guralnick wrote their books, they got to hear the tapes that are now available to us out here in fan-land. So, at the time, we read his transcriptions of what was said or sung on the tapes, and had nothing else to go on. He was more "special" than us, and so we were to trust his transcriptions. But some were not precise - sometimes, significantly so. And my feeling is that if HE has "the right" to hear the tapes, then other researchers, perhaps without his fame-credentials, also have a right to do so. But there's no way Ernst could let every one of us who wants to hear the stuff, do so. It would be rather time-consuming, to say the least! So, you might say, well, there's FTD for that, or Sony.

But for certain things, that is not an option, for a good reason. There are certain things that must heard by people who really know the context! You can't play the Apollo 13 show for "Joe-Shmow-I-Kinda-Like-The-Beatles-MP3-Buyer" because he will hear something . . . very harmful to Elvis' legacy. And Ernst is trying to reclaim that legacy. Stuff like that is only for the serious fans who know the backstory, and care. Otherwise there's an old expression that comes to mind: "Not in front of the Klingons." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Leonard Nimoy is Jewish, and it was an in-joke, a play on the real expression: a 'shande fur de Goyim' which means "a shame in front of the gentiles." Certain things must be kept ONLY amongst the real fans! And so, these kind of releases fulfill that need, and our "right" to hear for ourselves what actually was said or sung on the tapes. And not just what a famous writer says he heard, but what WE hear.

That's the dilemma, and there's only one solution I can think of. I don't think Ernst has any kick about Houston on a boot; it will never be released before the wider public, and it should not be. But we have that right, I think. We shouldn't have to "trust" a famous author; we should be able to hear it for ourselves. Under the circumstances, this is the only way I know.

rjm


I would suggest there is nothing in the vaults now that any researcher needs to hear in order to write a work on Elvis Presley - absolutely nothing of importance whatsoever. Everything is out there, and if a new important recording is found we know that will be out there too. Guralnick wrote his books when that was not the case (or, at least, was researching them during such a period). Most film studios and labels will give access to, and work with, researchers of merit - but we have to earn that right.

I'll repeat from the Houston thread that NO bootleg release is not only kept amongst fans. The strung out speech from Desert Storm has had 3 million hits on youtube; anyone who thinks the only people who'll hear such material are the ones who buy the bootleg is extremely naïve.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:01 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:Yes, FTD provides more than enough material. But certain things will NEVER be officially released, yet tapes were played for book authors. And "transcribed." And sometimes there would be two different transcriptions!

So, I would like to hear such recordings for myself, *without* the "general public" hearing something they do not have the context to understand.

This applies as much to "Apollo 13" ;) as to "Man In The Moon." And other, less controversial stuff.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


While we might like to hear something that exists that doesn't mean we have a right to - in the same way that, just because outtakes of EOT exist, we don't have a right to expect them on DVD. Twenty years ago many people on this board would have been literally orgasming at the thought of what we have had given to us over the last fourteen or so years from FTD. But now we have it people are just interested in getting hold of the stuff they can't have. To be frank, it's both ridiculous and greedy. The material doesn't belong to us. Buying bootlegs equate to buying stolen goods. Fifteen years ago we could justify it perhaps, but now? No.


My point was that when people like Peter Guralnick wrote their books, they got to hear the tapes that are now available to us out here in fan-land. So, at the time, we read his transcriptions of what was said or sung on the tapes, and had nothing else to go on. He was more "special" than us, and so we were to trust his transcriptions. But some were not precise - sometimes, significantly so. And my feeling is that if HE has "the right" to hear the tapes, then other researchers, perhaps without his fame-credentials, also have a right to do so. But there's no way Ernst could let every one of us who wants to hear the stuff, do so. It would be rather time-consuming, to say the least! So, you might say, well, there's FTD for that, or Sony.

But for certain things, that is not an option, for a good reason. There are certain things that must heard by people who really know the context! You can't play the Apollo 13 show for "Joe-Shmow-I-Kinda-Like-The-Beatles-MP3-Buyer" because he will hear something . . . very harmful to Elvis' legacy. And Ernst is trying to reclaim that legacy. Stuff like that is only for the serious fans who know the backstory, and care. Otherwise there's an old expression that comes to mind: "Not in front of the Klingons." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Leonard Nimoy is Jewish, and it was an in-joke, a play on the real expression: a 'shande fur de Goyim' which means "a shame in front of the gentiles." Certain things must be kept ONLY amongst the real fans! And so, these kind of releases fulfill that need, and our "right" to hear for ourselves what actually was said or sung on the tapes. And not just what a famous writer says he heard, but what WE hear.

That's the dilemma, and there's only one solution I can think of. I don't think Ernst has any kick about Houston on a boot; it will never be released before the wider public, and it should not be. But we have that right, I think. We shouldn't have to "trust" a famous author; we should be able to hear it for ourselves. Under the circumstances, this is the only way I know.

rjm


I would suggest there is nothing in the vaults now that any researcher needs to hear in order to write a work on Elvis Presley - absolutely nothing of importance whatsoever. Everything is out there, and if a new important recording is found we know that will be out there too. Guralnick wrote his books when that was not the case (or, at least, was researching them during such a period). Most film studios and labels will give access to, and work with, researchers of merit - but we have to earn that right.

I'll repeat from the Houston thread that NO bootleg release is not only kept amongst fans. The strung out speech from Desert Storm has had 3 million hits on youtube; anyone who thinks the only people who'll hear such material are the ones who buy the bootleg is extremely naïve.
You bring up a good point for the downloading naysayers. FTDs and boots are all over YouTube. Whats the harm in downloading material that is all over YouTube anyway? Are we actually going to take our moral conscience stance so far as to say you are not going to play that YouTube video because the owner won't get any money? The owner, nor anyone else is affected either way whether you play that YouTube video or not lol.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:19 pm

WMarkJ wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
WMarkJ wrote: I'm talking about from the standpoint of the downloader, not the uploader. How is my downloading what someone else has uploaded hurting anyone. I grant you the uploader has done something wrong.

If you get a file via a torrent - which is usually the way people get these things - then at the same time as you are downloading, you are also uploading. It's the way the software works. Of course you may be able to switch off the upload feature, but if everyone did that then nobody would be able to download in the first place.

You're name is Pirate? Irony.

I'm not a real pirate.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:43 pm

The Pirate wrote:
WMarkJ wrote:
The Pirate wrote:
WMarkJ wrote: I'm talking about from the standpoint of the downloader, not the uploader. How is my downloading what someone else has uploaded hurting anyone. I grant you the uploader has done something wrong.

If you get a file via a torrent - which is usually the way people get these things - then at the same time as you are downloading, you are also uploading. It's the way the software works. Of course you may be able to switch off the upload feature, but if everyone did that then nobody would be able to download in the first place.

You're name is Pirate? Irony.

I'm not a real pirate.
:)

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:31 pm

WMarkJ wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:Yes, FTD provides more than enough material. But certain things will NEVER be officially released, yet tapes were played for book authors. And "transcribed." And sometimes there would be two different transcriptions!

So, I would like to hear such recordings for myself, *without* the "general public" hearing something they do not have the context to understand.

This applies as much to "Apollo 13" ;) as to "Man In The Moon." And other, less controversial stuff.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


While we might like to hear something that exists that doesn't mean we have a right to - in the same way that, just because outtakes of EOT exist, we don't have a right to expect them on DVD. Twenty years ago many people on this board would have been literally orgasming at the thought of what we have had given to us over the last fourteen or so years from FTD. But now we have it people are just interested in getting hold of the stuff they can't have. To be frank, it's both ridiculous and greedy. The material doesn't belong to us. Buying bootlegs equate to buying stolen goods. Fifteen years ago we could justify it perhaps, but now? No.


My point was that when people like Peter Guralnick wrote their books, they got to hear the tapes that are now available to us out here in fan-land. So, at the time, we read his transcriptions of what was said or sung on the tapes, and had nothing else to go on. He was more "special" than us, and so we were to trust his transcriptions. But some were not precise - sometimes, significantly so. And my feeling is that if HE has "the right" to hear the tapes, then other researchers, perhaps without his fame-credentials, also have a right to do so. But there's no way Ernst could let every one of us who wants to hear the stuff, do so. It would be rather time-consuming, to say the least! So, you might say, well, there's FTD for that, or Sony.

But for certain things, that is not an option, for a good reason. There are certain things that must heard by people who really know the context! You can't play the Apollo 13 show for "Joe-Shmow-I-Kinda-Like-The-Beatles-MP3-Buyer" because he will hear something . . . very harmful to Elvis' legacy. And Ernst is trying to reclaim that legacy. Stuff like that is only for the serious fans who know the backstory, and care. Otherwise there's an old expression that comes to mind: "Not in front of the Klingons." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Leonard Nimoy is Jewish, and it was an in-joke, a play on the real expression: a 'shande fur de Goyim' which means "a shame in front of the gentiles." Certain things must be kept ONLY amongst the real fans! And so, these kind of releases fulfill that need, and our "right" to hear for ourselves what actually was said or sung on the tapes. And not just what a famous writer says he heard, but what WE hear.

That's the dilemma, and there's only one solution I can think of. I don't think Ernst has any kick about Houston on a boot; it will never be released before the wider public, and it should not be. But we have that right, I think. We shouldn't have to "trust" a famous author; we should be able to hear it for ourselves. Under the circumstances, this is the only way I know.

rjm


I would suggest there is nothing in the vaults now that any researcher needs to hear in order to write a work on Elvis Presley - absolutely nothing of importance whatsoever. Everything is out there, and if a new important recording is found we know that will be out there too. Guralnick wrote his books when that was not the case (or, at least, was researching them during such a period). Most film studios and labels will give access to, and work with, researchers of merit - but we have to earn that right.

I'll repeat from the Houston thread that NO bootleg release is not only kept amongst fans. The strung out speech from Desert Storm has had 3 million hits on youtube; anyone who thinks the only people who'll hear such material are the ones who buy the bootleg is extremely naïve.
You bring up a good point for the downloading naysayers. FTDs and boots are all over YouTube. Whats the harm in downloading material that is all over YouTube anyway? Are we actually going to take our moral conscience stance so far as to say you are not going to play that YouTube video because the owner won't get any money? The owner, nor anyone else is affected either way whether you play that YouTube video or not lol.


You're not downloading a youtube video, and you are not keeping it for repeated use on your computer. Many labels are now allowing youtube videos of their material because, at last, they realise it's free advertising for the physical product - and many videos of songs now link to the legit download on itunes underneath. Listening to a song someone has uploaded to youtube is very different to downloading it, making a CD of it, and listening to it at your leisure.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:49 pm

And YouTube compression is extreme; you are not hearing the music properly, in my view. Only 128 kbps. Like "crippled" music. I think Amazon offers much higher quality compression, and Itunes has its own proprietary format. Still, lossless is best. You can buy a CD on Amazon, to later put on your IPod losslessly, and meanwhile, they'll auto-rip it to your cloud. It's not the same! Especially when you are listening hard. Or want a truly great audiophile experience. YouTube is the radio of our time. Plus, it lends itself to very, very creative derivative works, under the Fair Use statute.

Look at the channel of a videographer called The Spadecaller. Majesty!

And, most importantly, they have royalty arrangements! And these continue to evolve!

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:12 am

poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:Yes, FTD provides more than enough material. But certain things will NEVER be officially released, yet tapes were played for book authors. And "transcribed." And sometimes there would be two different transcriptions!

So, I would like to hear such recordings for myself, *without* the "general public" hearing something they do not have the context to understand.

This applies as much to "Apollo 13" ;) as to "Man In The Moon." And other, less controversial stuff.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


While we might like to hear something that exists that doesn't mean we have a right to - in the same way that, just because outtakes of EOT exist, we don't have a right to expect them on DVD. Twenty years ago many people on this board would have been literally orgasming at the thought of what we have had given to us over the last fourteen or so years from FTD. But now we have it people are just interested in getting hold of the stuff they can't have. To be frank, it's both ridiculous and greedy. The material doesn't belong to us. Buying bootlegs equate to buying stolen goods. Fifteen years ago we could justify it perhaps, but now? No.


My point was that when people like Peter Guralnick wrote their books, they got to hear the tapes that are now available to us out here in fan-land. So, at the time, we read his transcriptions of what was said or sung on the tapes, and had nothing else to go on. He was more "special" than us, and so we were to trust his transcriptions. But some were not precise - sometimes, significantly so. And my feeling is that if HE has "the right" to hear the tapes, then other researchers, perhaps without his fame-credentials, also have a right to do so. But there's no way Ernst could let every one of us who wants to hear the stuff, do so. It would be rather time-consuming, to say the least! So, you might say, well, there's FTD for that, or Sony.

But for certain things, that is not an option, for a good reason. There are certain things that must heard by people who really know the context! You can't play the Apollo 13 show for "Joe-Shmow-I-Kinda-Like-The-Beatles-MP3-Buyer" because he will hear something . . . very harmful to Elvis' legacy. And Ernst is trying to reclaim that legacy. Stuff like that is only for the serious fans who know the backstory, and care. Otherwise there's an old expression that comes to mind: "Not in front of the Klingons." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Leonard Nimoy is Jewish, and it was an in-joke, a play on the real expression: a 'shande fur de Goyim' which means "a shame in front of the gentiles." Certain things must be kept ONLY amongst the real fans! And so, these kind of releases fulfill that need, and our "right" to hear for ourselves what actually was said or sung on the tapes. And not just what a famous writer says he heard, but what WE hear.

That's the dilemma, and there's only one solution I can think of. I don't think Ernst has any kick about Houston on a boot; it will never be released before the wider public, and it should not be. But we have that right, I think. We shouldn't have to "trust" a famous author; we should be able to hear it for ourselves. Under the circumstances, this is the only way I know.

rjm


I would suggest there is nothing in the vaults now that any researcher needs to hear in order to write a work on Elvis Presley - absolutely nothing of importance whatsoever. Everything is out there, and if a new important recording is found we know that will be out there too. Guralnick wrote his books when that was not the case (or, at least, was researching them during such a period). Most film studios and labels will give access to, and work with, researchers of merit - but we have to earn that right.

I'll repeat from the Houston thread that NO bootleg release is not only kept amongst fans. The strung out speech from Desert Storm has had 3 million hits on youtube; anyone who thinks the only people who'll hear such material are the ones who buy the bootleg is extremely naïve.


Perhaps for some things. The strung out speech was played on television! A long time ago; I have it on VHS, taped off the TV. Long before there was a YouTube.

Other things are much less well-known and that's okay.

As for researchers "earning the right" to the same rights as an older famous author, with even more famous friends, well that's a kind of nepotism, as I see it. Some people can get ANYTHING published because they know the right gate-keepers. Or you have to suck up to the right gate-keepers; you know how it is!

You are young. (Yes you are.) So I am perplexed you don't see it that way. The academic world is not always fair to new people. As you go on, you may confront micro-political minefields. Have falling outs with "big shots" or else, let the big shots walk all over you. That's how many "earn that right" and it's not very democratic.

"Information Should Be Free"

I mean historical information.

Don't you think so?

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:12 am

rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
rjm wrote:Yes, FTD provides more than enough material. But certain things will NEVER be officially released, yet tapes were played for book authors. And "transcribed." And sometimes there would be two different transcriptions!

So, I would like to hear such recordings for myself, *without* the "general public" hearing something they do not have the context to understand.

This applies as much to "Apollo 13" ;) as to "Man In The Moon." And other, less controversial stuff.

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


While we might like to hear something that exists that doesn't mean we have a right to - in the same way that, just because outtakes of EOT exist, we don't have a right to expect them on DVD. Twenty years ago many people on this board would have been literally orgasming at the thought of what we have had given to us over the last fourteen or so years from FTD. But now we have it people are just interested in getting hold of the stuff they can't have. To be frank, it's both ridiculous and greedy. The material doesn't belong to us. Buying bootlegs equate to buying stolen goods. Fifteen years ago we could justify it perhaps, but now? No.


My point was that when people like Peter Guralnick wrote their books, they got to hear the tapes that are now available to us out here in fan-land. So, at the time, we read his transcriptions of what was said or sung on the tapes, and had nothing else to go on. He was more "special" than us, and so we were to trust his transcriptions. But some were not precise - sometimes, significantly so. And my feeling is that if HE has "the right" to hear the tapes, then other researchers, perhaps without his fame-credentials, also have a right to do so. But there's no way Ernst could let every one of us who wants to hear the stuff, do so. It would be rather time-consuming, to say the least! So, you might say, well, there's FTD for that, or Sony.

But for certain things, that is not an option, for a good reason. There are certain things that must heard by people who really know the context! You can't play the Apollo 13 show for "Joe-Shmow-I-Kinda-Like-The-Beatles-MP3-Buyer" because he will hear something . . . very harmful to Elvis' legacy. And Ernst is trying to reclaim that legacy. Stuff like that is only for the serious fans who know the backstory, and care. Otherwise there's an old expression that comes to mind: "Not in front of the Klingons." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country) Leonard Nimoy is Jewish, and it was an in-joke, a play on the real expression: a 'shande fur de Goyim' which means "a shame in front of the gentiles." Certain things must be kept ONLY amongst the real fans! And so, these kind of releases fulfill that need, and our "right" to hear for ourselves what actually was said or sung on the tapes. And not just what a famous writer says he heard, but what WE hear.

That's the dilemma, and there's only one solution I can think of. I don't think Ernst has any kick about Houston on a boot; it will never be released before the wider public, and it should not be. But we have that right, I think. We shouldn't have to "trust" a famous author; we should be able to hear it for ourselves. Under the circumstances, this is the only way I know.

rjm


I would suggest there is nothing in the vaults now that any researcher needs to hear in order to write a work on Elvis Presley - absolutely nothing of importance whatsoever. Everything is out there, and if a new important recording is found we know that will be out there too. Guralnick wrote his books when that was not the case (or, at least, was researching them during such a period). Most film studios and labels will give access to, and work with, researchers of merit - but we have to earn that right.

I'll repeat from the Houston thread that NO bootleg release is not only kept amongst fans. The strung out speech from Desert Storm has had 3 million hits on youtube; anyone who thinks the only people who'll hear such material are the ones who buy the bootleg is extremely naïve.


Perhaps for some things. The strung out speech was played on television! A long time ago; I have it on VHS, taped off the TV. Long before there was a YouTube.

Other things are much less well-known and that's okay.

As for researchers "earning the right" to the same rights as an older famous author, with even more famous friends, well that's a kind of nepotism, as I see it. Some people can get ANYTHING published because they know the right gate-keepers. Or you have to suck up to the right gate-keepers; you know how it is!

You are young. (Yes you are.) So I am perplexed you don't see it that way. The academic world is not always fair to new people. As you go on, you may confront micro-political minefields. Have falling outs with "big shots" or else, let the big shots walk all over you. That's how many "earn that right" and it's not very democratic.

"Information Should Be Free"

I mean historical information.

Don't you think so?

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4


I'm talking beyond a well-known author such as Guralnick here. I wouldn't expect to contact someone after having 1 or 2 articles published and be allowed access to that kind of material. You have to earn the right for studios and labels to allow you that kind of access. You can't just let every researcher have access to whatever's in your vaults - preparing the material for them is time consuming, and therefore costs money. Also, without them having some pedigree, such companies have no idea what kind of article or book you are going to write. And, again, there is nothing in the vaults at Sony that would add anything to what is already available to purchase or in a decent music library or archive.

Every archive of film that I have dealt with, even when I was at BA level, have gone out of their way to provide me with films and ancillary material I require - one even sending the film to me on dvd free of charge. As a new researcher, I can book an appointment at any archive in the world and get the same access as a 70 year old veteran in the field. If I was writing a biography on, for example, Greta Garbo and MGM had a film in their vaults that was not available elsewhere I would write to them and ask if I could arrange to see it. They might say yes (apparently they normally do) and they might say no. But that would be to see something I couldn't see anywhere else. But with Elvis that doesn't mean anything. Anyone writing a biography of Elvis or a critique of his music would gain NOTHING by hearing what is left in the vaults. We have every master available to us, and (legally) about 250-300 hours of outtakes and soundboards. What revelation would you expect to hear in what is left in the vaults?

To put it another way, silent film star had a brother, Jack Pickford, who was also a star in his own right, but also tied up in a variety of scandals and gossip. No biography has ever been written about him, and I'd like to do it at some point. But I wouldn't ever expect to write to the Pickford estate at this stage in my career and expect access to their archives. They no virtually nothing about either my motives or the quality of my work. I could, after all, write a book that paints Jack Pickford as a murderer (as he was basically accused by the NYT). I obviously wouldn't do that, but they don't know me from Adam. Why would they trust me - why should they trust me. If, on the other hand, I publish a couple of sympathetic article on Pickford and then ask, the answer might well be quite different.

Just because something exists doesn't mean we have a God-given right to view, hear or obtain it. We have to earn that right (in the case of writers and researchers).

To comment on another point, as a new academic/researcher, I don't object to access problems but to academic snobbery - the way that academia write solely for other academics in language almost purposefully awkward and difficult for the layman to understand, the idea of "peer-reviewed journals" being the criteria for what is worthy and what is not, as if only other academics can judge whether something is worthwhile or not. These kinds of things take place not because they are necessary, but because we (academic) see it as a method of self-preservation. We are living in 2013, not 1913 for crying out loud. If someone wants to put their findings out there on a blog or a self-published e-book then good for them - put it out there so that people can actually read what we write. Those that object to such things are, in my opinion, just afraid they might be discovered to be a charlatan.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:03 pm

I wonder how much more quality bootlegs would have been released if piracy was no issue.
Why would a owner of materials release something cool when almost everybody download the title.
When a boot title is available as torrent/usernet or on closed elvis community forums this board is flooded with sound quality comments and so on.............no doubt than many did DL that title.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:01 pm

LSP-4445 wrote:I wonder how much more quality bootlegs would have been released if piracy was no issue.
Why would a owner of materials release something cool when almost everybody download the title.
When a boot title is available as torrent/usernet or on closed elvis community forums this board is flooded with sound quality comments and so on.............no doubt than many did DL that title.


Releasing a bootleg IS piracy - just because it's a piracy that does us a favour doesn't mean that it's somehow right.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:56 am

poormadpeter wrote:
LSP-4445 wrote:I wonder how much more quality bootlegs would have been released if piracy was no issue.
Why would a owner of materials release something cool when almost everybody download the title.
When a boot title is available as torrent/usernet or on closed elvis community forums this board is flooded with sound quality comments and so on.............no doubt than many did DL that title.


Releasing a bootleg IS piracy - just because it's a piracy that does us a favour doesn't mean that it's somehow right.


I didnt say anything about legal matter.
I meant if there was no piracy.... aka downloading/copying maybe there would be more quality bootlegs released.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:25 am

poormadpeter wrote:
LSP-4445 wrote:I wonder how much more quality bootlegs would have been released if piracy was no issue.
Why would a owner of materials release something cool when almost everybody download the title.
When a boot title is available as torrent/usernet or on closed elvis community forums this board is flooded with sound quality comments and so on.............no doubt than many did DL that title.


Releasing a bootleg IS piracy - just because it's a piracy that does us a favour doesn't mean that it's somehow right.


But, if something will NEVER see a legal release, for sure, and does give historical insight, is it "right" to let a tape eventually turn to dust on a shelf?

rjm
P.S. -- Have you seen These Amazing Shadows about the National Film Registry in D.C., and the restoration "campus"?! That kind of got me started on this whole idea. I was so stoked, watching that film, I wanted to fly to Washington and ask for a job there!!!!!!!!! Wow! (I have the credentials: Ph.D. Sociologist, with a specialization in Cultural Studies. And academic (and non-academic) work in popular culture, etc. I would LOVE going to work THERE every day!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Fri Sep 20, 2013 5:57 pm

rjm wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
LSP-4445 wrote:I wonder how much more quality bootlegs would have been released if piracy was no issue.
Why would a owner of materials release something cool when almost everybody download the title.
When a boot title is available as torrent/usernet or on closed elvis community forums this board is flooded with sound quality comments and so on.............no doubt than many did DL that title.


Releasing a bootleg IS piracy - just because it's a piracy that does us a favour doesn't mean that it's somehow right.


But, if something will NEVER see a legal release, for sure, and does give historical insight, is it "right" to let a tape eventually turn to dust on a shelf?

rjm
P.S. -- Have you seen These Amazing Shadows about the National Film Registry in D.C., and the restoration "campus"?! That kind of got me started on this whole idea. I was so stoked, watching that film, I wanted to fly to Washington and ask for a job there!!!!!!!!! Wow! (I have the credentials: Ph.D. Sociologist, with a specialization in Cultural Studies. And academic (and non-academic) work in popular culture, etc. I would LOVE going to work THERE every day!)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


With regards to Elvis, no, it's not right because it never happens now. There is nothing of importance that Sony is refusing to release. As an example, Houston might provide evidence of how bad the show was, but it provides no new insight at all. It doesn't tell us something we didn't already know. And if the show had been released and been slightly better than the reviews suggested, it still wouldn't have changed anything. The story remains the same, it's just a minute detail which is different. In the great scheme of things it's not an important document - in many respects the regular bland, mundane, unenergetic shows are more important because they were the rule rather than this one exception, and give us a much more balanced view of a normal 1976/77 show. There is no excuse, now that we have FTD, for bootleg releases.
We can't even argue that FTD is somehow shielding us from the bad, as we have a number of shows from FTD with Elvis in bad form.

That's not saying I would feel the same way if a copy of The Pied Piper of Cleveland turned up and was never going to be released due to legal wrangling. That film undoubtedly would be of historical value, and would give us our only cinematic record of Elvis during those important formative years. But, really, that's about the only thing out there now that would justify such a release.

Re: What Kind of Downloading Is WRONG?

Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:11 am

If we're all going to jail for downloading - I hope they split us up by genre!