[mb-users] Bootlegs are not illegal

[Chris Bransden]

On 18/10/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/10/18, Jason Bouwmeester <jbouwmeester at gmail.com>:
> > > Then we'd have to create a third ReleaseStatus Commercial / Bootleg /
> > > Other=non commercial but legal.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Frederic Da Vitoria
> >
> > But wouldn't an "Official/Legal Bootleg" just be a live recording?
>
> Forget my previous post, actually, I was just trying to find out where
> exactly was the problem.
>
> I wonder, aren't some users understanding "Commercial" when the wiki
> actually uses "Official"? I mean, aren't some users putting all non
> commercial releases in the bootleg category?

no i don't think that's the case.

there's a difference between a demo of an unsigned band ("official"),
and a live bootleg of a signed band ("bootleg"). even if the band
allow the recording of their shows, the songs they are playing will be
(c)'d to their record company, so they are not legally allowed to
distribute them outside of that.

also, i've got some self-released albums that contain samples/remixes
of songs that never got authorised. this means they are bootlegs, even
though the artist is happy enough selling them. (usually they get away
with this by selling them 'covertly' ie at live shows, etc. or maybe
they are just small fry...)