DC Tells Artist to Stay Out of NFT Business. 1 1

[Hulk213]

https://io9.gizmodo.com/dc-comics-tells-artists-to-stay-out-of-nft-business-or-1846466427
 

This raises so many issues and questions.

1. It’s ok for artist to sell art for money but not NFT? Why? 
 

2. How does this work for dealers or artist reps? Are you worried?

3. Does DC have the man power or capability to monitor this?

Thoughts?

[Mephisto]

1 hour ago, Mftonto said:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/dc-comics-tells-artists-to-stay-out-of-nft-business-or-1846466427
 

This raises so many issues and questions.

1. It’s ok for artist to sell art for money but not NFT? Why? 
 

2. How does this work for dealers or artist reps? Are you worried?

3. Does DC have the man power or capability to monitor this?

Thoughts?

Since ATT owns DC a comics I’m sure if they think the company is missing g out on potential revenue this way would come up with the manpower to monitor the situation .

[Randall Ries]

The digital image thing is going to run deep, I think. I collect a ton of digital music folders and files. Mostly live concerts in lossless (FLAC) format. The RIAA has had very little success in squashing music trading, whether it was vinyl, cassette, cd, and now torrenting or sharing via cloud.

However, these digital files are tagged. With the artists name, the date and venue the given show was played at and - tah-dah - cover art in the form of a little jpeg embedded in the files. Anywhere between 30 KB to 30 MB's. So, as you play your purchased or downloaded show on an IPOD or a portable FLAC player or your phone, you get an image of the cover art on your screen.

A law is being lobbied for passage and will very likely be passed concerning images. We can't nail you for "pirating" music easily via torrenting or cloud sharing. But we WILL be able to nail you for copyright infringement via the digital image. Images are sacred in the industry and very copyrighted. The RIAA has had very few successes prosecuting music piracy and when they do have success, it is in the form of suing a college girl for downloading a lousy Journey song and getting a $600,000 judgment. Public sees that and goes "Well NUTS to THAT!" And the RIAA gives themselves a black eye (again) even though they won.

The MPAA, however. They win case after case after case. Because of imaging. And they don't make themselves look like jerks when they win. The same will be applied to the little jpegs found in music files. 1 or 2 MB images could cost a music fan a lot of cash if convicted. IF the law is passed. Well, the music traders can simply delete the images from the files and circumvent that problem. But music collectors love their cover art. So we will see.

So, I would have to say the same logic will be applied to artists who are freelancing and using copyrighted images to make a ton of dough w/o cutting DC in on the grift. It's infringement pure and simple. These characters are not in the public domain and never will be. My question is how does it affect people like Neal Adams who does sketches on DC books or blank covers? Or commissions? Imean, people aren't going to commission Frank Miller for some viking scene ala Frank Frazetta. Or Neal Adams to draw or paint an arboreal scene on the cover of a blank variant.

Let's face it: If this artist hadn't made a mill and a half doing images of copyrighted characters and had only made say $30,000, DC probably wouldn't have even brought it up. But there's gold in them thar hills and DC is a corporation. If they aren't getting any action from it, no one else is going to either.

It's going to be interesting because the whole image infringement thing has wheels under it. It is very black and white. And it's going to be unfortunate for the freelance former staff artists. Because they WILL get cease and desists unless they strike a deal with DC and give them 80% of their earnings.

[Rick2you2]

Allowing an artist to do a simple sketch or commission of a character has non-monetary value to comics companies. By raising interest and awareness in characters, it increases sales in comics, and possibly, movies and TV. It also allows artists to supplement their income instead of publishers paying more for the art. Don’t forget that artists are allowed to keep their finished work after it is published. That wouldn’t be of much value if the company’s secondary copyright weren’t given away with it (or limited trademark rights with it, if any). No one could buy it. 

But, digital art is fundamentally different. The art is a one-off that can be perfectly duplicated by the owner for a potentially sizable profit. That’s could be a serious pot of money. Perhaps an analogy would be the publisher who decides to put a copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 in a book and sell it. Furthermore, if the book involves a trademarked item, like Spider-man, the failure of the owner to protect it can result in the loss of trademark protection, like the word “zipper” which was originally trademarked.

The letter also raises an interesting question: is this the death of “monoprints”?

[Bird]

8 hours ago, Randall Ries said:

The digital image thing is going to run deep, I think. I collect a ton of digital music folders and files. Mostly live concerts in lossless (FLAC) format. The RIAA has had very little success in squashing music trading, whether it was vinyl, cassette, cd, and now torrenting or sharing via cloud.

However, these digital files are tagged. With the artists name, the date and venue the given show was played at and - tah-dah - cover art in the form of a little jpeg embedded in the files. Anywhere between 30 KB to 30 MB's. So, as you play your purchased or downloaded show on an IPOD or a portable FLAC player or your phone, you get an image of the cover art on your screen.

A law is being lobbied for passage and will very likely be passed concerning images. We can't nail you for "pirating" music easily via torrenting or cloud sharing. But we WILL be able to nail you for copyright infringement via the digital image. Images are sacred in the industry and very copyrighted. The RIAA has had very few successes prosecuting music piracy and when they do have success, it is in the form of suing a college girl for downloading a lousy Journey song and getting a $600,000 judgment. Public sees that and goes "Well NUTS to THAT!" And the RIAA gives themselves a black eye (again) even though they won.

The MPAA, however. They win case after case after case. Because of imaging. And they don't make themselves look like jerks when they win. The same will be applied to the little jpegs found in music files. 1 or 2 MB images could cost a music fan a lot of cash if convicted. IF the law is passed. Well, the music traders can simply delete the images from the files and circumvent that problem. But music collectors love their cover art. So we will see.

So, I would have to say the same logic will be applied to artists who are freelancing and using copyrighted images to make a ton of dough w/o cutting DC in on the grift. It's infringement pure and simple. These characters are not in the public domain and never will be. My question is how does it affect people like Neal Adams who does sketches on DC books or blank covers? Or commissions? Imean, people aren't going to commission Frank Miller for some viking scene ala Frank Frazetta. Or Neal Adams to draw or paint an arboreal scene on the cover of a blank variant.

Let's face it: If this artist hadn't made a mill and a half doing images of copyrighted characters and had only made say $30,000, DC probably wouldn't have even brought it up. But there's gold in them thar hills and DC is a corporation. If they aren't getting any action from it, no one else is going to either.

It's going to be interesting because the whole image infringement thing has wheels under it. It is very black and white. And it's going to be unfortunate for the freelance former staff artists. Because they WILL get cease and desists unless they strike a deal with DC and give them 80% of their earnings.

I was sued by RIAA 20+ years ago, Kazaa Lite! Settled for $3500. I don't illegally download anything as a result. Back then they had a lot of success in suing people, just not for the amounts initially claimed as losses.

And it all started because I wanted to see Pamela and Tommy Lee! What a multi-tasker that guy is!

[Randall Ries]

26 minutes ago, Bird said:

I was sued by RIAA 20+ years ago, Kazaa Lite! Settled for $3500. I don't illegally download anything as a result. Back then they had a lot of success in suing people, just not for the amounts initially claimed as losses.

And it all started because I wanted to see Pamela and Tommy Lee! What a multi-tasker that guy is!

I'm sorry about that. That truly must have sucked. I didn't mean to imply the RIAA lost every case they brought. Only that even the FBI despises them because of their frivolity.

Would you share your tale with us? I know thousands of music fans who would love to commiserate. You of course are not obligated to.

[Bird]

12 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

I'm sorry about that. That truly must have sucked. I didn't mean to imply the RIAA lost every case they brought. Only that even the FBI despises them because of their frivolity.

Would you share your tale with us? I know thousands of music fans who would love to commiserate. You of course are not obligated to.

not much of a tale. Moved back to NJ after grad school in Indiana, 1999 or so. Friends had all seen Tommy Lee and Pamela doing that thang and I had not. I also was in the mood for some Beatles covers. So between those two desires I downloaded Kazaa Lite, watched Pam & Tom and set to dowloading some songs. Nothing too crazy, I wasn't downloading all day long or anything and occasionally someone would upload one of my files I think. Eventually got a letter about RIAA suing with a list of the songs I had downloaded (many of which were not copyrighted, live covers of Beatles songs and the like). I think they sampled a small time slot and sued everyone who was active during that slot. Turns out the 3 or 4 corporate entities in between me and RIAA all rolled right over and gave my IP address/info whatever was asked for Kazaa, my cable company, etc). My lawyer looked into it, court date in Colorado, he said I could quash it and have it brought to NJ where I live but then they likely would come hard in response. I guess they were the ones who suggested $3500, I paid. My lawyer was a friend of the family and didn't charge me for the one phone call & one letter or so he worked on.

[Hulk213]

Say Steve Rude charges 5k for you to commission him. That’s a lot of money, to some. DC looks away. 

Steve sells an NFT commission. DC will be all over him? 

One group believes in the value of the dollar. Another group believes in the value of Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is not recognized as currency. So when Steve gets paid in Bitcoin where is the harm? Bitcoin is not real. 

Steve cashes out his Bitcoin. Really money is now a factor.
 

But Steve didn’t get money for a DCs character commission. He got money from exchanging his Bitcoin. 

Am I not understanding this the right way? 
 

 

[Randall Ries]

14 minutes ago, Bird said:

not much of a tale. Moved back to NJ after grad school in Indiana, 1999 or so. Friends had all seen Tommy Lee and Pamela doing that thang and I had not. I also was in the mood for some Beatles covers. So between those two desires I downloaded Kazaa Lite, watched Pam & Tom and set to dowloading some songs. Nothing too crazy, I wasn't downloading all day long or anything and occasionally someone would upload one of my files I think. Eventually got a letter about RIAA suing with a list of the songs I had downloaded (many of which were not copyrighted, live covers of Beatles songs and the like). I think they sampled a small time slot and sued everyone who was active during that slot. Turns out the 3 or 4 corporate entities in between me and RIAA all rolled right over and gave my IP address/info whatever was asked for Kazaa, my cable company, etc). My lawyer looked into it, court date in Colorado, he said I could quash it and have it brought to NJ where I live but then they likely would come hard in response. I guess they were the ones who suggested $3500, I paid. My lawyer was a friend of the family and didn't charge me for the one phone call & one letter or so he worked on.

Sucks! That's fairly typical. At one time they sure liked to extort money from people. In a case like that, the people who actually were sued in the same fashion who had a ton of money offered a retort, paid a lawyer well and made the RIAA look like insufficiently_thoughtful_persons. And so began their habit of suing people they were pretty sure would just settle so they could make headlines and be seen as a force to be reckoned with. I mean really? $600,000 for a Journey song? A college girl?

The other problem was the newbie who used say Napster or in your case Kazaa as a downloading platform. Really public and really easy to find. No offense intended. It was just easy and accessible. A lot of people got hosed. So, they shot Napster in the face, sued the owners and out of the ashes rose...NAPSTER! And they used their hardware, software and business model to REALLY screw people!

"NOICE! LOOK at all THIS! Let's jail the creators and we will just step in and charge people insane money for a lousy mp3 folder! We'll make a killin', SAY? MMmmyaaahh!"

Rhino Records used to be called "The Rhino" or just plain "Rhino" back in the bootlegging days and they were one of the biggies. They got noticed, got threatened, rolled over and went legit and now charge people stupid money for their wares and are REALLY inept in the digital download universe. Not much fun at all, really. Or interesting.

Tommy Lee wasn't the only person who got boinked that day, I guess. I'm sorry that happened to you. I knew that video was flying around but I'm not a Motley fan and although PA is an animal rights activist, (Very cool) I am not a big fan otherwise. So, never sought it out. If I want to see pictures of people getting screwed, I'll go through the newspaper black and white photo archives of commoners like me standing front of a judge getting yelled at for downloading a Blind Faith song.

"HEY MAN! IZZAT 'FREEDOM ROCK?'"

"YEAH, MAN!"

"Well, TURN IT UP, MAN! JUST not too LOUD, MAN! IS THAT 'FREEDOM ROCK' COPYRIGHTED, MAN?"

"YEAH, MAN!"

"GOOD, MAN! WE SURE DON'T WANT 'THE MAN' COMIN' DOWN ON US, MAN!"

LAAAAYLAA! YA GOT ME ON MUH KNEES! LAAAYLA! DARLIN' WON'T YUH EASE MUH WURRIED MINE!"

These days, I do all my pirating in well protected groups (as well as can BE protected) and FB pages. It IS possible to share info as long as people aren't so LOUD about it. That was one of the allures of bootlegging back in the day. The stealth. And it wasn't something everyone was blabbing about. Having an unreleased Bob Dylan show from 1963 Manchester, UK was a bragging right among friends. And a cool thing to have.

Yeah and THANKS, Comcast. THANKS, AT&T. THANKS, Verizon for protecting my account information and giving us up like a common squealer/informant. And now? A strongly worded registered letter to my provider and CUT THE CABLE! Or send them a copy of the judgment along with a picture of this months provider payment due. I'll send another picture/payment next month as well. LOL!

[Randall Ries]

6 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

Say Steve Rude charges 5k for you to commission him. That’s a lot of money, to some. DC looks away. 

Steve sells an NFT commission. DC will be all over him? 

One group believes in the value of the dollar. Another group believes in the value of Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is not recognized as currency. So when Steve gets paid in Bitcoin where is the harm? Bitcoin is not real. 

Steve cashes out his Bitcoin. Really money is now a factor.
 

But Steve didn’t get money for a DCs character commission. He got money from exchanging his Bitcoin. 

Am I not understanding this the right way? 
 

 

That's a great point. Is it like spinning straw into gold? That well may be a defense that is used at some point. And when the defense is successful, legislation will be enacted to squash that. AT&T lobbyists will go bananas over that one. You can almost see the chain of events concerning the future of bitcoin if you close your eyes. Is bitcoin taxable?

[Hulk213]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Allowing an artist to do a simple sketch or commission of a character has non-monetary value to comics companies. By raising interest and awareness in characters, it increases sales in comics, and possibly, movies and TV. It also allows artists to supplement their income instead of publishers paying more for the art. Don’t forget that artists are allowed to keep their finished work after it is published. That wouldn’t be of much value if the company’s secondary copyright weren’t given away with it (or limited trademark rights with it, if any). No one could buy it. 

But, digital art is fundamentally different. The art is a one-off that can be perfectly duplicated by the owner for a potentially sizable profit. That’s could be a serious pot of money. Perhaps an analogy would be the publisher who decides to put a copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 in a book and sell it. Furthermore, if the book involves a trademarked item, like Spider-man, the failure of the owner to protect it can result in the loss of trademark protection, like the word “zipper” which was originally trademarked.

The letter also raises an interesting question: is this the death of “monoprints”?

There is a lot of what you say here that I don’t believe is true or makes sense. I’m not being an .

A commission has monetary value. I’ve spent enough to know.

The artist getting paid a lot of money for his NFT art certainly raises more brand awareness then a commission posted to CAF.

The artist can keep the original art, digitize it and sell it as NFT art. 

I didn’t understand how digital art is fundamentally different. 

I agree that not litigating infringement weakens the mark. But the president has been set with the looking away of physical art all these years.

I’m not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet. 

[Hulk213]

15 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

Sucks! That's fairly typical. At one time they sure liked to extort money from people. In a case like that, the people who actually were sued in the same fashion who had a ton of money offered a retort, paid a lawyer well and made the RIAA look like insufficiently_thoughtful_persons. And so began their habit of suing people they were pretty sure would just settle so they could make headlines and be seen as a force to be reckoned with. I mean really? $600,000 for a Journey song? A college girl?

The other problem was the newbie who used say Napster or in your case Kazaa as a downloading platform. Really public and really easy to find. No offense intended. It was just easy and accessible. A lot of people got hosed. So, they shot Napster in the face, sued the owners and out of the ashes rose...NAPSTER! And they used their hardware, software and business model to REALLY screw people!

"NOICE! LOOK at all THIS! Let's jail the creators and we will just step in and charge people insane money for a lousy mp3 folder! We'll make a killin', SAY? MMmmyaaahh!"

Rhino Records used to be called "The Rhino" or just plain "Rhino" back in the bootlegging days and they were one of the biggies. They got noticed, got threatened, rolled over and went legit and now charge people stupid money for their wares and are REALLY inept in the digital download universe. Not much fun at all, really. Or interesting.

Tommy Lee wasn't the only person who got boinked that day, I guess. I'm sorry that happened to you. I knew that video was flying around but I'm not a Motley fan and although PA is an animal rights activist, (Very cool) I am not a big fan otherwise. So, never sought it out. If I want to see pictures of people getting screwed, I'll go through the newspaper black and white photo archives of commoners like me standing front of a judge getting yelled at for downloading a Blind Faith song.

"HEY MAN! IZZAT 'FREEDOM ROCK?'"

"YEAH, MAN!"

"Well, TURN IT UP, MAN! JUST not too LOUD, MAN! IS THAT 'FREEDOM ROCK' COPYRIGHTED, MAN?"

"YEAH, MAN!"

"GOOD, MAN! WE SURE DON'T WANT 'THE MAN' COMIN' DOWN ON US, MAN!"

LAAAAYLAA! YA GOT ME ON MUH KNEES! LAAAYLA! DARLIN' WON'T YUH EASE MUH WURRIED MINE!"

These days, I do all my pirating in well protected groups (as well as can BE protected) and FB pages. It IS possible to share info as long as people aren't so LOUD about it. That was one of the allures of bootlegging back in the day. The stealth. And it wasn't something everyone was blabbing about. Having an unreleased Bob Dylan show from 1963 Manchester, UK was a bragging right among friends. And a cool thing to have.

Yeah and THANKS, Comcast. THANKS, AT&T. THANKS, Verizon for protecting my account information and giving us up like a common squealer/informant. And now? A strongly worded registered letter to my provider and CUT THE CABLE! Or send them a copy of the judgment along with a picture of this months provider payment due. I'll send another picture/payment next month as well. LOL!

You see no problem with pirating someone else’s hard work? That is wrong. Please do not post your ramblings about pirating, for your own sake. It’s illegal and you can get your self into trouble. It’s wrong. 

[ThothAmon]

3 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

I’m not a lawyer

As someone who has also played one I think the difference is best explained by understanding the fair use doctrine. While technically the copyright holder could ban character commissions but have not because the infringement is de minimis and probably actually leads to increased sales for the copyright holder because the character is being consumed. On the other hand a nft is very widely seen and the copyright owner would rightly view the infringement as substantial. 
 

• Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work:  Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

[gumbydarnit]

I think it’s cool that Marvel and DC allow their artists too make a nice money doing commissions with their characters, BUT when it comes to the potential CRAZY money the NTF MAY generate I think they may be right to restrict the usage of their characters from taking part.

 

DC may see this potential and decide they would be the ones to reap the rewards for their IP. Or if they may have their artists saying I can make more money doing the NTFs than drawing covers or interiors are a waste of my time, so their talent pool starts to dry up. 

[gumbydarnit]

NTF are the new Wild Wild West.

[Bird]

50 minutes ago, Mftonto said:

Say Steve Rude charges 5k for you to commission him. That’s a lot of money, to some. DC looks away. 

Steve sells an NFT commission. DC will be all over him? 

One group believes in the value of the dollar. Another group believes in the value of Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is not recognized as currency. So when Steve gets paid in Bitcoin where is the harm? Bitcoin is not real. 

Steve cashes out his Bitcoin. Really money is now a factor.
 

But Steve didn’t get money for a DCs character commission. He got money from exchanging his Bitcoin. 

Am I not understanding this the right way? 
 

 

I don't think this reasoning would stand on its' own, but you are describing a trade of the commission for something of value so it boils down to the same thing. Maybe one time you could trade a commission for a car but if you opened a dealership selling cars you got in exchange for commissions DC would likely get interested.

Money is a secondary reinforcer, it has no inherent value itself and is only good for what you can exchange it for. Bitcoin is the same thing there, and DC is interested in people exploiting their images for personal gain so maybe they take their percentage in Bitcoin and convert it themselves if necessary but they'll get theirs.

 

[Rick2you2]

37 minutes ago, gumbydarnit said:

I think it’s cool that Marvel and DC allow their artists too make a nice money doing commissions with their characters, BUT when it comes to the potential CRAZY money the NTF MAY generate I think they may be right to restrict the usage of their characters from taking part.

 

DC may see this potential and decide they would be the ones to reap the rewards for their IP. Or if they may have their artists saying I can make more money doing the NTFs than drawing covers or interiors are a waste of my time, so their talent pool starts to dry up. 

Let me add that to some extent, I think it is simply fear on DC's part. No one knows the future (except the Phantom Stranger), so they are making a conservative business decision. It may very well be that the whole market collapses and there will be nothing to worry about, but no one will blame the AT&T executive who authorized the letter for being cautious about it.

I am curious, however, whether the people selling monoprints realize that the letter effects them, too.

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Mftonto said:

I’m not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet. 

I am a lawyer, but, I prefer not to play one on the internet. Not only is that like bringing "coals to Newcastle" for me but I don't want what I might write to be considered as "legal advice". 

Intellectual Property (IP) is a tough field. There are lots of violations on a regular basis, many of which are ignored because there is no viable recovery, while others are not even recognized as violations unless someone hits the jackpot in court. And still others result in settlements because no one really knows the answer, and the risk of a major loss is really high.

Here, you are dealing with an almost complete unknown, yet now an NTF sells for $60 million? How many companies do you know who would consider that chump change? 

Of course commissions have value. They just aren't perfectly reproduceable if in pencil and ink. That is a big difference. Notice how the market devalues monoprints as compared to the old fashioned method? Still the same image, but still perceived differently. So yes, they are very different, and yes, the stakes are potentially much higher.

[Hulk213]

Insightful. I don’t understand how a commission not perfectly reproducible and does that even matter? Ryan Stegmans commissions have turned into covers. Reproduced. So someone saw value in using a commissioned piece of art to sell their product.

Art is art. Who says it has to be perfectly reproduced to have value? I honestly don’t understand what you are saying here. How is art reproduction a big difference?

And, IP violations need to be addressed even if they are difficult. And there are viable options for people / companies who are infringed upon. Disney scares the out of people. Because they will send a cease desist or even take you to court. They have to. It weakens their mark.

Disney can do this because they have the resources. This goes back to my one question, how would DC stop this? Or even attempt to monitor this?

NFT is not an unknown. Regardless if someone sells an NFT for 60 million or not. What does the price matter? Honest question. Is it because that amounts gets noticed?

The NFT companies purposely put this out to attract attention. That way they can get more people looking to make money off their art. NFT companies charge a fee to mint the art. 
 

To me it sounds like a pyramid scheme.
 

I realize you are in a spot being a lawyer, and do respect that, and that you have to be careful what you say. 

I’m just trying to understand and make sense of all this. 

[Randall Ries]

4 hours ago, Mftonto said:

You see no problem with pirating someone else’s hard work? That is wrong. Please do not post your ramblings about pirating, for your own sake. It’s illegal and you can get your self into trouble. It’s wrong. 

Is it? What if I'm spending thousands a year on music (I am). Do I get a special place in Heaven? Why are your insights into things you enjoy as a hobby "informative" and everyone else's hobbies you don't understand "ramblings"? Do we sound like the old prospector in "Blazing Saddles" to you? Your concern for my welfare is touching. Wanna talk pirating? Let's talk Wolverine. You like collecting a character that was lifted from a little kids idea and sketches with no credit given? Ever? Buying the comics? DVD's? Movie tickets? Paraphernalia? I don't CARE if it's "just business". That doesn't make it right.

Allow me to define music pirating: It's when you make a duplicate of an Ozzy Osbourne record in the thousands and sell it without permission or a license to do so. Music trading is trading something I purchased for something you purchased. Artists gets paid - unlike the actual pirating situation defined above. In the old days, I made a copy of a show I recorded and I mail it to you in trade for a show you either have or recorded yourself. No harm no foul. In fact many bands like The Grateful Dead, Little Feat and even JJ Cale wholeheartedly embraced music trading. Free advertising for them. It made MILLIONS for the Grateful Dead. I was recording a JJ Cale show one evening and was tackled by 4 ushers trying to claw my rig down. Cale saw the hassle from the stage and signaled his sound man to get them off me. Later, He signed a house poster for me saying: "To Randy. My favorite bootlegger! JJ Cale 2004." I have it framed. People can see it. Are they "pirating" the image as it's sealed into their memory banks. I hope not.

It's the people who think "Say. I can take this recorded concert I got for free from either the sound guy or a fan, mass produce it and sell it in a music shop as a CD or online as digital files. The profiteer. In the late 80's/early 90's, the US was accepting imports from Italy and Germany of some very fine live cd's from popular bands. Sure. The record companies had a fit but the point being made was simple: There is a want/desire/market for these recordings. Nature abhors a vacuum. KTS and Swingin' Pig filled that vacuum. Eventually NAFTA happened and snuffed it. As usual, the tone deaf music industry was slow on the draw and had ignored fan requests for outtakes and live material from the fans for YEARS. Nature abhors a vacuum.

NOW. Artists who had been asked for years to produce something new other than their back catalog finally took notice. Many artists. Now, they offer their concerts for sale. Many times hours after a given show. People bought the so-called "Instant Live" cd's first and when the digital age happened, resourced out to online platforms to sell their concerts. It was and still IS wildly popular. Soundboard recordings in great quality for a reasonable price.

I suggest you read Clinton Heylin's book "Bootleg: The Secret History Of The Other Recording Industry" (Assuming you haven't already) if you want to talk about "criminal behavior". OR. You could ask Fats Domino or Chuck Berry if they weren't passed on how THEY felt about the compensation they received from record labels. In fact, alluding to what I just described about online platforms selling digital concert recordings, MANY of those artists knew they were being hosed by the big labels like Columbia and (ugh) RCA. And when it came time to resign their contracts, many bands and individuals said "Thanks but no thanks. Tired of you receiving the lions share and we work for peanuts." They invested in themselves, started their own online LLC's and took responsibility for their distribution of cd's and hiring platforms to host their live shows. They have been positively enhanced and that's thanks to the digital age.

Many of these artists are completely aware of music trading. They have no real issue with it. Statistics have show when they resist, they lose revenue. Dave Matthews was WILDLY Anti-Taper/Anti-Trading. So vocal he began losing fans and revenue to the point it was noticeable. He was alienating a demographic of his own fan base. He changed his stance, began selling his live concert cd's and then the digital files and his income and popularity returned.

Let's not confuse piracy with trading. Piracy is a deliberate misnomer term meant to be a blanket statement for everything. And LIKE everything, there are divisions and sub divisions. Hope I didn't "Ramble" too much. Just thought you would like to know an artists income and exposure/recognition factor goes UP when fans can immerse themselves in their art and feel like a part of things. Not just a ticket or payday. And BTW, it's not the artist that gets upset when trading happens. It's the record companies that get upset. It's cutting into THEIR margin, not the artist. Again. Ask any major artist you meet how they feel about record companies. Or listen to the Pink Floyd album "Wish You Were Here". Or don't.