Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Great Canadian Bootleg Bust!

199 views
Skip to first unread message

nigel

unread,
May 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/7/99
to
Bootleg CDs seized

RCMP say 28,000 discs would fetch $1.2 million

GEORGE KALOGERAKIS
The Montreal Gazette

The RCMP say they have made the biggest seizure of bootleg CDs in Canadian
history from one Montreal store.
About 28,000 compact discs were hauled away last month from the Rock en
Stock store on Crescent St.
But its owner, Michael Meese, says he will fight whatever charges the RCMP
bring against him.
"They don't know what they are doing," Meese said.
He sees no infringement of Canada's Copyright Act because the CDs are not
pirated or counterfeit material. Nobody took a legitimate CD done by an
artist and copied it.
"From my point of view, these CDs are legal," Meese said. "These are
original creations."
The seizure came after a Canada Customs inspector at Dorval airport noticed
a December shipment of CDs that didn't look normal. The CD boxes weren't
wrapped in the usual cellophane. And their booklets were cheap-looking.
Customs officials alerted the RCMP, and officials from the music-recording
industry were brought in to help.
Industry officials identified the CDs as bootlegs, surreptitious recordings
of live concerts often made with cheap tape recorders. The recordings are
then sent overseas to be made into CDs.
The recordings violate the law because their makers don't pay royalties to
the songwriters or the musicians, the RCMP said.

Had Phony Names

Bootlegs are usually sought after by die-hard fans who want to get their
hands on anything a band does, even if it is a terrible recording. Bootleg
buyers know they are unauthorized. Among the seized CDs were live recordings
from The Beatles, Nirvana, Garbage, Spice Girls, Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix.
They included a Rolling Stones concert at the Air Canada Centre on Feb. 25,
just 2 1/2 months ago. Another was from the April 1998 show of the Stones at
the Molson Centre.
RCMP Sgt. Gilles Blanchet said it usually costs a store like Rock en Stock
about $10 for the CDs, and they sell them for $30 to $70. The seized CDs
would fetch about $1.2 million, he added. While some of the CDs came in the
usual plastic boxes, others were shipped in bulk. About 100 would be in a
stack.
The bulk CDs would have an unknown name written on the packages. Police had
to listen to them to figure out who the artists were. Once those bulk CDs
got to Montreal, the store would insert them in a plastic CD box and include
a booklet that identified the proper band.
For instance, a Jimi Hendrix CD from a show at the Paul Sauve Arena in
Montreal had the name James Marshall written on it. A CD marked Utero turned
out to be a Nirvana recording.

Problem Starts With the Public

The RCMP monitored nine shipments through Dorval before raiding the
well-known independent store on April 26, arresting Meese and two employees.
No charges have been filed yet.
Theoretically, the RCMP could file more than 200,000 charges against those
involved - one for each song on the seized CDs. If found guilty, someone
could get five years in jail and be fined about $1 million, Blanchet said.
Recording-industry officials were elated by the seizures, and said it should
put a crimp in the availability of bootlegs in Canada. Brian Robertson,
president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, said the 28,000
CDs represent about 5 per cent of all the bootleg CDs now in Canadian
stores.
The previous record seizure was in the range of about 1,300 CDs.
David Basskin, president of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency,
said the bootleg problem starts with the public, who don't see it as a
problem.
"I fault the education system and the prevailing culture that it is OK to
tape at home," Basskin said.
People see musicians as rich and spoiled, he said, but they forget about the
struggling musicians who need their royalties. "If all you want are oldies
all the time, then go on buying bootlegs, because the only way you are going
to get new music is if the artist can eat on a regular basis."
The industry is very worried about technology, which is making it even easie
r for artists to be ripped off, especially computer-assisted recordings and
the new MP3 format, which allows music to be compressed so you can fit 12
times as many songs on a CD.
Meese said the RCMP's $1.2-million figure for his seized CDs is overblown,
but didn't want to give a figure he considers more realistic.
He said a lot of the CDs have had their royalties paid in their country of
origin. "That is something they don't know."
He said European rules allowed such amateur recordings to be sold until a
few years ago. But he couldn't explain the 1998 and 1999 Rolling Stones
concerts.


--
nige...@mailcity.com

Erik

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
Funny, the papers (Mtl Gazette & TO Sun) harp on the Stones boot as being "only
2 1/2 months old" as though this were a new development. Wasn't there an Italian
Dylan show in 84 that was on an album within 2 weeks, before DAT clones of every
show were being availed the next day on-line? And there was a Zep album out
within 2 months of the gig, by the end of that tour, some 25 years ago.

xplanet

unread,
May 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/8/99
to
Love this quote from the article -

"I fault the education system and the prevailing culture that it is OK
to
tape at home," Basskin said.
People see musicians as rich and spoiled, he said, but they forget about
the
struggling musicians who need their royalties. "If all you want are
oldies
all the time, then go on buying bootlegs, because the only way you are
going
to get new music is if the artist can eat on a regular basis."

These record execs are hopelessly hopelessly thick. These aren't boots
of original CDs - which is a big problem in China and Saudi, for two
examples. These are boots of live shows by fans who love the work and
want more more more. They would gladly pay for official releases.

The rest of the article is deliberately illogical fear-mongering.
Bob and the Stones have no financial worries. And won't - ever.
Struggling musicians don't live off successful musician's royalties.
They might benefit from more sales of official releases as it increases
the pot of money the record execs can use to hire new bands. But this
logically means releasing more of the material contained on great 'field
recordings' (Supper Show etc etc) not suppressing that material.
These arguments have been made by many rmd-ers over and over. And over.

On the other hand, a quick tour of the shops in the city in the article
(subtle enough?) revealed as many field recordings on the shelves as
ever.
Prohibition never worked. Especially now.
Develop the secure mp3 (see the May 8 issue of the Economist) and let's
do business.
The execs should understand their clients not try to jail them.
Or is that too fundamental.....basic....reasonable...
Andy.


Erik

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
A Record Exec crying about education!! Regarding 'learning' not to tape! And
since when do record companies give a shit about paying their 'poor'
artists, the ones who really do need the money?? It's these 'poor' artists
who get f#cked hardest by the 'legitimate' record industry, it's half
comical/ half disgusting to hear/ read these record exec-assholes piss and
moan about bootlegs out of loyalty to the artists and commitment to pay
artists their due!
PS Before anyone starts calling me a thieving bootlegging criminal scumbag,
I wish to point out I am NOT involved with bootlegs at all. If every
profiteer were busted tomorrow, I would not suffer, every one I've traded
with seemed to avoid selling any of their hard-found tapes! Nonetheless, if
the music biz has anything over which to launch a crusade, why not go after
the counterfeiters... After paying back what they've scammed from folks over
the years!

Lars Farena

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
In article , xplanet says....

>These record execs are hopelessly hopelessly thick. These aren't boots
>of original CDs - which is a big problem in China and Saudi, for two
>examples. These are boots of live shows by fans who love the work and
>want more more more. They would gladly pay for official releases.

I'm sure record companies are very well aware of the clear distinction
made by fans between pirate/counterfeit recordings (which we condemn
as strongly as the record companies) and bootlegs (which we buy
only because they contain material which is not officially available).

Even so, they use the terms interchangeably, frequently referring to
bootlegs as "pirate" or "counterfeit" CDs. I can only assume this is to
confuse the vast majority of the general public who don't seek out
recordings of their favorite artists beyond what is officially available,
and aren't aware of the important difference. And they keep trotting
out the line that bootlegs are of poor quality. This was certainly true
in the early days, but the majority of glass-mastered bootlegs these days,
even the audience recordings, are of excellent quality.

Although bootlegging is a very niche business (unlike counterfeiting, which
is a _huge_ one) the record execs could make substantial inroads into it
if they wanted to. They could use new technology and Internet marketing
to make limited edition studio and live recordings available to dedicated
fans without incurring the huge overheads that go with regular official CDs.
They make money, the artists get their dues, the bootleggers lose out, and
the fans are happier. Win-win-win-win.

Lars


The 13th Floor

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Well said. The record execs are the ones worried about losing money.
I can understand why some artists (including Bob) don't care for
people selling bootlegs of their songs, but it's a far cry from taking
money out of someone's pocket. Now, if you wanted to call it a form
of artistic theft, you might be on to something there.

As far as I know, though there are some know anti-bootleg artists,
most don't seem to mind people taping their shows as long as they
don't sell them.

One final thought... I believe the four most bootlegged artists (this
is an educated guess) are Dylan, The Dead, Springsteen, and Led
Zeppelin. In the case of The Dead, as we all know, bootlegging was
actually encouraged. In any case, none of these artists seems to have
suffered any serious pocketbook damage from the bootleggers.

>> These record execs are hopelessly hopelessly thick. These aren't boots
>> of original CDs - which is a big problem in China and Saudi, for two
>> examples. These are boots of live shows by fans who love the work and
>> want more more more. They would gladly pay for official releases.
>>

ProfHart

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
I think this is much like what the Jimi Hendrix's family is doing:They are
releasing "official bootlegs."


<< Subject: Re: The Great Canadian Bootleg Bust!
From: Lars Farena <La...@newsguy.com> >>

Richard

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
Unlike the Dead example, where live concerts were taped for trading by fans,
with the ok of the Dead, in many cases commercial recordings are
counterfeited, or commercial recordings are mixed in with non-commercial
material and then sold at a very high price. A CD with package and insert
costs about a dollar to produce. These are often sold to fans for prices in
excess of $20.00 a pop. Even your friendly shop selling a boot for $20.00 is
making a profit far in excess of commercial material. Clearly the readers of
this group would oppose the counterfeiting of Bob's material, passed off as
official commercial product. Clearly most readers of this group recognize
that many of Bob's best material has been liberated as part of our musical
heritage through the trading and bootleg activity that has gone on through
the years. Yet those that trade in bootlegs for profit do so at a risk that
they will be arrested, fined and perhaps free room and board for a period of
time. This is the real world. A real world where the artist is frustrated in
his or her ability to get material out there to the fans because of slave
relationships with the record companies. Bootlegging is just part of the
symptom of a sick industry at a turning point. (But in Bob's case Sony
would release a lot more material if Bob would just give his OK, a rather
unique situation for a recording artist.)


The 13th Floor <flo...@bayarea.net> wrote in message
news:3736ae6f...@news.bayarea.net...

Chronistin

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On Mon, 10 May 1999 10:06:04 GMT, flo...@bayarea.net (The 13th Floor)
wrote:

>Well said. The record execs are the ones worried about losing money.

Multimedia Artist Jaron Lanier
(http://www.well.com/user/jaron/index.html) wrote a "Manifesto" about
music distribution through the web and record companies' complaints
about this. It has been printed in the New York Times
(http://www.well.com/user/jaron/index.html)

Greetings
Chronistin


Joey Berger

unread,
May 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/10/99
to
On 10 May 1999 02:14:00 -0700, Lars Farena <La...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>In article , xplanet says....
>

>>These record execs are hopelessly hopelessly thick. These aren't boots
>>of original CDs - which is a big problem in China and Saudi, for two
>>examples. These are boots of live shows by fans who love the work and
>>want more more more. They would gladly pay for official releases.
>

>I'm sure record companies are very well aware of the clear distinction
>made by fans between pirate/counterfeit recordings (which we condemn
>as strongly as the record companies) and bootlegs (which we buy
>only because they contain material which is not officially available).
>
>Even so, they use the terms interchangeably, frequently referring to

Probably because it all adds up to 'illegal' in the eyes of the law
(at least when you try and sell the records). I've been to Rock En
Stock. Not at all surprised.

>bootlegs as "pirate" or "counterfeit" CDs. I can only assume this is to
>confuse the vast majority of the general public who don't seek out
>recordings of their favorite artists beyond what is officially available,
>and aren't aware of the important difference. And they keep trotting
>out the line that bootlegs are of poor quality. This was certainly true
>in the early days, but the majority of glass-mastered bootlegs these days,
>even the audience recordings, are of excellent quality.
>
>Although bootlegging is a very niche business (unlike counterfeiting, which

>is a _huge_ one) the record execs could make substantial inroads into it


>if they wanted to. They could use new technology and Internet marketing
>to make limited edition studio and live recordings available to dedicated
>fans without incurring the huge overheads that go with regular official CDs.
>They make money, the artists get their dues, the bootleggers lose out, and
>the fans are happier. Win-win-win-win.
>
>Lars
>

Joey Berger
pa...@simon.org
icq:14315467 AOLim: simondmb
Lasers In The Jungle: http://paul.simon.org

0 new messages