The no digital camera rule.....

Harvester said:
Thanks for the note. What do you think of the additional digital camera fee to pay for someone checking the cameras along with some metal detectors? Say $5 each day? A seperate line (slower) for the checking? The money would also go towards offical agents standing *inside* the venue specifcially to catch bootleggers (in addition to the regular spies).

I want everyone to understand that I am on your side...to a certain extent. I busted over 20 bootleggers last year. Four years ago, I caught 3. I don't mean a few minutes worth of clips, but *complete* recordings. For everyone that I caught, I'm sure another got away. This all may be moot as I do not have signed contracts in place yet. However, I'm willing to go to bat provided you give me some realistic options.

I want everyone else to note that a serious discussion with pros/cons is able to take place and possibly effect change without saying "fuck you."

Glenn H.

Glenn

I think a lot of us would be alright with the extra fee. As I've said before, (and no I'm not ass kissing) I'm fine either way. I personally like the pictures a 35mm takes, but hate the extra expense of it.

I think in order to protect you, I'd even be willing to offer up my camera for inspection. Fuck, I'd be willing to take an hour shift (as long as it's during a band I don't like:)) searching through bags for cameras, handing out special passes, etc. so myself and others could bring in the digital cameras.

Regardless, I don't think it's that much of an issue. Certianly they are nice to have, but even as an amateur photographer myself, you've got to roll with the punches. As was said before, not all shows allow cameras anyway. The way I see it, I'm getting a bonus.

As far as giving up a GB because no digital cameras are allow. Prove it. Guys, come on, you sound like the kid who takes his toys and goes home because he doesn't want to share. Grow up and get over it.

Giving up a GB because of full body cavity searches or only being able to arrive 10 minutes earlier than everyone else... I'd probabally give it up then... But over a camera? Geeze...

-MEtal
 
Harvester said:
Thanks for the note. What do you think of the additional digital camera fee to pay for someone checking the cameras along with some metal detectors? Say $5 each day? A seperate line (slower) for the checking?

I would gladly pay this as well.
 
Not all of us are camera geeks, what is a "SLR" camera?


on a lighter note, to the dude that recommended we all went in nude..have you seen some of the people that go to this show? I mean, COME ON!:yuk:


Note-no disrespect to anyone in particular, i am not Playboy/girl-centerfold material either lol
 
IMHO, and no asskissing intended, its Glenn's festival and we as patrons(even thought i missed the last one) are obligated to follow his rules whether we agree or not. If he bands all digital media then so be it, lets just all go and have a blast. As for me Glenn if any of these people do give up their GB PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE send one or two my way. Plus, i will be using 35mm all the way, i guess its hard to teach a old dog new tricks as far as digital cameras go.
 
TBJ said:
Not all of us are camera geeks, what is a "SLR" camera?


on a lighter note, to the dude that recommended we all went in nude..have you seen some of the people that go to this show? I mean, COME ON!:yuk:


Note-no disrespect to anyone in particular, i am not Playboy/girl-centerfold material either lol
Single-lens-reflex camera. They make them in digital but usually people use the term for a manuel film 35mm camera.
More on them here. BTW Google is your friend.:D
 
Glenn, I'd have no problem paying $5 extra to bring in my digital camera, but it isn't an SLR. It has the capability of taking video (as we've seen), but of course it's not great quality and sounds horrible under any serious amplification. During PP itself I was careful to twist the little knob to the left (for still photos) every time so that no well-meaning fellow attendee would instantly body-slam me into the barricade whilst yelling "A VIP pass is mine!"

Hell, I'd pay $10 to bring the camera in, since after buying the camera -- twice, due to a surprise man-made flood killing the first one -- I can't afford a digital SLR. :cry:
 
Angrafan said:
CONCERT bootlegs do not affect the bands finances almost at all.. Illegal downloding of actual CDs is the real problem.. Live bootlegs? Come on...

Bullshit. Bootlegs to impact the bands directly. In a several ways:

1st - it means there is someone else making money off of their work. They wrote the songs, they gave the performance. Yes they were paid for the performance. The price a concert-goer pays for the ticket entitles them to see the performance, not an unlimited ability to view the concert whenever they want.

2nd - it means that their concerts have competition. If a person can grab a bootleg of the concert instead of buying a ticket, that hurts concert ticket sales. Rather than spending $20 on a concert ticket, driving an hour into town, staying up late, sitting in a smoke filled room, a person can watch the concert for free, in the comfort of their own home. This may not be applicable to hard-core fans, but it does apply to the casual fans (which are the vast majority of all music fans). If concert attendace goes down, it means less press, less likeyhood of tour support, less t-shirt sales, etc. and it spirals onward.

3rd - it means that their live albums and DVDs have competition. If the band has a live album out, having a free alternative absolutely impacts sales. If the band does not have a live album, but there are free alternatives available, they may choose not to release a live album, and then lose those potential sales.

If you think that this only applies to the Brittney's and N*Syncs of the world, go talk to metal record lables, they'll tell you it impacts their bottom lines too.
 
I can tell you there's no way watching a fan-taped bootleg can replace seeing a band live. Most of the coolest things are actually DVDs of TV broadcasts of concerts, they're never going to get released, because the band, label, station, etc. would have to collaborate, and the demand isn't there. Maybe it's such a dire situation as you portray, but I can't imagine anyone who was going to go to the tour not going and watching a bootleg DVD of the band from a couple years ago instead.

Just like downloading, like it or not, this is a facet of technology that happens, and bands will have to deal with it. They can either whine about it their whole career, and it will still happen, or they can turn the situation around and benefit from it. For downloading, you now see most bands offer a song or three to download on their site, also the internet makes it a whole lot cheaper to buy albums than to go to a physical store.

For taping.......Dream Theater for example. They have the bootleg forum on their site, and allow them to be shared and traded. So why would anyone go on Ebay and BUY one illegally, when it's clear that you can get them for free? Steve Vai, on the other hand, is pretty against taping, and besides that, I think he's rather obnoxious about not releasing things that his fans want to see (although that's his right :)). So....the result of that is that there are still Steve Vai bootlegs distrubuted freely among people in the bootlegging community, but his fans wouldn't know about that, since his site is against it, and doesn't really acknowledge them, so THEY buy them from Ebay. That means they're supporting people ripping off Vai, and they're ripping off themselves by paying for them.

In a few years, the technology and economics are going to meet, and you will be able to go to a concert, and on the way out you'll be able to buy a DVD/CD of the concert you just attended, which will create yet another financial avenue for the band while on tour. I noticed that Pearl Jam is actually doing this in audio form on their website, but it would make much more money once the technology allows to be able to do it at the physical concert.

People who see technology advances with the attitude "how can we stop this/keep it from happening?" are the losers.

People who see technology advances with the attitude "how can we use this to our advantage" are always the ones who are going to win, and go home with a fatter wallet. ^_^

And that's the truth no matter what your position on the issue.
 
Matt Crooks said:
Bullshit. Bootlegs to impact the bands directly. In a several ways:

1st - it means there is someone else making money off of their work. They wrote the songs, they gave the performance. Yes they were paid for the performance. The price a concert-goer pays for the ticket entitles them to see the performance, not an unlimited ability to view the concert whenever they want.
Most (not all) bootlegs are traded. I don't even understand why people want them, but whatever.
2nd - it means that their concerts have competition. If a person can grab a bootleg of the concert instead of buying a ticket, that hurts concert ticket sales. Rather than spending $20 on a concert ticket, driving an hour into town, staying up late, sitting in a smoke filled room, a person can watch the concert for free, in the comfort of their own home. This may not be applicable to hard-core fans, but it does apply to the casual fans (which are the vast majority of all music fans). If concert attendace goes down, it means less press, less likeyhood of tour support, less t-shirt sales, etc. and it spirals onward.
Do you really think watching a concert on your TV is the same as going to a show? A casual fan is not going to watch a piece of shit bootleg. It is mostly the hardcore fans that collect these things and they buy all the bands stuff anyway.
3rd - it means that their live albums and DVDs have competition. If the band has a live album out, having a free alternative absolutely impacts sales. If the band does not have a live album, but there are free alternatives available, they may choose not to release a live album, and then lose those potential sales.
This is possible, if it's the exact show they are releasing and the quality is good (which 99% of the time it's not)
If you think that this only applies to the Brittney's and N*Syncs of the world, go talk to metal record lables, they'll tell you it impacts their bottom lines too.
I don't think it's the bootlegging. It's been around for decades and isn't going anywhere. The downloading of actual CD's (That sound exactly as the product in the stores) and shitty promotion for bands is the big problem.
 
I meant I was done arguing against digital cameras being banned and whatnot. I'll debate the bootleg issue all day. :p
 
Angrafan said:
CONCERT bootlegs do not affect the bands finances almost at all.. Illegal downloding of actual CDs is the real problem.. Live bootlegs? Come on...

Obviously you don't understand the principle of the arguement. If you were to bring YOUR own band to PP next year, it is OK with you for me to tape your show, sell it on the street, and pocket the cash? Nevermind that you don't know me and that I didn't spend one second of my time or one penny of my money to assist your band over the years prior.

Unauthorized bootlegging is illegal and it's stealing - even it the profits are minimal. WTF do any of these bands owe you beyond the concert you paid to see??? Come on you socialist... Do you really live in Florida?
 
with reguards to bootlegging or downloading....

If technology would allow me to "bootleg" or "download" whaterver it is you do to make a buck and for me to get the service and not have to pay you for it while you do the work and I do the recieveing and to boot, make money off it.........Umm....I really think you would have an issue with it.

Tired of peoples excuses trying to justify theft. Say what you wish, it is theft, plain and simple and no justification by anyone will ever change that.

For those though, that find justification to make themselves feel better...Remember, when you are robbed, look at it as just someone bootlegging or downloading your stuff and it really does not matter.....or.....maybe learn to take advantage of the theft and the technology behind it.

.....what a load of rubbish.....
 
I missed the Angrafan quote...too funny..."bootlegs do not affect a bands finances almost at all".....

Define: "almost at all"

Now, if i take that way from you....have it deducted from your paycheck....Ummm....it that ok?

Sheesh......
 
King Lek said:
For those though, that find justification to make themselves feel better...Remember, when you are robbed, look at it as just someone bootlegging or downloading your stuff and it really does not matter.....or.....maybe learn to take advantage of the theft and the technology behind it.

.....what a load of rubbish.....

As SavaRon said.....THE MAJORITY OF BOOTLEGGING IS NOT FOR PROFIT. Bootlegging is for trading with fans, there is no profit. There are select few people who take advantage of it, as with anything.

Taping a concert is hardly like robbing someone. Even giving you the biggest benefit of the doubt, you're looking at......"depriving someone of money they might have had, not taking money from them." So I think your analogy is faulty.
 
Barking Pumpkin said:
As SavaRon said.....

Taping a concert is hardly like robbing someone. Even giving you the biggest benefit of the doubt, you're looking at......"depriving someone of money they might have had, not taking money from them." So I think your analogy is faulty.

No analogy faults.....

If I rob you and take your money......It's then money......you might have had.