Re: KT NEWS; and IED, against a sea of naysayers, defends himself

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

> P.P.S. I have noted a bit of a double standard on the net.  Those of
>      you who speak so highly and greedily about Kate bootlegs must
>      be aware that your purchasing of bootlegs is a backhanded
>      insult to the artist you so adore.  These recordings (unless
>      sanctioned by the artist) are really just stealing from Kate.
>      She doesn't see a cent of the money for these things.  Those
>      that illegally record and reproduce Kates (or anyone's)
>      material should be turned in rather than supported.

First of all, it almost certainly wouldn't be profitable for Kate to
release all this obscure stuff anyway -- it's only the kind of thing
that the dedicated fan would buy.  None of this stuff would have mass
market appeal.  Secondly, Kate's never going to release this
stuff, so it can hardly been seen as being at her finincial expense.
It costs her nothing, and she is losing no profits because of it.  And
even if she did lose some money off of it, the amount would be so
miniscule compared to how much she makes that it is hardly worth
considering.

The real objection has nothing to do with money matters, it has to do
with the fact that Kate doesn't want this stuff heard.  She's
embarassed by it, or whatever.  This objection would hold just as well
if the stuff were *given* away.  Of course, historically, this
argument seems to be given little respect.  If Bach's secret diaries
were to suddenly be found and they containing new snippits of music he
never wanted anyone to hear, do you think they would go left
unpublished.  Of course not.  Such is the price of being a star....

|>oug