http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Comparison to theft
Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985)
Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:
interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218
The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[42] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not an exclusive good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[43]
And a quote from my favorite Founding Father:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
-Thomas Jefferson
Are you referring to me, and the list of bands that allow taping and trading and downloading of live shows? If so, read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_band
Taping
Jam bands often allow their fans to make tapes or recordings of their live shows, a practice which many other musical genres call "illegal bootlegging". The Grateful Dead encouraged this practice, which helped to create a thriving scene around the collecting and trading of recordings of Grateful Dead live performances. Most of the live shows on the Grateful Dead's 30 years of touring were recorded. It was probably the trading of recordings of Grateful Dead shows which built the band's fan base. The bands sold "taper" tickets for a taper's section which had a soundboard line-out for the tapers to record from. This type of encouragement has spread to nearly all of the jam bands. Some jam band enthusiasts argue that if a band does not allow fans to tape their live shows, this band is not actually a jam band in the Grateful Dead tradition.
Fans trade recordings and collect recordings of different live shows because improvisational jam bands play their songs differently at each performance. Fans can collect various versions of their favorite songs. They can keep track of how many times a specific song has been played, and thus increase the momentousness of a rare song being dusted off and played live, or played for the first time.[21] Some bands play with this phenomena by throwing short little "teases" into their sets. Playing, for example, a few bars of a famous cover song or hinting at a popular jam and then either never getting around to playing the song, or coming back to it after an extended jam. The use of segues to blend strings of songs together is another mark of a jam band, and one which makes for treasured tapes.[22]
Music downloading
By the 2000s, as internet downloading of MP3 music files became common, downloading of jam band songs became an extension of the cassette taping trend. Archived jam band downloads are available at various websites, the most prominent ones being etree and the Live Music Archive, which is part of the Internet Archive.
More bands have been distributing their latest shows online. Bands such as Phish,Widespread Panic, The String Cheese Incident, Gov't Mule, ekoostik hookah, Umphrey's McGee, and The Disco Biscuits have been offering digital downloads within weeks of concerts. The Grateful Dead have begun to offer online, digital download only, live releases from their archives as well. While there is some obvious conflict of interest between the "free and open trading of shows" and artists packaging and selling the same shows for money, a dynamic equilibrium has been reached where die-hards trade and others are happy to pay for the convenience.
Some venues offer kiosks where fans may purchase a digital recording of the concert and download it to a USB flash drive or another portable digital storage device. Some bands, including The Allman Brothers, offer "Instant Lives", which are concert recordings made available for purchase on Compact Disc shortly after the show ends. Most major music festivals also offer digital live recordings at the event. Even though these shows are freely traded in digital format, "official" versions are still bought by fans for the graphics, liner notes, and packaging.
It's not legal to make copies of copyrighted material unless the copyright owner gives permission. However, it was only punishable by civil action up until 1997 when the "No Electronic Theft Act" was passed, and civil suits were only successful if somebody made a profit off of somebody else's copyrighted material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.
Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, copyright infringement for a non-commercial purpose was apparently not punishable by criminal prosecution, although non-commercial infringers could be sued in a civil action by the copyright holder to recover damages. At that time, criminal prosecutions under the copyright act were possible only when the infringer derived a commercial benefit from his or her actions. This state of affairs was underscored by the unsuccessful 1994 prosecution of David LaMacchia, then a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for allegedly facilitating massive copyright infringement as a hobby, without any commercial motive. The court's dismissal of United States v. LaMacchia suggested that then-existing criminal law simply did not apply to non-commercial infringements (a state of affairs which became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole"). The court suggested that Congress could act to make some non-commercial infringements a crime, and Congress acted on that suggestion in the NET Act.
The NET Act amends the definition of "commercial advantage or private financial gain" to include the exchange of copies of copyrighted works even if no money changes hands and specifies penalties of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. It also creates a threshold for criminal liability even where the infringer neither obtained nor expected to obtain anything of value for the infringement.
The act raised the levels of statutory damages in civil cases to $750 - $30,000 per work (and up to $150,000 per work in case of willful infringement).
go tour like you said ,pay for your hotel rooms,pay for your roadies and all the other expenses,let me know when you make a profit
