> the bootleggers would have a lot less market if the record were repressed
I can't disagree with that logic. BUT... I've been following this thread for awhile and a voice I'm not hearing in this debate (that is kind of troubling to me, actually) is the rights of the ARTIST. Art is not necessarily subject to the same demands as say, any old consumer product where the goal is to sell as many as possible (say, toothpaste or something). One of the benefits of owning and running your own label (or printshop, for example) is to control the trickle - or flood - of your art into an art-buyers market -- more control over your own destiny. You can still keep things limited or special if, as the artist, you feel like that is a part of your 'statement' so to speak, of what you have created. When a famous potter makes a vase, and they decide to make 5 of them, not 500... it makes that vase unique. You have to think the artist has a reason to only make 5 if that's what they choose. Is everyone forgetting that the artist has a right to release as many or as few pieces of art as they feel? Sure there are ramifications of releasing few, I'm not denying that: if demand is high enough and the art is scarce, it may get bootlegged. That is a risk. But an artist of any medium is certainly never OBLIGED to fill the needs of every consumer! That is the artists right. I have detected this slight tone of "well if he just would have pressed up more it wouldn't matter, he deserved it, etc." -- but the reality is sometimes an artist might want LESS of something out there, not more, as part of the artistic statement itself. I respect artists who choose to release less, not more... even if I can't have a copy myself. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to bootleg it (and profit from it) if I can't find my copy. peace, Matt
