agreed. i know exactly what the difference is. and i do view them
differently.
i'm sure though a lawyer representing a big artist wouldn't view it
that differently.
robin...
i think i may have asked a similar question about the difference
between an edit and a bootleg. i don't think the answer is that
straightforward tho. i can see both sides (ie. 'yeah it's no different
to bootlegging' and 'nah there's some creative input involved so it
ain't a bootleg').
i think most re-edits though are done without permission. so make of
that what you will.
I don't think bootlegs and edits are really comparable.
edits are alterations to the complete track. that is you don't have the
split elements (seperated bass, drums, synth 1,2,3,etc.) to work with.
Technically speaking, edits don't have any connection to bootlegs or
legal
releases. It's purely a engineering/mixing term. Much like dub (that's
a
whole other thread though).
Whether the original artist/label wants to give the editing artist
access
to the original splits will determine if it is a remix or an edit.
A remix would mean that the person doing the remix had access to the
original split channel recordings. Chances that a bootlegger had
access to
these is slim unless they were stolen from the artist or studio.
Bootleg is a legal term. Not a term for style of editing. It's just a
way
to define the way in which it was distributed and under the condition
it
was made - not the actual process in which it was made.
MEK
