On what does Tefteller base his "bootleg" comment? I would think, given the price of this thing and
all the publicity it's generated, that if there was a copyright-ownership issue, it would already be
in court. If there is no copyright ownership issue, then it's not a "bootleg." If there are sour
grapes about not renting source material from one party or another, that's another matter.
As I said earlier, the accumulator-completist aspect of this does not appeal to me, but may appeal
very much to others.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ramm" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:21 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] The OTHER NPR article
>I just listened to the Paramount story and noted this one (written, not
> audio) on the side. I hope you all saw it.
> _Holding Music History In Your Hands: Why Archives Matter : The Record :
> BTW, this article mentions John Tefteller recent purchase. As I'm sure I
> mentioned here recently, when I asked Tefteller about any participation he
> had in the Third Man/Revenenat Paramount project he said" "None. I see it
> as an expensive bootleg." Interesting mix of NPR stories.
> Steve Ramm